Search

Este estudo visa refletir sobre qualidade e inovação na oferta de cursos na modalidade de educação a distância (EaD). É parte de uma pesquisa interinstitucional da região Centro-Oeste, da qual participa a Pontifícia Universidade Católica de Goiás (PUC Goiás). O objetivo geral é abordar a compreensão de qualidade e inovação presentes nas instituições de ensino superior na região Centro-Oeste, de modo especial a contribuição da PUC Goiás enquanto participante nesta pesquisa. A metodologia adotada teve a abordagem qualitativa de coleta de dados, do tipo bibliográfica, documental, de estudos de casos múltiplos de natureza empírica para comparação das percepções de diversos atores envolvidos com a EaD. Os resultados permitiram conhecer a visão dos sujeitos da pesquisa sobre qualidade e inovação e proporcionou o aprimoramento de questões relativas aos indicadores presentes no processo educacional na busca constante de uma educação como prática social. Constatou-se também que os dados coletados são de grande relevância, pois subsidiarão o planejamento da formação continuada de gestores e docentes acadêmicos da PUC Goiás, tendo como viés a concepção de qualidade e inovação na modalidade a distância.

O presente artigo trata-se de um levantamento bibliográfico analítico sobre o conceito de qualidade e inovação na educação superior a distância presente nas pesquisas depositadas no Portal de Teses da Espanha – Dialnet –, durante o período de 2007 a 2018. É parte de uma pesquisa interinstitucional com a participação de instituições de ensino superior públicas e privadas sem fins lucrativos da região Centro-Oeste. As pesquisas consultadas evidenciaram que a modalidade a distância é compreendida como critério de inovação no ensino superior e que a qualidade da educação tem estreita ligação com a perspectiva mercadológica de satisfação do cliente, disponibilidade para pagar e empregabilidade, desconsiderando-se a articulação entre as dimensões intra e extra-escolares na oferta de educação de qualidade social.

Efficacy and safety of pregabalin as adjunctive treatment for children (aged 4-16 years) with partial-onset seizures, hereafter termed focal onset seizures for this study, was evaluated. This double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, international study had 3 phases: 8-week baseline, 12-week double-blind treatment (2-week dose escalation; 10-week fixed dose), and 1-week taper. Selection criteria included experiencing focal onset seizures and receiving a stable regimen of 1 to 3 antiepileptic drugs. Study treatments were pregabalin 2.5 mg/kg/d, 10 mg/kg/d, or placebo; doses were increased to 3.5 or 14 mg/kg/d for subjects weighing e(28-day seizure rate), achieving a ≥50% seizure responder rate, safety, and tolerability during double-blind treatment. Subjects (n = 295; mean age 10.2 years, 55% male, 69% white) were randomized to pregabalin 2.5 mg/kg/d (n = 104), 10 mg/kg/d (n = 97), or placebo (n = 94). A statistically significant reduction in loge(28-day seizure rate) was demonstrated with pregabalin 10 mg/kg/d (a 19.9% improvement over placebo; P = .0185). Seizure frequency was numerically improved (statistically nonsignificant) with pregabalin 2.5 mg/kg/d ( P = .2577). Responder rate significantly favored pregabalin 10 mg/kg/d (40.6%, P = .0068) compared with placebo (22.6%) and was numerically improved with pregabalin 2.5 mg/kg/d (29.1%, P = .2600). Common adverse events (≥10% of any group) in 10 mg/kg/d, 2.5 mg/kg/d, and placebo groups, respectively, included somnolence (25.8%, 17.3%, 13.8%), increased weight (13.4%, 3.8%, 4.3%), and increased appetite (10.3%, 6.7%, 4.3%). Pregabalin 10 mg/kg/d demonstrated efficacy in seizure frequency reduction in children with focal onset seizures compared with placebo, and both pregabalin doses were generally safe and well tolerated. www.clinicialtrials.gov identifier NCT01389596; EudraCT #2010-020852-79

Este artigo apresenta a legislação que orienta a oferta de disciplina a distância em cursos de graduação presencial, com destaque para a formação de professores. Identifica que, somente após a publicação da Portaria Normativa nº 1.428, de 28 de dezembro de 2018, sobre a característica dessa oferta, ano de 2018, há referência à mediação da tutoria, influenciada certamente pela Resolução nº 1, de 11 de março de 2016. Traz a alteração realizada pela Portaria Normativa nº 2.117, de 11 de dezembro de 2019, sobre a ampliação de 40% da carga horária a distância e destaca que aspectos relativos à formação docente são os mesmos já indicados em portarias anteriores, demonstrando a inexistência de avanços significativos nessa área. Discorre sobre a importância da formação para o uso da tecnologia no processo de ensino-aprendizagem, contemplando a mediação pedagógica através de recursos tecnológicos. Conceitua mediação como processo que envolve sujeito e objeto, que se efetiva de modo contextual, inter-relacional e histórico na relação entre professor e estudante. Nessa perspectiva, ressalta a importância de a formação articular os conhecimentos pedagógicos com os tecnológicos, relacionar a prática com a teoria, numa relação de dependência em que a teoria subsidia a prática, e esta realimenta aquela, criando possibilidades de transformação da ação pedagógica. Apresenta ainda a oferta destas disciplinas na Pontifícia Universidade Católica de Goiás (PUC Goiás) e as ações de formação continuada realizada no Programa de Formação de Docentes e Gestores Acadêmicos e na Semana de Integração e Planejamento, bem como pela equipe da Coordenação de Educação a Distância que se efetiva no acompanhamento do professor com disciplina a distância, por todo o semestre letivo.

