Current medical research and opinion
-
Randomized Controlled Trial
Significant, long-lasting pain relief in primary dysmenorrhea with low-dose naproxen sodium compared with acetaminophen: a double-blind, randomized, single-dose, crossover study.
Objectives: Many women experience menstrual cramps, which adversely affects quality-of-life. Both naproxen and acetaminophen are indicated to relieve menstrual pain. This study assessed the analgesic efficacy of a single, maximum non-prescription dose of naproxen sodium compared with that of acetaminophen in the treatment of primary dysmenorrhea. ⋯ After 6 h post-dose, naproxen sodium was significantly more effective than acetaminophen, maintained for 12 h (SPID6-12 LS mean difference = 8.27; TOTPAR6-12 LS mean difference = 3.75; both p < .001). Significantly more subjects rated naproxen sodium as good-to-excellent (70.6%) vs acetaminophen (63.1%) (p = .002). Conclusions: A single, maximum non-prescription dose of naproxen sodium was more effective than acetaminophen over 12 h.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial
Safety and efficacy of fulranumab in osteoarthritis of the hip and knee: results from four early terminated phase III randomized studies.
Objective: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of fulranumab as adjunct or monotherapy in patients with knee or hip pain related to moderate-to-severe osteoarthritis. Methods: Osteoarthritic patients (aged ≥18 years) from four phase 3 randomized, double-blind (DB), placebo-controlled studies were randomized to receive placebo, fulranumab 1 mg every 4 weeks (Q4wk), or 3 mg Q4wk in 16-week DB phase, followed by a 52-week post-treatment follow-up phase. Safety assessments included treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), and neurological, sympathetic, and joint-related events of interest. ⋯ Conclusions: Treatment with fulranumab was generally tolerated with no new safety signals. Within the limited sample analyzed, fulranumab showed evidence of improvement of pain and function in patients with moderate-to-severe osteoarthritis who had failed prior therapy and were candidates for joint replacement surgery. Clinical trial registration numbers: NCT02336685; NCT02336698; NCT02289716; NCT02301234KEY POINTSFulranumab as adjuvant or monotherapy was well tolerated with no new safety signalsFulranumab demonstrated evidence suggestive of efficacy in osteoarthritic pain of hip and kneeFulranumab demonstrated evidence suggestive of improvement of pain and physical function in osteoarthritis.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial
Abaloparatide in patients with mild or moderate renal impairment: results from the ACTIVE phase 3 trial.
Objective: To evaluate, post hoc, the efficacy and safety of abaloparatide by degree of renal impairment. Methods: ACTIVE was a phase 3, 18-month, randomized, double-blind, active-comparator, placebo-controlled study of postmenopausal women with osteoporosis who received subcutaneous abaloparatide 80 µg, placebo, or open-label teriparatide 20 µg daily. Patients with serum creatinine >2.0 mg/dL or 1.5-2.0 mg/dL with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) <37 mL/min, calculated by Cockcroft-Gault formula, were excluded. ⋯ Computed tomography scans in 376 patients revealed no evidence of increased renal calcification. Conclusion: Increased exposure to abaloparatide and teriparatide in patients with renal impairment led to no meaningful differences in efficacy or safety. These results support the use of abaloparatide without dosage adjustment in patients with renal impairment, provided those with severe renal impairments are monitored for adverse events.
-
Objectives: To compare the efficacy of emicizumab prophylaxis with that of factor VIII (FVIII) prophylaxis in patients with hemophilia A without inhibitors using two approaches: network meta-analyses (NMA) and additional sub-group analyses from the HAVEN 3 trial. Methods: The NMA used data from trials identified using a systematic literature review and compared bleed rates in patients receiving emicizumab prophylaxis and patients receiving FVIII prophylaxis using a Bayesian, random effects generalized linear model with log link Poisson likelihood. Additional sub-groups of the HAVEN 3 trial included here were defined as patients whose dose-taking behavior met either European label or World Federation of Hemophilia guidelines. ⋯ The additional HAVEN 3 analyses also showed lower rates of treated bleeds with emicizumab prophylaxis than with FVIII prophylaxis (RRs [95% confidence interval (CI)] = 0.380 [0.186-0.790] and 0.472 [0.258-0.866] in two sub-groups). These results confirm the original HAVEN 3 intra-patient comparison findings. Conclusions: Combined findings from NMA and additional sub-group analyses of HAVEN 3 support the superiority of emicizumab prophylaxis over FVIII prophylaxis in patients with hemophilia A without inhibitors.
-
Aims: To assess demographic and clinical characteristics associated with clinical inertia in a real-world cohort of type 2 diabetes mellitus patients not at hemoglobin A1c goal (<7%) on metformin monotherapy. Methods: Adult (≥18 years) type 2 diabetes mellitus patients who received care at Massachusetts General Hospital/Brigham and Women's Hospital and received a new metformin prescription between 1992 and 2010 were included in the analysis. Clinical inertia was defined as two consecutive hemoglobin A1c measures ≥7% ≥3 months apart while remaining on metformin monotherapy (i.e. without add-on therapy). ⋯ Chronic kidney disease and cardiovascular/cerebrovascular disease had weaker associations but were directionally similar to congestive heart failure. Conclusions: Asian patients were at an increased risk of clinical inertia, whereas patients with comorbidities appeared to have their treatment more appropriately intensified. A better understanding of these factors may inform efforts to decrease the likelihood for clinical inertia.