Levonorgestrel intrauterine system versus medical therapy for menorrhagia

Background - Menorrhagia is a common problem, yet evidence to inform decisions about therapy is limited. In a pragmatic, multicenter, randomized trial, we compared the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (levonorgestrel-IUS) with usual medical treatment in women with menorrhagia who presented to their primary care providers. Methods - We randomly assigned 571 women with menorrhagia to treatment with levonorgestrel-IUS or usual medical treatment (tranexamic acid, mefenamic acid, combined estrogen–progestogen, or progesterone alone). The primary outcome was the patient-reported score on the Menorrhagia Multi-Attribute Scale (MMAS) (ranging from 0 to 100, with lower scores indicating greater severity), assessed over a 2-year period. Secondary outcomes included general quality-of-life and sexual-activity scores and surgical intervention. Results - MMAS scores improved from baseline to 6 months in both the levonorgestrel-IUS group and the usual-treatment group (mean increase, 32.7 and 21.4 points, respectively; P<0.001 for both comparisons). The improvements were maintained over a 2-year period but were significantly greater in the levonorgestrel-IUS group than in the usual-treatment group (mean between-group difference, 13.4 points; 95% confidence interval, 9.9 to 16.9; P<0.001). Improvements in all MMAS domains (practical difficulties, social life, family life, work and daily routine, psychological well-being, and physical health) were significantly greater in the levonorgestrel-IUS group than in the usual-treatment group, and this was also true for seven of the eight quality-of-life domains. At 2 years, more of the women were still using the levonorgestrel-IUS than were undergoing the usual medical treatment (64% vs. 38%, P<0.001). There were no significant between-group differences in the rates of surgical intervention or sexual-activity scores. There were no significant differences in serious adverse events between groups. Conclusions - In women with menorrhagia who presented to primary care providers, the levonorgestrel-IUS was more effective than usual medical treatment in reducing the effect of heavy menstrual bleeding on quality of life. (Funded by the National Institute of Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme; ECLIPSE Controlled-Trials.com number, ISRCTN86566246.)

Levonorgestrel intrauterine system versus medical therapy for menorrhagia

ABSTRACT: Menorrhagia is a common problem that interferes with a woman’s physical, emotional, and social life. Evidence to guide physicians for decision about therapy for heavy menstrual bleeding is lacking. One treatment option, the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (levonorgestrel-IUS), has been available in the United States since 2009. Updated meta-analyses comparing the levonorgestrel-IUS with nonhormonal and hormonal treatments showed that the levonorgestrel-IUS produced a greater reduction in menstrual blood loss at 3 to 12 months of follow-up. It is not clear whether these short-term benefits persist. Moreover, the rates of discontinuation of the levonorgestrel-IUS at 2 years are as high as 28%, and effects on bleeding-related quality of life are not known. This pragmatic, multicenter, randomized trial compared the effectiveness of the levonorgestrel-IUS with that of usual medical treatment among women with menorrhagia in a primary care setting. A total of 571 women with menorrhagia were randomized to treatment with levonorgestrel-IUS (n = 285) or usual medical treatment (n = 286). Usual treatment was tranexamic acid, mefenamic acid, combined estrogen-progestogen, or progesterone alone. The primary study outcome measure was the patient-reported score on the condition-specific Menorrhagia Multi-Attribute Scale (MMAS) assessed over a 2-year period. The MMAS scores range from 0 to 100, with lower scores indicating greater severity. Summary MMAS scores were assessed at 6, 12, and 24 months. Secondary outcome measures included general health-related quality of life, sexual-activity scores, and surgical intervention. There was a significant improvement in total MMAS scores from baseline to 6 months in both the levonorgestrel-IUS group and the usual-treatment group; the mean increase was 32.7 and 21.4 points, respectively; P < 0.001 for both comparisons. Over the 2-year follow-up, improvements were maintained in both groups but were significantly greater in the levonorgestrel-IUS group (mean between-group difference, 13.4 points; 95% confidence interval, 9.9–16.9; P < 0.001). Significantly greater improvements in all MMAS domains (practical difficulties, social life, psychological health, physical health, work and daily routine, and family life and relationships) occurred with the levonorgestrel-IUS than with the usual treatment (P < 0.001 with the use of a test for trend). This was also found for 7 of the 8 quality-of-life domains. At the 2-year end point, almost twice as many women were still using the levonorgestrel-IUS than were those receiving the usual medical treatment (64% vs 38%, P < 0.001). No significant between-group differences were noted in the rates of surgical intervention or sexual-activity scores as well as in the frequency of serious adverse events. These data show that levonorgestrel-IUS is more effective than usual medical treatment in improving the quality of life of women with menorrhagia in a primary care setting.

