Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
1.
Arthritis Res Ther ; 17: 66, 2015 Mar 19.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25879879

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: There is argument over the benefits and risks of drugs for treating chronic musculoskeletal pain. This study compared the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of diclofenac, ibuprofen, naproxen, celecoxib, and etoricoxib for patients with pain caused by osteoarthritis (OA) or rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: A systematic literature review used Medline and EMBASE to identify randomised controlled trials. Efficacy outcomes assessed included: pain relief measured by visual analogue scale (VAS); Western Ontario McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) VAS or WOMAC Likert scale; physical functioning measured by WOMAC VAS or Likert scale; and patient global assessment (PGA) of disease severity measured on VAS or 5-point Likert scale. Safety outcomes included: Antiplatelet Trialists' Collaboration (APTC), major cardiovascular (CV) and major upper gastrointestinal (GI) events, and withdrawals. Data for each outcome were synthesized by a Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA). For efficacy assessments, labelled doses for OA treatment were used for the base case while labelled doses for RA treatment were also included in the sensitivity analysis. Pooled data across dose ranges were used for safety. RESULTS: Efficacy, safety, and tolerability data were found for 146,524 patients in 176 studies included in the NMA. Diclofenac (150 mg/day) was likely to be more effective in alleviating pain than celecoxib (200 mg/day), naproxen (1000 mg/day), and ibuprofen (2400 mg/day), and similar to etoricoxib (60 mg/day); a lower dose of diclofenac (100 mg/day) was comparable to all other treatments in alleviating pain. Improved physical function with diclofenac (100 and 150 mg/day) was mostly comparable to all other treatments. PGA with diclofenac (100 and 150 mg/day) was likely to be more effective or comparable to all other treatments. All active treatments were similar for APTC and major CV events. Major upper GI events with diclofenac were lower compared to naproxen and ibuprofen, comparable to celecoxib, and higher than etoricoxib. Risk of withdrawal with diclofenac was lower compared to ibuprofen, similar to celecoxib and naproxen, and higher than etoricoxib. CONCLUSIONS: The benefit-risk profile of diclofenac was comparable to other treatments used for pain relief in OA and RA; benefits and risks vary in individuals and need consideration when making treatment decisions.


Subject(s)
Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal/therapeutic use , Arthritis, Rheumatoid/drug therapy , Cyclooxygenase 2 Inhibitors/therapeutic use , Diclofenac/therapeutic use , Osteoarthritis/drug therapy , Arthritis, Rheumatoid/diagnosis , Humans , Osteoarthritis/diagnosis , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic/methods , Risk Assessment
2.
J Alzheimers Dis ; 43(4): 1271-84, 2015.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25159675

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Alzheimer's disease (AD) weighs heavily on health expenditure and is strongly associated with increasing age. Due to population aging, increasing global prevalence of AD will pose huge challenges to public health and elderly care systems in all countries across the world. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to better understand the burden of AD from a healthcare perspective. METHODS: A systematic literature review of journal articles published between January 2002 and December 2012 was performed for studies conducted in France, Germany, Italy, The Netherlands, Spain, the United Kingdom (UK), and the United States of America (USA), using Medline, Embase, and the NHS Economic Evaluation Database. RESULTS: 3,288 references were initially retrieved, and 39 epidemiological and 66 economic publications were selected for data extraction. AD incidence rates greatly varied between countries; however, prevalence was more consistent across all included countries, ranging between 3-7%. Overall, medical costs were lower in France compared to other included countries and increased with AD severity, e.g., direct medical costs per year for mild AD ranged from 5,476 int$ in France to 27,380 int$ in Spain. Limitations, such as heterogeneous methodology and missing data, prevented the comparison of results across studies between countries or the conclusion of any trend over time. CONCLUSION: This review corroborates previous understanding that AD burden is high for both society and healthcare providers. Limitations regarding study heterogeneity restricted conclusions; further research is required. Stakeholders could benefit from new healthcare strategies addressing both epidemiological and economic aspects of AD.


Subject(s)
Alzheimer Disease/economics , Alzheimer Disease/epidemiology , Health Care Costs , Health Expenditures , Europe/epidemiology , Humans , United States/epidemiology
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...