By G. Joey. College of Saint Joseph. 2018.
Overall buy 15mg mentax amex, limited head-to-head evidence from one short-term study (12 weeks) does not support a difference between montelukast and zafirlukast in their ability to decrease rescue medicine use or improve quality of life (Appendix H purchase mentax 15mg with mastercard, Table H-2) generic 15mg mentax visa. Montelukast compared with Zafirlukast 72 One fair-rated 12-week head-to-head trial comparing montelukast to zafirlukast met the inclusion/exclusion criteria for our review. The trial aimed to compare the effect of montelukast (10 mg/day) and zafirlukast (40 mg/day) on quality of life and rescue medication use. The trial enrolled 40 adults with mild persistent asthma from a subspecialty respiratory pathophysiology center in Italy. At endpoint, improvement in beta-agonist use and asthma-related quality of life (AQLQ) were not significantly different between montelukast- and zafirlukast-treated patients. Montelukast compared with Zileuton We did not identify any good or fair quality systematic reviews or head-to-head trials that compared montelukast to zileuton. Zafirlukast compared with Zileuton We did not identify any good or fair quality systematic reviews or head-to-head trials that compared zafirlukast to zileuton. Controller medications for asthma 52 of 369 Final Update 1 Report Drug Effectiveness Review Project Table 9. Characteristics of head-to-head studies comparing leukotriene modifiers in children and adults Study design Country N Study population Comparison Study Duration Setting (total daily dose in mg/day) Quality rating Montelukast (ML) compared with zafirlukast 72 Riccioni et al. RCT Italy ML (10) Fair compared with 40 Age ≥12, mild, smoking status ZAF (40) NR 12 weeks Respiratory Pathophysiology Center Montelukast compared with zileuton No systematic reviews or head-to-head trials found Zafirlukast compared with zileuton No systematic reviews or head-to-head trials found Abbreviations: AQLQ = Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire; ML = Montelukast; NR = not reported; NS = not statistically significant; RCT= randomized controlled trial; ZAF = Zafirlukast. Symbol use: Drug X > Drug Y = statistically significant difference in outcomes favoring Drug X; Drug X > Drug Y trend = point estimate favors Drug X, but the difference is not statistically significant or tests of statistical significance were NR; No difference = no statistically significant difference or tests of statistical significance were not reported and outcomes are similar. Long-Acting Beta-2 Agonists (LABAs) Summary of findings 73-76 We found three fair RCTs that included head-to-head comparisons of one LABA with another LABA meeting our inclusion/exclusion criteria. Two compared eformoterol with 73, 74 75, 76 salmeterol and one compared formoterol with salmeterol. Of note, formoterol was formerly known as eformoterol in the UK and these are generally considered to be the same medicine. We also found one 6-month open-label trial comparing formoterol and salmeterol that 77 we rated poor quality. Detailed Assessment Description of Studies Of the 3 trials, two compared eformoterol (eFM) with salmeterol (SM) and one compared formoterol (FM) with SM (Table 10). The most commonly used delivery devices were MDIs and DPIs: two studies (66%) compared DPI to DPI; one study (33%) compared DPI to DPI and to MDI (eFM DPI compared with SM DPI 74 compared with SM MDI). Controller medications for asthma 53 of 369 Final Update 1 Report Drug Effectiveness Review Project Study Populations The three head-to-head RCTs included a total of 1107 subjects. Two were conducted primarily in 73, 75, 76 74 adult populations. One study was conducted in a pediatric and adolescent population 73, 74 (age 6-17) (Table 10). Two trials (66%) were conducted in the UK and Republic of Ireland 75, 76 and one was conducted in France, Italy, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the UK. Asthma severity ranged from mild to severe persistent: one study (33%) was conducted in patients with 73 74 mild to moderate persistent asthma, one (33%) in patients with moderate persistent, and one 75, 76 (33%) in patients with moderate to severe persistent. All three trials enrolled subjects that were not adequately controlled on ICSs. Smoking status was not reported for the 74 pediatric/adolescent trial. The other two studies (66%) allowed smokers and reported that 14 to 24 percent in each group were smokers. Sponsorship Of the 3 head-to-head trials, 2 (66%) were funded by pharmaceutical companies; 1 trial (33%) did not report the source of funding but at least one author had a primary affiliation with a pharmaceutical