By E. Goran. American Public University.
Risk difference: The difference in size of risk between two groups purchase tramadol 100mg visa. Overactive bladder Page 60 of 73 Final Report Update 4 Drug Effectiveness Review Project Risk ratio: The ratio of risks in two groups cheap tramadol 100 mg line. In intervention studies, it is the ratio of the risk in the intervention group to the risk in the control group. A risk ratio of 1 indicates no difference between comparison groups. For undesirable outcomes, a risk ratio that is <1 indicates that the intervention was effective in reducing the risk of that outcome. Run-in period: Run in period: A period before randomization when participants are monitored but receive no treatment (or they sometimes all receive one of the study treatments, possibly in a blind fashion). The data from this stage of a trial are only occasionally of value but can serve a valuable role in screening out ineligible or non-compliant participants, in ensuring that participants are in a stable condition, and in providing baseline observations. A run-in period is sometimes called a washout period if treatments that participants were using before entering the trial are discontinued. This term (or the term ‘‘safe’’) should not be used when evidence on harms is simply absent or is insufficient. Sample size: The number of people included in a study. In research reports, sample size is usually expressed as "n. Larger sample sizes also increase the chance that rare events (such as adverse effects of drugs) will be detected. Sensitivity analysis: An analysis used to determine how sensitive the results of a study or systematic review are to changes in how it was done. Sensitivity analyses are used to assess how robust the results are to uncertain decisions or assumptions about the data and the methods that were used. Side effect: Any unintended effect of an intervention. Side effects are most commonly associated with pharmaceutical products, in which case they are related to the pharmacological properties of the drug at doses normally used for therapeutic purposes in humans. Standard deviation (SD): A measure of the spread or dispersion of a set of observations, calculated as the average difference from the mean value in the sample. Standard error (SE): A measure of the variation in the sample statistic over all possible samples of the same size. The standard error decreases as the sample size increases. Standard treatment: The treatment or procedure that is most commonly used to treat a disease or condition. In clinical trials, new or experimental treatments sometimes are compared to standard treatments to measure whether the new treatment is better. Statistically significant: A result that is unlikely to have happened by chance. Study: A research process in which information is recorded for a group of people. The data are used to answer questions about a health care problem. Study population: The group of people participating in a clinical research study. The study population often includes people with a particular problem or disease. It may also include people who have no known diseases. Subgroup analysis: An analysis in which an intervention is evaluated in a defined subset of the participants in a trial, such as all females or adults older than 65 years. Superiority trial: A trial designed to test whether one intervention is superior to another. Surrogate outcome: Outcome measures that are not of direct practical importance but are believed to reflect outcomes that are important; for example, blood pressure is not directly important to patients but it is often used as an outcome in clinical trials because it is a risk factor Overactive bladder Page 61 of 73 Final Report Update 4 Drug Effectiveness Review Project for stroke and heart attacks. Surrogate endpoints are often physiological or biochemical markers that can be relatively quickly and easily measured, and that are taken as being predictive of important clinical outcomes. They are often used when observation of clinical outcomes requires long follow-up. Survival analysis: Analysis of data that correspond to the time from a well-defined time origin until the occurrence of some particular event or end-point; same as time-to-event analysis. Systematic review: A review of a clearly formulated question that uses systematic and explicit methods to identify, select, and critically appraise relevant research and to collect and analyze data from the studies that are included in the review. The extent to which a drug’s adverse effects impact the patient’s ability or willingness to continue taking the drug as prescribed.
