Patient preference for deferasirox film-coated versus dispersible tablet formulation: a sequential-design phase 2 study in patients with thalassemia.

Iron chelation therapy (ICT) is the mainstay of treatment in patients with thalassemia requiring blood transfusions. This phase 2 JUPITER study evaluated patient preference between film-coated tablet (FCT) and dispersible tablet (DT) in transfusion-dependent thalassemia (TDT) or non-TDT (NTDT) patients treated with both formulations in a sequential manner. The primary endpoint was patient-reported preference for FCT over DT, while secondary outcomes included patient reported outcomes (PROs) evaluated by overall preference, and by age, thalassemia transfusion status, and previous ICT status. Out of 183 patients screened, 140 and 136 patients completed the treatment periods 1 and 2 of the core study, respectively. At week 48, the majority of patients preferred FCT over DT (90.3 vs. 7.5%; difference of percentage: 0.83 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.75-0.89; P < 0.0001]). FCT scored better on secondary PROs and showed less severe gastrointestinal symptoms than DT, except in the change of modified Satisfaction with Iron Chelation Therapy (mSICT) preference scores, which were similar for both the formulations. Patients with TDT had stable ferritin levels, while it showed a downward trend up to week 48 in patients with NTDT on deferasirox treatment. Overall, 89.9% of patients reported ≥ 1 adverse event (AE), of which 20.3% experienced ≥ 1 serious AE. The most common treatment-emergent AEs were proteinuria, pyrexia, urine protein/creatinine ratio increase, diarrhea, upper respiratory tract infections, transaminase increase, and pharyngitis. Overall, this study reinforced the observations from the previous study by showing a distinct patient preference for FCT over DT formulation and further supported the potential benefits of life-long compliance with ICT.

Complementary and alternative medicine use in asthma: who is using what?

Consumer interest in complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) has grown dramatically in Western countries in the past decade. However, very few patients volunteer information about CAM use unless directly questioned by their health-care practitioner. Therefore, by being informed about the prevalence and modality of CAM use for asthma, as well as characteristics of users, health-care practitioners may be better able to identify patients who use CAM. In turn, this may facilitate proactive discussion and optimization of the patient's overall asthma management. This review aims to summarize the current knowledge about use of CAM by people with asthma, and to assess the applicability of the available studies to the broader asthmatic population. Computerized literature searches were conducted on Medline, Embase, Cochrane and Allied and Complementary Medicine (AMED) databases from their inception to 13 April 2005. Search terms included: complementary medicine/therapies, alternative medicine/therapies and asthma. The bibliographies of accessible articles were searched for further papers. Seventeen studies have examined the use of CAM by people with asthma. The reported level of use for adults ranged from 4% to 79%, and for children from 33% to 89%. Among the most commonly used CAMs were: breathing techniques, herbal products, homeopathy and acupuncture. There is no strong evidence for effectiveness for any of these modalities. There is little consistency among available prevalence studies making conclusions difficult. Nevertheless, the high rates of CAM use reported in some studies indicate that CAM use should be taken into account when managing patients with asthma.