company. Eformoterol (eFM) compared with Salmeterol (SM) 73, 74 Two fair-quality RCTs meeting our inclusion/exclusion criteria compared eFM with SM. Both enrolled patients not adequately controlled on ICSs and were conducted in the UK and Republic of Ireland. The first was an 8-week trial that enrolled 469 adolescents and adults ≥12 73 years of age with mild to moderate persistent asthma. The other was a 12-week trial that enrolled 156 children and adolescents between six and 17 years of age with moderate persistent 74 asthma. Both trials assessed asthma symptoms, nocturnal awakenings, and exacerbations. One 73 trial also reported hospital admission or visits to A&E while the other study also reported 74 rescue medication use, quality of life, missed work, missed school, and compliance as well. The trials found no difference between those treated with eFM and those treated with SM for all 74 outcomes except for rescue medicine use: one trial found a greater decrease in rescue medicine use in those treated with eFM than in those treated with SM (Evidence Tables A). Formoterol (FM) compared with Salmeterol (SM) One fair-quality open-label 6-month RCT meeting our inclusion/exclusion criteria compared FM 75, 76 with SM in 482 adults ≥ 18 years of age with moderate to severe persistent asthma. This trial reported symptoms, rescue medicine use, quality of life, missed days of work, ER visits, and hospitalizations. There were no statistically significant differences in these outcomes between those treated with FM than those treated with SM. Formoterol (FM) compared with Arformoterol (ARF) We did not identify any systematic reviews or head-to-head trials that compared FM to ARF. Salmeterol (SM) compared with Arformoterol (ARF) We did not identify any systematic reviews or head-to-head trials that compared SM to ARF.
Infliximab Abatacept resulted in lower rates of serious AEs (9 order mentax 15 mg otc. Evidence profile of comparisons of targeted immune modulators for adverse events in children Number of studies/ patients Design Quality Consistency Directness Magnitude of effect Other modifying factors Overall grade of the evidence All comparisons Outcome: Adverse events No direct evidence Table 14 buy mentax 15mg free shipping. Evidence profile of comparisons of targeted immune modulators for efficacy and harms in subgroups Number of studies/ patients Design Quality Consistency Directness Magnitude of effect Other modifying factors The content and conclusions of the review are entirely determined by the Evidence-based Practice Center researchers discount 15 mg mentax with visa. The authors of this report have no financial interest in any company that makes or distributes the products reviewed in this report. Constipation Drugs Page 4 of 141 Final Report Drug Effectiveness Review Project INTRODUCTION Background Chronic constipation is a disorder characterized by unsatisfactory defecation that results from infrequent 1 stools, difficult stool passage, or both over a time period of at least 12 weeks. The diagnosis is primarily symptom-based, relying on the patient’s self report of symptoms; however, the description of constipation symptoms varies significantly among patients. Common symptoms may include infrequent bowel movement, hard stool, too small stool, difficulties with stool expulsion (need for excessive straining), feeling of incomplete evacuation or simply a patient description of “a feeling of being constipated” without any of these constipation-related symptoms. While physicians traditionally defined constipation 2 as fewer than three bowel movements per week, more specific diagnostic criteria have been developed to 1 better specify the nature and duration of symptoms (Table 1). Symptom-based criteria for chronic functional constipation Rome II Criteria ACG CC Task Force At least 12 weeks, need not be consecutive, in past 12 Symptoms for at least 3 of the last 12 months months of > 2 of: consisting of: • Straining in >25% of defecations • Infrequent stools: less than 3 per week, or • Sensation of incomplete evacuation in >25% of • Difficult stool passage, which may include: defecations • Straining • Sensation of anorectal obstruction/blockade in >25% • Sense of difficulty passing stool of defecations • Incomplete evacuation • Manuel maneuvers to facilitate >25% of defecations • Hard/lumpy stools • Fewer than three defecations per week • Prolonged time to stool • Loose stools should not be present and there are • Need for manual maneuvers to pass stool insufficient criteria for IBS • Can be a combination of both ACG: American College of Gastroenterology; CC: chronic constipation; IBS: Irritable Bowel Syndrome Chronic constipation appears to be very