Objective: To evaluate four models based on potential predictors for achieving a response to pregabalin treatment for neuropathic pain (NeP). Methods: In total, 46 pain studies were screened, of which 27 NeP studies met the criteria for inclusion in this analysis. Data were pooled from these 27 placebo-controlled randomized trials to assess if baseline characteristics (including mean pain and pain-related sleep interference [PRSI] scores), early clinical response during weeks 1–3 of treatment (change from baseline in pain and PRSI scores), and presence of treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) were predictive of therapeutic response. Therapeutic response was defined as a ≥30% reduction from baseline in either pain and/or PRSI scores at week 5 with supplemental analyses to predict pain outcomes at weeks 8 and 12. Predictors of Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) were also evaluated. Four models were assessed: Random Forest, Logistic Regression, Naïve Bayes, and Partial Least Squares. Results: The number of pregabalin-treated subjects in the training/test datasets, respectively, were 2818/1407 (30% pain analysis), 2812/1405 (30% sleep analysis), and 2693/1345 (PGIC analysis). All four models demonstrated consistent results, and the most important predictors of treatment outcomes at week 5 and pain outcomes at weeks 8 and 12 were the reduction in pain score and sleep score in the first 1–3 weeks. The presence or absence of the most common AEs in the first 1–3 weeks was not correlated with any treatment outcome. Conclusions: Subjects with an early response to pregabalin are more likely to experience an end-of-treatment response.

Background: Patients with neuropathic pain (NeP) often receive combination therapy with multiple agents in the hopes of improving both pain and any comorbidities that may be present. While pregabalin is often recommended as a first-line treatment of NeP, few studies have examined the effects of concomitant medications on the efficacy of pregabalin. Objective: To examine the effects of concomitant medications on the efficacy and safety of pregabalin for the treatment of NeP. Study Design: Data were derived from 7 randomized placebo-controlled trials of pregabalin (150, 300, 600, and flexible 150 – 600 mg/d) for the treatment of postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) and 2 randomized placebo-controlled trials for the treatment of NeP due to spinal cord injury (SCINeP). On each day, patients rated the severity of their pain and pain-related sleep interference (PRSI) over the previous 24 hours on a scale from 0 to 10, with higher scores indicating greater severity. Patients were also continually monitored for the occurrence of adverse events. Setting: A pooled retrospective analyses of data from randomized clinical trials. Methods: Changes from baseline in mean weekly pain and PRSI scores were compared between patients who received concomitant NeP medications and patients who did not receive concomitant NeP medications. Results of these comparisons are presented separately for the PHN (through 4, 8, and 12 weeks) and SCI-NeP (through 12 weeks) cohorts. Common adverse events are also presented for each treatment group. Results: Pregabalin significantly improved both pain and PRSI scores relative to placebo at most dose levels and time points examined. Notably, little difference was observed in the extent of therapeutic response to pregabalin between patients who received concomitant NeP medications and patients who did not receive concomitant NeP medications. Additionally, the profile of treatment-emergent adverse events appeared to be largely unaffected by the use of concomitant NeP medications in the pooled patient population. Limitations: Our analysis is limited in that the original trials of pregabalin were not powered to examine the effects of concomitant NeP medications. Conclusions: The data presented here demonstrate that therapeutic response to pregabalin and the occurrence of adverse events in patients with NeP are generally unaffected by the concurrent use of other NeP medications. Trial Registration numbers: NCT00159666; NCT00301223; NCT00407745 Key words: Pregabalin, neuropathic pain, pain-related sleep interference, concomitant medications, postherpetic neuralgia, spinal cord injury, efficacy, safety

Generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), a common mental disorder, has several treatment options including pregabalin. Not all patients respond to treatment; quickly determining which patients will respond is an important treatment goal. Patient-level data were pooled from nine phase II and III randomized, double-blind, short-term, placebo-controlled trials of pregabalin for the treatment of GAD. Efficacy outcomes included the change from baseline in the Hamilton Anxiety Scale (HAM-A) total score and psychic and somatic subscales. Predictive modelling assessed baseline characteristics and early clinical responses to determine those predictive of clinical improvement at endpoint. A total of 2155 patients were included in the analysis (1447 pregabalin, 708 placebo). Pregabalin significantly improved the HAM-A total score compared with the placebo at endpoint, treatment difference (95% confidence interval), -2.61 (-3.21 to -2.01), P

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of pregabalin as adjunctive treatment for children (aged 1 month

Objective: To evaluate the comparative safety and adjunctive efficacy of pregabalin and gabapentin in reducing seizure frequency in patients with partial-onset seizures based on prestudy modeling showing superior efficacy for pregabalin. Methods: The design of this comparative efficacy and safety study of pregabalin and gabapentin as adjunctive treatment in adults with refractory partial-onset seizures was randomized, flexible dose, double blind, and parallel group. The study included a 6-week baseline and a 21-week treatment phase. The primary endpoint was the percentage change from baseline in 28-day seizure rate to the treatment phase. Results: A total of 484 patients were randomized to pregabalin (n = 242) or gabapentin (n = 242). Of these, 359 patients (187 pregabalin, 172 gabapentin) completed the treatment phase. The observed median and mean in percentage change from baseline was −58.65 and −47.7 (SD 48.3) for pregabalin and −57.43 and −45.28 (SD 60.6) for gabapentin. For the primary endpoint, there was no significant difference between treatments. The Hodges-Lehman estimated median difference was 0.0 (95% confidence interval −6.0 to 7.0). Safety profiles were comparable and consistent with prior trials. Conclusions: The absence of the anticipated efficacy difference based on modeling of prior, nearly identical trials and the larger-than-expected response rates of the 2 antiepileptic drugs were unexpected. These findings raise questions that are potentially important to consider in future comparative efficacy trials. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00537940. Classification of evidence: This study provides Class II evidence that for patients with partial seizures enrolled in this study, pregabalin is not superior to gabapentin in reducing seizure frequency. Because of the atypical response rates, the results of this study are poorly generalizable to other epilepsy populations.

