Refine Search

New Search

Advanced search

Journal Current Medical Research and Opinion

-
7,046 articles
Page of 705
Articles per Page
by
Show export options
  Select all
Current Medical Research and Opinion pp 1-1; doi:10.1080/03007995.2020.1734920

Abstract:Background: Current healthcare professional consensus-generating methodologies work by forcing consensus, which risks corrupting original opinions and often fails to assess prior expert knowledge awareness. Experience gained with a novel method in a progressive life-long rare disease, X-linked hypophosphataemia, which addresses these risks is presented here. Methods: Four case-studies are reported, presenting a novel methodology comprised of two survey rounds. Round 1 generated a list of items from healthcare professionals in response to an open-ended research question, alongside systematic literature reviews (when appropriate). These responses were thematically coded into mutually exclusive items then used to develop a structured questionnaire (Round 2), for which each participant identified their level of agreement using Likert scales; all responses were analyzed anonymously. Item awareness, observed agreement, consensus and prompted agreement were objectively measured. Results: The free-text responses to Round 1 tested the awareness of specific items regarding establishing a European registry for X-linked Hypophosphatemia (XLH), limitations of empirical treatment for XLH (adults and paediatrics), and triggers for treatment of XLH in adults. The four cases showed different levels of item awareness, observed consensus and degrees of prompted agreement. All participants agreed or strongly agreed with statements based on the most frequent items listed in Round 1. Less frequent Round 1 items had various degrees of prompted agreement consensus; some did not reach the consensus threshold of >50% participant agreement. Conclusions: Observed proportional group awareness and consensus is quicker than the Delphi technique and its variants, providing objective assessments of expert knowledge and standardized categorization of items regarding awareness, consensus and prompting. Further, it offers tailored management of each item in terms of educational need and further investigation.
Sciprofile linkPanagiotis Anagnostis, Konstantina Vaitsi, Gesthimani Mintziori, Sciprofile linkDimitrios G. Goulis, Dimitri P. Mikhailidis
Current Medical Research and Opinion pp 1-1; doi:10.1080/03007995.2020.1734783

The publisher has not yet granted permission to display this abstract.
Li-Yu Hung, Jennifer G. Lyons, Sciprofile linkChung-Hsuen Wu
Current Medical Research and Opinion pp 1-1; doi:10.1080/03007995.2020.1734782

The publisher has not yet granted permission to display this abstract.
Sciprofile linkElif G Umit, Osman Kara, Cafer Adiguzel
Current Medical Research and Opinion pp 1-1; doi:10.1080/03007995.2020.1729109

Current Medical Research and Opinion pp 1-6; doi:10.1080/03007995.2020.1725744

The publisher has not yet granted permission to display this abstract.
Sciprofile linkDarko Mitrovic, Richard Folkeringa, Nic Veeger, Eric Van Roon
Current Medical Research and Opinion pp 1-7; doi:10.1080/03007995.2020.1725743

The publisher has not yet granted permission to display this abstract.
Imtiaz A. Samjoo, Elizabeth M. Salvo, Diana Tran, Leslie Amass, Michelle Stewart, Sciprofile linkChris Cameron
Current Medical Research and Opinion pp 1-10; doi:10.1080/03007995.2020.1725742

Abstract:Objective: The comparative safety and efficacy of tafamidis, patisiran, and inotersen treatments for transthyretin amyloidosis with polyneuropathy (ATTR-PN) has not been evaluated in clinical trials. In the absence of head-to-head evidence, indirect treatment comparisons such as network meta-analyses (NMAs) can be performed to evaluate relative effects of treatments. This study aims to assess the feasibility of conducting an NMA of available therapies for ATTR-PN patients. Methods: Pivotal trials for three approved ATTR-PN treatments, tafamidis (Fx-005), patisiran (APOLLO), and inotersen (NEURO-TTR), were compared in terms of study design, baseline population characteristics, outcome definitions, and baseline risk. These assessments of heterogeneity informed the decision to perform Bayesian NMAs. Results: Despite similar study designs, clear differences in eligibility criteria between trials were accompanied by imbalances in baseline population characteristics considered to be plausible effect modifiers, such as disease stage and previous treatment. Of the outcomes assessed, only quality of life and adverse events were similarly reported in all trials. Neuropathy outcomes were not evaluated consistently between trials. Conclusions: An NMA of ATTR-PN treatments was not feasible, given the observed cross-trial heterogeneity. This decision highlights the importance of careful consideration for clinical heterogeneity that may threaten the validity of indirect comparisons.
Toshiki Kameda, Sciprofile linkHiraku Kumamaru, Shiori Nishimura, Shun Kohsaka, Hiroaki Miyata
Current Medical Research and Opinion pp 1-1; doi:10.1080/03007995.2020.1729710

