| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- Adolfsson, Peter, 1963, et al.
(författare)
-
Safety and patient perception of an insulin pen with simple memory function for children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes - the REMIND study.
- 2012
-
Ingår i: Current medical research and opinion. - : Informa Healthcare. - 1473-4877 .- 0300-7995.
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Abstract Objectives NovoPen Echo is a durable pediatric insulin pen incorporating half-unit dosing starting at 0.5 units and a last-dose memory function. The REMIND (Rating the Effects of Memory function in pediatric INsulin Devices) study primarily examined the safety of this new device by collecting data on technical complaints (TCs) related to adverse reactions (ARs) during use in a clinical setting. Methods REMIND was an observational, multicenter study involving patients with type 1 diabetes on injection therapy, aged 2-18 years, from Canada, Finland, Israel and Sweden. Questionnaires and case report forms were completed at baseline and after using NovoPen Echo for 12-18 weeks. Results In total, 358 patients participated and 315 completed. No serious ARs were reported. Three ARs related to TCs were reported, equated to one every 29 patient-years. Most patients found it 'easy' or 'somewhat easy' to read amount (99%) and hours lapsed (95%) since last dose using the memory function. The proportion of children self-injecting was significantly higher (71%) compared with those on previous device (66%, p=0.006). 80% of physicians answers reported they could train users in ≤10 minutes. Conclusions Only three device safety events were reported for NovoPen Echo. Physicians found it easy and quick to educate users. Patients/caregivers missed fewer injections and reported greater confidence in managing their insulin injections. As this was an observational study without controls or centralized laboratory testing, caution should be used in interpreting outcomes in glycaemic control. Further studies are required to examine the effects of features such as memory function and half-unit dosing on HbA1c and hypoglycemia over a longer time period.
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
- Andersson, Morgan, et al.
(författare)
-
Barrier-enforcing measures as treatment principle in allergic rhinitis: a systematic review
- 2014
-
Ingår i: Current Medical Research and Opinion. - : Informa Healthcare. - 1473-4877 .- 0300-7995. ; 30:6, s. 1131-1137
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background and objectives Barrier-enforcing measures have been suggested as treatment options for allergic rhinitis. This review identifies and describes the literature on the subject. Methods Relevant publications were searched for in the PubMed database (search entries: 'allergic rhinitis' and 'treatment'). The evaluation comprised condition (seasonal or perennial allergic rhinitis), type of intervention, duration of treatment, study design, peer review status or not, number of test subjects, type of allergen exposure, and outcome in terms of effects or not on nasal symptoms of allergic rhinitis. Results Fifteen studies were either identified in the PubMed database search or from the reference lists of identified publications. Seven were placebo-controlled, randomized, and peer-reviewed, and symptom-reducing effects were reported by all of these reports. Limitations of this review reflect that the remainder of the studies had inferior designs, particularly lack of placebo control. Conclusions Barrier-enforcing measures as achieved by nasal administrations of cellulose powder and microemulsions, respectively, have symptom-reducing effects in allergic rhinitis.
|
|
| 6. |
- Antonini, Angelo, et al.
(författare)
-
Developing consensus among movement disorder specialists on clinical indicators for identification and management of advanced Parkinson’s disease : a multi-country Delphi-panel approach
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Current Medical Research and Opinion. - : Informa UK Limited. - 0300-7995 .- 1473-4877. ; 34:12, s. 2063-2073
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Lack of a global consensus on the definition of advanced Parkinson’s disease (APD) and considerations for timing of device-aided therapies may result in heterogeneity in care. Objectives: To reach consensus among movement disorder specialists regarding key patient characteristics indicating transition to APD and guiding appropriate use of device-aided therapies in the management of PD symptoms. Methods: A Delphi-panel approach was utilized to synthesize opinions of movement disorder specialists and build consensus. Results: A panel was comprised of movement disorder specialists from 10 European countries with extensive experience of treating PD patients (mean =24.8 ± 7.2 years). Consensus on indicators of suspected APD and eligibility for device-aided therapies were based on motor symptoms, non-motor symptoms, and functional impairments. Key indicators of APD included: (i) motor—moderate troublesome motor fluctuations, ≥1 h of troublesome dyskinesia/day, ≥2 h “off” symptoms/day, and ≥5-times oral levodopa doses/day; (ii) non-motor—mild dementia, and non-transitory troublesome hallucinations; (iii) functional impairment—repeated falls despite optimal treatment, and difficulty with activities of daily living. Patients with good levodopa response, good cognition, and <70 years of age were deemed as good candidates for all three device-aided therapies. Patients with troublesome dyskinesia were considered good candidates for both levodopa-carbidopa intestinal gel and Deep Brain Stimulation (DBS). PD patients with levodopa-resistant tremor were considered good candidates for DBS. Conclusion: Identifying patients progressing to APD and suitable for device-aided therapies will enable general neurologists to assess the need for referral to movement disorder specialists and improve the quality of care and patient outcomes.
|
|
| 7. |
- Baron, Ralf, et al.
