Current medical research and opinion
-
To review the safety profile of tramadol hydrochloride (tramadol) in the treatment of chronic osteoarthritis pain, with specific reference to the incidence of adverse events (AEs) reported in large clinical trials. ⋯ This review provides a robust base for descriptive assessment of AEs associated with long-acting tramadol formulations. Although the actions of different tramadol formulations are biologically similar, differences in pharmacokinetics, drug-release patterns, and availability may influence the incidence of AEs associated with tramadol. Because of the limitations of a qualitative safety analysis across studies with different populations and study designs, any observed differences should be interpreted with caution, but these differences may help educate healthcare providers about tramadol treatment in patients with chronic osteoarthritis pain and help them select the optimal dose for specific patients.
-
Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a common, seriously impairing illness. Desvenlafaxine (administered as desvenlafaxine succinate) is the third serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) approved in the United States for the treatment of MDD. Short-term clinical studies have demonstrated the efficacy and safety of 50 to 400 mg/d doses, with no evidence that doses greater than 50 mg/d confer additional benefit. ⋯ Desvenlafaxine 50 mg/d has demonstrated efficacy, safety, and tolerability for the treatment of MDD in two placebo-controlled trials. The metabolic profile of desvenlafaxine suggests a low risk of drug-drug interactions owing to minimal inhibitory effects on CYP2D6, lack of interaction with p-glycoprotein, and low protein binding.
-
Patients with chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) who do not adhere to treatment may experience suboptimal outcomes. ⋯ Imatinib adherence is an important issue for patients and physicians. Better imatinib adherence was associated with significantly lower resource utilization and costs in CML patients, as lower imatinib costs in low MPR patients were more than offset by higher non-imatinib costs mostly driven by inpatient services.
-
Stakeholders in Europe remain interested in assessments of country-specific value of self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) for patients with type 2 diabetes treated with oral anti-diabetes drugs (OADs). This study used the IMS-CORE Diabetes Model to project the long-term (40-year) cost-effectiveness of SMBG at once, twice, or three times per day (vs. no SMBG) for this population from national reimbursement system perspectives in France, Germany, Italy, and Spain. ⋯ With cost assumptions reflecting current reimbursement levels in France, Germany, Italy, and Spain, SMBG was found to be cost-effective across a 40-year time horizon, with all base case ICERs <16,000/QALY. This study adds to the literature on the country-specific, long-term value of SMBG for type 2 diabetes patients treated with OADs. Under current model assumptions, variations in cost-effectiveness results stemmed primarily from payer reimbursement practices for SMBG within each country.
-
Although insulin is the most effective diabetes medication for lowering blood glucose, how insulin is used in clinical practice and how well patients respond to insulin therapy over the course of several years has not been documented. Our objective was to describe glycemic control, side-effects and dose titration over 7 years among persons starting insulin in a health plan that has long used a treatment algorithm similar to the current American Diabetes Association/European Association for the Study of Diabetes (ADA-EASD) algorithm for the management of hyperglycemia. ⋯ Insulin lowered mean A1C by about 1.5 percentage points to stable levels, but this required ongoing dosage increases. Nevertheless, many patients remained in poor control. Insulin is effective when used per ADA-EASD guidelines but health plans wishing to optimize diabetes care may need to intensify insulin therapy or consider the use of adjunct therapies in the years after initiation. This study was limited by its observational descriptive design, and its reliance on insulin purchases rather than actual consumption.