The publisher has not yet granted permission to display this abstract.
Gang Wang, Kun Zhao, Caroline Reynaud-Mougin, Henrik Loft, Hongye Ren, Hanne-Lise F. Eriksen, Sciprofile linkAnders Ettrup
Current Medical Research and Opinion pp 1-8; doi:10.1080/03007995.2020.1723072

Abstract:Objective . To compare the rates of successfully treated patients (STPs) with vortioxetine versus venlafaxine in major depressive disorder (MDD), using dual endpoints that combine improvement of mood symptoms with optimal tolerability or functional remission, and conduct a simplified cost-effectiveness analysis. Methods . The 8-week SOLUTION study (NCT01571453) assessed the efficacy and safety of vortioxetine (10 mg/day) versus venlafaxine XR (150 mg/day) in adult Asian patients with MDD. Rates were calculated post-hoc of STP Mood and Tolerability (≥50% reduction from baseline in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale [MADRS] total score and no treatment-emergent adverse events) and STP Mood and Functioning (≥50% reduction from baseline in MADRS total score and Sheehan Disability Scale total score ≤6). The incremental costs per STP were assessed using the 2018 pharmacy purchase prices for branded vortioxetine/branded venlafaxine in China as the base case. Results . STP Mood and Tolerability rates were 28.9% for vortioxetine and 19.9% for venlafaxine (p = 0.028); the corresponding STP Mood and Functioning rates were 28.0% and 23.5% (p = 0.281). Drug costs for the 8-week treatment period were CN¥1,954 for vortioxetine and CN¥700 for venlafaxine. The incremental cost per STP for vortioxetine versus venlafaxine was CN¥13,938 for Mood and Tolerability and CN¥27,876 for Mood and Functioning. Conclusions . Higher rates of dual treatment success were seen with vortioxetine versus venlafaxine. Although vortioxetine was not dominant in the base case, the incremental cost per STP for vortioxetine versus venlafaxine were overall within acceptable ranges. These results support the benefits previously reported with vortioxetine versus other antidepressants in broad efficacy, tolerability profile, and cost-effectiveness.
Sciprofile linkSerena Tonstad, Cynthia Arons, Hans Rollema, Ivan Berlin, Peter Hajek, Karl Fagerström, Charl Els, Thomas McRae, Cristina Russ
Current Medical Research and Opinion pp 1-1; doi:10.1080/03007995.2020.1729708

Abstract:Objective: Varenicline, a selective partial agonist of the α4β2 nicotinic acetylcholine receptor, is a smoking cessation pharmacotherapy that more than doubles the chance of quitting smoking at 6 months compared with placebo. This article reviews salient knowledge of the discovery, pharmacological characteristics, and the efficacy and safety of varenicline in general and in specific populations of smokers and provides recommendations to support use in clinical practice.Methods: Literature searches for varenicline were conducted using PubMed, with date limitations of 2000-2018 inclusive, using search terms covering the discovery, mechanism of action, pharmacokinetics, efficacy and safety in different populations of smokers, alternative quit approaches and combination therapy. Selection of safety and efficacy data was limited to clinical trials, meta-analyses and observational studies.Results: Standard administration of varenicline is efficacious in helping smokers to quit, including smokers with cardiovascular disease and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Furthermore, varenicline efficacy may be improved with pre-loading, a gradual quitting approach for smokers unwilling or unable to quit abruptly, and extended treatment in smokers who have recently quit to help maintain abstinence. Initial concerns regarding the association of varenicline with increased risk of neuropsychiatric and cardiovascular adverse events have been disproven after extensive clinical evaluations, and the benefit-risk profile of varenicline is considered favorable.Conclusions: Varenicline is efficacious and safe for all adult smokers with a range of clinical characteristics. Evidence suggests that approaches offering greater flexibility in timing and duration of treatment may further extend treatment efficacy and clinical reach.
Page of 705
Articles per Page
by
Show export options
  Select all