21 research outputs found
The Relationship Between Early Sexual Debut and Psychosocial Outcomes: A Longitudinal Study of Dutch Adolescents
In a longitudinal dataset of 470 Dutch adolescents, the current study examined the ways in which early sexual initiation was related to subsequent attachment, self-perception, internalizing problems, and externalizing problems. For male adolescents, analyses revealed general attachment to mother and externalizing problems at Wave 1 to predict to early transition at Wave 2. However, there was no differential change in these psychosocial factors over time for early initiators of sexual intercourse and their non-initiating peers. For female adolescents, the model including psychosocial factors at Wave 1 did not predict to sexual initiation at Wave 2. However, univariate repeated measures analyses revealed early initiators to have significantly larger increases in self-concept and externalizing problems than their non-initiating female peers. While the difference between female early initiators and non-initiators were statistically significant, the mean levels of problem behaviors were very low. The findings suggest that, contrary to previous research, early sexual initiation does not seem to be clustered with problem behaviors for this sample of Dutch adolescents
Comparison of the cost-effectiveness of sequential treatment with abaloparatide in US men and women at very high risk of fractures.
peer reviewed[en] BACKGROUND: Osteoporotic-related fractures represent an increasing burden to patients, health care systems and society.
AIMS: This study estimated cost-effectiveness of sequential treatment with abaloparatide (ABL) followed by alendronate (ALN) compared to relevant alternative strategies in US men and women aged 50 to 80 years at very high fracture risk (bone mineral density T-score ≤ - 2.5 and a recent fracture).
METHODS: A lifetime Markov-based microsimulation model was used to estimate healthcare costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Comparators were sequential treatment with unbranded teriparatide (TPTD)/ALN, generic ALN monotherapy, and no treatment. Analyses were conducted based on initial fracture site (hip, vertebral, or any fracture) and treatment efficacy data (derived from clinical trials or a recent network meta-analysis).
RESULTS: From all analyses completed, sequential ABL/ALN demonstrated more QALYs for lower healthcare costs versus unbranded TPTD/ALN. No treatment was dominated (higher costs for less QALYs) versus ALN monotherapy. Sequential ABL/ALN resulted in favorable cost-effectiveness (at US threshold of $150,000/QALY) versus generic ALN monotherapy in men aged ≥ 50 years with any fracture type, women aged ≥ 65 years with any fracture type, and women aged ≥ 55 years having a hip or vertebral fracture.
DISCUSSION: Similar cost-effectiveness of sequential ABL/ALN versus unbranded TPTD/ALN, ALN monotherapy, and no treatment was observed in both US men and women at very high fracture risk, with a moderate improvement in cost-effectiveness in men versus women and in patients with a hip or vertebral fracture.
CONCLUSIONS: Sequential therapy with ABL/ALN was cost-effective in US men and women at very high risk of fractures
Cost-Effectiveness of Sequential Abaloparatide/Alendronate in Men at High Risk of Fractures in the United States.
peer reviewed[en] BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Abaloparatide (ABL) significantly increases bone mineral density in men with osteoporosis similar to what was reported in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. The cost effectiveness of sequential treatment with ABL followed by alendronate (ALN) in men at high fracture risk was compared to relevant alternative treatments.
METHODS: A Markov-based microsimulation model based on a lifetime US healthcare decision maker perspective was developed to evaluate the cost (expressed in US150,000 versus generic ALN monotherapy. The probabilities that sequential ABL/ALN was cost effective compared to ALN monotherapy were estimated at 51% in men aged 50 years and between 88 and 90% in those aged ≥ 60 years.
