Short-term and long-term effects of tibolone in postmenopausal women

Background: Tibolone is a synthetic steroid used for the treatment of menopausal symptoms, on the basis of short-term data suggesting its efficacy. We considered the balance between the benefits and risks of tibolone. Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of tibolone for treatment of postmenopausal and perimenopausal women. Search methods: In October 2015, we searched the Gynaecology and Fertility Group (CGF) Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO (from inception), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and clinicaltrials.gov. We checked the reference lists in articles retrieved. Selection criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing tibolone versus placebo, oestrogens and/or combined hormone therapy (HT) in postmenopausal and perimenopausal women. Data collection and analysis: We used standard methodological procedures of The Cochrane Collaboration. Primary outcomes were vasomotor symptoms, unscheduled vaginal bleeding and long-term adverse events. We evaluated safety outcomes and bleeding in studies including women either with or without menopausal symptoms. Main results: We included 46 RCTs (19,976 women). Most RCTs evaluated tibolone for treating menopausal vasomotor symptoms. Some had other objectives, such as assessment of bleeding patterns, endometrial safety, bone health, sexuality and safety in women with a history of breast cancer. Two included women with uterine leiomyoma or lupus erythematosus. Tibolone versus placebo Vasomotor symptoms Tibolone was more effective than placebo (standard mean difference (SMD) -0.99, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.10 to -0.89; seven RCTs; 1657 women; moderate-quality evidence), but removing trials at high risk of attrition bias attenuated this effect (SMD -0.61, 95% CI -0.73 to -0.49; odds ratio (OR) 0.33, 85% CI 0.27 to 0.41). This suggests that if 67% of women taking placebo experience vasomotor symptoms, between 35% and 45% of women taking tibolone will do so. Unscheduled bleeding Tibolone was associated with greater likelihood of bleeding (OR 2.79, 95% CI 2.10 to 3.70; nine RCTs; 7814 women; I2 = 43%; moderate-quality evidence). This suggests that if 18% of women taking placebo experience unscheduled bleeding, between 31% and 44% of women taking tibolone will do so. Long-term adverse events Most of the studies reporting these outcomes provided follow-up of two to three years (range three months to three years). Breast cancer We found no evidence of differences between groups among women with no history of breast cancer (OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.25; four RCTs; 5500 women; I2= 17%; very low-quality evidence). Among women with a history of breast cancer, tibolone was associated with increased risk (OR 1.5, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.85; two RCTs; 3165 women; moderate-quality evidence). Cerebrovascular events We found no conclusive evidence of differences between groups in cerebrovascular events (OR 1.74, 95% CI 0.99 to 3.04; four RCTs; 7930 women; I2 = 0%; very low-quality evidence). We obtained most data from a single RCT (n = 4506) of osteoporotic women aged 60 to 85 years, which was stopped prematurely for increased risk of stroke. Other outcomes Evidence on other outcomes was of low or very low quality, with no clear evidence of any differences between the groups. Effect estimates were as follows: \u2022 Endometrial cancer: OR 2.04, 95% CI 0.79 to 5.24; nine RCTs; 8504 women; I2 = 0%. \u2022 Cardiovascular events: OR 1.38, 95% CI 0.84 to 2.27; four RCTs; 8401 women; I2 = 0%. \u2022 Venous thromboembolic events: OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.97; 9176 women; I2 = 0%. \u2022 Mortality from any cause: OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.41; four RCTs; 8242 women; I2 = 0%. Tibolone versus combined HT Vasomotor symptoms Combined HT was more effective than tibolone (SMD 0.17, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.28; OR 1.36, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.66; nine studies; 1336 women; moderate-quality evidence). This result was robust to a sensitivity analysis that excluded trials with high risk of attrition bias, suggesting a slightly greater disadvantage of tibolone (SMD 0.25, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.41; OR 1.57, 95% CI 1.18 to 2.10). This suggests that if 7% of women taking combined HT experience vasomotor symptoms, between 8% and 14% of women taking tibolone will do so. Unscheduled bleeding Tibolone was associated with a lower rate of bleeding (OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.41; 16 RCTs; 6438 women; I2 = 72%; moderate-quality evidence). This suggests that if 47% of women taking combined HT experience unscheduled bleeding, between 18% and 27% of women taking tibolone will do so. Long-term adverse events Most studies reporting these outcomes provided follow-up of two to three years (range three months to three years). Evidence was of very low quality, with no clear evidence of any differences between the groups. Effect estimates were as follows: \u2022 Endometrial cancer: OR 1.47, 95% CI 0.23 to 9.33; five RCTs; 3689 women; I2 = 0%. \u2022 Breast cancer: OR 1.69, 95% CI 0.78 to 3.67; five RCTs; 4835 women; I2 = 0%. \u2022 Venous thromboembolic events: OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.14; four RCTs; 4529 women; I2 = 0%. \u2022 Cardiovascular events: OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.66; two RCTs; 3794 women; I2 = 0%. \u2022 Cerebrovascular events: OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.16 to 3.66; four RCTs; 4562 women; I2 = 0%. \u2022 Mortality from any cause: only one event reported (two RCTs; 970 women). Authors' conclusions: Moderate-quality evidence suggests that tibolone is more effective than placebo but less effective than HT in reducing menopausal vasomotor symptoms, and that tibolone is associated with a higher rate of unscheduled bleeding than placebo but with a lower rate than HT. Compared with placebo, tibolone increases recurrent breast cancer rates in women with a history of breast cancer, and may increase stroke rates in women over 60 years of age. No evidence indicates that tibolone increases the risk of other long-term adverse events, or that it differs from HT with respect to long-term safety. Much of the evidence was of low or very low quality. Limitations included high risk of bias and imprecision. Most studies were financed by drug manufacturers or failed to disclose their funding source