(författare)
-
5% lidocaine medicated plaster versus pregabalin in post-herpetic neuralgia and diabetic polyneuropathy : an open-label, non-inferiority two-stage RCT study
- 2009
-
Ingår i: CURRENT MEDICAL RESEARCH AND OPINION. - : Informa Healthcare. - 0300-7995 .- 1473-4877. ; 25:7, s. 1663-1676
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objective: To compare efficacy and safety of 5% lidocaine medicated plaster with pregabalin in patients with post-herpetic neuralgia (PHN) or painful diabetic polyneuropathy (DPN). Study design and methods: This was a two-stage adaptive, randomized, open-label, multicentre, non-inferiority study. Data are reported from the initial 4-week comparative phase, in which adults with PHN or painful DPN received either topical 5% lidocaine medicated plaster applied to the most painful skin area or twice-daily pregabalin capsules titrated to effect according to the Summary of Product Characteristics. The primary endpoint was response rate at 4 weeks, defined as reduction averaged over the last three days from baseline of greater than= 2 points or an absolute value of less than= 4 points on the 11-point Numerical Rating Scale (NRS-3). Secondary endpoints included 30% and 50% reductions in NRS-3 scores; change in allodynia severity rating; quality of life (QoL) parameters EQ-5D, CGIC, and PGIC; patient satisfaction with treatment; and evaluation of safety (laboratory parameters, vital signs, physical examinations, adverse events [AEs], drug-related AEs [DRAEs], and withdrawal due to AEs). Results: Ninety-six patients with PHN and 204 with painful DPN were analysed (full analysis set, FAS). Overall, 66.4% of patients treated with the 5% lidocaine medicated plaster and 61.5% receiving pregabalin were considered responders (cor-responding numbers for the per protocol set, PPS: 65.3% vs. 62.0%). In PHN more patients responded to 5% lidocaine medicated plaster treatment than to pregabalin (PPS: 62.2% vs. 46.5%), while response was comparable for patients with painful DPN (PPS: 66.7% vs 69.1%). 30% and 50% reductions in NRS-3 scores were greater with 5% lidocaine medicated plaster than with pregabalin. Both treatments reduced allodynia severity. 5% lidocaine medicated plaster showed greater improvements in QoL based on EQ-5D in both PHN and DPN. PGIC and CGIC scores indicated greater improvement for 5% lidocaine medicated plaster treated patients with PHN. Improvements were comparable between treatments in painful DPN. Fewer patients administering 5% lidocaine medicated plaster experienced AEs (safety set, SAF: 18.7% vs. 46.4%), DRAEs (5.8% vs. 41.2%) and related discontinuations compared to patients taking pregabalin. Conclusion: 5% lidocaine medicated plaster showed better efficacy compared with pregabalin in patients with PHN. Within DPN, efficacy was comparable for both treatments. 5% lidocaine medicated plaster showed a favourable efficacy/safety profile with greater improvements in patient satisfaction and QoL compared with pregabalin for both indications, supporting its first line position in the treatment of localized neuropathic pain.
|
|
| 8. |
- Baron, Ralf, et al.
(författare)
-
Efficacy and safety of combination therapy with 5% lidocaine medicated plaster and pregabalin in post-herpetic neuralgia and diabetic polyneuropathy
- 2009
-
Ingår i: CURRENT MEDICAL RESEARCH AND OPINION. - : Informa Healthcare. - 0300-7995 .- 1473-4877. ; 25:7, s. 1677-1687
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objective: Neuropathic pain is often difficult to treat due to a complex pathophysiology. This study evaluated the efficacy, tolerability and safety of combination therapy with 5% lidocaine medicated plaster and pregabalin for neuropathic pain in patients with post-herpetic neuralgia (PHN) or painful diabetic polyneuropathy (DPN). Methods: Patients completing 4-week monotherapy with 5% lidocaine medicated plaster or pregabalin were enrolled in an 8-week combination phase. Patients with adequate response to monotherapy (recalled average pain intensity of 4 or less on 11-point numeric rating scale in the previous 3 days [NRS-3 score]) continued their previous therapy, whereas those with insufficient response received combination therapy. Efficacy endpoints included change in NRS-3 from combination phase baseline, Patient and Clinical Global Impression of Change (PGIC/CGIC), and patients satisfaction with treatment. Safety evaluation included adverse events (AEs), drug-related AEs (DRAEs), and withdrawal due to AEs. Clinical trial registration: EudraCT No. 2006-003132-29. Results: Of 229 patients in the per-protocol set(PPS: 68 PHN and 161 DPN), 71 received 5% lidocaine medicated plaster monotherapy, 57 had pregabalin added to 5% lidocaine medicated plaster, 57 pregabalin monotherapy and 44 received 5% lidocaine medicated plaster in addition to continued pregabalin treatment. There were no meaningful differences in demographic data between the treatment groups. Patients continuing on monotherapy demonstrated additional decreases in NRS-3 scores. Patients receiving combination therapy achieved clinically relevant reduction in NRS-3 values in addition to improvement achieved during the 4 weeks of monotherapy. Improvement was similar between the two combination therapy groups. Considerable improvements in patients treatment satisfaction were reported. Incidences of AEs were in line with previous reports for the two treatments and combination therapy was generally well tolerated. Conclusions: In patients with PHN and painful DPN failing to respond to monotherapy, combination therapy with 5% lidocaine medicated plaster and pregabalin provides additional clinically relevant pain relief and is safe and well-tolerated.
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
|
|
