Combination of noninvasive brain stimulation with pharmacotherapy

Noninvasive brain stimulation (NIBS) techniques are being increasingly investigated as a therapeutic approach for neuropsychiatric disorders. One method is to combine NIBS with pharmacotherapy to enhance the clinical effects or avoid an increase in drug dosages to decrease the incidence of side effects. However, few studies to date have investigated the relative and combined efficacy of NIBS with pharmacotherapy. Based on a literature review of previous studies and meta-analyses for major depression, we identified four randomized, controlled trials that tested the combination of NIBS with a new drug and two trials that directly compared NIBS versus pharmacotherapy. There was no study designed to address the relative efficacy of each intervention against placebo and against combined therapy. We discuss the methods and rationale of NIBS-pharmacotherapy trials, addressing some methodological aspects, including factorial design, recruitment, blinding, blinding assessment, placebo effect and quantitative aspects, such as power analysis, statistics and interaction effects. Our review of the methodology underlying NIBS-drug trials provides insights for the further clinical research development of NIBS in major depression.

US Food and Drug Administration approval of generic versions of complex biologics: implications for the practicing physician using low molecular weight heparins

Low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) have shown equivalent or superior efficacy and safety to unfractionated heparin as antithrombotic therapy for patients with acute coronary syndromes. Each approved LMWH is a pleotropic biological agent with a unique chemical, biochemical, biophysical and biological profile and displays different pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic profiles. As a result, LMWHs are neither equipotent in preclinical assays nor equivalent in terms of their clinical efficacy and safety. Previously, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) cautioned against using various LMWHs interchangeably, however recently, the FDA approved generic versions of LMWH that have not been tested in large clinical trials. This paper highlights the bio-chemical and pharmacological differences between the LMWH preparations that may result in different clinical outcomes, and also reviews the implications and challenges physicians face when generic versions of the original/innovator agents are approved for clinical use.

An economic evaluation of antihypertensive therapies based on clinical trials

OBJECTIVE: Hypertension is a major issue in public health, and the financial costs associated with hypertension continue to increase. Cost-effectiveness studies focusing on antihypertensive drug combinations, however, have been scarce. The cost-effectiveness ratios of the traditional treatment (hydrochlorothiazide and atenolol) and the current treatment (losartan and amlodipine) were evaluated in patients with grade 1 or 2 hypertension (HT1-2). For patients with grade 3 hypertension (HT3), a third drug was added to the treatment combinations: enalapril was added to the traditional treatment, and hydrochlorothiazide was added to the current treatment. METHODS: Hypertension treatment costs were estimated on the basis of the purchase prices of the antihypertensive medications, and effectiveness was measured as the reduction in systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure (in mm Hg) at the end of a 12-month study period. RESULTS: When the purchase price of the brand-name medication was used to calculate the cost, the traditional treatment presented a lower cost-effectiveness ratio [US$/mm Hg] than the current treatment in the HT1-2 group. In the HT3 group, however, there was no difference in cost-effectiveness ratio between the traditional treatment and the current treatment. The cost-effectiveness ratio differences between the treatment regimens maintained the same pattern when the purchase price of the lower-cost medication was used. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that the traditional treatment is more cost-effective (US$/mm Hg) than the current treatment in the HT1-2 group. There was no difference in cost-effectiveness between the traditional treatment and the current treatment for the HT3 group.

Cannabidiol, a Cannabis sativa constituent, as an anxiolytic drug

Objectives: To review and describe studies of the non-psychotomimetic constituent of Cannabis sativa, cannabidiol (CBD), as an anxiolytic drug and discuss its possible mechanisms of action. Method: The articles selected for the review were identified through searches in English,articles, and book chapters were handsearched for additional references. Experimental animal and human studies were included, with no time restraints. Results: Studies using animal models of anxiety and involving healthy volunteers clearly suggest an anxiolytic-like effect of CBD. like", and "cannabidiol and anxiety". The reference lists of the publications included, review Portuguese, and Spanish in the electronic databases ISI Web of Knowledge, SciELO, PubMed, and PsycINFO, combining the search terms "cannabidiol and anxiolytic", "cannabidiol and anxiolytic-articles, and book chapters were handsearched for additional references. Experimental animal and human studies were included, with no time restraints. Results: Studies using animal models of anxiety and involving healthy volunteers clearly suggest an anxiolytic-like effect of CBD. Moreover, CBD was shown to reduce anxiety in patients with social anxiety disorder. Conclusion: like", and "cannabidiol and anxiety". The reference lists of the publications included, review Future clinical trials involving patients with different anxiety disorders are warranted, especially of panic disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, social anxiety disorder, and post-traumatic stress disorders. The adequate therapeutic window of CBD and the precise mechanisms involved in its anxiolytic action remain to be determined.