common in the general population although its prevalence varies depending on the diagnostic criteria used. Estimates suggest that 2% to 28% of the US population suffers 3, 4 2 from chronic constipation, with most estimates in the range of 12% to 19%. Chronic constipation 2 disproportionately affects women compared with men (2. Although symptoms may be benign, chronic constipation can significantly reduce quality of life, and, if 5 left untreated, can result in fecal impaction, incontinence, and, very rarely, bowel perforation. Constipation Drugs Page 5 of 141 Final Report Drug Effectiveness Review Project Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS) is the most common and best studied functional gastrointestinal (GI) disorder. Epidemiological studies show that 8% to 23% of adults in the Western world have IBS of 7, 8 varying severity. The typifying clinical presentation is abdominal pain or discomfort associated with altered bowel habits (e. Other associated symptoms may include bloating, urgency, and/or a feeling of incomplete evacuation. Although symptoms tend to occur in clusters, individual symptoms may also occur sequentially and they may vary in type, location, and severity over time. IBS is classified as diarrhea-predominant (IBS-D), constipation-predominant (IBS-C), or mixed—a combination of both (IBS-M), depending on the most prevalent bowel pattern. This sub-classification is determined by stool frequency, form, and passage. However, because the predominant symptom often changes over time, it is not uncommon for a patient to alternate between these IBS subgroups or between different functional bowel disorders such as IBS-C or IBS-D and 7, 8 functional constipation or functional diarrhea. There are no biological markers or specific tests for the diagnosis of IBS. The diagnosis is therefore based on identifying a cluster of clinical symptoms that are consistent with the disorder and excluding other conditions by looking for clinical alert signs and performing limited diagnostic testing. Since the pathophysiological mechanisms underlying the disorder are not known, the current approach to management is based primarily on the patients’ predominant symptoms and overall wellbeing rather than on a specific underlying etiological mechanism. The specific treatment is determined by whether pain, diarrhea, or constipation is predominant and the targeted symptom is treated using the same medications as in other conditions. For example, symptom/s of constipation associated with IBS (i. Since the treatment of constipation symptoms is similar in the two conditions, we reviewed and included clinical trials related to constipation symptoms in these two conditions (IBS-C and chronic constipation). Functional constipation is considered one of a group of five functional bowel disorders defined by the Rome III classification system (developed by multinational working teams known as the Rome 8 Committees). As a functional disorder, constipation can stand on its own as a distinct diagnosis of functional constipation or be part of another functional bowel disorder of IBS. IBS is the most common Constipation Drugs Page 6 of 141 Final Report Drug Effectiveness Review Project functional gastrointestinal disorder. It is defined as a combination of chronic or recurrent gastrointestinal symptoms, not explained by structural or biochemical abnormalities. The diagnosis is based on identifying typifying symptoms, using of symptom-based diagnostic criteria, and limited diagnostic tests to exclude other conditions. In order to meet the criteria patients must have abdominal pain or discomfort associated with alterations in stool frequency, form, and passage. IBS is sub-classified as diarrhea-predominant (IBS-D), constipation-predominant (IBS-C), or mixed (combination of both), depending on the most prevalent bowel pattern. However, because the predominant symptom often changes over time, it is not uncommon 9 for a patient to alternate between these IBS subgroups. This report focuses on functional constipation and does not cover other IBS associated symptoms such as abdominal pain/discomfort, diarrhea, and bloating. The disorder may be secondary to systemic diseases (e. Another common etiology is the use of prescription or over the counter (OTC) medications that slow down the intestinal transit (Table 2). Chronic primary or idiopathic constipation is primarily a diagnosis of exclusion which is made when the other possible etiologies have been ruled out. Once primary idiopathic constipation has been diagnosed and “red flags” suggesting other serious diseases such as colon or rectal cancer have been eliminated, empiric treatment may be started with an appropriate follow-up to assess the response.
