Patient-reported treatment burden of chronic immune thrombocytopenia therapies

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Chronic immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) is a debilitating autoimmune disorder that causes a reduction in blood platelets and increased risk of bleeding. ITP is currently managed with various pharmacologic therapies and splenectomy.</p> <p>This study was conducted to assess patient perceived and reported treatment side effects, as well as the perceived burden or bother, and need to reduce or stop treatment, associated with these side effects among adult patients with chronic ITP.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A Web-enabled survey was administered to members of a US-based ITP patient support group. Patients reported demographic and clinical characteristics, ITP treatments' side effects for treatments received since diagnosed, level of bother (or distress), and need to reduce or stop treatment, associated with side effects. Current and past exposure was assessed for five specific treatment types: corticosteroids (CS), intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg), anti-D immunoglobulin (anti-D), rituximab (RT), and splenectomy (SPL), as well as for other patient-referenced therapies (captured as "other").</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The survey was completed by 589 patients; 78% female, 89% white, mean age 48 years (SD = 14.71), and 68% reported a typical low platelet count of < 50,000/μL. Current or past treatment with CS was reported by 92% (n = 542) of patients, 56% (n = 322) for IVIg, 36% (n = 209) for anti-D, 36% (n = 213) for RT, and 39% (n = 227) for SPL. A substantial proportion of CS-treated patients reported side effects (98%, <it>P </it>< 0.05), were highly bothered by their side effects (53.1%, <it>P </it>< 0.05), and reported the need to stop or reduce treatment due to side effects (37.8%, <it>P </it>< 0.05). Among patients reporting side effects of treatment, significant associations were noted for the number of side effects, aggregate bother of reported side effects, and the need to stop or reduce treatment (all <it>P </it>< 0.05).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Current ITP treatments, particularly corticosteroids, are associated with multiple bothersome side effects that may lead to patients stopping or reducing therapy. Open, informed and complete communication between clinician and patient regarding both the benefits and the side effects of ITP treatment may better prepare patients for their prescribed regimens.</p

The effect of federal and state off-label marketing investigations on drug prescribing: The case of olanzapine.

In the past decade, the federal government has frequently investigated and prosecuted pharmaceutical manufacturers for illegal promotion of drugs for indications not approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ("off-label" uses). State governments can choose to coordinate with the federal investigation, or pursue their own independent state investigations. One of the largest-ever off-label prosecutions relates to the atypical antipsychotic drug olanzapine (Zyprexa). In a series of settlements between 2008 and 2010, Eli Lilly paid $1.4 billion to the federal government and over$290 million to state governments. We examined the effect of these settlements on off-label prescribing of this medication, taking advantage of geographical differences in states' involvement in the investigations and the timing of the settlements. However, we did not find a reduction in off-label prescribing; rather, there were no prescribing changes among states that joined the federal investigation, those that pursued independent state investigations, and states that pursued no investigations at all. Since the settlements of state investigations of off-label prescribing do not appear to significantly impact prescribing rates, policymakers should consider alternate ways of reducing the prevalence of non-evidence-based off-label use to complement their ongoing investigations

Regulatory authority and clinical acceptability: Physicians’ responses to regulatory drug safety warnings

Aim Medicines regulators issue post-market safety warnings to advise of newly uncovered risks, but with mixed impacts. We aimed to identify factors influencing the use of regulatory warnings by primary care and specialist physicians in the US and Australia. Methods Semi-structured qualitative interviews with 40 primary care physicians, endocrinologists, and other generalist specialists in Boston USA and Australia. Coding and analysis were carried out inductively and iteratively to identify and examine key factors. Analysis centred around four areas; physicians’ awareness of drug safety information, preferred information sources, opinion-forming, and sharing of information with patients. Results Uncertainty, trust, and clinical authority emerged as factors influencing use of advisories. Although regulators were trusted as authoritative institutions, they appeared to lack clinical authority, and physicians validated regulatory information against other trusted sources including evidence, expert opinion, and experience. Specialists became aware of drug safety issues through specialised literature, using evidence and clinical consensus to form opinions. Primary care physicians, fielding high volumes of information, relied on convenient, accessible information sources including the media and the ‘clinical grapevine’ for awareness, and on clinical colleagues, specialists, and experience for interpretation. Communicating risk to patients was complicated by uncertainty; physicians tailored information to patients’ health literacy and information needs. US physicians were more aware of their national regulator’s post-market safety role than Australian physicians of theirs. Conclusion Drug safety warnings may not be optimally received or used. Regulators should consider strategies that increase trust, clinical relevance, and accessibility, and address physicians’ needs in communicating risk to patients

Effects of eradication of Helicobacter pylori infection in patients with immune thrombocytopenic purpura: a systematic review

Whether the eradication of Helicobacter pylori infection can increase the platelet count in patients with immune thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP) is still a controversial issue. To provide evidence-based guidance, we performed a systematic review of the literature published in English, selecting articles reporting 15 or more total patients.We identified 25 studies including 1555 patients, of whom 696 were evaluable for the effects of H pylori eradication on platelet count. The weighted mean complete response (platelet count > 100 109/L) and overall response (platelet count > 30 109/L and at least doubling of the basal count) were 42.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 31.8%-53.9%) and 50.3% (95% CI, 41.6%- 59.0%), respectively. In 222 patients with a baseline platelet count less than 30 109/L, the complete response rate was 20.1% (95% CI, 13.5%-26.7%) and the overall response rate was 35.2% (95% CI, 28.0%-42.4%). The response rate tended to be higher in countries with a high background prevalence of H pylori infection and in patients with milder degrees of thrombocytopenia. These findings suggest that the detection and eradication of H pylori infection should be considered in the work-up of patients with seemingly typical ITP. (Blood. 2009;113:1231-1240