Peripheral arterial disease: diagnosis and management

This guideline covers diagnosing and managing peripheral arterial disease (PAD) in people aged 18 and over. Rapid changes in diagnostic methods, endovascular treatments and vascular services associated with new specialties in surgery and interventional radiology have resulted in considerable uncertainty and variation in practice. This guideline aims to resolve that uncertainty and variation. In December 2020, we reviewed our guidance on opioids for non-cancer pain in response to a Public Health England evidence review on dependence on, and withdrawal from, prescribed medicines. To support discussion with patients about opioid prescribing, and safe withdrawal management, we are developing guidance on safe prescribing and withdrawal management of prescribed drugs associated with dependence and withdrawal and shared decision making. In the meantime, we have added links in this guideline to other NICE guidelines and other resources that support this aim'.

[Naftidrofuryl in arterial obstructive disease: A systematic revue of the literature]. / Naftidrofuryl dans l'artériopathie oblitérante des membres inférieurs : une revue systématique de la littérature.

INTRODUCTION: Arterial obstructive disease is a disease affecting 11 % of the general population. This prevalence is constantly increasing. Nafronyl is still prescribed despite a decreasing reimbursement rate since 2005. The objective of this study was to summarize data from the scientific literature on the efficacy and safety of nafronyl used for the treatment of peripheral arterial obstructive disease. METHOD: A systematic review was made on EMBASE, MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library. Randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews and meta-analyses comparing naftidrofuryl with placebo were included. The main outcome was an improvement in the maximum walking distance or pain free walking distance. The quality of the reviews was analysed using a standardised reading grid. Only the best study was retained. RESULTS: Among 193articles, one meta-analyses were selected. Naftidrofuryl improved the initial pain free walking distance by 60 % at six months, without a demonstrated increase in the risk of adverse reactions. CONCLUSION: The efficacy of naftidrofuryl over the maximum walking distance in peripheral arterial obstructive disease appears similar to physical exercise or simvastatin.

Prostanoids for critical limb ischaemia.

BACKGROUND: Peripheral arterial occlusive disease (PAOD) is a common cause of morbidity and mortality due to cardiovascular disease in the general population. Although numerous treatments have been adopted for patients at different disease stages, no option other than amputation is available for patients presenting with critical limb ischaemia (CLI) unsuitable for rescue or reconstructive intervention. In this regard, prostanoids have been proposed as a therapeutic alternative, with the aim of increasing blood supply to the limb with occluded arteries through their vasodilatory, antithrombotic, and anti-inflammatory effects. This is an update of a review first published in 2010. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness and safety of prostanoids in patients with CLI unsuitable for rescue or reconstructive intervention. SEARCH METHODS: For this update, the Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Specialised Register (January 2017) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 1). In addition, we searched trials registries (January 2017) and contacted pharmaceutical manufacturers, in our efforts to identify unpublished data and ongoing trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials describing the efficacy and safety of prostanoids compared with placebo or other pharmacological control treatments for patients presenting with CLI without chance of rescue or reconstructive intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials, assessed trials for eligibility and methodological quality, and extracted data. We resolved disagreements by consensus or by consultation with a third review author. MAIN RESULTS: For this update, 15 additional studies fulfilled selection criteria. We included in this review 33 randomised controlled trials with 4477 participants; 21 compared different prostanoids versus placebo, seven compared prostanoids versus other agents, and five conducted head-to-head comparisons using two different prostanoids.We found low-quality evidence that suggests no clear difference in the incidence of cardiovascular mortality between patients receiving prostanoids and those given placebo (risk ratio (RR) 0.81, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.41 to 1.58). We found high-quality evidence showing that prostanoids have no effect on the incidence of total amputations when compared with placebo (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.09). Adverse events were more frequent with prostanoids than with placebo (RR 2.11, 95% CI 1.79 to 2.50; moderate-quality evidence). The most commonly reported adverse events were headache, nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea, flushing, and hypotension. We found moderate-quality evidence showing that prostanoids reduced rest-pain (RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.59) and promoted ulcer healing (RR 1.24, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.48) when compared with placebo, although these small beneficial effects were diluted when we performed a sensitivity analysis that excluded studies at high risk of bias. Additionally, we found evidence of low to very low quality suggesting the effects of prostanoids versus other active agents or versus other prostanoids because studies conducting these comparisons were few and we judged them to be at high risk of bias. None of the included studies assessed quality of life. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found high-quality evidence showing that prostanoids have no effect on the incidence of total amputations when compared against placebo. Moderate-quality evidence showed small beneficial effects of prostanoids for rest-pain relief and ulcer healing when compared with placebo. Additionally, moderate-quality evidence showed a greater incidence of adverse effects with the use of prostanoids, and low-quality evidence suggests that prostanoids have no effect on cardiovascular mortality when compared with placebo. None of the included studies reported quality of life measurements. The balance between benefits and harms associated with use of prostanoids in patients with critical limb ischaemia with no chance of reconstructive intervention is uncertain; therefore careful assessment of therapeutic alternatives should be considered. Main reasons for downgrading the quality of evidence were high risk of attrition bias and imprecision of effect estimates.

