Three year naturalistic outcome study of panic disorder patients treated with paroxetine

BACKGROUND: This naturalistic open label follow-up study had three objectives: 1) To observe the course of illness in Panic Disorder patients receiving long-term versus intermediate-term paroxetine treatment 2) To compare the relapse rates and side-effect profile after long-term paroxetine treatment between patients with Panic Disorder and Panic Disorder with Agoraphobia. 3) To observe paroxetine's tolerability over a 24 month period. METHODS: 143 patients with panic disorder (PD), with or without agoraphobia, successfully finished a short-term (ie 12 week) trial of paroxetine treatment. All patients then continued to receive paroxetine maintenance therapy for a total of 12 months. At the end of this period, 72 of the patients chose to discontinue paroxetine pharmacotherapy and agreed to be monitored throughout a one year discontinuation follow-up phase. The remaining 71 patients continued on paroxetine for an additional 12 months and then were monitored, as in the first group, for another year while medication-free. The primary limitation of our study is that the subgroups of patients receiving 12 versus 24 months of maintenance paroxetine therapy were selected according to individual patient preference and therefore were not assigned in a randomized manner. RESULTS: Only 21 of 143 patients (14%) relapsed during the one year medication discontinuation follow-up phase. There were no significant differences in relapse rates between the patients who received intermediate-term (up to 12 months) paroxetine and those who chose the long-term course (24 month paroxetine treatment). 43 patients (30.1%) reported sexual dysfunction. The patients exhibited an average weight gain of 5.06 kg. All patients who eventually relapsed demonstrated significantly greater weight increase (7.3 kg) during the treatment phase. CONCLUSIONS: The extension of paroxetine maintenance treatment from 12 to 24 months did not seem to further decrease the risk of relapse after medication discontinuation. Twenty-four month paroxetine treatment is accompanied by sexual side effects and weight gain similar to those observed in twelve month treatment

Consensus Recommendations for the Use of Automated Insulin Delivery (AID) Technologies in Clinical Practice

International audienceThe significant and growing global prevalence of diabetes continues to challenge people with diabetes (PwD), healthcare providers and payers. While maintaining near-normal glucose levels has been shown to prevent or delay the progression of the long-term complications of diabetes, a significant proportion of PwD are not attaining their glycemic goals. During the past six years, we have seen tremendous advances in automated insulin delivery (AID) technologies. Numerous randomized controlled trials and real-world studies have shown that the use of AID systems is safe and effective in helping PwD achieve their long-term glycemic goals while reducing hypoglycemia risk. Thus, AID systems have recently become an integral part of diabetes management. However, recommendations for using AID systems in clinical settings have been lacking. Such guided recommendations are critical for AID success and acceptance. All clinicians working with PwD need to become familiar with the available systems in order to eliminate disparities in diabetes quality of care. This report provides much-needed guidance for clinicians who are interested in utilizing AIDs and presents a comprehensive listing of the evidence payers should consider when determining eligibility criteria for AID insurance coverage

International Consensus on Use of Continuous Glucose Monitoring.

Measurement of glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) has been the traditional method for assessing glycemic control. However, it does not reflect intra- and interday glycemic excursions that may lead to acute events (such as hypoglycemia) or postprandial hyperglycemia, which have been linked to both microvascular and macrovascular complications. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), either from real-time use (rtCGM) or intermittently viewed (iCGM), addresses many of the limitations inherent in HbA1c testing and self-monitoring of blood glucose. Although both provide the means to move beyond the HbA1c measurement as the sole marker of glycemic control, standardized metrics for analyzing CGM data are lacking. Moreover, clear criteria for matching people with diabetes to the most appropriate glucose monitoring methodologies, as well as standardized advice about how best to use the new information they provide, have yet to be established. In February 2017, the Advanced Technologies & Treatments for Diabetes (ATTD) Congress convened an international panel of physicians, researchers, and individuals with diabetes who are expert in CGM technologies to address these issues. This article summarizes the ATTD consensus recommendations and represents the current understanding of how CGM results can affect outcomes