scholarly journals Contrasting Approaches, Comparable Efficacy?

2020 ◽  
pp. 222-251
Author(s):  
Yue-Yi Hwa
Keyword(s):  
Comparable Efficacy

Endovenous procedures in varicose veins

Phlebologie ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 37 (05) ◽  
pp. 229-236
Author(s):  
N. Cayne ◽  
G. Jacobowitz ◽  
P. Lamparello ◽  
T. Maldonado ◽  
C. Rockman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Varicose Veins ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Postoperative Recovery ◽  
Comparable Efficacy ◽  
Intense Pulse Light ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Endovenous Laser Ablation ◽  
The Past ◽  
Early Evidence ◽  
Endovenous Treatment

SummaryOver the past ten years endoveous treatment options for varicose veins have evovled considerably, offering clinicians a multitude of options to meet the needs of their patients. The endothermal ablation procedures have moved to the forefront as the choice modality for treating truncal reflux. Both radiofrequency ablation and endovenous laser ablation are widely accepted and interchangeable, showing comparable efficacy and safety. Although numerous endovenous laser wavelengths exist, the data indicates that the differences do not affect the efficacy or postoperative recovery of the procedure. The endovenous laser innovation that has shown early evidence of improved patient outcome is the jacket-tip fiber. The versatility of sclerotherapy makes it a critical component in the endovenous treatment of varicosities. Although not approved by the Food and Drug Administration (USA), the use of a foamed sclerosing agent is the fastest growing segment of sclerotherapy and an important treatment modality in the future of varicose vein treatment. Cutaneous lasers and intense pulse light devices contribute a crucial element, enabling clinicians to treat minute veins that may be impossible to treat with other therapies.

Pharmacoeconomic analysis of using genetically engineered biologic drugs for treating adult patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in the Russian Federation

2020 ◽  
pp. 57-65
Author(s):  
Maksim Frolov ◽  
Vladimir Rogov ◽  
Alla Salasyuk
Keyword(s):  
Plaque Psoriasis ◽  
Impact Analysis ◽  
Pharmacoeconomic Analysis ◽  
Certolizumab Pegol ◽  
Genetically Engineered ◽  
Adult Patients ◽  
Comparable Efficacy ◽  
Biologic Drugs ◽  
Severe Plaque Psoriasis ◽  
Cost Minimisation Analysis

The aim of the study was to assess clinical and economic effectiveness of netakimab compared to other genetically engineered biologic drugs (infliximab, adalimumab, etanercept, ustekinumab, secukinumab, ixekizumab, certolizumab pegol) for the treatment of adult patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. We have conducted cost-benefit analysis, cost-minimisation analysis, and budget impact analysis. We have considered only direct medical costs. The results of the study show that netakimab has higher or comparable efficacy and significantly lower costs compared to other biologic drugs, that makes it the most preferable treatment option for patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. Use of netakimab in clinical practice will significantly reduce budget expenditures and increase patient access to biologic therapy.

scholarly journals Is jumbo biopsy forceps comparable to cold snare for diminutive colorectal polyps? – a meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 09 (01) ◽  
pp. E9-E13
Author(s):  
Sachin Srinivasan ◽  
Peter D. Siersema ◽  
Madhav Desai
Keyword(s):  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Complete Removal ◽  
Colorectal Polyps ◽  
Comparable Efficacy ◽  
Incomplete Resection ◽  
Complication Rates ◽  
Biopsy Forceps ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Leave One Out ◽  
Endoscopic Assessment