It represents a member of the helix-loop-helix leucine by the recruitment of histone deacetylases (HDACs) by the MAX/ zipper family of nuclear transcription factors; other members of this MAD heterodimers that ultimately repress gene transcription cheap 15 mg mentax with amex. Genes of this family have important functions related to cell growth generic mentax 15 mg with amex, survival purchase mentax 15mg mastercard, and MYC represents a global transcription factor that is thought to biosynthesis. MYC was identiﬁed as the ﬁrst nonmutated gene that regulate 10%–15% of genes in the human genome. Therefore, its could be activated via retroviral promoter insertion. Subsequently, activation results in what has been termed an “avalanche” effect on this ﬁnding was the starting point for the identiﬁcation of other a signiﬁcant proportion of human genes. More speciﬁcally, the MYC genes that could be activated without occurrence of gene mutations. This review focuses on the impact that MYC has on the Activation of MYC results in the direct or indirect activation of the proliferative capacity, survival, and, ﬁnally, transformation of cells expression of genes that govern the cell cycle and repress cell especially taking into account the cross-talk of MYC with other cycle inhibitors, thus enabling the transition of cells from the G0/G1 genetic factors cooperating with MYC in the process of transforma- 1-3 to the S phase. MYC also regulates the expression of miRs that are tion, enhancing the transforming potential of the gene. In contrast to these functions, there is also a profound role of MYC in the process of Normal structure and regulation of MYC apoptosis. Exon 1 is noncoding and exons 2 box protein (FOXO) complexes activate CDKNA2/p14ARF, thus and 3 represent the coding regions of the gene. Activation of MYC stabilizing p53 via inhibition of MDM2-mediated degradation. BIM in turn acts via BAX and BAK 100 American Society of Hematology Table 1. Target genes of MYC associated with cellular growth and transformation Cellular process involved Function Target genes induced Target genes repressed Cell cycle Transit through the cell cycle CyclinD2, CDK4 p21,p15,GADD45 Differentiation Blocking of many cellular systems CCAAT/enhancer-binding protein (CEBBP) Growth and metabolism Increase of cell size and number LDH, ribosomal proteins, EIF4E, EIF2A Adhesion/migration Enables Anchorage-independent growth N-cadherin, integrins Angiogenesis Induction of angiogenesis IL1ß, mir-17–92 Thrombospondin Chromosomal instability Contributes to chromosomal instability, induces MAD2, TOP1, BUBR1, telomere aggregation, and ROS production Cyclin B1 Stem cell self-renewal Potentiates induced pluripotent stem cells? Transformation Can drive full tumorigenesis in vivo Many genes and systems Many genes and systems AdaptedfromMeyeretal. Consequences of MYC activation: lessons learned from BL It is quite clear that tumor cells with activated MYC must have MYC is expressed at a low level only in some, not all, proliferating developed strategies to antagonize these important secondary fea- normal cells, and some highly proliferating human cells, like those tures of the Janus-headed MYC molecule, thus implying the need for in the dark zone of the germinal center, do not express MYC at all. In fact, it turned out that loss of function of one of the ately result in the up-regulation of counteracting regulatory mecha- dual apoptosis pathways is sufﬁcient to abolish full function of the nisms to prevent alterations of the cellular homeostasis. Because the stress response pathways, thus precluding the need for any inactivat- transforming power of MYC is intimately associated with continu- ing factors in the other. Continuous activation of MYC in existing gene transcription program in a cell by binding to the BL, an aggressive B-cell neoplasm, is the classical example of promoter regions of actively transcribed genes, rather than activat- the transcriptional deregulation of a nonmutated gene by bring- ing silenced genes. Cytogenetic and molecular genetic by MYC, but not fundamentally altered. This feature may explain studies revealed the occurrence of 8q24 rearrangements in 90% the enhanced aggressiveness of lymphoid tumors already associated of BL, rendering MYC under the control of the immunoglobulin with a particular gene alteration in which an additional MYC intron enhancer E. Although the exact number is difﬁcult to alteration develops. MYC has been shown to function both as an indicate because of the occurrence of some particular MYC gene activator and as a repressor of gene transcription. The formation of rearrangements (such as insertions), there