Incidentally diagnosed melorheostosis of upper limb: case report.

BACKGROUND: Melorheostosis is quite a rare bone disease with still unclear ethiology. Although multifocal affection is highly debilitating with unfavorable prognosis, there is no clear consensus about therapeutical approach. There is still insufficient evidence in the literature for almost a century after the first description. Affected bone has a typical appearance of melting wax. Diagnosis is usually incidental with pain as a leading symptom. Diagnosis itself is relatively easy, routine X-ray examination is sufficient. Even though it could be easily overlooked and mistaken with other diseases. Melorheostosis is incurable, the therapy is mostly focused on maintaining patient quality of life. Presented case is unique in terms of extent of the affection (index finger, metacarp shaft, carpal bones, forearm, humerus and whole scapula) in combination with osteopoikilotic islands in other 3 regions (vertebrae, manubrium sterni and left collar bone). Currently there is only one such a case published in the literature (Campbell), but without osteopoikilotic islands. CASE PRESENTATION: Melorheostosis was diagnosed in 26-year old female after injury as an incidental finding. This was quite surprising as the patient already suffered by limited movement in the upper limb and pain before the injury. Detailed examination were performed to confirm the diagnosis, no family history was found. Pharmacotherapy with bisphosphonates, non-steroidal antirheumatics and vasodilatans/rheologic drugs seemed to be effective to maintain the relatively good quality of patient life and good performance in daily routine. Questionable is further development of patient performance status and sustainability of conservative treatment in the long term follow up. CONCLUSION: Conservative treatment with bisphopshonates and COX-2 inhibitors in combination with naftidrofuryl can delay surgery solution.

Non-Invasive Therapy of Peripheral Arterial Disease.

Peripheral arterial disease (PAD) is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Lifestyle changes, like the cessation of the use of tobacco as well as a modification of dietary and exercise habits, can be the most cost-effective interventions in patients with PAD. Smocking cessation is the most important intervention, since it increases survival in these patients. Antiplatelet therapy is an essential component in the treatment of peripheral arterial disease (PAD) of the lower extremities. In addition to delaying arterial obstructive progression, these agents are most usefull in reducing adverse cardiovascular events such as non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), stroke and vascular death. Mainstay of treatment continues to be aspirin monotherapy (75-325mg daily). Current treatment for lower extremity PAD is directed towards the relief of symptoms and improvement in QoL. The two agents which have consistently been found to be most efficient in achieving these goals are cilostazol and naftidrofuryl oxalate. Naftidrofuryl oxalate may emerge as the most efficient and cost-effective treatment for symptom relief.

The limits of evidence in drug approval and availability: a case study of cilostazol and naftidrofuryl for the treatment of intermittent claudication.

PURPOSE: Despite numerous efforts to develop effective medications for the treatment of intermittent claudication (IC) over the past 4 decades, a gold standard medical management option has yet to be defined. Although not life-threatening, IC interferes with mobility and activities of daily living, significantly impairing quality of life and potentially causing depression. Cilostazol, the leading pharmacologic agent for IC in the United States, was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1999 based on controversial data. Meanwhile, naftidrofuryl, the first-line pharmacologic agent for IC in the United Kingdom and Europe, has never been approved by the FDA and therefore is not available in the United States. The clinical data for cilostazol and naftidrofuryl are plagued by flaws related to lack of protocol standardization, objective endpoints, and strict eligibility criteria in study subjects, making identification of a true treatment effect impossible. Furthermore, no prospective randomized trial comparing the efficacy of cilostazol and naftidrofuryl has been conducted, because the manufacturers of these agents have much to lose and little to gain from such a study. OBJECTIVE: This article provides an overview of the pharmacology of cilostazol and naftidrofuryl, and the clinical studies leading to their approval and clinical acceptance. It further explores the possible sources of bias in analyzing these clinical trials, some of which have been brought to light by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) of the United Kingdom in its technology appraisal guidance. It also speculates the ways in which economic incentives may affect drug-marketing decisions. METHODS: A literature review of pharmacology and clinical trials for cilostazol and naftidrofuryl was performed in PubMed. The majority of included clinical trials were initially identified through the most recent Cochrane review articles as well as the FDA's approval packet for cilostazol. The technology appraisal guidance of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence of the United Kingdom and the manufacturer's response to this guidance document were located via an online search engine. FINDINGS: The clinical data for cilostazol and naftidrofuryl are plagued by flaws related to lack of protocol standardization, objective endpoints, and strict eligibility criteria in study subjects, making identification of a true treatment effect difficult. Furthermore, no prospective randomized trial comparing the efficacy of cilostazol and naftidrofuryl has been conducted. IMPLICATIONS: The history of the evaluation, approval, and marketing of these drugs illustrates the limitations of data in the regulatory approval and marketing of agents whose benefit is subjective and difficult to quantify. Implementation of a standardized protocol with strict eligibility criteria, objective quantifiable measurement of drug effect, and validated endpoints will eventually allow development of an ideal pharmacotherapy for IC.

