By N. Altus. Montana State University College of Technology, Great Falls.
Treating to meet NCEP recommended LDL cholesterol concentrations with atorvastatin cheap actos 45 mg amex, fluvastatin actos 30mg without a prescription, lovastatin generic actos 30mg mastercard, or simvastatin in patients with risk factors for coronary heart disease. A comparison of simvastatin and atorvastatin up to maximal recommended doses in a large multicenter randomized clinical trial. Comparison of efficacy and safety of atorvastatin (10mg) with simvastatin (10mg) at six weeks. Comparison of fluvastatin versus pravastatin treatment of primary hypercholesterolemia. Comparative dose efficacy study of atorvastatin versus simvastatin, pravastatin, lovastatin, and fluvastatin in patients with hypercholesterolemia (the CURVES study). Comparison of the efficacy and safety of rosuvastatin versus atorvastatin, simvastatin, and pravastatin across doses (STELLAR* Trial). Hemostatic effects of atorvastatin versus simvastatin. Statins Page 87 of 128 Final Report Update 5 Drug Effectiveness Review Project 58. Comparison of efficacy and safety of atorvastatin and simvastatin in patients with dyslepidemia with and without coronary heart disease. Comparison of effects of simvastatin versus atorvastatin on high density lipoprotein cholesterol and apolipoprotein A I levels. Efficacy and tolerability of simvastatin 20 mg vs pravastatin 20 mg in patients with primary hypercholesterolemia. Efficacy and tolerability of simvastatin and pravastatin in patients with primary hypercholesterolemia (multicountry comparative study). Treating hypercholesterolaemia with HMG CoA reductase inhibitors a direct comparison of simvastatin and pravastatin. Lucasko P, Walters EJ, Cullen EI, Niecestro R, Friedhoff LT. Efficacy of once-daily extended-release lovastatin compared to immediate-release lovastatin in patients with cholesterolemia. Malini PL, Ambrosioni E, De Divitiis O, Di Somma S, Rosiello G, Trimarco B. Simvastatin versus pravastatin efficacy and tolerability in patients with primary hypercholesterolemia. Marz W, Wollschlager H, Klein G, Neiss A, Wehling M. Safety of low density lipoprotein cholestrol reduction with atorvastatin versus simvastatin in a coronary heart disease population (the TARGET TANGIBLE trial). Comparison of the short term efficacy and tolerability of lovastatin and pravastatin in the management of primary hypercholesterolemia.
Cardiovascular adverse events can lead to falls and other types of injury-causing accidents actos 15 mg low price. We did not find any trials directly comparing the incidence of cardiovascular adverse events among ChEIs and memantine order actos 30mg on line. Cardiovascular adverse events may be of particular concern in patients with cardiac conduction disorders or a sick sinus syndrome buy cheap actos 30mg on line. One head-to-head study reports no statistically significant differences in 28 changes of heart rates between donepezil and galantamine. Two open-label comparative trials reported 28 29 no difference in cardiovascular events between donepezil and galantamine and rivastigmine. Most placebo-controlled trials revealed no other significant differences in cardiovascular events, vital signs, or electrocardiogram (ECG) findings. One trial described a statistically significantly larger reduction of heart 43 rate in patients treated with donepezil than in those given placebo. However, the incidence of bradycardia (heart rate < 50 beats per minute) was not significantly different among treatment groups. An analysis of prescription-event monitoring (n = 1,762) in general practice in the UK did not find evidence 84 for cardiac arrhythmias with donepezil treatment. One pooled data-analysis of RCTs including 2,791 patients evaluated ECG results from four clinical trials 85 of rivastigmine; rivastigmine had no apparent effect on heart rate. However, patients with underlying ECG abnormalities did not meet eligibility criteria of the RCTs. Summary of the evidence The overall grade of the evidence on comparative tolerability is poor to fair. Evidence of the comparative incidence of adverse events and tolerability comes from three open-label trials comparing donepezil with 27 28 galantamine and rivastigmine. One 52-week trial and one 12-week trial compared donepezil to galantamine. Although the number of adverse events and loss to follow-up differed between trials, withdrawals and withdrawals because of adverse events were not significantly different in the 52-week trial and only minor differences favoring donepezil were observed in the 12-week trial. In one trial that 29 compared donepezil to rivastigmine, total withdrawals and withdrawals because of adverse events were significantly greater among rivastigmine-treated patients. Gastrointestinal-related events were most commonly reported among rivastigmine-treated patients. Indirect comparison of the pooled mean incidence of adverse events from placebo-controlled trials also suggests a higher rate of gastrointestinal- related events among rivastigmine-treated patients. However, this comparison is limited by the tremendous variability observed among placebo-controlled evidence. Evidence of hepatotoxicity and cardiovascular events comes from comparative trials, meta-analyses, and indirect comparison of placebo controlled evidence. Evidence from one meta-analysis and four placebo- 67, 80 controlled trials indicate substantially higher rates of hepatotoxicity for tacrine.