Randomised controlled trials for evaluating the prescribing impact of information meetings led by pharmacists and of new information formats, in General Practice in Italy

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Suboptimal translation of valid and relevant information in clinical practice is a problem for all health systems. Lack of information independent from commercial influences, limited efforts to actively implement evidence-based information and its limited comprehensibility are important determinants of this gap and may influence an excessive variability in physicians' prescriptions. This is quite noticeable in Italy, where the philosophy and methods of Evidence-Based Medicine still enjoy limited diffusion among practitioners. Academic detailing and pharmacist outreach visits are interventions of proven efficacy to make independent and evidence-based information available to physicians; this approach and its feasibility have not yet been tested on a large scale and, moreover, they have never been formally tested in Italy.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>Two RCTs are planned:</p> <p>1) a two-arm cluster RCT, carried out in Emilia-Romagna and Friuli Venezia Giulia, will evaluate the effectiveness of small group meetings, randomising about 150 Primary Care Groups (corresponding to about 2000 GPs) to pharmacist outreach visits on two different topics. Physicians' prescriptions (expressed as DDD per 1000 inhabitants/day), knowledge and attitudes (evaluated through the answers to a specific questionnaire) will be compared for target drugs in the two groups (receiving/not receiving each topic).</p> <p>2) A three-arm RCT, carried out in Sardinia, will evaluate both the effectiveness of one-to-one meetings (one pharmacist visiting one physician per time) and of a 'new' information format (compared to information already available) on changing physicians' prescription of specific drugs. About 900 single GPs will be randomised into three groups: physicians receiving a visit supported by "traditional" information material, those receiving a visit with "new" information material on the same topic and those not receiving any visit/material.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>The two proposed RCTs aim to evaluate the organisational feasibility and barriers to the implementation of independent information programs led by NHS pharmacists. The objective to assess a 10 or 15% decreases in the prescription of the targeted drugs is quite ambitious in such 'natural' settings, which will be minimally altered by the interventions themselves; this in spite of the quite large sample sizes used comparing to other studies of these kind. Complex interventions like these are not easy to evaluate, given the many different variables into play. Anyway, the pragmatic nature of the two RCTs appears to be also one of their major strengths, helping to provide a deeper insight on what is possible to achieve – in terms of independent information – in a National Health System, with special reference to Italy.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>ISRCTN05866587 (cluster RCT) and ISRCTN28525676 (single GPs RCT)</p

