Current medical research and opinion
-
Randomized Controlled Trial Multicenter Study Comparative Study
Patient-reported outcomes from a randomized, crossover trial comparing a pen injector with insulin degludec versus a pen injector with insulin glargine U100 in patients with type 2 diabetes.
Objective: Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is associated with insulin resistance and deteriorated glycemic control that can be restored with insulin injections. Choice of insulin pen injector may affect complexity, adherence, efficacy of treatment and health-related quality of life. We describe detailed patient-reported outcomes (PROs) on treatment impact and preference comparing insulin degludec (degludec) using FlexTouch1 versus insulin glargine U100 (glargine U100) with SoloStar2 pen injector. ⋯ Significantly more were "not at all bothered" by device discomfort (74.3 vs. 54.1%), whereas device size (83.8 vs. 80.0%) or public use (69.9 vs. 60.7%) were numerically in favor of FlexTouch. Significantly more patients preferred degludec treatment with FlexTouch (59 vs. 22%), preferred to continue (67 vs. 15%) and recommend (67 vs. 14%) use of FlexTouch compared with SoloStar with glargine U100. Conclusions: In this randomized, crossover trial, lower treatment impact and higher patient preference were reported for FlexTouch versus SoloStar pen injectors.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial
Assessment of potentially abuse-related events in two phase 3 studies of NKTR-181, a novel opioid analgesic, using the MADDERS® system (Misuse, Abuse, and Diversion Drug Event Reporting System).
Objective: To prospectively evaluate the abuse potential of NKTR-181, a novel opioid analgesic, in two phase 3 clinical trials using a newly developed reporting system: the Misuse, Abuse, and Diversion Drug Event Reporting System (MADDERS®). Methods: SUMMIT-07 was an enriched enrollment randomized withdrawal study that examined the safety and efficacy of NKTR-181 across 12 weeks in opioid-naïve subjects with chronic low back pain. SUMMIT-LTS was a 52 week open-label study in opioid-naïve and experienced subjects with chronic low back pain or noncancer pain rolled over from SUMMIT-07 or enrolled de novo. ⋯ Most events were attributed to "Withdrawal" and, primarily in SUMMIT-07, "Therapeutic Error" (unintentional overuse) or "Misuse" (intentional overuse for a therapeutic purpose) of study medication. Adjudicators identified five possible "Abuse" events (three NKTR-181, two placebo) in SUMMIT-07 and four possible "Abuse" events (all NKTR-181) in SUMMIT-LTS. Conclusions: The MADDERS® system discerns potentially abuse-related events and identified low rates of withdrawal and a low risk of abuse potential, diversion or addiction associated with NKTR-181 in phase 3 trials.
-
Objective: To compare the multi-biomarker disease activity (MBDA) score with the DAS28-CRP and CRP for predicting risk of radiographic progression in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Methods: Published studies of the MBDA score and radiographic progression with ≥100 patients per cohort were evaluated. Rates of radiographic progression over 1 year were determined across the low/moderate/high categories for MBDA score (low/moderate/high: <30, 30-44, >44), DAS28-CRP (low/moderate/high: ≤2.67, >2.67-4.09, >4.09) and CRP (low/moderate/high: ≤10, >10-30, >30 mg/L), with positive and negative predictive value (PPV, NPV) and relative risk (RR) determined for high vs. not-high (i.e. low and moderate combined) categories. ⋯ For patients cross-classified by MBDA score and DAS28-CRP, high vs. not-high MBDA score significantly predicted radiographic progression independently of DAS28-CRP. Conclusions: High and not-high MBDA scores were associated with increased and low risk, respectively, for radiographic progression over one year. MBDA score was a better predictor of radiographic progression than DAS28-CRP or CRP.
-
Objective: In clinical trials of second-line therapies for chronic phase chronic myeloid leukemia (CP-CML), to date, only single-arm trials have been conducted for the available tyrosine kinase inhibitor treatments (bosutinib, dasatinib and nilotinib). These trials included heterogeneous patient populations in terms of disease and baseline characteristics. These hamper the use of standard network meta-analyses for indirect treatment comparison of relative efficacy. ⋯ Conclusions: Bosutinib had a significantly greater PFS than both dasatinib and nilotinib. For OS, the findings were numerically in favor of bosutinib, but not statistically significant. For MCyR, the findings were numerically in favor of dasatinib and nilotinib, but not statistically significant.