Michael Serpell,1 Mark Latymer,2 Mary Almas,3 Marie Ortiz,4 Bruce Parsons,4 Rita Prieto5 1University Department of Anaesthesia, Stobhill Ambulatory Care Hospital, Glasgow, 2Pfizer Ltd, Tadworth, UK; 3Pfizer, Groton, CT, 4Pfizer, New York, NY, USA; 5Pfizer GEP SLU, Madrid, Spain Background: Pregabalin is an effective treatment option for many patients with neuropathic pain. Higher doses of pregabalin have been shown to be more effective in improving pain outcomes but, in practice, failing to appropriately increase the dose can leave patients under-treated.Methods: This was a pooled analysis of 6 flexible-dose clinical trials of pregabalin in patients with neuropathic pain (diabetic peripheral neuropathy, peripheral herpetic neuralgia, posttraumatic pain, or postsurgical pain). Patients were divided into “dose pathway” groups based on their weekly pregabalin dose from the start of their trial to the first week of their maintenance phase. These were: 150 mg/day only; 150 to 300 mg/day; 150 to 300 to 450 mg/day; 150 to 300 to 450 to 600 mg/day; 150 to 300 to 600 mg/day; 300 to 600 mg/day. Pain outcomes assessed for each group at each new dose were proportion of 30% and 50% responders (≥30% or ≥50% reduction in mean pain score from baseline) and mean change in pain score. Percent change in mean pain score from baseline was assessed using a marginal structural model.Results: Seven hundred and sixty-one patients treated with flexible-dose pregabalin were included in the analysis. For each dose pathway group, there was a notably greater proportion of 30% and 50% responders and change in pain score, at each escalating dose. As assessed by the marginal structural model, higher doses of pregabalin were estimated to result in a significantly greater change in mean pain score at each week. This dose response with flexible-dose pregabalin was consistent with that previously observed with fixed-dose pregabalin.Conclusion: Many patients who do not respond to lower doses of pregabalin will respond with notable improvements in pain outcomes when the dose is escalated. These data should encourage physicians treating patients with neuropathic pain to escalate pregabalin to the dose that delivers optimal analgesia and tolerable side effects. Keywords: neuropathic pain, pregabalin, dosing

Summary Objectives To assess the comparative efficacy and safety of pregabalin and levetiracetam for the reduction of seizure frequency in patients with partial seizures. Methods This was a randomized, double-blind, flexible-dose, parallel-group noninferiority study of pregabalin and levetiracetam (randomized 1:1) as adjunctive treatment in adult patients with refractory partial seizures. The study included a 6-week baseline phase, 4-week dose-escalation phase, and 12-week maintenance phase. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with a ≥50% reduction in 28-day seizure rate during the 12-week maintenance phase, as compared with baseline. Noninferiority of pregabalin was declared if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in responder rates was greater than the prespecified noninferiority margin of −12%. A key secondary endpoint was the percent change from baseline in 28-day seizure rate during the dose-escalation and maintenance phases. Results Five hundred nine patients were randomized to pregabalin (n = 254) or levetiracetam (n = 255) and 418 (208 pregabalin, 210 levetiracetam) completed the maintenance phase. With both pregabalin and levetiracetam, the proportion of patients with a ≥50% reduction in 28-day seizure rate was 0.59 (difference between groups [95% CI], 0.00 [−0.08 to 0.09]). Because the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than the prespecified noninferiority margin of −12%, pregabalin was not inferior to levetiracetam. There was no significant difference between pregabalin and levetiracetam in the percent change in 28-day seizure rate (median difference [95% CI], 4.1 [−2.6 to 10.9], p = 0.3571). In a post hoc analysis, the proportion of patients who were seizure-free for the maintenance phase was lower with pregabalin (8.4%) than with levetiracetam (16.2%), p = 0.0155. Safety profiles were similar and consistent with prior trials. Significance These results indicate that pregabalin is noninferior, and has a similar tolerability, to levetiracetam as adjunctive therapy in reducing seizure frequency in patients with partial seizures. A PowerPoint slide summarizing this article is available for download in the Supporting Information section here.

Objective The objective of this article is to evaluate, in first attack eletriptan headache and pain-free nonresponders, the efficacy of treating a second and third attack with the same dose of eletriptan 40 mg (ELE-40). Methods Data were pooled from four randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multiple attack studies of eletriptan in the treatment of migraine. The first-attack eletriptan headache (HNR) and pain-free (PFNR) nonresponder samples consisted of patients who did not achieve headache or pain-free responses at two hours, or sustained headache or pain-free responses at 24 hours. The efficacy of the same dose of eletriptan (vs placebo; PBO) in treating the second and third attacks was evaluated using a logistic regression model. Results Among Attack 1 eletriptan HNRs, treatment with ELE-40 (vs PBO) was associated with significantly higher two-hour headache response and pain-free rates, respectively, on both Attack 2 (48.8% vs 20.2%; 17.0% vs 3.9%; p Conclusions The results of this pooled analysis suggest that patients who have HNR or PFNR to an initial dose of eletriptan may respond when a second and third attack is treated with the same dose.