Intravenous methylprednisolone pulses in hospitalised patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia, A double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial

Rationale: Pulse glucocorticoid therapy is used in hyperinflammation related to coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19). We evaluated the efficacy and safety of pulse intravenous methylprednisolone in addition to standard treatment in COVID-19 pneumonia. Methods: In this multicenter, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, 304 hospitalised patients with Covid-19 pneumonia were randomised to receive 1 g of methylprednisolone intravenously for 3 consecutive days or placebo in addition to standard dexamethasone. The primary outcome was the duration of the patient hospitalisation, calculated as the time interval between randomisation and hospital discharge without the need of supplementary oxygen. The key secondary outcomes were survival free from invasive ventilation with orotracheal intubation and overall survival. Results: Overall, 112 of 151 (75.4%) patients in the pulse methylprednisolone arm and 111 of 150 (75.2%) in the placebo arm were discharged from hospital without oxygen within 30 days from randomisation. Median time to discharge was similar in both groups [15 days (95% confidence interval (CI), 13.0 to 17.0) and 16 days (95%CI, 13.8 to 18.2); hazard ratio (HR), 0.92; 95% CI 0.71-1.20; p=0.528]. No significant differences between pulse methylprednisolone and placebo arms were observed in terms of admission to Intensive Care Unit with orotracheal intubation or death (20.0% versus 16.1%; HR, 1.26; 95%CI, 0.74-2.16; p=0.176), or overall mortality (10.0% versus 12.2%; HR, 0.83; 95%CI, 0.42-1.64; p=0.584). Serious adverse events occurred with similar frequency in the two groups. Conclusions: Methylprenisolone pulse therapy added to dexamethasone was not of benefit in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. Message of the study: Pulse glucocorticoid therapy is used for severe and/or life threatening immuno-inflammatory diseases. The addition of pulse glucocorticoid therapy to the standard low dose of dexamethasone scheme was not of benefit in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia

Social marketing: Should it be used to promote evidence-based health information?

The implementation of public health knowledge is a complex process; researchers focus on organizational barriers but generally give little attention to the format and validity of relevant information. Primary and secondary papers and practice guidelines should represent valid and relevant sources of knowledge for clinicians and others involved in public health. However, this information is usually targeted at researchers rather than practitioners; it is often not completely intelligible, does not explain what it really adds to existing knowledge or which clinical/organizational context to place it in, and often lacks 'appeal' for those who are less informed. Moreover, this information is sometimes founded on biased research, shaped by sponsors to give scientific plausibility to market-driven messages. A "social marketing" approach can help public health researchers make evidence-based information clear and appealing. The validity and relevance of this information can be explained to target readers in light of their own knowledge levels and in terms of how this information could help their practice. In this paper we analyse the barriers to knowledge transfer that are often inherent in the format of the information, and propose a more user-friendly, enriched and non-research-article format.Independent drug information Knowledge translation Evidence-based medicine Social marketing Critical appraisal

Saggi di Architettura, Bruno Mondadori ricerca

Collana del Dipartimento di Architettura e Pianificazione Territoriale DAPT - Alma Mater Studiorum Universit\ue0 di Bologna cluster sostenibilit\ue

Programmi di early access dei farmaci e managed entry agreement in Italia: i risultati di un Focus Group (programmi di early access e managed entry agreement)