Cost-effectiveness of cilostazol, naftidrofuryl oxalate, and pentoxifylline for the treatment of intermittent claudication in people with peripheral arterial disease.

We assessed the cost-effectiveness of cilostazol, naftidrofuryl oxalate, and pentoxifylline for intermittent claudication due to peripheral arterial disease (PAD) in adults whose symptoms continue despite a period of conventional management. A Markov decision model was developed to assess the lifetime costs and benefits of each vasoactive drug compared to no vasoactive drug and with each other. Regression analysis was undertaken to model the relationship between maximum walking distance and utility. Resource use data were sourced from the literature and sensitivity analyses were undertaken. Naftidrofuryl oxalate is more effective and less costly than cilostazol and pentoxifylline and has an estimated cost per quality-adjusted life year gained of around £6070 compared to no vasoactive drug. The analysis uses effectiveness evidence from a network meta-analysis. In contrast to previous guidelines recommending cilostazol, the analysis suggests that naftidrofuryl oxalate is the only vasoactive drug for PAD which is likely to be cost-effective.

[Clinical studies in peripheral arterial occlusive disease: update from the aspects of a meta-narrative review]. / Klinische Studien bei peripherer arterieller Verschlusskrankheit: Update unter den Aspekten eines meta-narrativen Reviews.

BACKGROUND: Atherosclerosis is a systemic disease. Its association with the metabolic syndrome requires a multimodal therapy setting, to alleviate symptoms and for primary and secondary prevention. In the planning of the therapy, information about evidence of the interventions and a rationale for reasonable combinations are important. METHOD: For compiling a meta-narrative review (MNR) on the evidence of complementary and conventional pharmaco-therapy in peripheral arterial occlusive disease (PAOD), the literature was searched for meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). These were evaluated taking into account network-pharmacological aspects and research parameters. RESULTS: 4 suitable meta-analyses were found. In comparison to placebo, treatments with verum showed a significant improvement of the maximum walking distance of 63.5 m (95% confidence interval (CI) 27.11-99.91 m; Padma 28, Tibetan Formula), 41.3 m (95% CI -7.1-89.7 m; cilostazol, phosphodiesterase IIl inhibitor), 43.8 m (95% CI 14.1-73.6 m; pentoxifylline, rheological drug), and 71.2 m (95% CI 13.3-129.0 m; naftidrofuryl, rheological drug). Only for Padma 28, clinical relevance, defined as an increase of the maximum walking distance by >100 m, was analyzed and reached by 18.2% of the verum and 2.1% of the placebo patients (odds ratio 10; 95% CI 3.03-33.33). 1 conventional and 1 complementary drug additionally showed to have significant pleiotropic effects (Padma 28 and cilostazol (e.g. reduction of triglycerides)). CONCLUSIONS: According to meta-analytic evidence, naftidrofuryl and Padma 28 show clinically relevant efficacy for the treatment of early stages of PAOD. The extent to which the theoretically possible combination of different drugs contributes to improve the systemic disease under a network-pharmacological rationale remains to be shown in a multi-armed RCT.

Naftidrofuryl for intermittent claudication.