Some patients with epilepsy require treatment with1 adjunctive antiepileptic drug (AED) to achieve adequate seizure remission. The purpose of this analysis was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of adding adjunctive pregabalin to an AED regimen that included levetiracetam in patients with refractory partial-onset epilepsy.Data from the pregabalin and placebo arms of two placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomized studies of pregabalin in patients who received adjunctive treatment with levetiracetam in addition to ≥1 other AEDs were pooled for this post hoc analysis. Patients (aged ≥18 years) had ≥4 partial-onset seizures and no 28-day period free of seizures during baseline. Efficacy outcomes included Response Ratio (RRatio), change from baseline in seizure frequency, proportion of patients with ≥50% reduction in seizure frequency, and 28-day seizure-freedom rate. Safety was evaluated using adverse events (AEs).In total, 138 patients were included in the analysis (placebo, n = 47; pregabalin, n = 91). Pregabalin was significantly better than placebo for difference in least squares mean of the RRatio (-16.4; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -28.5, -4.5; p = 0.0085), median of the difference in percentage change from baseline in seizure frequency (-22.3; 95% CI: -40.1, -7.2; p = 0.0095), and proportion of 50% responders (36.3 vs. 17.0; odds ratio, 3.2; 95% CI: 1.3, 8.3; p = 0.018), but not 28-day seizure-freedom rate (7 [7.7%] vs. 2 [4.3%]; p = 0.353). The most common AEs when adding pregabalin were dizziness/vertigo, fatigue, somnolence, blurred vision, and increased weight that were not proportional to the number of concomitant AEDs.In this population of patients with refractory partial-onset seizures, adding pregabalin to an AED regimen with levetiracetam produced further seizure reductions. The safety profile of pregabalin in patients receiving levetiracetam and ≥1 other AEDs did not appear to be compromised by the number of concomitant AEDs.

Thirty to forty percent of migraineurs do not respond to any given triptan treatment. We identified clinical variables that significantly predict therapeutic non-response and evaluated the efficacy of eletriptan (20, 40 and 80 mg) and sumatriptan (100 mg) vs. placebo in a subgroup of patients with all predictor variables. First-attack data were pooled from 10 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled migraine trials ( n = 8473). Multivariate regression analyses identified three significant baseline predictors of failure to achieve 2-h pain-free response: severe headache pain, presence of photophobia/phonophobia and presence of nausea. Time of dosing following headache onset did not influence 2-h pain-free response. Among patients with all three risk factors ( n = 2010; 24± of total sample), 2-h pain-free response was significantly higher in patients receiving all three doses of eletriptan or sumatriptan vs. placebo (all P< 0.01). Thus, eletriptan and sumatriptan are efficacious in difficult-to-treat patients at high risk for non-response to triptans.

SUMMARY Objective: The efficacy of triptans for acute migraine has been well established in clinical trials but not in primary care, where they are most commonly prescribed. The aim of this open-label study was to evaluate the effectiveness of eletriptan 40 mg in primary care, using a patient-weighted satisfaction scale. Methods: Eligible patients met International Headache Society criteria for migraine, with 1‐6 attacks per month. Patients completed questionnaires at screening and following a single eletriptan-treated attack. Treatment satisfaction was evaluated using a sixitem Medication Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ). MSQ item scores were weighted, based on the important score ratings, to yield individualised satisfaction scores. The primary end-point was the difference in weighted satisfaction scores between the patient’s previous treatment and eletriptan 40 mg. Secondary endpoints assessed quality of life (QOL), functioning and efficacy of treatment. Results: Of 590 patients screened, 437 completed the study. Degree (95.2%), time (88.8%) and duration (83.8%) of headache pain relief were rated as most important by patients. The mean (±SD) total satisfaction score on the MSQ was higher for eletriptan than previous therapy (2.2 ± 3.0 vs. 0.6 ± 2.4; p < 0.001). The high level of satisfaction with eletriptan vs. previous treatment reflects the improvements in QOL and functioning observed, and the high headache and painfree response rates. Conclusions: Patient-weighted satisfaction with eletriptan 40 mg was higher than with previous treatment for all items. The use of patientweighted importance ratings of satisfaction is a promising approach for establishing effectiveness of treatment in primary care. What’s known The efficacy of triptans (5-HT1B/1D-receptor agonists) has been well established in clinical trials, but not in a primary care setting, where they are most commonly prescribed. Previous studies have highlighted the treatment outcomes that are most important to migraine sufferers (e.g. degree of pain relief, speed of relief and duration of relief). Asking patients to rate their treatment in terms of the treatment outcomes that are most important to them has been suggested as a useful way of assessing the effectiveness of a treatment in primary care. What’s new

Objective.—To provide a multidimensional assessment of the extent of functional impairment during an acute migraine attack, and of the improvement in functioning in response to treatment, using 4 concurrently administered scales: the 7-item work productivity questionnaire (PQ-7), the functional assessment in migraine (FAIM) activities and participation (FAIM-A&P) subscale, the FAIM-impact of migraine on mental functioning (FAIM-IMMF) subscale, and the traditional 4-point global functional impairment scale (FIS). Methods.—Outpatients with an International Classification of Headache Disorders diagnosis of migraine were randomized to double-blind treatment of a single attack with either oral eletriptan 20 mg (n = 192) once-daily, eletriptan 40 mg (N = 213) once-daily, or placebo (n = 208). Patients were encouraged to take study medication as soon as they were sure they were experiencing a typical migraine headache, after the aura phase (if present) had ended. Patients with moderate-to-severe functional impairment were identified on each of the 4 disability scales, and 2-hour functional response was compared between treatments. Results.—At baseline, the PQ-7 and FAIM-IMMF items that assessed ability to perform tasks requiring concentration, sustained work or attention, and ability to think quickly or spontaneously, were especially sensitive to the effects of mild headache pain, with 27% to 48% of patients (n = 92-112) reporting moderate-to-severe impairment. Only 11.3% of patients (n = 112) reported this level of impairment due to mild pain on the FIS. Functional response at 2 hours was significantly higher on eletriptan 40 mg versus placebo on the FAIM-AP n = 218; P < .0001); on the PQ-7 (56% vs 34%; n = 116; P= .0052); and on the FAIM-IMMF (50% vs 34%; n = 215; P= .017). These rates were all lower than the functional response rates on the FIS for eletriptan 40 mg (75%) and eletriptan 20 mg (70%) versus placebo (45%; P < .001). Conclusions.—In this exploratory analysis, use of multidimensional scales was found to provide a sensitive measure of headache-related functional impairment, especially for detecting clinically meaningful cognitive effects, and for detecting drug versus placebo differences.