In addition order 200 mg tramadol with mastercard, efficacy studies Nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) 10 of 72 Final Report Update 4 Drug Effectiveness Review Project frequently exclude patients who have comorbid disease discount tramadol 200 mg otc, meaning disease other than the one under study. Efficacy studies may also use dosing regimens and follow-up protocols that are impractical in typical practice settings. These studies often restrict options that are of value in actual practice, such as combination therapies and switching to other drugs. Efficacy studies also often examine the short-term effects of drugs that in practice are used for much longer periods. Finally, efficacy studies tend to assess effects by using objective measures that do not capture all of the benefits and harms of a drug or do not reflect the outcomes that are most important to patients and their families. Systematic reviews highlight studies that reflect actual clinical effectiveness in unselected patients and community practice settings. Effectiveness studies conducted in primary care or office-based settings use less stringent eligibility criteria, more often assess health outcomes, and have longer follow-up periods than most efficacy studies. The results of effectiveness studies are more applicable to the “average” patient than results from the highly selected populations in efficacy studies. Examples of effectiveness outcomes include quality of life, frequency or duration of hospitalizations, social function, and the ability to work. These outcomes are more important to patients, family, and care providers than surrogate or intermediate measures, such as scores based on psychometric scales. For example, a study might use very narrow inclusion criteria like an efficacy study, but, like an effectiveness study, might examine flexible dosing regimens, have a long follow-up period, and measure quality of life and functional outcomes. For this report we sought evidence about outcomes that are important to patients and would normally be considered appropriate for an effectiveness study. However, many of the studies that reported these outcomes were short-term and used strict inclusion criteria to select eligible patients. For these reasons, it was neither possible nor desirable to exclude evidence based on these characteristics. Labeling a study as either an efficacy or an effectiveness study, although convenient, is of limited value; it is more useful to consider whether the patient population, interventions, time frame, and outcomes are relevant to one’s practice or to a particular patient. Studies anywhere on the continuum from efficacy to effectiveness can be useful in comparing the clinical value of different drugs. Effectiveness studies are more applicable to practice, but efficacy studies are a useful scientific standard for determining whether characteristics of different drugs are related to their effects on disease. Systematic reviews thoroughly cover the efficacy data in order to ensure that decision makers can assess the scope, quality, and relevance of the available data. This thoroughness is not intended to obscure the fact that efficacy data, no matter how large the quantity, may have limited applicability to practice. Clinicians can judge the relevance of study results to their practice and should note where there are gaps in the available scientific information. Unfortunately, for many drugs there exist few or no effectiveness studies and many efficacy studies. Yet clinicians must decide on treatment for patients who would not have been included in controlled trials and for whom the effectiveness and tolerability of the different drugs are uncertain. Systematic reviews indicate whether or not there exists evidence that drugs differ in their effects in various subgroups of patients, but they do not attempt to set a standard for how results of controlled trials should be applied to patients who would not have been eligible for them. With or without an evidence report, these decisions must be informed by clinical judgment. Nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) 11 of 72 Final Report Update 4 Drug Effectiveness Review Project In the context of development of recommendations for clinical practice, systematic reviews are useful because they define the strengths and limits of the evidence, clarifying whether assertions about the value of an intervention are based on strong evidence from clinical studies. Judgment, reasoning, and applying one’s values under conditions of uncertainty must also play a role in decision making. Users of an evidence report must also keep in mind that not proven does not mean proven not; that is, if the evidence supporting an assertion is insufficient, it does not mean the assertion is untrue. The quality of the evidence on effectiveness is a key component, but not the only component, in making decisions about clinical policy. Additional criteria include acceptability to physicians and patients, potential for unrecognized harm, applicability of the evidence to practice, and consideration of equity and justice. Scope and Key Questions The goal of this report is to compare the effectiveness and adverse event profiles of cyclo- oxygenase (COX) inhibitors and nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in the treatment of chronic pain from osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, soft tissue pain, back pain, and ankylosing spondylitis. The Oregon Evidence-based Practice Center wrote preliminary key questions, identifying the populations, interventions, outcomes of interest, and, based on these, eligibility criteria for studies. A draft of these questions and inclusion and exclusion criteria were posted on the Drug Effectiveness Review Project website for public comment. The draft was reviewed and revised by representatives of the organizations participating in the Drug Effectiveness Review Project. Revision took into consideration input from the public and the organizations’ desire for the key questions to reflect populations, drugs, and outcome measures of interest to clinicians and patients.