One placebo-controlled trial evaluated exenatide monotherapy in patients with type 2 73 diabetes naive to antidiabetic agents cheap 30mg actos amex. Subjects were randomized to exenatide 5 mcg order 30 mg actos with visa, exenatide 10 mcg cheap actos 45mg line, or placebo, and were on no oral hypoglycemic agents. At 24 weeks, HbA1c reduction from baseline was significantly greater in both exenatide treatment groups than with placebo (HbA1c change with exenatide 5 mcg −0. Weight reduction was also greater with exenatide than with placebo (weight change with exenatide 5 mcg −2. In several placebo-controlled trials of exenatide combined with oral agents, patients with a baseline HbA1c more than 9. Weight reductions were greater in persons who had higher body 79, 80 mass index at baseline. These studies were sufficiently homogeneous to obtain pooled estimates of effect (Table 23). When compared with placebo, exenatide 5 mcg twice daily produced a significant decrease in HbA1c (weighted mean difference –0. A larger improvement in HbA1c was noted with exenatide 10 mcg twice daily (weighted mean difference –0. There was considerable statistical 2 2 heterogeneity between the studies in these analyses (I =76% for exenatide 10 mcg, I =78% for exenatide 5 mcg). Because of the considerable heterogeneity, we repeated these meta-analyses without the study by Kadowaki et al. After removing it from the analysis, the 2 2 statistical heterogeneity was reduced (I =57% for exenatide 10 mcg, I =1% for exenatide 5 mcg) and the magnitude of effect size from our pooled estimates was almost the same, but was slightly decreased (exenatide 10 mcg twice daily compared with placebo weighted mean difference −0. We hypothesize that the high heterogeneity when including Kadowaki et al. When compared with placebo, exenatide 10 mcg twice daily produced a statistically significant decrease in weight (weighted mean difference –1. The decrease for exenatide 5 mcg twice daily was not statistically significant in the meta-analysis including Kadowaki et al. There was substantial statistical heterogeneity prior to removing Kadowaki et al. After removing Kadowaki et al, the heterogeneity was not statistically significant, and pooled estimates of effect were increased (exenatide 10 mcg twice daily compared with placebo weighted mean difference −1. Placebo-control trials of exenatide: Summary of meta-analyses Exenatide Pooled analysis 2 dosage Outcome N Measure Units Estimate 95% CI P value I p a 8 WMD % −0. In 2007, Amori and colleagues published a review of published and unpublished English-language studies of US Food and Drug Administration-approved and unapproved DPP-4 inhibitors (sitagliptin and vildagliptin) and GLP-1 agonists including exenatide. These reviewers derived the following pooled estimates of change from baseline for exenatide compared with placebo (both groups combined with various oral diabetes agents): HbA1c –1.