Management of allergic conjunctivitis and dry eye

Ocular allergy is a common eye condition encountered in clinical practice. However, little is known how seasonal allergic conjunctivitis (SAC), the most common subtype, is managed in clinical practice. Further, dry eye, another common eye condition, may be misdiagnosed as SAC and vice-versa as they share similar signs and symptoms. In addition, despite the frequent recommendation of non-pharmacological treatments for SAC, evidenceto support their use has not been identified in the scientific literature. The aim of this thesis was therefore to determine the actual diagnosis and management of SAC and dry eye in clinical practice and investigate the efficacy of non-pharmacological treatments for these conditions. The diagnostic and management strategies for SAC and dry eye employed by pharmacy staff are found to be inconsistent with current guidelines and scientific evidence based upon a mystery shopper design. Cluster analysis of tear film metrics in normal and dry eye patients identified several clinically relevant groups of patients that may allow for targeted treatment recommendations. Using a novel environmental chamber model of SAC, the use of artificial tears and cold compresses, either alone or combined is an effective treatment modality for acute and symptomatic SAC, on a par with topical anti-allergic medication, and has been demonstrated for the first time. In addition, eyelid warming therapy with a simple, readily available, seed filled device is an effective method of treating meibomian gland dysfunction (MGD) related evaporative dry eye, perhaps the most common dry eye subtype. A greater focus on ophthalmology must be implemented as part of the formal education and training of pharmacy staff, while greater professional communication between community pharmacists, optometrists and the population they serve is required. Artificial tears and cold compresses may be considered as front line agents for acute SAC by pharmacy staff and optometrists, to whom pharmacological treatment options are limited.

Memantine combined with an acetyl cholinesterase inhibitor:hope for the future?

Background:Memantine and cholinesterase inhibitors (ChEI) have distinct pharmacological actions, and interest in the use of combination therapy for Alzheimer's disease (AD) is increasing. Objective: To assess the available data on the use of memantine–ChEI combination and to develop evidence-based recommendations.Method: A systematic literature review with detailed discussion of the current evidence base. Results: Available data are limited: five studies of which two were randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials. One study indicated that memantine–ChEI combination is not significantly more effective than placebo–ChEI in mild to moderate AD, but data were published in abstract and poster form only. A second study indicated that the memantine–ChEI combination is significantly more effective than placebo–ChEI in moderate to severe AD. The calculated effect sizes of 0.36 on cognition and 0.12 on function, which were the primary outcomes, were small, indicating a clinically minimal effect on cognition and no effect on function. No data are available on whether combination treatment is more effective than memantine monotherapy. Conclusion: The available data do not justify the use of combination therapy. Future studies should include three arms (memantine–placebo, placebo–ChEI, and memantine–ChEI), be of an adequate size and duration, and use pragmatic measures. Clinicians should have full access to data from any future trials.

New drugs for type 2 diabetes mellitus:what is their place in therapy?