are some BL cases that MYC/MAX heterodimers is the crucial event in this scenario,10 are virtually negative for 8q24 rearrangements, in which other activating gene transcription by several mechanisms. MYC/MAX mechanisms such as ampliﬁcations and/or miR alterations may complexes can bind directly to gene promoters, recruit HDAC represent similar mechanisms for the deregulation of MYC. Now, it is clear that MYC represses about as many target transcriptional deregulation of MYC may not be sufﬁcient to induce genes as it activates, mainly by the interaction of MYC/MAX the full malignant phenotype, most probably because of the complexes with transcriptional activators bound to DNA through dichotomous role of the gene in the induction of proliferation and enhancer or initiator elements displacing coactivators and recruit apoptosis. Through these mechanisms, MYC orchestrates a associated with only few additional cytogenetically visible altera- plethora of genes associated with the regulation of the cell cycle and tions (“simple karyotype”), individual BL tumors have been found cellular metabolism. MYC has been shown to drive cells from the to harbor 17 gene mutations per case if examined with sensitive G /G to the S phase of the cell cycle and to shorten G by (next-generation) sequencing techniques. MYC also promotes cell cycle progres- promote the transforming capacity of the gene or increase the sion by activation of various cyclins, CDK4, CDC25A, E2F1, and stability of the protein via reduced ubiquitin-mediated proteolysis. MYC-associated pathways in the regulation of proliferation and survival. MYC forms a heterodimer with MAX that activates pathways associated with both cell proliferation and growth and oncogenic stress response. Proliferation is initiated via activation of cell-cycle-associated molecules such as cyclins and cyclin-dependent kinases, among others, and the induction of apoptosis is triggered via up-regulation of BIM and p53. The PI3K-signaling pathway cooperates with MYC in cell proliferation and survival. In a new mouse model, the dual constitutive activation of of stress-response mechanisms. MYC executes its apoptotic function predominantly through BCL2. In addition, the tumors showed an overall gene expression the p53 and BIM pathways. In cases with wild-type p53, up-regulation features intimately connected with human BL, such as a simple of MDM2 or p14ARF loss has been identiﬁed, also leading to karyotype and the acquisition of CyclinD3 mutations recently impaired p53 function as a tumor suppressor protein. In experimental systems, loss of the activation of the PI3K pathway. Impairment of the induction of the frequent ﬁndings were activating mutations in the TCF3 gene in proapoptotic element BIM in BL has been observed via direct 11% of the cases and inactivating mutations in its inhibitor ID3 in and indirect mechanisms. The mutational inactivation of ID3 is likely to 102 American Society of Hematology Figure 2. Cooperating gene alterations in MYC-driven lymphomagenesis.
The relevance of this trial was limited because since the time it was conducted purchase 15mg mentax, the rate of progression of angina may have been altered by advances in treatment of atherosclerosis (for example statin therapy) buy generic mentax 15 mg on-line. A good-quality meta-analysis identified 72 randomized controlled trials of a beta blocker 41 compared with a calcium channel blocker and 6 trials comparing a beta blocker to a nitrate discount mentax 15 mg mastercard. This meta-analysis found that, in general, beta blockers had similar efficacy but fewer discontinuations due to adverse events than calcium channel blockers, but the authors did not report results for each beta blocker separately. Beta blockers Page 24 of 122 Final Report Update 4 Drug Effectiveness Review Project Key Question 1c. For adult patients who have undergone coronary artery bypass grafting, do beta blockers differ in efficacy or effectiveness? We did not examine the short-term (4 to 10 days) use of beta blockers to prevent or control atrial 42-46 tachyarrhythmias after coronary artery bypass graft. In addition to the beta blockers included in our review, esmolol, a very short-acting, intravenous beta blocker, is used postoperatively to control tachyarrhythmias. In 7 trials, long-term use of a beta blocker after coronary artery bypass graft did not improve mortality or other outcomes (Evidence Tables 5 and 6). For example, the MACB Study 47 Group conducted a fair-quality trial that randomized 967 patients (85. No differences between metoprolol and placebo were found in mortality (3. For adult patients with recent myocardial infarction, do beta blockers differ in