ABSTRACT
In biomedical research, population differences are of central interest. Variations in the frequency and severity of diseases and in treatment effects among human subpopulation groups are common in many medical conditions. Unfortunately, the practices in terms of subpopulation labeling do not exhibit the level of rigor one would expect in biomedical research, especially when studying multifactorial diseases such as cancer or atherosclerosis. The reporting of population differences in clinical research is characterized by large disparities in practices, and fraught with methodological issues and inconsistencies. The actual designations such as "Black" or "Asian" refer to broad and heterogeneous groups, with a great discrepancy among countries. Moreover, the use of obsolete concepts such as "Caucasian" is unfortunate and imprecise. The use of adequate labeling to reflect the scientific hypothesis needs to be promoted. Furthermore, the use of "race/ethnicity" as a unique cause of human heterogeneity may distract from investigating other factors related to a medical condition, particularly if this label is employed as a proxy for cultural habits, diet, or environmental exposure. In addition, the wide range of opinions among researchers does not facilitate the attempts made for resolving this heterogeneity in labeling. "Race," "ethnicity," "ancestry," "geographical origin," and other similar concepts are saturated with meanings. Even if the feasibility of a global consensus on labeling seems difficult, geneticists, sociologists, anthropologists, and ethicists should help develop policies and practices for the biomedical field.
Subject(s)
Biomedical Research , Population Groups , Humans , GeographyABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Anxiety symptoms frequently experienced by patients with a major neurocognitive disorder (NCD) are often treated with long-term benzodiazepines despite known adverse effects. Pregabalin has shown efficacy in generalized anxiety disorders but has not been studied in patients with a major NCD. The objective of this study was to describe the use of pregabalin for anxiety in patient with a major NCD and the impact of its use on the pharmacological treatment change. METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted using data of hospitalized patients in a cognitive-behavioral specialized unit between January 2015 and December 2017. Patients with a major NCD treated by pregabalin were included in this study. Data about the use of pregabalin (initiation and effective dosage, titration duration) and the use of other psychotropics were collected from the patients' medical records. RESULTS: Thirty-three patients were included (mean age, 79.6 ± 11.7 years; 66.7% women). The mean duration of pregabalin titration was 18.6 ± 1.4 days, and the mean effective dosage was 200.0 ± 130.8 mg/d (range, 50-700 mg/d). At admission (before pregabalin use), 78.8% of patients were treated with a systematic prescription of benzodiazepine. At discharge (with pregabalin use), a significant decrease in patients with systematic prescription of benzodiazepine was observed (78.8% vs 33.3%, P = 0.001). During hospitalizations, no pregabalin treatment has been discontinued for lack of efficacy or for tolerance. CONCLUSIONS: Larger controlled studies are needed to confirm the efficacy and the safety of pregabalin to treat anxiety symptoms associated with neurocognitive disorders.