Statins Page 121 of 128 Final Report Update 5 Drug Effectiveness Review Project References 1 buy tramadol 200 mg line. Center for Reviews and Dissemination generic tramadol 200mg online, University of York, 2001. Current methods of the US Preventive Services Task Force: a review of the process. Statins Page 122 of 128 Final Report Update 5 Drug Effectiveness Review Project Appendix D. Excluded studies Exclusion Codes 1=Foreign language, 2=Wrong outcome, 3=Wrong intervention, 4=Wrong population, 5=Wrong publication type, 6=Wrong study design. Exclusion Excluded studies code Head-to-head trials Betteridge DJ, Gibson JM, Sager PT. Comparison of effectiveness of 2 rosuvastatin versus atorvastatin on the achievement of combined C-reactive protein (<2 mg/L) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (< 70 mg/dl) targets in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (from the ANDROMEDA study). A comparative crossover 2 study of the effects of fluvastatin and pravastatin (FP-COS) on circulating autoantibodies to oxidized LDL in patients with hypercholesterolemia. Comparison of the effects of 4 pravastatin and simvastatin in hypercholesterolemic subjects. Current Therapeutic Research, Clinical & Experimental. A comparison of the efficacy and 4 tolerability of titrate-to-goal regimens of simvastatin and fluvastatin: a randomized, double-blind study in adult patients at moderate to high risk for cardiovascular disease. Comparison of short-term renal effects and 4 efficacy of rosuvastatin 40 mg and simvastatin 80 mg, followed by assessment of long-term renal effects of rosuvastatin 40 mg, in patients with dyslipidemia. High-dose atorvastatin in peripheral 6 arterial disease (PAD): effect on endothelial function, intima-media-thickness and local progression of PAD. Ridker PM, Morrow DA, Rose LM, Rifai N, Cannon CP, Braunwald E. Relative 2 efficacy of atorvastatin 80 mg and pravastatin 40 mg in achieving the dual goals of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol <70 mg/dl and C-reactive protein <2 mg/l: an analysis of the PROVE-IT TIMI-22 trial. Aggressive versus moderate lipid- 2 lowering therapy in hypercholesterolemic postmenopausal women: Beyond Endorsed Lipid Lowering with EBT Scanning (BELLES). Statins Page 123 of 128 Final Report Update 5 Drug Effectiveness Review Project Exclusion Excluded studies code Mauger J-F, Couture P, Paradis M-E, Lamarche B. Comparison of the impact of 2 atorvastatin and simvastatin on apoA-I kinetics in men. Kent SM, Coyle LC, Flaherty PJ, Markwood TT, Taylor AJ. Marked Low-Density 2 Lipoprotein Cholesterol Reduction below Current National Cholesterol Education Program Targets Provides the Greatest Reduction in Carotid Atherosclerosis. Comparative evaluation 5 of the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of rosuvastatin 10 mg with atorvastatin, 10 mg in adult patients with hypercholesterolaemia: The first Indian study. Comparative pharmacokinetic interaction profiles of pravastatin, 6 simvastatin, and atorvastatin when coadministered with cytochrome P450 inhibitors. Efficacy and safety of 4 ezetimibe coadministered with atorvastatin or simvastatin in patients with homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia. Comparative effects of simvastatin and 2 pravastatin on cholesterol synthesis in patients with primary hypercholesterolemia. Cheung RC, Morrell JM, Kallend D, Watkins C, Schuster H. Effects of switching 2 statins on lipid and apolipoprotein ratios in the MERCURY I study. Capone D, Stanziale P, Gentile A, Imperatore P, Pellegrino T, Basile V. Effects of 4 simvastatin and pravastatin on hyperlipidemia and cyclosporin blood levels in renal transplant recipients. Lowering effects of four different 2 statins on serum triglyceride level. Achieving lipid goals in real life: the Dutch 5 DISCOVERY study. Atorvastatin and simvastatin reduce 4 elevated cholesterol in non insulin dependent diabetes. Diabetes, Nutrition and Metabolism Clinical and Experimental. Bertolami MC, Ramires JAF, Nicolau JC, Novazzi JP, Bodanese LC, Giannini 1 SD. Open, randomized, comparative study of atorvastatin and simvastatin, after 12 weeks treatment, in patients with hypercholesterolemia alone or with combined hypertriglyceridemia. Achievement of target plasma cholesterol levels in 3 hypercholesterolaemic patients being treated in general practice.