BACKGROUND: Early access of medicines occurs with an uncertainty in the evidence even higher than the one experienced when price and reimbursement status is negotiated. Our aim is discussing the role of managed entry agreements (MEA) within early access programs (EAP) in Italy. METHODS: The discussion relied on a Focus Group, participated by twelve experts, including clinicians and representatives of regulatory authorities, regional and local pharmaceutical departments, pharmaceutical companies, and an association advocating for active citizenship. RESULTS: The Focus Group emphasised that the topic under discussion should be embedded into a more general reform of EAP in Italy. The 648 List mostly includes mature products and indications that are rarely launched into the market afterwards. The 5% Fund is affected by an important administrative burden uncertainty of the timing of reimbursement. CONCLUSIONS: Starting from the discussion on MEA and EAP, the Focus Group recommended a new legislation better regulating EAP, that early access concerns specific classes of medicines selected on the grounds of the need to guarantee a rapid access and to collect real world data, that early access can be accompanied by outcome-based and population-based MEA, and that MEA are embedded into the subsequent price and reimbursement negotiation

Long Term Effectiveness on Prescribing of Two Multifaceted Educational Interventions: Results of Two Large Scale Randomized Cluster Trials

<div><p>Introduction</p><p>Information on benefits and risks of drugs is a key element affecting doctors’ prescribing decisions. Outreach visits promoting independent information have proved moderately effective in changing prescribing behaviours.</p><p>Objectives</p><p>Testing the short and long-term effectiveness on general practitioners’ prescribing of small groups meetings led by pharmacists.</p><p>Methods</p><p>Two cluster open randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were carried out in a large scale NHS setting. Ad hoc prepared evidence based material were used considering a therapeutic area approach - TEA, with information materials on osteoporosis or prostatic hyperplasia - and a single drug oriented approach - SIDRO, with information materials on me-too drugs of 2 different classes: barnidipine or prulifloxacin. In each study, all 115 Primary Care Groups in a Northern Italy area (2.2 million inhabitants, 1737 general practitioners) were randomised to educational small groups meetings, in which available evidence was provided together with drug utilization data and clinical scenarios. Main outcomes were changes in the six-months prescription of targeted drugs. Longer term results (24 and 48 months) were also evaluated.</p><p>Results</p><p>In the TEA trial, one of the four primary outcomes showed a reduction (prescription of alfuzosin compared to tamsulosin and terazosin in benign prostatic hyperplasia: prescribing ratio −8.5%, p = 0.03). Another primary outcome (prescription of risedronate) showed a reduction at 24 and 48 months (−7.6%, p = 0.02; and −9,8%, p = 0.03), but not at six months (−5.1%, p = 0.36). In the SIDRO trial both primary outcomes showed a statistically significant reduction (prescription of barnidipine −9.8%, p = 0.02; prescription of prulifloxacin −11.1%, p = 0.04), which persisted or increased over time.</p><p>Interpretation</p><p>These two cluster RCTs showed the large scale feasibility of a complex educational program in a NHS setting, and its potentially relevant long-term impact on prescribing habits, in particular when focusing on a single drug. National Health systems should invest in independent drug information programs.</p><p>Trial Registration</p><p>Controlled-Trials.com <a href="http://www.controlled-trials.com/ISRCTN05866587" target="_blank">ISRCTN05866587</a></p></div

SIDRO trial: GPs’ mean baseline prescription (in the 3 months preceding the outreach visit) of considered drugs, expressed as DDD per 1000 patients.

<p>SIDRO trial: GPs’ mean baseline prescription (in the 3 months preceding the outreach visit) of considered drugs, expressed as DDD per 1000 patients.</p

TEA trial: GPs’ mean baseline prescription (in the 3 months preceding the outreach visit) of drugs considered in the primary outcomes, expressed as DDD per 1000 patients.

<p>TEA trial: GPs’ mean baseline prescription (in the 3 months preceding the outreach visit) of drugs considered in the primary outcomes, expressed as DDD per 1000 patients.</p