CONCLUSIONS: Sequential therapy using ABL/ALN may be cost effective compared with generic ALN monotherapy in US men aged ≥ 50 years at high fracture risk, especially in those aged ≥ 60 years. Unbranded TPTD/ALN and no treatment were dominated interventions (less QALY, more costs) compared with ABL/ALN or ALN monotherapy
Teduglutide for the treatment of adults with intestinal failure associated with short bowel syndrome: pooled safety data from four clinical trials
Background: In multiple clinical studies, teduglutide reduced parenteral support (PS) with a consistent safety profile in adults with short bowel syndrome\u2013associated intestinal failure (SBS\u2013IF). The objective of this study was to assess adverse events (AEs) from a pooled data set. Methods: Safety data from four prospective clinical trials of teduglutide in patients with SBS\u2013IF were assimilated. AEs were evaluated in patient groups based on treatment received in each study and in populations stratified to create distinct subgroups based on aetiology, bowel anatomy and baseline PS volume requirements. Results: Safety data are reported for up to 2.5 years, totalling 222 person-years exposure to teduglutide. In most patients, AEs were reported as mild or moderate in severity in all patient groups and occurred at comparable rates between patients who received teduglutide or placebo. Several common gastrointestinal AEs, including abdominal pain, nausea and abdominal distension, were reported more frequently earlier in the course of treatment, with their frequency declining over time. Fewer gastrointestinal AEs were reported in patients with vascular causes of SBS\u2013IF and patients with most of their colon-in-continuity than in other patient subgroups. Across the patient stratification subgroups, the predominant treatment-emergent AEs for which patients receiving teduglutide had a significantly increased relative risk were abdominal distension and gastrointestinal stoma complication compared with patients receiving placebo. Conclusions: Teduglutide had a safety profile consistent with prior adult data and no new safety concerns were identified. The most frequently reported AEs were gastrointestinal in origin, consistent with the underlying disease condition and intestinotrophic actions of teduglutide. Clinical Trial Registry information: NCT00081458/EudraCT, 2004-000438-35; NCT00798967/EudraCT, 2008-006193-15; NCT00172185/EudraCT, 2004-000439-27; NCT00930644/EudraCT, 2009-011679-65
Romosozumab in Skeletally Mature Adults with a Fresh Unilateral Tibial Diaphyseal Fracture: A Randomized Phase-2 Study
BACKGROUND: Romosozumab is an antibody that binds and inhibits sclerostin, thereby increasing bone formation and decreasing bone resorption. A double-blinded, randomized, phase-2, dose-finding trial was performed to evaluate the effect of romosozumab on the radiographic and clinical outcomes of surgical fixation of tibial diaphyseal fractures. METHODS: Patients (18 to 82 years old) were randomized 3:1:1:1:1:1:1:1:1:1 to a placebo or 1 of 9 romosozumab treatment groups. Patients received subcutaneous injections of romosozumab or the placebo postoperatively on day 1 and weeks 2, 6, and 12. The primary outcome was the time to radiographic evidence of healing ("radiographic healing") analyzed after the week-24 assessments had been completed for all patients. RESULTS: A total of 402 patients were randomized: 299 to the romosozumab group and 103 to the placebo group. The median time to radiographic healing (the primary outcome) ranged from 14.4 to 18.6 weeks in the romosozumab groups and was 16.4 weeks (95% confidence interval [CI]: 14.6 to 18.0 weeks) in the placebo group, which was not a significant difference. There was also no significant difference in the median time to clinical healing, no relationship between romosozumab dose/frequency and unplanned revision surgery, and no apparent treatment benefit in terms of physical function. The safety and tolerability profile of romosozumab was comparable with that of the placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Romosozumab did not accelerate tibial fracture-healing in this patient population. Additional studies of patients at higher risk for delayed healing are needed to explore the potential of romosozumab to accelerate tibial fracture-healing. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence
A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Study of Romosozumab for the Treatment of Hip Fractures
Background:Romosozumab is a bone-forming antibody that increases bone formation and decreases bone resorption. We conducted a double-blinded, randomized, phase-2, dose-finding trial to evaluate the effect of romosozumab on the clinical outcomes of open reduction and internal fixation of intertrochanteric or femoral neck hip fractures.Methods:Patients (55 to 94 years old) were randomized 2:3:3:3 to receive 3 subcutaneous injections of romosozumab (70, 140, or 210 mg) or a placebo postoperatively on day 1 and weeks 2, 6, and 12. The primary end point was the difference in the mean timed "Up & Go" (TUG) score over weeks 6 to 20 for romosozumab versus placebo. Additional end points included the time to radiographic evidence of healing and the score on the Radiographic Union Scale for Hip (RUSH).Results:A total of 332 patients were randomized: 243 to receive romosozumab (70 mg, n = 60; 140 mg, n = 93; and 210 mg, n = 90) and 89 to receive a placebo. Although TUG scores improved during the study, they did not differ significantly between the romosozumab and placebo groups over weeks 6 to 20 (p = 0.198). The median time to radiographic evidence of healing was 16.4 to 16.9 weeks across treatment groups. The RUSH scores improved over time across treatment groups but did not differ significantly between the romosozumab and placebo groups. The overall safety and tolerability profile of romosozumab was comparable with that of the placebo.Conclusions:Romosozumab did not improve the fracture-healing-related clinical and radiographic outcomes in the study population. © 2020 The Authors. Published by The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Incorporated. All rights reserved