Schizophrenia The Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) is a 30-item instrument designed to assess schizophrenia symptoms buy tramadol 50mg without a prescription. Each item is rated using a 7-point severity scale (1=absent cheap tramadol 50mg with amex, 2=minimal, 3=mild, 4=moderate, 5=moderate-severe, 6=severe, 7=extreme). The PANSS is administered by qualified clinicians using combinations of unstructured, semistructured, and structured interview strategies. The PANSS is composed of three subscales, a 7-item Positive Scale, a 7-item Negative Scale and a 16-item General Psychopathology Scale. The PANSS also provides a method of assessing relationships of positive and negative syndromes to one another and to general psychopathology. High correlations between the PANSS Positive Syndrome Scale and the Scale for the Assessment of Positive Symptoms (SAPS) (r=0. Atypical antipsychotic drugs Page 201 of 230 Final Report Update 3 Drug Effectiveness Review Project Scales for General Use Extrapyramidal Side Effect Scales 10 The Barnes Akathisia Scale (BAS) is a tool used for diagnosis of drug-induced akathisia. The BAS consists of items that assess the objective presence and frequency of akathisia, the level of an individual’s subjective awareness and distress, and global severity. The objective rating is made using a 4-point scale (0=normal limb movement, 1=restlessness for less than half the time observed, 2=restlessness for at least half of the time observed, 3=constant restlessness). The BAS subjective component consists of two items, both rated using 4-point scales. One is Awareness of Restlessness (0=absent, 1=non-specific sense, 2=complaints of inner restlessness, 3=strong desire to move most of the time) and the other is Distress Related to Restlessness (0=none, 1=mild, 2=moderate, 3=severe). The BAS Global Clinical Assessment of Akathisia is rated using a 6-point scale (0=absent, 1=questionable, 2=mild, 3=moderate, 4=marked, 5=severe). The Simpson Angus Scale (SAS) is composed of 10 items and used to assess pseudoparkinsonism. Grade of severity of each item is rated using a 5-point scale. Signs assessed include gait, arm-dropping, shoulder shaking, elbow rigidity, wrist rigidity, leg pendulousness, head dropping, glabella tap, tremor, and salivation. In 11 more than 1 randomized controlled trial of bipolar I disorder, treatment-emergent parkinsonism was defined as a SAS score of greater than 3 at any time following a score of 3 or less. The Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale (AIMS) is composed of 12 items and used to assess dyskinesia. Items related to severity of orofacial, extremity, and trunk movements, global judgment about incapacitation, and patient awareness are rated using a 5-point scale (0=none to 4=severe). Two items related to dental status are scored using “yes” or “no” responses. Randomized controlled trials of atypical antipsychotics in bipolar I disorder populations defined treatment-emergent dyskinesia as, “a score of 3 or more on 11, any of the first 7 AIMS items, or a score of 2 or more on any two of the first 7 AIMS items. The ESRS involves a physical exam and 12 questionnaire items that assess abnormalities both subjectively and objectively. Most of the items focus on features of parkinsonism. Depression Scales The 17 items of the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D) are designed to measure symptoms of depression. Each item is rated using a 5-point scale (0=absent, 1=mild, 2=moderate, 3=severe, 4=incapacitating). Scores ranging from 10 to13 suggest mild depression; 14 14-17, mild to moderate; and >17, moderate to severe. A 21-item version of the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD-21) is also available. The HAMD-21 includes the following additional items: “diurnal variation”, “depersonalization and derealization”, “paranoid symptoms”, and “obsessional and compulsive symptoms”. It is the HAMD-21 that is most commonly used in randomized controlled trials of atypical antipsychotics. One randomized controlled trial of bipolar I disorder identified a HAMD-21 score of at least 20 as indicating 15 moderate to severe depression. The Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) is another instrument 16 extensively used in psychopharmacological research to assess severity of depressive symptoms. The MADRS has 10 items, each rated using a 7-point severity scale. Atypical antipsychotic drugs Page 202 of 230 Final Report Update 3 Drug Effectiveness Review Project MADRS, HAM-D, and CGI appear to be highly correlated (r>0. One study of patients with bipolar I depression limited enrollment by requiring a score of at least 20 17 on the MADRS. Other Scales The Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) is a 16-item scale designed to assess treatment 18 change in psychiatric patients. The severity of each item is rated using a 7-point scale (1=not present, 2=very mild, 3=mild, 4=moderate, 5=moderately severe, 6-severe, 7=extremely severe). BPRS ratings are made using a combination of observations of and verbal report from patients. This review includes numerous randomized controlled trials that assessed efficacy of atypical antipsychotics in schizophrenia or bipolar I disorder populations using the BPRS, generally as a secondary endpoint.