Effectiveness of Pregabalin as Monotherapy or Combination Therapy for Neuropathic Pain in Patients Unresponsive to Previous Treatments in a Spanish Primary Care Setting

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE Patients from a previous study of neuropathic pain (NP) in the Spanish primary care setting still had symptoms despite treatment. Subsequently, patients were treated as prescribed by their physician and followed up for 3 months. Since pregabalin has been shown to be effective in NP, including refractory cases, the objective of this study was to assess the effectiveness of pregabalin therapy in patients with NP refractory to previous treatments. METHODS This was a post hoc analysis of pregabalin-naïve NP patients treated with pregabalin in a 3-month follow-up observational multicenter study to assess symptoms and satisfaction with treatment. Patients were evaluated with the Douleur Neuropathique en 4 questions (DN4), the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) and the Treatment Satisfaction for Medication Questionnaire (SATMED-Q) overall satisfaction domain. RESULTS 1,670 patients (mean age 58 years, 59 % women), previously untreated or treated with ≥1 drug other than pregabalin, were treated with pregabalin (37 % on monotherapy). At 3 months, pain intensity and its interference with activities decreased by half (p < 0.0001), while the number of days with no or mild pain increased by a mean of 4.5 days (p < 0.0001). Treatment satisfaction increased twofold (p < 0.0001). Patients with a shorter history of pain and those with neuralgia and peripheral nerve compression syndrome (PCS) as etiologies had the highest proportion on monotherapy and showed the greatest improvements in pain-related parameters in their respective group categories. CONCLUSION Treatment with pregabalin (as monotherapy or combination therapy) provides benefits in pain and treatment satisfaction in patients with NP, including refractory cases. Shorter disease progression and neuralgia and PCS etiologies are favorable factors for pregabalin treatment response.

Impact of inadequate empirical therapy on the mortality of patients with bloodstream infections: a propensity score-based analysis.

The impact of the adequacy of empirical therapy on outcome for patients with bloodstream infections (BSI) is key for determining whether adequate empirical coverage should be prioritized over other, more conservative approaches. Recent systematic reviews outlined the need for new studies in the field, using improved methodologies. We assessed the impact of inadequate empirical treatment on the mortality of patients with BSI in the present-day context, incorporating recent methodological recommendations. A prospective multicenter cohort including all BSI episodes in adult patients was performed in 15 hospitals in Andalucía, Spain, over a 2-month period in 2006 to 2007. The main outcome variables were 14- and 30-day mortality. Adjusted analyses were performed by multivariate analysis and propensity score-based matching. Eight hundred one episodes were included. Inadequate empirical therapy was administered in 199 (24.8%) episodes; mortality at days 14 and 30 was 18.55% and 22.6%, respectively. After controlling for age, Charlson index, Pitt score, neutropenia, source, etiology, and presentation with severe sepsis or shock, inadequate empirical treatment was associated with increased mortality at days 14 and 30 (odds ratios [ORs], 2.12 and 1.56; 95% confidence intervals [95% CI], 1.34 to 3.34 and 1.01 to 2.40, respectively). The adjusted ORs after a propensity score-based matched analysis were 3.03 and 1.70 (95% CI, 1.60 to 5.74 and 0.98 to 2.98, respectively). In conclusion, inadequate empirical therapy is independently associated with increased mortality in patients with BSI. Programs to improve the quality of empirical therapy in patients with suspicion of BSI and optimization of definitive therapy should be implemented.

Individualized Therapy with Ranibizumab in Wet Age-Related Macular Degeneration.

Individualized treatment regimens may reduce patient burden with satisfactory patient outcomes in neovascular age-related macular degeneration. Intravitreal anti-VEGF drugs are the current gold standard. Fixed monthly injections offer the best visual outcome but this regimen is not commonly followed outside clinical trials. A PRN regimen requires monthly visits where the patient is treated in the presence of signs of lesion activity. Therefore, an early detection of reactivation of the disease with immediate retreatment is crucial to prevent visual acuity loss. Several trials suggest that "treat and extend" and other proactive regimens provide a reasonable approach. The rationale of the proactive regimens is to perform treatment anticipating relapses or recurrences and therefore avoid drops in vision while individualizing patient followup. Treat and extend study results in significant direct medical cost savings from fewer treatments and office visits compared to monthly treatment. Current data suggest that, for one year, PRN is less expensive, but treat and extend regimen would likely be less expensive for subsequent years. Once a patient is not a candidate to continue with treatment, he/she should be sent to an outpatient unit with adequate resources to follow nAMD patients in order to reduce the burden of specialized ophthalmologist services.