Abstract Background and study aims Diminutive colorectal polyps are increasingly being detected and it is not clear whether jumbo biopsy forceps (JBF) has comparable efficacy to that of cold snare polypectomy (CSP) for management of these lesions. Methods An electronic literature search was performed for studies comparing resection rates of JBF and CSP for diminutive polyps (≤ 5 mm). The primary outcome was incomplete resection rate (IRR). Secondary outcomes included failure of tissue retrieval and complication rates (post-polypectomy bleeding, perforation etc.). Leave-one-out analysis was performed to examine the disproportionate role of any of the studies. Meta-analysis outcomes and heterogeneity (I2) were computed using Comprehensive meta-analysis software. Results A total of 4 studies (3 randomized controlled trials and 1 retrospective study) with 407 patients and 569 total polyps (mean size of 3.62 mm) was included for analysis. IRR of JBF was slightly higher than that of CSP (10.2 % vs 7.2 %) but this was not statistically significantly different (Pooled OR 1.76; 95 % CI 0.94–3.28; I2 = 0). Leave-one-out analysis showed no significant difference in the pooled OR comparison either. Two of the 4 studies reported 0 % failure of tissue retrieval for JBF and 1 % and 4.3 % for CSP. There were no complications for either group from the 2 studies that reported this outcome. The quality of the included studies was moderate to high. Conclusions This systematic review with only limited data shows that JBF and CSP are not statistically different in completely removing diminutive polyps, although careful endoscopic assessment is needed to ensure complete removal of all polyp tissue.

Efficacy of NSAIDs versus radiotherapy for heterotopic ossification prophylaxis following total hip arthroplasty in high-risk patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
pp. 112070002199111
Author(s):  
Jacob Shapira ◽  
Mitchell J Yelton ◽  
Jeffery W Chen ◽  
Philip J Rosinsky ◽  
David R Maldonado ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Total Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Comparable Efficacy ◽  
Total Hip ◽  
High Risk Patients ◽  
Randomised Control Trials ◽  
Risk Patients

Background: The aims of this systematic review were: (1) to investigate the prophylactic effect of radiotherapy (RT) and NSAIDs in high-risk patients following total hip arthroplasty (THA); and (2) to compare the efficacy of non-selective and COX-II selective NSAIDs in preventing post-THA HO, utilising a meta-analysis of randomised control studies. Methods: The PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Databases were searched for articles regarding HO following THA in March 2019. Studies were included if they contained data regarding HO incidence after THA or contained data regarding HO prophylaxis comparison of NSAIDs and/or RT in terms of dosage or duration. Results: 24 studies reported on populations that were not at high-risk for HO. These studies reported between 47.3% and 90.4% of their patient populations had no HO formation; between 2.8% and 52.7% had mild formation; and between 0.0% and 10.4% had severe formation. A total of 13 studies reported on populations at high-risk for HO. Studies analysing RT in high-risk patients reported between 28.6% and 97.4% of patients developed no HO formation; between 1.9% and 66.7% developed mild HO formation; and between 0.0% and 11.9% developed severe HO formation. Studies analysing NSAID treatment among high-risk populations reported between 76.6% and 88.9% had no HO formation; between 11.1% and 23.4% had mild HO formation, and between 0.0% and 1.8% had severe HO formation. 9 studies were identified as randomised control trials and subsequently used for meta-analysis. The relative risk for COX-II in developing any HO after THA was not significantly different compared to non-selective NSAIDs (RR 1.00; CI, 0.801–1.256; p = 0.489). Conclusions: NSAIDs prophylaxis for HO may have better efficacy than RT in high-risk patients following THA. Non-selective and COX-II selective NSAIDs have comparable efficacy in preventing HO. Factors such as medical comorbidities and side-effect profile should dictate the prophylaxis recommendation.

scholarly journals 3-(Phenylthio)Phthalide: An Expedient Reagent in Phthalide Annulation

1999 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 30-31
Author(s):  
Sujit K. Ghorai ◽  
Harendra N. Roy ◽  
Mousumi Bandopadhyay ◽  
Dipakranjan Mal
Keyword(s):  
Comparable Efficacy

3-(Phenylthio)phthalide 4 is more readily accessible than the established reagents 1 and 2 and can be engaged in phthalide annulation with comparable efficacy.