If treatment-emergent central nervous system (CNS) symptoms following triptan therapy represent direct pharmacological effects of the drug, they should occur independent of response to active drug. However, if they represent unmasking of neurological symptoms of the migraine attack after pain is relieved, they should be more common in responders both to active drug and to placebo. To explore this issue, we evaluated the relationship between the CNS adverse events and treatment response following triptan or placebo treatment. We used pooled data from seven double-blind, placebo-controlled trials involving eletriptan 20 mg (E20, n = 402), eletriptan 40 mg (E40, n = 1870), eletriptan 80 mg (E80, n = 1393), sumatriptan 100 mg (S100, n = 275) and placebo (Pbo, n = 1024). Somnolence was more prevalent among 2 h headache responders than non-responders for all treatments, including E80 (8.8% vs. 5.0%; P < 0.05), E40 (6.4% vs. 5.0%; NS), E20 (4.0% vs. 2.0%; NS), S100 (4.7% vs. 3.2%; NS) and Pbo (7.6% vs. 3.0%; P < 0.05). Similarly, the incidence of asthenia was higher among patients who responded to treatment compared with those who did not respond to E80 (15.2% vs. 7.8%; P < 0.05), E40 (6.5% vs. 3.6%; P < 0.05), E20 (6.5% vs. 1.0%; P < 0.05), S100 (10.1% vs. 4.7%; NS) and Pbo (4.4% vs. 2.7%; NS). The generally higher rates of somnolence and asthenia in patients who respond to treatment suggests that these treatment-emergent neurological symptoms may represent the unmasking of CNS symptoms associated with the natural resolution of a migraine attack, rather than simply representing drug-related side-effects. The rate of somnolence in placebo responders is comparable to that in responders to E40 and E80, indicating that somnolence is related, at least in some important part, to headache relief and not treatment.

Objective.—To compare the efficacy and tolerability of eletriptan 20 mg, 40 mg, and 80 mg in triptan-naive patients (who have not previously used triptans) versus triptan-experienced patients (who have previously used triptans). Methods.—Efficacy and tolerability data for eletriptan 20 mg, 40 mg, and 80 mg were pooled from 10 similarly designed, randomized, parallel-group studies, and triptan-naive and triptan-experienced patients were compared with placebo across the 3 triptan doses. The primary efficacy endpoint was headache response at 2 hours postdose. Secondary efficacy endpoints were 2-hour pain-free response, 2-hour absence of associated symptoms, 2-hour functional response, 24-hour sustained headache response, and 24-hour sustained pain-free response. Results.—For eletriptan 20 mg, 40 mg, and 80 mg versus placebo, respectively, triptan-naive patients showed significantly higher 2-hour headache response (54%, 61%, 66% vs. 31%; P < .0001), 2-hour pain-free response (20%, 28%, and 31% vs. 8%; P < .0001), and 24-hour sustained headache response (34%, 45%, and 51% vs. 20%; P < .0001). A similarly significant efficacy advantage was also observed in the triptan-experienced subgroup for 2-hour headache response (46%, 63%, 69% vs. 21%; P < .0001), 2-hour pain-free response (13%, 32%, and 38% vs. 4%; P < .0001), and 24-hour sustained headache response (29%, 41%, and 45% vs. 9%; P < .0001). Previous treatment status did not influence tolerability, and all 3 doses of eletriptan were well tolerated. Conclusions.—These data suggest that eletriptan has comparable efficacy versus placebo among both triptan-naive and triptan-experienced patients.

BACKGROUND Patients with chronic pain conditions such as neuropathic pain frequently experience delays in diagnosis and treatment. Ideally, all patients should be treated in a timely manner, but in those patients with more established disease it is important to know that approved treatments remain effective. METHODS This was a pooled analysis of 19 randomized placebo-controlled trials of pregabalin for peripheral neuropathic pain conditions, including diabetic peripheral neuropathy, postherpetic neuralgia, and post-traumatic/postsurgical pain. Patients were divided into 5 pain duration categories based on time since onset of pain (< 6 months, 6 months to < 1 year, 1 year to < 2 years, 2 years to < 5 years, and ≥ 5 years). Mean change in pain score at endpoint, vs. placebo, was assessed for each category, together with changes in Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) responders ("very much" or "much" improved at endpoint). RESULTS The analysis included 5,783 patients (n = 3,619 pregabalin; n = 2,164 placebo). Mean baseline pain scores were similar across the pain duration categories (range 6.3 to 6.5). Pregabalin significantly improved pain score at endpoint, vs. placebo, in all patients together (treatment difference [95% confidence interval], -0.59 [-0.67, -0.52], P < 0.0001) and similarly in each pain duration category (P < 0.0001 for each). There were significantly more PGIC responders with pregabalin, vs. placebo, for all patients (45.0% vs. 30.9%, P < 0.0001) and each category separately (P < 0.001 for each). There were no consistent, significant differences in treatment response between the different pain duration categories. CONCLUSIONS Pregabalin significantly improves pain irrespective of the length of time since onset of neuropathic pain.

