Prevalence of FRAX risk factors and the osteoporosis treatment gap among women ≥ 70 years of age in routine primary care across 8 countries in Europe.

We studied whether elderly women at risk for fractures receive primary care treatment to prevent fracture. We found that across Europe, women at risk are often not identified, and less than half of such women receive appropriate treatment. Finally, women diagnosed with osteoporosis are much more likely to receive treatment. PURPOSE: To examine the relationship between risk factors for fragility fracture (FF) and osteoporosis (OP) treatment gap in elderly women across Europe, and compare the prevalence of risk factors between countries. METHODS: Demographic and clinical information was collected from women ≥ 70 years visiting primary care physicians in Belgium, France, Germany, Ireland, Poland, Slovakia, Switzerland, and the UK. Increased risk of FF was defined by the presence of 1 or more criteria (history of fracture, 10-year fracture probability, or T-score ≤ - 2.5). RESULTS: There were 3798 women in total. Treatment gap (proportion at increased risk of FF not receiving treatment for OP) varied from 53.1 to 90.8% across countries, and the proportion of patients at increased risk of FF varied from 41.2 to 76.1%. Across countries, less than 50% of patients with increased risk of FF had a diagnosis of OP. Previous fracture was the most common risk factor, with similar prevalence across most countries; other risk factors varied widely. The treatment gap was reduced in patients with an OP diagnosis in all countries, but this reduction varied from 36.5 to 79.4%. The countries with the lowest rates of bone densitometry scans (Poland, France, and Germany; 8.3-12.3%) also had the highest treatment gap (82.2 to 90.8%). CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights differences across Europe in clinical risk factors for fracture, rates of densitometry scanning, and the rates of OP diagnosis. More emphasis is needed on risk assessment to improve the identification and treatment of elderly women at risk for fracture.

Very low LDL-C levels may safely provide additional clinical cardiovascular benefit: the evidence to date.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of death in Europe and increased low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) is a major contributor to CVD risk. Extensive evidence from clinical studies of statins has demonstrated a linear relationship between LDL-C levels and CVD risk. It has been proposed that lower LDL-C levels than those currently recommended may provide additional clinical benefit to patients. AIM: This review summarises the genetic and clinical evidence on the efficacy and safety of achieving very low LDL-C levels. METHODS: Relevant epidemiological and clinical studies were identified using PubMed and by searching abstracts published at major congresses. RESULTS: Genetic evidence demonstrates that individuals with naturally very low LDL-C levels are healthy and have a low risk of CVD. Clinical evidence has shown that those patients who achieve very low LDL-C levels through using lipid-lowering therapies (LLTs), such as statins, have reduced CVD risk compared with patients who only just achieve recommended target LDL-C levels. These data show that the incidence of adverse events in patients achieving very low LDL-C levels using LLT is comparable to those reaching the recommended LDL-C targets. CONCLUSIONS: Genetic and clinical evidence supports the concept that reduction in LDL-C levels below current recommended targets may provide additional clinical benefit to patients without adversely impacting patient safety. Statin add-on therapies, such as ezetimibe and the recently approved proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors alirocumab and evolocumab, allow patients to achieve very low LDL-C levels and are likely to impact on future treatment paradigms.

Efficacy and safety of combined prolonged-release oxycodone and naloxone in the management of moderate/severe chronic non-malignant pain: results of a prospectively designed pooled analysis of two randomised, double-blind clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Two randomised 12-week, double-blind, parallel-group, multicenter studies comparing oxycodone PR/naloxone PR and oxycodone PR alone on symptoms of opioid-induced bowel dysfunction in patients with moderate/severe non-malignant pain have been conducted. METHODS: These studies were prospectively designed to be pooled and the primary outcome measure of the pooled data analysis was to demonstrate non-inferiority in 12-week analgesic efficacy of oxycodone PR/naloxone PR versus oxycodone PR alone. Patients with opioid-induced constipation were switched to oxycodone PR and then randomised to fixed doses of oxycodone PR/naloxone PR (n = 292) or oxycodone PR (n = 295) for 12 weeks (20-80 mg/day). RESULTS: No statistically significant differences in analgesic efficacy were observed for the two treatments (p = 0.3197; non-inferiority p < 0.0001; 95% CI -0.07, 0.23) and there was no statistically significant difference in frequency of analgesic rescue medication use. Improvements in Bowel Function Index score were observed for oxycodone PR/naloxone PR by Week 1 and at every subsequent time point (-15.1; p < 0.0001; 95% CI -17.3, -13.0). AE incidence was similar for both groups (61.0% and 57.3% of patients with oxycodone PR/naloxone PR and oxycodone PR alone, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Results of this pooled analysis confirm that oxycodone PR/naloxone PR provides effective analgesia and suggest that oxycodone PR/naloxone PR improves bowel function without compromising analgesic efficacy. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00412100 and NCT00412152.

Efficacy and safety of ciclesonide in patients with severe asthma: a 12-week, double-blind, randomized, parallel-group study with long-term (1-year) follow-up.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the efficacy and safety of ciclesonide in patients with severe asthma over a 1-year period. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Patients aged 18 - 75 years with persistent asthma were enrolled in a 12-week, double-blind, randomized study and treated with ciclesonide 320 or 640 µg twice daily (b.i.d.) with the option of continuing in a 40-week extension phase (EP). MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES: Change in morning peak expiratory flow (PEF) from baseline to 12 weeks and safety over 1 year. RESULTS: 365 patients were randomized and 275 continued into the EP. During 12 weeks' treatment, morning peak expiratory flow significantly increased by 16 l/min (p < 0.001) and 14 l/min (p = 0.001) in the 320 and 640 µg b.i.d. groups, respectively. Both doses significantly reduced total asthma symptom scores by 0.29 (p < 0.0001). In both groups, the incidence of adverse effects (AEs) was low and mean cortisol levels in serum and urine were not suppressed during the EP. CONCLUSIONS: Ciclesonide 320 µg b.i.d. sustained lung function and asthma symptoms in patients with severe asthma over 12 weeks' treatment, and maintained lung function during a 40-week EP; ciclesonide 640 µg b.i.d. did not provide additional benefits. Long-term use of ciclesonide was not associated with increased local AEs or negative effects on cortisol levels.