Cholestatic Pruritus Treatments in Primary Biliary Cholangitis and Primary Sclerosing Cholangitis: A Systematic Literature Review.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: We conducted a systematic literature review to understand the evidence supporting treatment decisions for cholestatic pruritus associated with primary biliary cholangitis (PBC) and primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC). METHODS: Studies that enrolled ≥ 75% participants with PBC or PSC and reported ≥ 1 endpoint(s) related to efficacy, safety, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) or other patient-reported outcomes were included. Bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and the Quality of Cohort studies tool for non-RCTs. RESULTS: Thirty-nine publications were identified, covering 42 studies and six treatment classes (including investigational and approved products): anion-exchange resins, antibiotics (rifampicin/derivatives), opiates, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, fibrates, ileal bile acid transporter inhibitors and other agents not categorised in these six classes. Across studies, median sample size was small (n = 18), 20 studies were over 20 years old, 25 followed patients for ≤ 6 weeks, only 25 were RCTs. Pruritus was assessed using several different tools, with inconsistencies in their application. Cholestyramine, considered first-line therapy for moderate-severe cholestatic pruritus, was assessed in six studies (two RCTs) including 56 patients with PBC and 2 with PSC, with evidence of efficacy demonstrated in only three studies, among which, two RCTs were assessed as having a high risk of bias. Findings were similar for other drug classes. CONCLUSIONS: There is a lack of consistent and reproducible evidence available on efficacy, impact on HRQoL, and safety of cholestatic pruritus treatments, leaving physicians to rely on clinical experience rather than evidence-based medicine for treatment selection.

Evaluation of the migraine treatment sumatriptan/naproxen sodium on blood pressure following long-term administration.

Anti-inflammatory and pain therapies have been associated with blood pressure (BP) destabilization. Hence, the effects on BP of sumatriptan/naproxen sodium in fixed-dose combination, sumatriptan 85 mg, and naproxen sodium 500 mg administered intermittently for the acute treatment of migraine attacks were assessed. Patients with migraine with or without aura and no history of hypertension were randomized to sumatriptan/naproxen sodium (n=135), sumatriptan (n=136), or naproxen sodium (n=136) to treat migraine attacks for 6 months in a double-blind, parallel-group trial. Following a treated migraine attack, patients performed 2 consecutive days of self-measured BPs beginning ≥24 hours after the last dose of study medication and transmitted them by a transtelephonic modem. The primary end point was the change from baseline in self-measured BP at 6 months. Changes in self-measured BP from baseline to 6 months for sumatriptan/naproxen sodium were -2.1/-1.5 mm Hg (95% confidence intervals, -3.4 to -0.8 for systolic and -2.6 to -0.3 for diastolic). Mean changes from baseline in self-measured BP did not differ among the 3 treatment groups. Additional categorical analyses did not show increases from baseline with sumatriptan/naproxen sodium relative to either of the monotherapy groups. Intermittent acute migraine treatment with sumatriptan/naproxen sodium for up to 6 months was associated with clinically insignificant decreases in self-measured BP that were similar to those with sumatriptan or naproxen alone in normotensive patients with migraine.

A double-blind comparison between bupropion XL and venlafaxine XR: sexual functioning, antidepressant efficacy, and tolerability.

In this double-blind, multicenter study, bupropion XL, a norepinephrine-dopamine reuptake inhibitor, and venlafaxine XR, a serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor, were compared with regard to sexual functioning, efficacy, and tolerability. A total of 348 sexually active adult outpatients with depression were randomized to receive bupropion XL (titrated to a target dose of 300-450 mg/d) or venlafaxine XR (titrated to a target dose of 150-225 mg/d) for 12 weeks. Total scores on the primary dependent variable, the Changes in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (self-report), increased for subjects receiving bupropion XL and decreased for those treated with venlafaxine XR; the mean change scores differed significantly between groups from week 2 onward. Among subjects with normal pretreatment sexual functioning, Changes in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire total scores remained essentially unchanged for the bupropion XL group but were decreased significantly for the venlafaxine XR group; mean change scores also differed between groups from week 2 onward. Although the therapies resulted in similar change on the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, remission rates were significantly higher among those treated with bupropion XL (46%) versus venlafaxine XR (33%) (odds ratio, 1.93; 95% confidence interval, 1.07-3.46). Aside from adverse effects of venlafaxine XR on sexual function, both treatments were reasonably well tolerated. In conclusion, in this patient population (ie, relatively young, sexually active outpatients), bupropion XL was at least as effective as venlafaxine XR and had a significantly more favorable sexual side effect profile.