The aim of this study was to examine efficacy and tolerability of eletriptan in patients switched from barbiturate-containing combinations (Fiorinal®, Fioricet®). Migraineurs ( n = 160) meeting IHS criteria, with unsatisfactory response in the past year to butalbital-containing combinations, treated up to 16 attacks over 3 months with eletriptan 40 mg. Assessments included headache response and pain-free rates and functional impairment at baseline and 2 h postdose, and global ratings of treatment satisfaction at 24 h. At 2 h postdose, average headache response and pain-free rates were 71% (95% CI, 69-74%) and 37% (95% CI, 35-40%), respectively; 68.5% of patients (95% CI, 65-72%) reported functional response. Within-patient analysis found no efficacy diminution over time (no tolerance). Average headache recurrence rate was 20% (95% CI, 18-23%). Eletriptan was well-tolerated; 6 (3.7%) patients discontinued due to adverse events. There were no serious treatment-related adverse events. We conclude that in poor responders to butalbital-caffeine combinations, switching to eletriptan 40 mg was well-tolerated and efficacious.

Objective To assess the efficacy and tolerability of eletriptan in treating migraine attacks occurring within the defined menstrual time period of 1 day before and 4 days after onset of menstruation (menses days –1 to +4) compared with attacks occurring during non-menstrual time periods (occurring outside of menses days –1 to +4). Background Migraine attacks during menses have been associated with longer duration, higher recurrence rates, greater treatment resistance, and greater functional disability than those not associated with menses. The efficacy of eletriptan in treating migraine attacks associated with menstruation vs those outside a defined menstrual period has not been evaluated. Methods Data were pooled from 5 similarly designed, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials of eletriptan 20 mg/40 mg/80 mg. Two groups were defined for this analysis: women with a single index migraine beginning during the menstrual (group 1) and non-menstrual (group 2) time periods. End points of interest were headache response at 2 hours, migraine recurrence and sustained responses for nausea, photo/phonophobia, and function. Logistic regression was used to compare group 1 vs group 2 and each eletriptan dose (20, 40, or 80 mg) vs placebo. Adverse events were also assessed. Results Of 3217 subjects pooled from 5 studies, 2216 women were either in group 1 (n = 630) or group 2 (n = 1586). Rates of headache response at 2 hours were similar in group 1 vs group 2 (odds ratio [OR] = 1.11 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.91, 1.36]; P = .2944). The rate of headache recurrence was significantly higher in group 1 vs group 2 (26.8% vs 18.6%; OR = 1.67 [95% CI 1.23, 2.26]; P

Objective The current study evaluated the consistency of eletriptan response. Methods Using a within-patient crossover design, patients with migraine completed a three-attack, open-label, lead-in period, before being treated, double-blind for four attacks, with either eletriptan 40 mg (ELE-40; N = 539) or eletriptan 80 mg (ELE-80; N = 432); placebo was randomly substituted for the treatment of one attack. Results On an a priori analysis of within-patient consistency, double-blind treatment was associated with similar 2 hour headache response rates using a ≥2/3 response criterion for ELE-40 (77%) and ELE-80 (73%), and using a 3/3 response criterion for ELE-40 (46%) and ELE-80 (47%). Within-patient consistency in achieving pain-free status at 2 hours using a ≥2/3 criterion was slightly higher on ELE-40 (42%) compared with ELE-80 (38%), and was similar using the 3/3 criterion (18% on ELE-40, 17% on ELE-80). On a repeated measures logistic regression analysis across all treated attacks, the probability of achieving a headache response at 2 hours ranged from 71% to 74% on ELE-40 vs. 17% to 28% on placebo ( p Conclusion In this multiple attack study, eletriptan was well-tolerated and demonstrated consistent and significant efficacy in the treatment of migraine. Clinicaltrials.Gov Identifier: NCT01859481

Objective The primary objective of this study was to compare the effects of pregabalin and placebo on sperm concentration in healthy male subjects. Changes in follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH), testosterone, sperm motility, semen volume, and sperm morphology were also examined. Methods This was a phase 4, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, noninferiority study. A 12-week treatment period (placebo or 600 mg/day of pregabalin) was followed by a 1-week taper period and a 13-week washout period. The primary outcome measure was the percentage of subjects with a ≥ 50% reduction from baseline in sperm concentration at End of Study. Results One hundred and nine subjects received placebo and 111 subjects received pregabalin. The difference between placebo and pregabalin with respect to the percentage of subjects with a ≥ 50% reduction from baseline in sperm concentration at End of Study was 6% (95% CI: −2.29 to 14.3%). Noninferiority of pregabalin compared to placebo was declared as the upper bound of the 95% CI was less than the prespecified noninferiority margin of 20%. There were no significant differences between placebo and pregabalin groups with respect to their effects on FSH, testosterone, or sperm motility. Changes in semen volume and sperm morphology were numerically similar in both treatment groups. Adverse events were consistent with the known safety profile of pregabalin. Treatment with 600 mg/day pregabalin for 12 weeks does not adversely affect spermatogenesis or serum levels of FSH and testosterone in healthy males.

