Search

This multicenter, observational drug utilization (DU) study ({"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT01594996","term_id":"NCT01594996"}}NCT01594996) investigated the profile of patients and specialist providers who prescribed extended release quetiapine fumarate (quetiapine XR) for treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD) across five European countries (Germany, Italy, Romania, Spain, and Sweden). A DU data abstraction form captured information on the characteristics of physicians, patients, and drugs utilized in the medical management of depressive episodes in MDD, where the therapeutic regimen included quetiapine XR. Data were reported descriptively. This analysis included 811 patients. Psychiatric histories indicated a burden of severe MDD in these patients. Patient demographics were similar across countries; however, those in Sweden had a younger mean age. Physicians’ ratings of the therapeutic effect of prior treatment with antidepressants suggested the need for an add-on treatment for most patients. Overall, 15.7% of patients initiated quetiapine XR treatment as monotherapy. Presence of psychotic symptoms during depressive episodes predicted treatment with higher than recommended doses of quetiapine XR (odds ratio=3.11; 95% confidence interval: 1.6–6.0). This analysis demonstrated similarities in DU across the countries analyzed, largely in accordance with the recommended dose of quetiapine XR as an adjunctive therapy to antidepressants in MDD (50–300 mg/day).

Following Good Pharmacovigilance Practices Module XVI, two complementary studies were performed that included process and outcome measurements of the effectiveness of physician education on metabolic monitoring of patients receiving quetiapine. A multinational survey of 800 European Union physicians was utilized to assess the receipt of educational materials and also to assess the degree of monitoring as reported by physicians. Recall of receipt of educational materials ranged from 16.0 to 69.0% across the participating countries; however, physicians reported that 64.5% of patients were being monitored, with the majority reporting performance of three or more of four key metabolic-monitoring activities. Higher rates of monitoring were reported by those who reported receiving materials. Assessment of outcomes in a separate retrospective analysis of electronic medical record data showed lower levels of monitoring performed by specialist physicians. The monitoring activities observed were assessed as acceptable on the basis of the established performance of UK physicians, who are incentivized to deliver preventive screening.

The effects of urinary symptoms on health-related quality of life (HRQL) are important in therapeutic decision making. Few have evaluated the treatment effects on HRQL in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), even though increased urinary symptoms are associated with greater worry, bother, and interference with living activities. We report on patient assessments of such disease-specific measures as well as general HRQL measures from two placebo-controlled clinical trials of finasteride in the treatment of symptomatic BPH. Patients treated with finasteride appeared to have greater improvement than placebo-treated patients in disease-specific measures and in patient global assessment. The treated group appeared to have a greater mean increase in sexual domain scores. As expected, general measures (health rating, life satisfaction, ladder of life) changed little. Thus, treatment with finasteride appears to reduce bother, worry, and activity interference due to symptoms but in a small percentage of men may lead to slightly reduced sexual function.

This study sought to assess the efficacy, tolerability, and effect of finasteride on health-related quality of life (HRQL) in a diverse population of men with moderate-to-severe symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). This double-blind study evaluated finasteride and placebo for 12 months in 2342 men with BPH (16.2% black, 14.5% Hispanic, 69.3% Caucasian/other) in a community-based setting. At 3-month intervals, urinary symptoms were measured by use of the American Urologic Association symptom index. HRQL was assessed by use of the BPH impact index (BII), which evaluated degree of bother, worry, physical discomfort, and restriction in activities as a result of urinary symptoms. Additional questions regarding activities of living were administered, and global assessments of change in urologic status were performed by both patients and investigators. Compared with placebo, patients treated with finasteride had a statistically significant decrease in symptom scores when first measured at month 3. Symptom scores continued to improve in finasteride-treated patients throughout the study; at month 12, the mean decrease in symptom scores in the finasteride-treated patients was -4.8 compared with -3.4 for placebo patients ( P = 0.0001). Statistically significant differences in favor of finasteride also were noted at month 12 on the BII (P = 0.0465), and finasteride-treated patients experienced less interference with activities of living (P = 0.0518). Patient and investigator global assessments of urologic status showed that significantly more patients in the finasteride group considered themselves improved and were considered improved by investigators at month 12 (P = 0.000). Finasteride was generally well tolerated. The incidence of drug-related sexual adverse experiences was significantly higher in the finasteride group (P = 0.000), but led to withdrawal in only 1.5% of patients. The demonstrated efficacy and tolerability of finasteride in reducing symptoms and improving quality of life confirm observations of previous trials and make finasteride a highly desirable treatment option for many men with symptomatic BPH.

Purpose: We determine whether self-administration and interviewer administration of the American Urological Association (AUA) symptom index are equivalent.Materials and Methods: The AUA symptom index was administered twice to 41 visually impaired or illiterate men. Men who were able were randomized to self-administration first and then interviewer administration (43) or the reverse (40).Results: The scores in each group were reliable. However, because we could not reject a differential carryover effect, the nonsignificant test of mode effect in the crossover design may have been invalid. At time 1 there was no significant difference between group mean scores for randomized patients (p = 0.13).Conclusions: Although the AUA symptom index should be self-administered when possible, interviewer administration appears to be acceptable.

A multicenter, double-blind, randomized controlled trial comparing the efficacy and safety of famotidine with ranitidine in the treatment of acute, benign gastric ulcer disease was coupled with a community-based gastric ulcer disease registry. One hundred ninety-five patients with endoscopically documented gastric ulcer disease were enrolled in the trial and randomly allocated to treatment with either famotidine 40 mg at bedtime or ranitidine 150 mg twice a day. Healing rates were similar in both groups: at four weeks 49% vs 48%, at six weeks 71% vs 69%, and at eight weeks 83% vs 81% for famotidine and for ranitidine, respectively. Pain relief, antacid tablet use, and adverse experiences were also similar in the two groups. Only 25% of patients entered in the gastric ulcer registry were enrolled in the trial. Given that patients with more severe or complicated gastric ulcer disease should be excluded from controlled trials of new drugs, the screening criteria used in the present study be excluded from findings being representative of a quarter of the patients seen in these practices. Therefore, coupling a patient registry with a clinical trial helps determine the applicability of its results. Famotidine 40 mg at bedtime is an effective and well-tolerated treatment of acute, benign gastric ulcer disease and is comparable in efficacy and safety to ranitidine 150 mg twice a day.