19 research outputs found

    Overview of systematic reviews of therapeutic ranges : methodologies and recommendations for practice

    Get PDF
    BACKGROUND: Many medicines are dosed to achieve a particular therapeutic range, and monitored using therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM). The evidence base for a therapeutic range can be evaluated using systematic reviews, to ensure it continues to reflect current indications, doses, routes and formulations, as well as updated adverse effect data. There is no consensus on the optimal methodology for systematic reviews of therapeutic ranges. METHODS: An overview of systematic reviews of therapeutic ranges was undertaken. The following databases were used: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), Database of Abstracts and Reviews of Effects (DARE) and MEDLINE. The published methodologies used when systematically reviewing the therapeutic range of a drug were analyzed. Step by step recommendations to optimize such systematic reviews are proposed. RESULTS: Ten systematic reviews that investigated the correlation between serum concentrations and clinical outcomes encompassing a variety of medicines and indications were assessed. There were significant variations in the methodologies used (including the search terms used, data extraction methods, assessment of bias, and statistical analyses undertaken). Therapeutic ranges should be population and indication specific and based on clinically relevant outcomes. Recommendations for future systematic reviews based on these findings have been developed. CONCLUSION: Evidence based therapeutic ranges have the potential to improve TDM practice. Current systematic reviews investigating therapeutic ranges have highly variable methodologies and there is no consensus of best practice when undertaking systematic reviews in this field. These recommendations meet a need not addressed by standard protocols

    Current Data on and Clinical Insights into the Treatment of First Episode Nonaffective Psychosis: A Comprehensive Review

    Get PDF
    Implementing the most suitable treatment strategies and making appropriate clinical decisions about individuals with a first episode of psychosis (FEP) is a complex and crucial task, with relevant impact in illness outcome. Treatment approaches in the early stages should go beyond choosing the right antipsychotic drug and should also address tractable factors influencing the risk of relapse. Effectiveness and likely metabolic and endocrine disturbances differ among second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) and should guide the choice of the first-line treatment. Clinicians should be aware of the high risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in schizophrenia patients, and therefore monitoring weight and metabolic changes across time is mandatory. Behavioral and counseling interventions might be partly effective in reducing weight gain and metabolic disturbances. Ziprasidone and aripiprazole have been described to be least commonly associated with weight gain or metabolic changes. In addition, some of the SGAs (risperidone, amisulpride, and paliperidone) have been associated with a significant increase of plasma prolactin levels. Overall, in cases of FEP, there should be a clear recommendation of using lower doses of the antipsychotic medication. If no or minimal clinical improvement is found after 2 weeks of treatment, such patients may benefit from a change or augmentation of treatment. Clinicians should provide accurate information to patients and relatives about the high risk of relapse if antipsychotics are discontinued, even if patients have been symptom free and functionally recovered on antipsychotic treatment for a lengthy period of time.This review was carried out at the Hospital Marque´s de Valdecilla, University of Cantabria, Santander, Spain, with the following Grant support: Instituto de Salud Carlos III PI020499, PI050427, PI060507, Plan Nacional de Drugs Research Grant 2005-Orden sco/3246/2004, SENY Fundacio´ Research Grant CI 2005-0308007, Fundacio´n Marque´s de Valdecilla API07/011 and CIBERSAM

    Effect of paliperidone palmitate on hospitalisation in a naturalistic cohort - a four-year mirror image study

    No full text
    AbstractBackgroundClinical trial outcomes are heavily influenced by the non-naturalistic clinical trial process. Observations of outcomes in clinical practice are a valuable adjunct to clinical trial results.HypothesisOur null hypothesis was that clinically indicated switching to paliperidone palmitate had no effect on hospital admissions or hospital bed days.MethodThis was a part-prospective mirror image study examining outcomes 2 years before starting paliperidone palmitate and 2 years after. Sensitivity analyses examined the effect of different placings of the mirror in the mirror image design.ResultsWe prospectively followed-up 225 patients prescribed paliperidone palmitate in clinical practice. At 2 years, 41.8% of patients were still receiving paliperidone palmitate. In the primary analysis, the mean number of admissions fell from 1.80 in the two years before starting paliperidone palmitate to 0.81 in two years following the drug’s initiation (outpatients) or two years following hospital discharge (inpatients) (P &lt; 0.001). More than half of patients were not admitted to hospital during two years follow-up. Mean total bed days was reduced from 79.6 in the two years before to 46.2 in the two years after paliperidone palmitate initiation or discharge (P &lt; 0.001). Sensitivity analyses gave broadly similar outcomes. Continuers demonstrated better outcomes than discontinuers in sensitivity analyses but not in the primary analysis.ConclusionPaliperidone palmitate initiation is associated with a substantial reduction in hospital admissions and days spent in hospital. The reduction in costs associated with reduced use of health care facilities is likely to exceed the purchase and administration costs of the drug.</jats:sec

    Relapse Prevention in Schizophrenia and Schizoaffective Disorder with Risperidone Long-Acting Injectable vs Quetiapine: Results of a Long-Term, Open-Label, Randomized Clinical Trial

    No full text
    Chronic management of schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorders is frequently complicated by symptomatic relapse. An open-label, randomized, active-controlled, 2-year trial evaluated 710 patients with schizophrenia or related disorders who were switched from stable treatment with oral risperidone, olanzapine, or conventional neuroleptics to risperidone long-acting injectable (RLAI) or oral quetiapine. Primary effectiveness evaluation was time-to-relapse. Safety evaluations included adverse events (AEs) reported for the duration of the study, Extrapyramidal Symptom Rating Scale (ESRS), clinical laboratory tests, and vital signs. A total of 666 patients (n=329 RLAI, n=337 quetiapine) were evaluable for effectiveness measures. Baseline demographics were similar between treatment groups. Kaplan–Meier estimate of time-to-relapse was significantly longer with RLAI (p<0.0001). Relapse occurred in 16.5% of patients with RLAI and 31.3% with quetiapine. RLAI and quetiapine were both safe and well tolerated. Weight gain affected 7% of patients with RLAI and 6% with quetiapine, with mean end point increases of 1.25±6.61 and 0±6.55 kg, respectively. There were no significant between-group differences in weight gain. ESRS total scores decreased similarly after randomization to either RLAI or quetiapine. Extrapyramidal AEs occurred in 10% of patients with RLAI and 6% with quetiapine. Treatment-emergent potentially prolactin-related AEs were reported in 15 (5%) patients with RLAI and 5 (2%) patients with quetiapine; hyperprolactinemia was reported in 43 (13.1%) patients with RLAI and 5 (1.5%) patients with quetiapine. Somnolence occurred in 2% of patients with RLAI and 11% with quetiapine. To our knowledge, this is the first report of a randomized clinical trial directly comparing relapse prevention with a second-generation long-acting injectable antipsychotic and oral therapy. Time-to-relapse in stable patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder was significantly longer in patients randomized to RLAI compared with those randomized to oral quetiapine. Both antipsychotics were generally well tolerated
    corecore