Current medical research and opinion
-
Randomized Controlled Trial
Significant, long-lasting pain relief in primary dysmenorrhea with low-dose naproxen sodium compared with acetaminophen: a double-blind, randomized, single-dose, crossover study.
Objectives: Many women experience menstrual cramps, which adversely affects quality-of-life. Both naproxen and acetaminophen are indicated to relieve menstrual pain. This study assessed the analgesic efficacy of a single, maximum non-prescription dose of naproxen sodium compared with that of acetaminophen in the treatment of primary dysmenorrhea. ⋯ After 6 h post-dose, naproxen sodium was significantly more effective than acetaminophen, maintained for 12 h (SPID6-12 LS mean difference = 8.27; TOTPAR6-12 LS mean difference = 3.75; both p < .001). Significantly more subjects rated naproxen sodium as good-to-excellent (70.6%) vs acetaminophen (63.1%) (p = .002). Conclusions: A single, maximum non-prescription dose of naproxen sodium was more effective than acetaminophen over 12 h.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial
Abaloparatide in patients with mild or moderate renal impairment: results from the ACTIVE phase 3 trial.
Objective: To evaluate, post hoc, the efficacy and safety of abaloparatide by degree of renal impairment. Methods: ACTIVE was a phase 3, 18-month, randomized, double-blind, active-comparator, placebo-controlled study of postmenopausal women with osteoporosis who received subcutaneous abaloparatide 80 µg, placebo, or open-label teriparatide 20 µg daily. Patients with serum creatinine >2.0 mg/dL or 1.5-2.0 mg/dL with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) <37 mL/min, calculated by Cockcroft-Gault formula, were excluded. ⋯ Computed tomography scans in 376 patients revealed no evidence of increased renal calcification. Conclusion: Increased exposure to abaloparatide and teriparatide in patients with renal impairment led to no meaningful differences in efficacy or safety. These results support the use of abaloparatide without dosage adjustment in patients with renal impairment, provided those with severe renal impairments are monitored for adverse events.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial
Treatment preference for weekly versus daily DPP-4 inhibitors in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: outcomes from the TRINITY trial.
Objective: To examine patient preference for treatment with the oral once-weekly dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor (DPP-4i), trelagliptin, and oral once-daily DPP-4i, alogliptin, administered for 8 weeks each in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus prescribed a daily DPP-4i. Methods: In this randomized, open-label, two-way crossover study, patients received trelagliptin followed by alogliptin (T-A group) or alogliptin followed by trelagliptin (A-T group), for 8 weeks each (NCT03231709, JapicCTI-173662). Treatment preference was assessed using a standardized questionnaire in the overall population and by baseline characteristics. ⋯ Both treatments demonstrated favorable safety and tolerability profiles. Conclusions: Patients expressed a significantly greater treatment preference for once-daily alogliptin than once-weekly trelagliptin, although patient satisfaction and HbA1c levels were similar across treatments. The decision to administer a once-weekly or once-daily DPP-4i is likely to depend on patient preference, patient-physician discussions, and treatment practices of the prescribing physician.
-
Objective: To evaluate the mid-long-term efficacy and safety of the dexamethasone intravitreal (DEX) implant (Ozurdex1) in naïve patients with diabetic macular edema (DME). Methods: Prospective and single-center study conducted on consecutive patients with a diagnosis of DME, who received a DEX implant and were followed up for at least 12 months. The main outcomes measurements were the mean change in best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and in foveal thickness (FT) as compared to the baseline values. ⋯ During the study follow-up, the patients receive a mean of 3.4 (2.9-3.9) implants. Of the 32 phakic eyes at baseline, 17 (53.1%) either developed new lens opacity or progression of an existing opacity. Conclusion: In eyes with DME not previously treated with intravitreal drugs, DEX implants provide meaningful functional and anatomical benefits, and these results are sustained mid-long-term.