Treatment Impact on Patient-Reported Outcomes in Peripheral Neuropathic Pain: Comparing Single Intervention With Topical High-Concentration Capsaicin to Daily Oral Pregabalin.

BACKGROUND: Peripheral neuropathic pain (PNP) is a complex, subjective experience affecting both physical and psychological aspects of functioning. Assessing patient-reported outcomes (PROs) beyond pain relief is important and aligns with the recommendations of IMMPACT (Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials). Moreover, PRO data are key to clinical decision-making when evaluating treatment options. However, direct comparisons between such options are scarce. High-concentration capsaicin 179 mg (8% w/w) cutaneous patch (HCCP) is applied to the skin at minimum intervals of 90 days under physician supervision; alternative recommended treatments for PNP are mostly orally administered on a daily basis. The ELEVATE study directly compared HCCP with pregabalin and found noninferior efficacy of HCCP to pregabalin in relieving pain after 8 weeks, with a significantly faster onset of action and fewer systemic side effects. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this analysis was to compare PRO outcomes defined as secondary objectives of the ELEVATE study after a single intervention with HCCP to daily oral pregabalin for 8 weeks. STUDY DESIGN: ELEVATE was an open-label, randomized (1:1) multicenter study. SETTING: The study included 92 sites in 22 countries in Europe and Asia. METHODS: Five hundred fifty-nine non-diabetic  patients with PNP received a single intervention with HCCP (n = 282; 1-4 patches at baseline) or oral daily pregabalin (n = 277; 150-600 mg, 8 weeks). At baseline (Day 0) and Week 8, patients completed the following PROs in addition to the regular pain assessments: Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC), Medical Outcomes Study Cognitive Functioning scale (MOS-Cog), Medical Outcomes Study Sleep scale (MOS-Sleep), Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM), and EuroQol 5-Dimensions 5-levels (EQ-5D-5L) Utility Index (EQ-UI) and Visual Analog Scale (EQ-VAS). RESULTS: At Week 8, 76% and 75.9% of patients on HCCP and pregabalin, respectively, reported to be very much/much/minimally improved on the PGIC. HCCP application was associated with significant improvements from baseline vs. pregabalin in MOS-Cog (mean difference: 4.28 [95% CI: 2.90-5.66]; P < 0.001), EQ-VAS (3.11 [0.30-5.92]; P = 0.030), and TSQM global satisfaction (6.74 [2.29-11.20]; P = 0.029), particularly the side-effects dimension (21.23 [17.55-24.94]; P < 0.0001). No significant differences in improvements were noted for the MOS-Sleep, TSQM convenience, and EQ-UI. LIMITATIONS: The ELEVATE study has an open-label design, with only one comparator (pregabalin); it was limited to 8 weeks. The sample size was determined for the primary endpoint. CONCLUSIONS: A single intervention with HCCP showed benefits vs. daily pregabalin at Week 8 on several PROs. While HCCP has been approved in the United States for PNP treatment in diabetic and PHN patients, these observations provide information on how patients perceive the effects of distinct PNP treatments. They are complementing already existing knowledge on efficacy and safety of different treatment options with data on patient preferences and may help identify the appropriate treatment option in dialogue with the patients and shared decision-making.IRB Approval: At the time of the study, the trial was approved either nationally or at site level. All approvals were granted prior to the initiation of the trial. A list of Ethics Committees that approved the trial is included as a supplemental file. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01713426.

Correction to: Cardiovascular Safety of Empagliflozin Versus Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 (DPP-4) Inhibitors in Type 2 Diabetes: Systematic Literature Review and Indirect Comparisons.

The authors have updated Fig. 3 which was incorrectly published in the original publication.

Cardiovascular Safety of Empagliflozin Versus Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 (DPP-4) Inhibitors in Type 2 Diabetes: Systematic Literature Review and Indirect Comparisons.

INTRODUCTION: Clinical trials conducted in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) treated with glucose-lowering drugs and examining cardiovascular-related outcomes have yielded mixed results. In this work, we aimed to assess the relative treatment effects of empagliflozin versus sitagliptin and saxagliptin (dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors) on cardiovascular-related outcomes in patients with T2DM. METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature review to identify clinical trials assessing cardiovascular-related outcomes for sitagliptin-, saxagliptin-, and empagliflozin-treated patients with T2DM. A network meta-analysis of indirect treatment comparisons was conducted in a Bayesian framework. Hazard ratios (HR) and 95% credible intervals (CrI) were computed for six cardiovascular-related outcomes to estimate the relative efficacies of these agents. RESULTS: Empagliflozin showed a statistically significant superiority over saxagliptin (HR 0.60; 95% CrI 0.46-0.80) and sitagliptin (HR 0.60; 95% CrI 0.46-0.79) to reduce the risk for cardiovascular-related mortality. For all-cause mortality, empagliflozin showed a statistically significant risk reduction compared to saxagliptin (HR 0.61; 95% CrI 0.49-0.76) and sitagliptin (HR 0.67; 95% CrI 0.54-0.83). A similar pattern was observed in the risk reduction for hospitalization due to heart failure, where empagliflozin was found to be statistically significantly superior to saxagliptin (HR 0.51; 95% CrI 0.37-0.70) and sitagliptin (HR 0.65; 95% CrI 0.47-0.90). Empagliflozin was not statistically significantly different to sitagliptin and saxagliptin with regard to the risk of a composite endpoint composed of death, stroke or myocardial infarction. CONCLUSION: In this indirect comparison to the DPP-4 inhibitors saxagliptin and sitagliptin, empagliflozin significantly lowered the risk of cardiovascular-related mortality, all-cause mortality and hospitalizations due to heart failure. FUNDING: Boehringer Ingelheim GmbH.

A simplified economic approach to thyroid FNA cytology and surgical intervention in thyroid nodules.

OBJECTIVE: Few studies have modelled the economics of thyroid FNA. METHODS: A simple spreadsheet economic model for delivery of thyroid fine needle aspiration (FNA) cytology is described using the UK Royal College of Pathologists' Classification for thyroid FNA which is based on The Bethesda System for Reporting Thyroid Cytopathology. RESULTS: We show an estimated 27.8% cost treatment reduction per patient if low rates of non-diagnostic for cytological diagnosis (Thy 1) and neoplasm possible atypia/non-diagnostic (Thy 3a) are achieved, which require rapid onsite FNA adequacy assessment of aspiration samples. If we assume that the number of thyroid FNAs performed in the UK annually is around 500 per million, and the UK population is 62 million, this could save the UK National Health Service significant sums, as the additional cost per patient treated in this model varies from £781 for a scenario with ultrasound guided FNA and inclinic cell adequacy assessment to £998 where aspirates are taken in conventional fashion without any inclinic adequacy assessment. CONCLUSIONS: This model makes a strong economic case for the introduction of rapid onsite assessment of thyroid FNA across cancer networks, to improve the diagnostic efficacy of thyroid FNA.