Methods Patients first completed an open-label, lead-in period in which they treated 3 migraine attacks with eletriptan 40 mg. Based on response to open-label treatment, patients were treated with either eletriptan 40 mg (E40; N=539) or eletriptan 80 mg (E80; N=432) in a 4-attack consistency of response study in which placebo was substituted, in a randomized, double-blind fashion, for the treatment of one attack. Headache response was defined as improvement at 2 hours post-dose to a headache intensity of none (pain-free) or mild. Within-patient consistency was defined a priori as headache response at 2 hours on at least 2 out of 3 attacks.

The article focuses on the mediation and its implementation through information technology andcommunication (ITC). Assumes that these technologies are cultural artifacts and as such constitutethemselves into symbolic instruments that are configured in relations between individuals and socialpractices. To understand the mediation process through ICT the study is based on Vygotskian theory onthe development of mental functions and refers to the concept of the Zone of Proximal Development(VIGOTSKI, 1998, 2007). Introduces the concept of cognitive mediation and the concept of didactic andpedagogic mediation proposed by Lenoir (2009). Are also discussed the contributions of Meunier andPeraya (2004) to discuss issues relating to practice teaching mediated and to make a critique of theconcept of technological mediation. The study identifies that the mediation is effective from thedevelopment of an educational process based on communication in a dialogical perspective. Thepedagogical mediation can occur with or without the use of technology. The situation is not relevant inthis case the use of technological resources, but the interaction. In other words, the relationship betweenstudent and teacher, and the use of teaching strategies aimed at the reflective thinking and that place thestudent as the subject of the educational process. O artigo tem como tema a mediação pedagógica e sua realização por intermédio das Tecnologias daInformação e da Comunicação (TIC). Parte do princípio de que essas tecnologias são artefatos culturaise, como tal, constituem-se em instrumentos simbólicos, que se configuram nas relações entre os sujeitos eas práticas sociais. Para compreender o processo de mediação por meio das TIC, o estudo buscafundamentação na teoria vigotskiana sobre o desenvolvimento das funções mentais, fazendo referência aoconceito da Zona de Desenvolvimento Proximal (VIGOTSKI, 1998, 2007). Apresenta também opensamento de Lenoir (2009), distinguindo a mediação cognitiva da mediação pedagógico-didática.Aprofunda a análise com o foco na mediação pedagógico-didática com o uso das tecnologias, isto é, amediação pedagógica midiatizada pelas tecnologias. A esse estudo são acrescentadas as contribuições deMeunier e Peraya (2004) para se analisar questões relativas à prática pedagógica midiatizada. Torna-seevidente o fato de que a mediação pedagógica pode ocorrer com ou sem o uso de tecnologia. A situaçãorelevante nesse processo não é o uso de recursos tecnológicos, mas a interação, ou seja, a relação entrealuno e professor, bem como a utilização de estratégias de ensino que visem a atividade mental do aluno eque o situem como sujeito do processo educacional.

Pregabalin is used as adjunctive treatment for partial-onset seizures and is often combined with multiple antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) from different classes. The objectives of this post hoc analysis were to evaluate the efficacy and safety of pregabalin when added to different AED regimens and to identify specific AED combinations that in conjunction with pregabalin yield high responder rates. Data from six double-blind, randomized studies of pregabalin in patients with partial-onset seizures were pooled for analysis (N=1775). When the treatment groups (placebo, 150mg, 300mg, 600mg, and flexible dose) were stratified by the number of concomitant AEDs (one, two or three or more), modeling results suggested that the magnitude of improvement on either ≥50% responder rate or mean response ratio remained consistent regardless of the number of concomitant AEDs. Adverse events were typical of pregabalin and, in general, did not vary as the number of concomitant AEDs increased. A cluster analysis was performed to identify possible combinations of AEDs that yielded high ≥50% responder rates. The majority of patients (90%) fell within two clusters that yielded high responder rates, while10% of the patients fell within two clusters that yielded low responder rates. Numerous AED combinations, ranging from 6 to 11, occurred within each cluster. In summary, pregabalin provided a consistent improvement in seizure reduction and comparable tolerability in patients with partial-onset epilepsy regardless of the number of concomitant AEDs.

To improve understanding of secondary treatment failure in migraine patients, we evaluated ‘headache return’ as a novel endpoint to assess returning headaches according to their severity, expanding on current standard assessments of overall recurrence or relapse rates, in a six-month observational study of triptan-treated migraineurs. A total of 359 patients (91% female; mean age, 42.5 years) recorded data for 2168 headaches in electronic diaries. Two-thirds of headaches responded to triptan treatment (improved-to-mild or no pain two hours post-dose); 34% of headaches had a pain-free response. By 48 hours post-dose, 19% of all responding headaches returned; 24% of headaches achieving a pain-free response returned, predominantly to mild pain. More severe baseline headache, short duration since diagnosis of migraine, and female gender were associated with increased likelihood of headache return. Treatment satisfaction declined with increasing severity of headache return, demonstrating the value of assessing headache return by severity to fully evaluate its impact.