Oral therapy for type 2 diabetes mellitus, when used appropriately, can safely assist patients to achieve glycaemic targets in the short to medium term. However, the progressive nature of type 2 diabetes usually requires a combination of two or more oral agents in the longer term, often as a prelude to insulin therapy. Issues of safety and tolerability, notably weight gain, often limit the optimal application of anti-diabetic drugs such as sulforylureas and thiazolidinediones. Moreover, the impact of different drugs, even within a single class, on the risk of long-term vascular complications has come under scrutiny. For example, recent publication of evidence suggesting potential detrimental effects of rosiglitazone on myocardial events generated a heated debate and led to a reduction in use of this drug. In contrast, current evidence supports the view that pioglitazone has vasculoprotective properties. Both drugs are contraindicated in patients who are at risk of heart failure. An additional recently identified safety concern is an increased risk of fractures, especially in postmenopausal women. Several new drugs with glucose-lowering efficacy that may offer certain advantages have recently become available. These include (i) injectable glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists and oral dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors; (ii) the amylin analogue pramlintide; and (iii) selective cannabinoid receptor-1 (CB1) antagonists. GLP-1 receptor agonists, such as exenatide, stimulate nutrient-induced insulin secretion and reduce inappropriate glucagon secretion while delaying gastric emptying and reducing appetite. These agents offer a low risk of hypoglycaemia combined with sustained weight loss. The DPP-4 inhibitors sitagliptin and vildagliptin are generally weight neutral, with less marked gastrointestinal adverse effects than the GLP-1 receptor agonists. Potential benefits of GLP-1 receptor stimulation on P cell neogenesis are under investigation. Pancreatitis has been reported in exenatide-treated patients. Pramlintide, an injected peptide used in combination with insulin, can reduce insulin dose and bodyweight. The CB1 receptor antagonist rimonabant promotes weight loss and has favourable effects on aspects of the metabolic syndrome, including the hyperglycaemia of type 2 diabetes. However, in 2007 the US FDA declined approval of rimonabant, requiring more data on adverse effects, notably depression. The future of dual peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-alpha/gamma agonists, or glitazars, is presently uncertain following concerns about their safety. In conclusion, several new classes of drugs have recently become available in some countries that offer new options for treating type 2 diabetes. Beneficial or neutral effects on bodyweight are an attractive feature of the new drugs. However, the higher cost of these agents, coupled with an absence of long-term safety and clinical outcome data, need to be taken into consideration by clinicians and healthcare organizations.

Avandamet:Combined metformin-rosiglitazone treatment for insulin resistance in type 2 diabetes

Insulin resistance is a major endocrinopathy underlying the development of hyperglycaemia and cardiovascular disease in type 2 diabetes. Metformin (a biguanide) and rosiglitazone (a thiazolidinedione) counter insulin resistance, acting by different cellular mechanisms. The two agents can be used in combination to achieve additive glucose-lowering efficacy in the treatment of type 2 diabetes, without stimulating insulin secretion and without causing hypoglycaemia. Both agents also reduce a range of atherothrombotic factors and markers, indicating a lower cardiovascular risk. Early intervention with metformin is already known to reduce myocardial infarction and increase survival in overweight type 2 patients. Recently, a single-tablet combination of metformin and rosiglitazone, Avandamet, has become available. Avandamet is suitable for type 2-diabetic patients who are inadequately controlled by monotherapy with metformin or rosiglitazone. Patients already receiving separate tablets of metformin and rosiglitazone may switch to the single-tablet combination for convenience. Also, early introduction of the combination before maximal titration of one agent can reduce side effects. Use of Avandamet requires attention to the precautions for both metformin and rosiglitazone, especially renal, cardiac and hepatic competence. In summary, Avandamet is a single-tablet metformin-rosiglitazone combination that doubly targets insulin resistance as therapy for hyperglycaemia and vascular risk in type 2 diabetes. © 2004 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Clinical characteristics and selection of treatment modality for patients with vitreomacular traction:real-world implementation of NICE guidance (TA297)

Aim: To investigate the qualitative aspects in patient selection and the quantitative impact of disease burden in real world treatment of vitreomacular traction (VMT) and implementation of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance (TA297). Methods: A monocentric, retrospective review of consecutive patients undergoing optical coherence tomography (OCT) imaging over a 3 month period. Patients with VMT in at least one eye were identified for further data collection on laterality, visual acuity, symptoms, presence of epiretinal membrane, macular hole and treatment selection. Results: A total of 3472 patients underwent OCT imaging with a total of 6878 eyes scanned. Out of 87 patients, 74 patients had unilateral VMT (38 right, 36 left) and 13 patients had bilateral VMT. Eighteen patients with unilateral VMT satisfied NICE criteria of severe sight problems in the affected eye. Eight were managed for a coexisting pathology, one refused treatment, one patient did not attend, two closed spontaneously, and one received ocriplasmin prior to the study start date. Only two patients with unilateral VMT received ocriplasmin and three underwent vitrectomy. Those failing to meet NICE criteria for unilateral VMT were predominantly asymptomatic (n=49) or had coexisting ERM (n=5) or both (n=2). Conclusion: Ocriplasmin provides an alternative treatment for patients with symptomatic VMT. Our data shows that the majority of patients with VMT do not meet NICE TA297 primarily due to lack of symptoms. Those meeting NICE criteria, but not treated, tended to have coexisting macular pathology. Variation in patient selection due to subjective factors not outlined in NICE guidance suggests that real world outcomes of ocriplasmin therapy should be interpreted with caution.