Cleft Alveolar Bone Graft Materials: Literature Review

2021 ◽  
pp. 105566562110076
Author(s):  
Caroline Dissaux ◽  
Laetitia Ruffenach ◽  
Catherine Bruant-Rodier ◽  
Daniel George ◽  
Frédéric Bodin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Computed Tomography ◽  
Cell Therapy ◽  
Bone Graft ◽  
Cancellous Bone ◽  
Gold Standard ◽  
Alveolar Bone ◽  
Bone Substitutes ◽  
Comparable Efficacy ◽  
Alveolar Bone Grafting ◽  
Supplementary Material

Introduction: Since the early stages of alveolar bone grafting development, multiple types of materials have been used. Iliac cancellous bone graft (ICBG) remains the gold standard. Design/Methods: A review of literature is conducted in order to describe the different bone filling possibilities, autologous or not, and to assess their effectiveness compared to ICBG. This review focused on studies reporting volumetric assessment of the alveolar cleft graft result (by computed tomography scan or cone beam computed tomography). Results: Grafting materials fall into 3 types: autologous bone grafts, ICBG supplementary material, and bone substitutes. Among autologous materials, no study showed the superiority of any other bone origin over iliac cancellous bone. Yet ICBG gives inconsistent results and presents donor site morbidity. Concerning supplementary material, only 3 studies could show a benefit of adding platelet-rich fibrin (1 study) or platelet-rich plasma (2 studies) to ICBG, which remains controversial in most studies. There is a lack of 3-dimensional (3D) assessment in most articles concerning the use of scaffolds. Only one study showed graft improvement when adding acellular dermal matrix to ICBG. Looking at bone substitutes highlights failures among bioceramics alone, side-effects with bone morphogenetic protein-2 composite materials, and difficulties in cell therapy setup. Studies assessing cell therapy–based substitutes show comparable efficacy with ICBG but remain too few. Conclusion: This review highlights the lack of 3D assessments in the alveolar bone graft materials field. Nothing dethroned ICBG from its position as the gold standard treatment at this time.

scholarly journals FRI0116 COMPARABLE EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF TWO REGIMENS OF RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS TREATMENT WITH TOFACITINIB: DATA FROM RUSSIAN NATIONAL REGISTRY

2020 ◽  
Vol 79 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 639-639
Author(s):  
A. Babaeva ◽  
E. Kalinina ◽  
E. Nasonov ◽  
V. Mazurov ◽  
G. Lukina ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Therapy Group ◽  
Target Therapy ◽  
Combined Therapy ◽  
National Registry ◽  
Comparable Efficacy ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
National Guidelines ◽  
Therapy Regimen ◽  
Conventional Dmards