Objective.— To identify clinical variables associated with risk of headache recurrence within 22 hours of initial successful treatment of a migraine attack (2-hour headache response), and to analyze the effect of eletriptan in reducing the incidence of recurrence. Methods.— Data were pooled from 10 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials evaluating eletriptan 40 mg (E40), eletriptan 80 mg (E80), and sumatriptan 100 mg (S100) for acute migraine treatment. Patients who achieved a headache response (improvement from moderate/severe pain at baseline to mild/no pain at 2 hours postdose) were evaluable. A multivariable logistic regression analysis identified significant predictors of headache recurrence (return to moderate/severe pain intensity within 22 hours of initial headache response). Treatment response was assessed in two high-risk subgroups, defined by the presence of significant recurrence predictors. Results.— Of 4312 patients responding to acute treatment within 2 hours postdose, 1232 (29%) experienced recurrence. Initial headache response within 2 hours was significantly higher for E40 (62.0%), E80 (67.4%), and S100 (57.9%) compared to placebo (25.1%; all P

Background.—Eletriptan is a potent 5-HT1B/1D agonist with proven efficacy in the acute treatment of migraine in adults. Objective.—To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of eletriptan 40 mg versus placebo in adolescent patients (aged 12-17). Methods.—A multicenter, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled trial was conducted comparing 40 mg of oral eletriptan with placebo for the treatment of migraine in adolescent patients. The primary efficacy endpoint was 2-hour headache response, and a number of secondary endpoints were also evaluated. An exploratory analysis evaluated which clinical and demographic characteristics might be correlated with high placebo response. Results.—Of 274 patients who treated a migraine attack, 267 were evaluated for efficacy (n = 138 eletriptan; n = 129 placebo) at 2 hours post-dose. There was no significant difference in 2-hour headache response for eletriptan 40 mg versus placebo (57% vs 57%), and no significant improvements were observed for any of the outcomes at 1 or 2 hours post-dose. By contrast, there was a significant advantage for eletriptan 40 mg in reducing headache recurrence within 24 hours post-dose (11% vs 25%, P= .028), and post hoc analyses showed statistically significant differences for sustained headache response rates (52% vs 39%; P= .04) and sustained pain-free response rates (22% vs 10%; P= .013). The strongest clinical predictor of placebo response was triptan-naive status (ie, no previous use of any triptan). Eletriptan 40 mg was well tolerated in this population, and the profile of adverse events was similar to that observed in Phase III trials in adult patients. Conclusions.—The high placebo response rates reported here for 1- and 2-hour outcomes are in accordance with other studies of triptans in adolescent patients. The evaluation of treatment effect in adolescent migraine might benefit from use of more stringent outcome measures, such as headache recurrence, sustained headache response, and sustained pain-free response at 24 hours post-dose.

Background: The standard measure of efficacy used in migraine trials is a 4-point patient-rated headache pain intensity (HPI) scale. However, it has been suggested that using a stopwatch to measure the time to meaningful pain relief can provide a more precise measurement of treatment response. Objective: This study evaluated the sensitivity of a stopwatch method for detecting meaningful relief of headache pain and the correlation of this method with the HPI scale and a 5-point pain relief scale. Methods: In this open-label, parallel-group pilot study, patients were randomized to receive oral eletriptan 40 mg, eletriptan 80 mg, or rizatriptan 10 mg for the treatment of a single acute migraine attack. The effect of study treatment on migraine pain was assessed immediately before dosing and at 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 3, and 4 hours after dosing. At each time point, patients recorded the 3 types of pain assessment in a patient diary. HPI was rated using the standard 4-point International Headache Society pain intensity scale (from 0 = no pain to 3 = severe pain). Pain relief was rated on a 5-point pain relief scale (from 4 = no relief to 0 = complete relief). The time to the onset of meaningful pain relief was measured using a stopwatch. At 4 hours after dosing, patients provided a global rating of the overall efficacy of study medication on a 5-point scale (from 0 = poor to 4 = excellent). Results: Seventy-nine patients participated in the trial (78.5% female; mean [SD] age, 37.7 [9.8] years; 58.2% white). The median times to meaningful pain relief measured by stopwatch were 84, 72, and 93 minutes for eletriptan 40 mg, eletriptan 80 mg, and rizatriptan 10 mg, respectively (log-rank P = 0.029, eletriptan 80 mg vs rizatriptan 10 mg). At 90 minutes (approximating the median time to meaningful pain relief on the stopwatch), headache response rates using HPI scoring (mild to no pain) were 65%, 68%, and 52% in the respective treatment groups, with no significant difference between groups. On the pain relief scale, the corresponding mean (SD) scores at 90 minutes were 1.6 (1.2), 1.4 (1.3), and 2.0 (1.4) (P = NS). The pain relief-defined response (≥ 75% pain relief) at 90 minutes did not differ significantly between the 3 treatment groups (62%, 56%, and 48%). Detection of early improvement (0.5 and 1 hour) was similar with the HPI and pain relief scales. Conclusion: The results of this open-label pilot study suggest the convergent validity of 3 pain-assessment methods in migraine, but indicate that the use of a stopwatch may be a more sensitive method for detecting between-group differences.

Current neuropsychological, electrophysiological, and other imaging data strongly suggest the existence of a neurobiological basis for obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), which was long considered to be exclusively of psychogenic origin. The positive response of some OCD patients to neurosurgery, as well as the efficacy of agents that selectively block serotonin reuptake, lends further support to a biological involvement. However, a survey of the treatment literature reveals that only 45-62% of OCD patients improve with these specific medications. In a pilot study using a quantitative electroencephalographic (QEEG) method known as neurometrics, in which QEEG data from OCD patients were compared statistically with those from an age-appropriate normative population, we previously reported the existence of two subtypes of OCD patients within a clinically homogeneous group of patients who met DSM-III-R criteria for OCD. Following pharmacological treatment, a clear relationship was found between treatment response and neurometric cluster membership. In this study, we have expanded the OCD population, adding patients from a second site, and have replicated the existence of two clusters of patients in an enlarged, statistically more robust population. Cluster 1 was characterized by excess relative power in theta, especially in the frontal and frontotemporal regions; cluster 2 was characterized by increased relative power in alpha. Further, 80.0% of the members of cluster 1 were found to be nonresponders to drug treatment, while 82.4% of the members of cluster 2 were found to be treatment responders.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)