Severity dependent distribution of impairments in PSP and CBS: Interactive visualizations

BACKGROUND: Progressive supranuclear palsy (PSP) -Richardson's Syndrome and Corticobasal Syndrome (CBS) are the two classic clinical syndromes associated with underlying four repeat (4R) tau pathology. The PSP Rating Scale is a commonly used assessment in PSP clinical trials; there is an increasing interest in designing combined 4R tauopathy clinical trials involving both CBS and PSP. OBJECTIVES: To determine contributions of each domain of the PSP Rating Scale to overall severity and characterize the probable sequence of clinical progression of PSP as compared to CBS. METHODS: Multicenter clinical trial and natural history study data were analyzed from 545 patients with PSP and 49 with CBS. Proportional odds models were applied to model normalized cross-sectional PSP Rating Scale, estimating the probability that a patient would experience impairment in each domain using the PSP Rating Scale total score as the index of overall disease severity. RESULTS: The earliest symptom domain to demonstrate impairment in PSP patients was most likely to be Ocular Motor, followed jointly by Gait/Midline and Daily Activities, then Limb Motor and Mentation, and finally Bulbar. For CBS, Limb Motor manifested first and ocular showed less probability of impairment throughout the disease spectrum. An online tool to visualize predicted disease progression was developed to predict relative disability on each subscale per overall disease severity. CONCLUSION: The PSP Rating Scale captures disease severity in both PSP and CBS. Modelling how domains change in relation to one other at varying disease severities may facilitate detection of therapeutic effects in future clinical trials

Reduced costs with bisoprolol treatment for heart failure - An economic analysis of the second Cardiac Insufficiency Bisoprolol Study (CIBIS-II)

Background Beta-blockers, used as an adjunctive to diuretics, digoxin and angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors, improve survival in chronic heart failure. We report a prospectively planned economic analysis of the cost of adjunctive beta-blocker therapy in the second Cardiac Insufficiency BIsoprolol Study (CIBIS II). Methods Resource utilization data (drug therapy, number of hospital admissions, length of hospital stay, ward type) were collected prospectively in all patients in CIBIS . These data were used to determine the additional direct costs incurred, and savings made, with bisoprolol therapy. As well as the cost of the drug, additional costs related to bisoprolol therapy were added to cover the supervision of treatment initiation and titration (four outpatient clinic/office visits). Per them (hospital bed day) costings were carried out for France, Germany and the U.K. Diagnosis related group costings were performed for France and the U.K. Our analyses took the perspective of a third party payer in France and Germany and the National Health Service in the U.K. Results Overall, fewer patients were hospitalized in the bisoprolol group, there were fewer hospital admissions perpatient hospitalized, fewer hospital admissions overall, fewer days spent in hospital and fewer days spent in the most expensive type of ward. As a consequence the cost of care in the bisoprolol group was 5-10% less in all three countries, in the per them analysis, even taking into account the cost of bisoprolol and the extra initiation/up-titration visits. The cost per patient treated in the placebo and bisoprolol groups was FF35 009 vs FF31 762 in France, DM11 563 vs DM10 784 in Germany and pound 4987 vs pound 4722 in the U.K. The diagnosis related group analysis gave similar results. Interpretation Not only did bisoprolol increase survival and reduce hospital admissions in CIBIS II, it also cut the cost of care in so doing. This `win-win' situation of positive health benefits associated with cost savings is Favourable from the point of view of both the patient and health care systems. These findings add further support for the use of beta-blockers in chronic heart failure

Antiplatelet and anticoagulation agents in acute coronary syndromes: What is the current status and what does the future hold?

Mortality and morbidity in acute coronary syndromes (ACSs), caused principally by plaque erosion or rupture leading to thrombus formation and myocardial ischemia, have been reduced by a combination of antithrombotic agents (antiplatelet drugs and anticoagulants) and early revascularization. Aspirin is the foundation antiplatelet agent. New P2Y(12) receptor inhibitors (prasugrel and ticagrelor) have clear benefits compared with clopidogrel for dual antiplatelet therapy, and cangrelor or vorapaxar, a thrombin receptor inhibitor, may be of value in specific settings. Anticoagulation uses 1 of 4 choices: bivalirudin, unfractionated heparin, enoxaparin, and fondaparinux. Moreover, some patients (such as those who have chronic atrial fibrillation) require triple therapy with aspirin, clopidogrel, plus an anticoagulant, frequently a vitamin K antagonist. New oral anticoagulants have been shown to be at least as effective as vitamin K antagonists in atrial fibrillation and led to fewer bleeding complications. Finally, the combination of aspirin, clopidogrel, and low-dose rivaroxaban has recently been approved by the European Medicines Agency (but not the Food and Drug Administration) for secondary prevention after ACS. Several strategies have been developed to balance the potential benefit of antithrombotic therapy against the risk of bleeding complications, for example, radial access in coronary angiography or restricted use of combination therapy, and others are under investigation, such as discontinuation of aspirin. This overview summarizes the current status of antithrombotic therapy in ACS and describes strategies currently explored to optimize its benefit/risk ratio

Reduced costs with bisoprolol treatment for heart failure - An economic analysis of the second Cardiac Insufficiency Bisoprolol Study (CIBIS-II)

Background Beta-blockers, used as an adjunctive to diuretics, digoxin and angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors, improve survival in chronic heart failure. We report a prospectively planned economic analysis of the cost of adjunctive beta-blocker therapy in the second Cardiac Insufficiency BIsoprolol Study (CIBIS II). Methods Resource utilization data (drug therapy, number of hospital admissions, length of hospital stay, ward type) were collected prospectively in all patients in CIBIS . These data were used to determine the additional direct costs incurred, and savings made, with bisoprolol therapy. As well as the cost of the drug, additional costs related to bisoprolol therapy were added to cover the supervision of treatment initiation and titration (four outpatient clinic/office visits). Per them (hospital bed day) costings were carried out for France, Germany and the U.K. Diagnosis related group costings were performed for France and the U.K. Our analyses took the perspective of a third party payer in France and Germany and the National Health Service in the U.K. Results Overall, fewer patients were hospitalized in the bisoprolol group, there were fewer hospital admissions perpatient hospitalized, fewer hospital admissions overall, fewer days spent in hospital and fewer days spent in the most expensive type of ward. As a consequence the cost of care in the bisoprolol group was 5-10% less in all three countries, in the per them analysis, even taking into account the cost of bisoprolol and the extra initiation/up-titration visits. The cost per patient treated in the placebo and bisoprolol groups was FF35 009 vs FF31 762 in France, DM11 563 vs DM10 784 in Germany and pound 4987 vs pound 4722 in the U.K. The diagnosis related group analysis gave similar results. Interpretation Not only did bisoprolol increase survival and reduce hospital admissions in CIBIS II, it also cut the cost of care in so doing. This 'win-win' situation of positive health benefits associated with cost savings is Favourable from the point of view of both the patient and health care systems. These findings add further support for the use of beta-blockers in chronic heart failure. (C) 2001 The European Society of Cardiology