| 1. |
- Christidis, Nikolaos, et al.
(author)
-
Pharmacological Treatments of Temporomandibular Disorders : A Systematic Review Including a Network Meta-Analysis
- 2023
-
In: Drugs. - : Springer. - 0012-6667 .- 1179-1950.
-
Research review (peer-reviewed)abstract
- OBJECTIVE: Temporomandibular disorders (TMD) comprise a cluster of conditions with a wide range of etiological factors that causes pain and discomfort in the masticatory muscles (TMD-M) and temporomandibular joints (TMD-J). More than 50% of the patients with TMD report regular usage of drugs. However, there is still no consensus, nor is there any evidence-based support for clinicians when choosing between different drugs. Therefore, this systematic review, including a network meta-analysis (NMA), aimed to evaluate the scientific evidence and discuss the pharmacological treatment options available to treat painful TMD.METHOD: An electronic search was undertaken to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating pharmacological treatments for TMD-M and/or TMD-J, published until 6 April 2023. Since only 11 articles could be used for an NMA regarding TMD-M, a narrative synthesis was also performed for all 40 included RCTs. The quality of evidence was rated according to Cochrane's tool for assessing risk of bias, while the certainty of evidence was rated according to Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE).RESULTS: When it comes to TMD-M, evidence arises for wet needling therapies with BTX-A, granisetron, and PRP as well as muscle relaxants. For TMD-J, evidence points toward pharmacological treatment approaches including non-steroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and glucocorticosteriods (for inflammatory conditions) as well as hyaluronic acid and dextrose.CONCLUSIONS: The evidence clearly indicates that the pharmacological treatment approaches differ between TMD-M and TMD-J. Therefore, it is of great importance to first try to uncover each patient's individual and multifactorial etiology and then employ a multifaceted treatment strategy, including pharmacological treatment approaches.
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
- Kim, HoUng, et al.
(author)
-
The Future of Biosimilars : Maximizing Benefits Across Immune-Mediated Inflammatory Diseases
- 2020
-
In: Drugs. - : Adis International. - 0012-6667 .- 1179-1950. ; 80:2, s. 99-113
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Biologics have transformed the treatment of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Biosimilars-biologic medicines with no clinically meaningful differences in safety or efficacy from licensed originators-can stimulate market competition and have the potential to expand patient access to biologics within the parameters of treatment recommendations. However, maximizing the benefits of biosimilars requires cooperation between multiple stakeholders. Regulators and developers should collaborate to ensure biosimilars reach patients rapidly without compromising stringent quality, safety, or efficacy standards. Pharmacoeconomic evaluations and payer policies should be updated following biosimilar market entry, minimizing the risk of imposing nonmedical barriers to biologic treatment. In RA, disparities between treatment guidelines and national reimbursement criteria could be addressed to ensure more uniform patient access to biologics and enable rheumatologists to effectively implement treat-to-target strategies. In IBD, the cost-effectiveness of biologic treatment earlier in the disease course is likely to improve when biosimilars are incorporated into pharmacoeconomic analyses. Patient understanding of biosimilars is crucial for treatment success and avoiding nocebo effects. Full understanding of biosimilars by physicians and carefully considered communication strategies can help support patients initiating or switching to biosimilars. Developers must operate efficiently to be sustainable, without undermining product quality, the reliability of the supply chain, or pharmacovigilance. Developers should also facilitate information sharing to meet the needs of other stakeholders. Such collaboration will help to ensure a sustainable future for both the biosimilar market and healthcare systems, supporting the availability of effective treatments for patients.
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
- Landgren, Valdemar, 1988, et al.
(author)
-
Pharmacological Treatment for Pedophilic Disorder and Compulsive Sexual Behavior Disorder: A Review
- 2022
-
In: Drugs. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 0012-6667 .- 1179-1950. ; 82:6, s. 663-681
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Guidelines for the pharmacological treatment of paraphilic disorders have historically been based on data from forensic settings and on risk levels for sexual crime. However, emerging treatment options are being evaluated for individuals experiencing distress because of their sexual urges and preferences, targeting both paraphilic disorders such as pedophilic disorder (PeD) and the new diagnosis of compulsive sexual behavior disorder (CSBD) included in the International Classification of Diseases, 11th Revision (ICD-11). As in other mental disorders, this may enable individualized pharmacological treatment plans, taking into account components of sexuality (e.g. high libido, compulsivity, anxiety-driven/sex as coping), medical and psychiatric comorbidity, adverse effects and patient preferences. In order to expand on previous reviews, we conducted a literature search focusing on randomized controlled trials of pharmacological treatment for persons likely to have PeD or CSBD. Our search was not restricted to studies involving forensic or criminal samples. Twelve studies conducted between 1974 and 2021 were identified regardless of setting (outpatient or inpatient), with only one study conducted during the last decade. Of a total of 213 participants included in these studies, 122 (57%) were likely to have PeD, 34 (16%) were likely to have a CSBD, and the remainder had unspecified paraphilias (40, 21%) or sexual offense (17, 8%) as the treatment indication. The diagnostic procedure for PeD and/or CSBD, as well as comorbid psychiatric symptoms, has been described in seven studies. The studies provide some empirical evidence that testosterone-lowering drugs reduce sexual activity for patients with PeD or CSBD, but the body of evidence is meager. There is a need for studies using larger samples, specific criteria for inclusion, longer follow-up periods, and standardized outcome measures with adherence to international reporting guidelines.
|
|
| 7. |
- Nicolau, Jose C., et al.
(author)
-
Dabigatran Dual Therapy vs Warfarin Triple Therapy Post-Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation With/Without a Proton Pump Inhibitor : A Pre-Specified Analysis of the RE-DUAL PCI Trial
- 2020
-
In: Drugs. - : Springer Nature. - 0012-6667 .- 1179-1950. ; 80:10, s. 995-1005
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background and Objective In patients with atrial fibrillation following percutaneous coronary intervention, if a proton pump inhibitor is used, could that allow the use of warfarin triple therapy, or is there additional reduction in bleeding while using it with dual therapy? Methods The RE-DUAL PCI trial randomized 2725 patients with atrial fibrillation post-percutaneous coronary intervention to dabigatran dual therapy (110 or 150 mg twice daily, with clopidogrel or ticagrelor) or warfarin triple therapy (with clopidogrel or ticagrelor, and aspirin for 1-3 months). This prespecified subgroup analysis evaluated risks of a first major bleeding event or clinically relevant non-major bleeding event, all gastrointestinal bleeding, and a composite efficacy endpoint of all-cause mortality/thromboembolic event or unplanned revascularization according to baseline use of a proton pump inhibitor. Results Of 2678 analyzed patients, 1641 (61.3%) were receiving a proton pump inhibitor at baseline. Dabigatran 110 and 150 mg dual therapy reduced the risk of major bleeding events or clinically relevant non-major bleeding events vs warfarin triple therapy regardless of proton pump inhibitor use, with comparable risk of the composite efficacy endpoint (all interactionpvalues > 0.05). For gastrointestinal bleeding, no interaction was observed between study treatment and proton pump inhibitor use (interactionpvalues 0.84 and 0.62 for dabigatran 110 and 150 mg dual therapy, respectively, vs warfarin triple therapy). Conclusions Dabigatran 110 and 150 mg dual therapy reduced the risk of major bleeding events or clinically relevant non-major bleeding events vs warfarin triple therapy, regardless of proton pump inhibitor use at baseline, in patients with atrial fibrillation who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention. Risk of the composite efficacy endpoint appeared to be similar for dabigatran dual therapy vs warfarin triple therapy in patients receiving/not receiving a proton pump inhibitor.
|
|