Background:Current EULAR and national guidelines recommend use of synthetic target drug Tofacitinib (TOFA) for active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treatment in case of resistance or intolerance to metotrexate (MTX) or other conventional DMARDs. Two treatment regimens are approved: TOFA mono-therapy and combination with conventional DMARD, preferably with MTX.Objectives:Aim of presented study was to compare efficacy and safety of TOFA given in two regimens: as mono-therapy and in combination with MTX.Methods:We analyzed data from Russian national registry of RA. 450 patients (pts) treated with TOFA in dose 10 mg daily have been enrolled in this investigation. Among them 169 pts have composed TOFA mono-therapy group (mono) and 281 pts treated with TOFA plus MTX have been included in combo-therapy group (combo). Period of treatment varied from 6 months to 3 years and even more. Treatment efficacy was evaluated on the basis of clinical and laboratory indices of RA activity: CDAI, SDAI, DAS28, HAQ, GPA (general pain assessment), TJC, SJC, CRP, ESR monthly during first 6 months, than in 1,2,3 years and after 3 year period of treatment.Results:There were no significant differences in pts demographic characteristic and disease longevity and/or severity in two separated groups. Majority of baseline indices were identical in these groups aside from SDAI, CRP (were higher in combo-group) and HAQ (was higher in mono-group). Pts monitoring have shown dramatically decrease of all used indices during the first several months of therapy in both groups. Moreover all clinical and laboratory parameters after 6-months treatment were comparable in mono- and combo- groups. Positive dynamics remained during further 3-year period in both groups. Significant differences between baseline and ultimate data after 3 year course therapy were revealed in CDAI, SDAI, DAS28, HAQ, GPA, TJC, SJC, CRP, ESR in both groups. In particular DAS28 index decreased from 5.38±0.08 to 2.88±0.07 (p<0.05) in mono-group and from 5.54±0.09 to 3.40±0.21 (p<0.05) in combo-group. Along with this comparing of endpoints in two analyzed groups have shown that levels of CDAI, SDAI, GPA were significant higher in combo-group than in mono-group (p<0.05). Adverse effects were registered in 4.73% pts from mono-group and in 4.98% pts from combo-group (p>0.05). Spectrum of adverse reactions was similar in compared groups: respiratory infection (in 2.96% and 3.36% cases respectively) and herpes infection (in 0.59% and 0.71% cases, respectively) were registered predominantly.Conclusion:Data gained from National RA registry have demonstrated that treatment with TOFA in mono-therapy regimen has the comparable efficacy with regimen of combined therapy, included MTX and TOFA. Safety of both regimens can be qualified as good. Obtained results confirm high efficacy and safety of target therapy with TOFA and prove the recommendation for use it in different regimens – mono-therapy or combination with MTX.References:[1]Smolen JS, et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2017;0:1–18. doi:10.1136/annrheumdis-2016-210715[2]Boyle DL, et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2015;74:1311-1316. doi:10.1136/annrheumdis-2014-206028Disclosure of Interests:Aida Babaeva: None declared, Elena Kalinina: None declared, Evgeny Nasonov Speakers bureau: Lilly, AbbVie, Pfizer, Biocad, R-Pharm, V Mazurov: None declared, Galina Lukina Speakers bureau: Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Abbvie, Biocad, MSD, Roche, Antonina Davydova: None declared, Irina Semizarova: None declared, Olga Slyusar: None declared, Tatyana Rasevich: None declared, Ruzana Samigullina: None declared, Diana Abdulganieva: None declared

scholarly journals A multicentre randomised controlled trial to compare the pharmacokinetics, efficacy and safety of CT-P10 and innovator rituximab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis

2016 ◽  
Vol 76 (3) ◽  
pp. 566-570 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dae Hyun Yoo ◽  
Chang-Hee Suh ◽  
Seung Cheol Shim ◽  
Slawomir Jeka ◽  
Francisco Fidencio Cons-Molina ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Serum Concentration ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Comparable Efficacy ◽  
Pharmacokinetic Parameters ◽  
Time Curve ◽  
Maximum Serum ◽  
Primary Endpoints ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Randomised Controlled

ObjectiveTo demonstrate pharmacokinetic equivalence of CT-P10 and innovator rituximab (RTX) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with inadequate responses or intolerances to antitumour necrosis factor agents.MethodsIn this randomised phase I trial, patients with active RA were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive 1000 mg CT-P10 or RTX at weeks 0 and 2 (alongside continued methotrexate therapy). Primary endpoints were area under the serum concentration–time curve from time zero to last quantifiable concentration (AUC0–last) and maximum serum concentration after second infusion (Cmax). Additional pharmacokinetic parameters, efficacy, pharmacodynamics, immunogenicity and safety were also assessed. Data are reported up to week 24.Results103 patients were assigned to CT-P10 and 51 to RTX. The 90% CIs for the ratio of geometric means (CT-P10/RTX) for both primary endpoints were within the bioequivalence range of 80%–125% (AUC0–last: 97.7% (90% CI 89.2% to 107.0%); Cmax: 97.6% (90% CI 92.0% to 103.5%)). Pharmacodynamics and efficacy were comparable between groups. Antidrug antibodies were detected in 17.6% of patients in each group at week 24. CT-P10 and RTX displayed similar safety profiles.ConclusionsCT-P10 and RTX demonstrated equivalent pharmacokinetics and comparable efficacy, pharmacodynamics, immunogenicity and safety.Trial registration numberNCT01534884.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document