However generic actos 15 mg visa, the role of individual antiplatelet agents relative to each other is still evolving discount actos 15 mg online. The objective of this study is to review evidence on the comparative effectiveness/efficacy and comparative harms of the newer antiplatelet agents listed in Table 1 (aspirin 25 mg /extended-release dipyridamole 200 mg [Aggrenox ] and the thienopyridines order 30mg actos otc, clopidogrel [Plavix ], prasugrel [Effient ], and ticlopidine [Ticlid ]) for treatment of adults with acute coronary syndromes or coronary revascularization via stenting or bypass grafting, prior ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack, or symptomatic peripheral vascular disease, and to determine if there are any subgroups of patients based on demographics, socioeconomic status, other medications, or comorbidities for which any included drugs are more effective or associated with fewer harms. Table 1 below lists the interventions that are included in this report. Appendix B lists boxed warnings for the interventions. Newer antiplatelet agents 8 of 98 Final Update 2 Report Drug Effectiveness Review Project Table 1. Included interventions Drug Trade name Labeled indications Dosing Aspirin/ To reduce the risk of stroke in extended- patients who have had transient release Aggrenox ischemia of the brain or One capsule bid dipyridamole completed ischemic stroke due to 25 mg/200 mg thrombosis ACS NSTEMI: 300 mg loading dose, continue at 75 mg qd in combination with ASA 75 to 325 ACS mg qd • NSTEMI, including patients STEMI: 75 mg qd in combination managed medically and with 75-325 mg ASA with or those managed with without thrombolytics; Plavix coronary revascularization may be initiated with or without a a • STEMI loading dose Clopidogrel Plavix Recent MI, recent stroke or Recent MI, recent stroke or established PAD established PAD To reduce the rate of a combined 75 mg qd endpoint of new ischemic stroke CYP2C19 Poor Metabolizers (fatal or not), new MI (fatal or Appropriate dose regimen has not not), and other vascular death been established Use with PPI An appropriate dosing regimen has not yet been established To reduce the rate of thrombotic cardiovascular events in patients with ACS, managed with percutaneous coronary 60 mg loading dose then 10 mg ™ intervention as follows: qd; patients taking Effient should ™ Prasugrel Effient • Patients with unstable also take ASA 75-325 mg; angina or NSTEMI patients <60 kg should lower • Patients with STEMI when maintenance dose to 5 mg managed with primary or delayed percutaneous coronary intervention To reduce the risk of thrombotic stroke (fatal or nonfatal) in patients who have experienced Stroke stroke precursors, and in patients 250 mg bid who have had a completed a thrombotic stroke Coronary artery stenting Ticlopidine Generic only 250 mg bid with ASA for 30 days Adjunctive therapy with aspirin to of therapy following stent reduce the incidence of subacute implantation stent thrombosis in patients undergoing successful coronary stent implantation a As monotherapy or in combination with aspirin. Abbreviations: ACS, acute coronary syndrome; ASA, Aspirin; bid, twice daily; bid, twice daily; MI, myocardial infarction; NSTEMI, non-ST Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction, PAD, peripheral arterial disease; PPI, proton pump inhibitor; qd, once daily; STEMI, ST Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction. Newer antiplatelet agents 9 of 98 Final Update 2 Report Drug Effectiveness Review Project Purpose and Limitations of Systematic Reviews Systematic reviews, also called evidence reviews, are the foundation of evidence-based practice. They focus on the strength and limits of evidence from studies about the effectiveness of a clinical intervention. Systematic reviews begin with careful formulation of research questions. The goal is to select questions that are important to patients and clinicians then to examine how well the scientific literature answers those questions. Terms commonly used in systematic reviews, such as statistical terms, are provided in Appendix A and are defined as they apply to reports produced by the Drug Effectiveness Review Project. Systematic reviews emphasize the patient’s perspective in the choice of outcome measures used to answer research questions. Studies that measure health outcomes (events or conditions that the patient can feel, such as fractures, functional status, and quality of life) are preferred over studies of intermediate outcomes (such as change in bone density). Reviews also emphasize measures that are easily interpreted in a clinical context. Specifically, measures of absolute risk or the probability of disease are preferred to measures such as relative risk. The difference in absolute risk between interventions depends on the number of events in each group, such that the difference (absolute risk reduction) is smaller when there are fewer events. In contrast, the difference in relative risk is fairly constant between groups with different baseline risk for the event, such that the difference (relative risk reduction) is similar across these groups. Relative risk reduction is often more impressive than absolute risk reduction. Another useful measure is the number needed to treat (or harm).