Diabetes in Japan: a review of disease burden and approaches to treatment.

In recent years there has been rapid growth in diabetes in Japan which now is one of the nations most affected by the worldwide diabetes epidemic. Diabetes has been identified as a healthcare priority by the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (MHLW). Type 1 diabetes is rare in Japan, and type 2 diabetes predominates in both adults and children. The growth in diabetes is due to increases in the number of people with type 2 diabetes associated with increased longevity and lifestyle changes. Approximately 13.5% of the Japanese population now has either type 2 diabetes or impaired glucose tolerance. This high prevalence of type 2 diabetes is associated with a significant economic burden, with diabetes accounting for up to 6% of the total healthcare budget. The costs of diabetes are increased in patients with co-morbidities such as hypertension and hyperlipidaemia and in patients who develop complications, of which retinopathy has the highest cost. Costs increase with increasing number of complications. Current guidelines from the Japan Diabetes Society (JDS) recommend a target HbA(1c) of 6.5% for glycaemic control. This is achieved in approximately one third of patients with type 2 diabetes, and Japanese patients typically have lower HbA(1c) than patients in Western countries (e.g. US, UK). Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes have better adherence with diet and exercise recommendations than their peers in Western countries. Sulfonylureas have been the most widely prescribed first-line treatment for type 2 diabetes, although there is increasing use of combination therapy and of insulin.

Which somatic symptoms are associated with an unfavorable course in Chinese patients with major depressive disorder?

INTRODUCTION: This was an analysis of the impact of somatic symptoms on the severity and course of depression in Chinese patients treated for an acute episode of major depressive disorder (MDD). METHODS: Data were extracted from a 3-month prospective observational study which enrolled 909 patients with MDD in psychiatric care settings; this analysis focused on the Chinese patients (n=300). Depression severity was assessed using the Clinical Global Impression of Severity (CGI-S) and 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD-17); somatic symptoms were assessed using the patient-rated 28-item Somatic Symptom Inventory (SSI). Cluster analysis using baseline SSI scores grouped patients into three clusters with no/mild, moderate, or severe somatic symptoms. Four SSI factors (pain, autonomic symptoms, energy, and central nervous system) were defined, and regression analyses identified which factors were associated with remission at 3 months. RESULTS: More than 70% of the patients had moderate or severe somatic symptoms. Baseline depression severity (HAMD-17 and CGI-S scores) was associated with more severe somatic symptoms. Remission rates differed between clusters of patients: 84.1%, 72.0%, and 55.3% for no/mild, moderate, and severe somatic symptoms, respectively (P=0.0034). Pain symptoms were the somatic symptoms more strongly associated with lower remission rates at 3 months. DISCUSSION: Somatic symptoms are associated with greater clinical severity and lower remission rates. Among somatic symptoms, pain symptoms have the greatest prognostic value and should be taken into account when treating patients with depression.

Treatment-completion rates with olanzapine long-acting injection versus risperidone long-acting injection in a 12-month, open-label treatment of schizophrenia: indirect, exploratory comparisons.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the comparative effectiveness of atypical antipsychotics in long-acting injection formulation. Due to the absence of head-to-head studies comparing olanzapine long-acting injection and risperidone long-acting injection, this study was intended to make exploratory, indirect, cross-study comparisons between the long-acting formulations of these two atypical antipsychotics in their effectiveness in treating patients with schizophrenia. METHODS: Indirect, cross-study comparisons between olanzapine long-acting injection and risperidone long-acting injection used 12-month treatment-completion rates, because discontinuation of an antipsychotic for any cause is a recognized proxy measure of the medication's effectiveness in treating schizophrenia. Following a systematic review of the literature, two indirect comparisons were conducted using open-label, single-cohort studies in which subjects were stabilized on an antipsychotic medication before depot initiation. The first analysis compared olanzapine long-acting injection (one study) with pooled data from nine identified risperidone long-acting injection studies. The second analysis was a "sensitivity analysis," using only the most similar studies, one for olanzapine long-acting injection and one for risperidone long-acting injection, which shared near-identical study designs and involved study cohorts with near-identical patient characteristics. Pearson Chi-square tests assessed group differences on treatment-completion rates. RESULTS: Comparison of olanzapine long-acting injection data (931 patients) with the pooled data from the nine risperidone long-acting injection studies (3950 patients) provided almost identical 12-month treatment-completion rates (72.7% versus 72.4%; P = 0.87). When the two most similar studies were compared, the 12-month completion rate for olanzapine long-acting injection was significantly higher than for risperidone long-acting injection (81.3% versus 47.0%; P < 0.001). However, any conclusions drawn from this comparison may be limited by differences in the studies' geographic catchment areas. CONCLUSION: Using treatment-completion rates as a proxy measure of medication effectiveness, olanzapine long-acting injection did not differ significantly from risperidone long-acting injection when including all eligible studies. However, the findings of this exploratory analysis should be interpreted with caution, considering the methodological limitations of these indirect, cross-study comparisons.

Making new choices about antidepressants in Australia: the long view 1975-2002.

OBJECTIVE: To examine trends in types of antidepressant medications prescribed in Australia between 1975 and 2002. DESIGN: Sales data from the Australian pharmaceutical industry were used to examine trends in overall antidepressant prescribing and changes in the types of antidepressants prescribed between 1975 and 2002. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Antidepressant sales were expressed as defined daily doses (DDDs) per 1000 people per day, using the estimated Australian population for each year obtained from the Australian Bureau of Statistics. RESULTS: Average annual growth in the sales of antidepressants was 1.1% per year from 1975 to 1990, after which growth rose steeply to reach 29% in 1995. By 2002 the rate of growth had slowed to 6.6%. Eighty per cent of total sales were accounted for by four drugs in 1975, 1980 and 1985; five in 1990; seven drugs in 1995 and 2000; and six drugs in 2001 and 2002. CONCLUSIONS: The rapid growth in antidepressant prescribing that was characteristic of the early 1990s, and reflected the emergence of new classes of agents, did not continue into the late 1990s. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors now dominate antidepressant prescribing in Australia.