efficacy or effectiveness? Summary Table 6 summarizes evidence from meta-analyses and major trials of beta blockers in patients with recent myocardial infarction. Timolol was the first beta blocker shown to reduce total 48 mortality, sudden death, and reinfarction outcomes in the Norwegian Multicenter Study. In addition, similar benefits in sudden death were reported for propranolol and 51, 52 52 metoprolol tartrate and in reinfarction for metoprolol tartrate. Carvedilol reduced reinfarction rates in the Carvedilol Post-Infarct Survival Control in Left Ventricular Dysfunction (CAPRICORN) trial, which recruited stable inpatients with recent myocardial infarction and a left ventricular ejection fraction of 40% or less. Carvedilol is the only beta blocker shown to reduce mortality in post-myocardial infarction patients who are already taking an ACE inhibitor. An extended-release form of carvedilol (carvedilol phosphate) was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in October 2006. No studies of carvedilol phosphate in patients following myocardial infarction were identified through literature searches. Approval of the left ventricular dysfunction following myocardial infarction indication for carvedilol phosphate was based on pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic data that demonstrated bioequivalence with carvedilol. Indirect comparisons of beta blockers across these trials must be done with caution because the study populations differed in duration, the presence or absence of left ventricular dysfunction, the dose and timing of therapy, and the use of other medications. Beta blockers Page 25 of 122 Final Report Update 4 Drug Effectiveness Review Project Table 6. Comparison of outcomes of mortality-reducing beta blockers in patients following myocardial infarction Mortality reduction in Mortality general reduction in population of post-myocardial post- infarction myocardial patients with infarction left ventricular Reinfarction Beta blocker patients dysfunction Sudden death reduction reduction Acebutolol Effective Uncertain Insignificant effect Insignificant effect Not Carvedilol Effective Uncertain (trend) Effective established Carvedilol phosphate No evidence No evidence No evidence No evidence Metoprolol tartrate Effective Probable Effective Effective Insignificant effect Propranolol Effective Probable Effective (BHAT, Hansteen 1982) Timolol Effective Uncertain Effective Effective Head-to-Head Trials No consistent differences between beta blockers were found in 3 head-to-head trials in post- 53-55 myocardial infarction patients. A 6-week trial comparing atenolol 100 mg to propranolol 120 53 mg had inconclusive results. The second trial, an open-label study with a median follow-up of 1. Patients in this study had mean left ventricular ejection fraction 53. The primary outcome of the study was the change in left ventricular ejection fraction at 1 year; time to first serious cardiovascular event was a secondary endpoint. No significant difference was found between the 2 interventions in either change in left ventricular ejection fraction (P=NR) or time to occurrence of a serious cardiovascular event 56 (P=0. However, these results are not conclusive, as the study’s authors acknowledge that the study was underpowered to detect such a difference for this secondary outcome. A study of 313 patients comparing metoprolol tartrate 100 mg twice daily to carvedilol 25 mg twice daily for a mean of 13. There were statistically significant differences in 5 of 8 health-related quality-of-life domains measured using the Short Form-36 55 questionnaire (adjusted for age and baseline differences) favoring the carvedilol group. Placebo-controlled Trials Because there are so few comparative trials, inferences about the comparative effectiveness of beta blockers in post-myocardial infarction patients must be made on other grounds. The criteria for making these comparisons might include: 1. Demonstration of reduced mortality in large, multicenter placebo-controlled trials 2. Degree of mortality reduction compared with other beta blockers 3. Improvements in other outcomes Beta blockers Page 26 of 122 Final Report Update 4 Drug Effectiveness Review Project 4. Effectiveness studies and applicability of efficacy studies to current practice. Mortality Three systematic reviews have analyzed over 60 trials of beta blockers after myocardial 57-59 infarction. The first (Yusuf, 1985) analyzed 22 long-term trials of beta blockers in acute myocardial infarction. Overall beta blockers reduced mortality by 23%, from an average of 10% to 8%. The second (Hjalmarson, 1997) found an average 20% mortality reduction in 24 trials of a total of 25000 patients.