BACKGROUND: Lifestyle changes and cardiovascular prevention measures are a primary treatment for intermittent claudication (IC). Symptomatic treatment with vasoactive agents (Anatomic Therapeutic Chemical Classification (ATC) for medicines from the World Health Organisation class CO4A) is controversial. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate evidence on the efficacy and safety of oral naftidrofuryl (ATC CO4 21) versus placebo on the pain-free walking distance (PFWD) of people with IC by using a meta-analysis based on individual patient data (IPD). SEARCH METHODS: For this update the Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases Group Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the Specialised Register (last searched October 2012) and CENTRAL (2012, Issue 9).For the original review the authors handsearched the European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery (1984 to 1994) and checked relevant bibliographies. They contacted the registration holder of naftidrofuryl and the authors of identified trials for any unpublished data. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with low or moderate risk of bias for which the IPD were available. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We collected data from the electronic data file or from the case report form and checked the data by a statistical quality control procedure. All randomized patients were analyzed following the intention-to-treat (ITT) principle. The geometric mean of the relative improvement in PFWD was calculated for both treatment groups in all identified studies.The effect of the drug was assessed compared with placebo on final walking distance (WDf) using multilevel and random-effect models and adjusting for baseline walking distance (WD0). For the responder analysis, therapeutic success was defined as an improvement of walking distance of at least 50%. MAIN RESULTS: We included seven studies in the IPD (n = 1266 patients). One of these studies (n = 183) was only used in the sensitivity analysis so that the main analysis included 1083 patients. The ratio of the relative improvement in PFWD (naftidrofuryl compared with placebo) was 1.37 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.27 to 1.49, P < 0.001). The absolute difference in responder rate, or proportion successfully treated, was 22.3% (95% CI 17.1% to 27.6%). The calculated number needed to treat was 4.5 (95% CI 3.6 to 5.8). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Oral naftidrofuryl has a statistically significant and clinically meaningful, although moderate, effect of improving walking distance in the six months after initiation of therapy for people with intermittent claudication. Access by researchers to data from RCTs that are suitable for IPD analysis should be possible through repositories of data from pharmacological trials. Regular formal appraisal of the balance of risk and benefit is needed for older pharmaceutical products.

Systematic review of the efficacy of cilostazol, naftidrofuryl oxalate and pentoxifylline for the treatment of intermittent claudication.

BACKGROUND: A systematic review and network meta-analysis was undertaken to consider the evidence for the efficacy and tolerability of placebo, cilostazol, naftidrofuryl oxalate and pentoxifylline in patients with intermittent claudication due to peripheral arterial disease (PAD). METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Web of Science, Conference Proceedings, BIOSIS, National Research Register and MetaRegister databases were searched. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and published systematic reviews of patients with intermittent claudication due to PAD and whose symptoms persisted despite a period of conservative management. Study selection was conducted by one reviewer with involvement from a clinician. Data were extracted by one reviewer with no blinding to authors or journal, and checked by a second reviewer. Outcome measures were maximum walking distance (MWD) and pain-free walking distance (PFWD). RESULTS: The review identified 1876 citations; 26 RCTs met the inclusion criteria for the systematic review. Eleven trials provided data relevant for the meta-analysis. Naftidrofuryl oxalate was ranked first for both MWD and PFWD (probability of 0·947 and 0·987, respectively, of being the best treatment) followed by cilostazol and pentoxifylline. For naftidrofuryl oxalate, cilostazol and pentoxifylline, MWD increased by 60 (95 per cent credible interval 20 to 114) per cent, 25 (11 to 40) per cent and 11 (-1 to 24) per cent respectively relative to placebo, and PFWD increased by 49, 13 and 9 per cent. CONCLUSION: Naftidrofuryl oxalate and cilostazol are both effective treatments for claudication; naftidrofuryl oxalate is likely to be the most effective, with minimal serious adverse events.

Peripheral arterial disease: diagnosis and management

This guideline covers diagnosing and managing peripheral arterial disease (PAD) in people aged 18 and over. Rapid changes in diagnostic methods, endovascular treatments and vascular services associated with new specialties in surgery and interventional radiology have resulted in considerable uncertainty and variation in practice. This guideline aims to resolve that uncertainty and variation.

Intravenous naftidrofuryl for critical limb ischaemia.

BACKGROUND: Peripheral arterial disease affects five per cent of men and women by late middle age. Approximately 25% of those affected will develop critical limb ischaemia (rest pain, ulceration and gangrene) within five years. Naftidrofuryl is a vasoactive drug which may be beneficial in the treatment of critical limb ischaemia. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether naftidrofuryl, when administered intravenously, is effective in alleviating symptoms and reducing progression of disease in patients with critical limb ischaemia. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases Group Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the Specialised Register (last searched May 2012) and CENTRAL (2012, Issue 4). We searched the reference lists of articles. We also contacted pharmaceutical companies for any unpublished trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials of critical limb ischaemia in which participants were randomly allocated to intravenous naftidrofuryl or control (either pharmacological, inert placebo or conservative therapy) were included. People with intermittent claudication were not included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Sixteen trials were identified, but eight were excluded because of poor methodology. The eight included trials involved a total of 269 participants from five different countries. The following outcomes were reported: pain reduction, rest pain/necrosis, progression of disease in terms of incidence of surgical reconstruction/amputation, mortality and side effects. On extraction of the data, odds ratios and mean differences were estimated where appropriate. MAIN RESULTS: Treatment with naftidrofuryl tended to show reduction of pain evaluated by both analogue score and analgesic consumption, but the effect was statistically non-significant (mean difference (MD): 0.42; 95% confidence interval (CI)1.19 to 0.35). Similarly, improvement in rest pain or skin necrosis occurred, but these effects were also non-significant. The effect on mean ankle systolic pressure was inconclusive. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on the results of these trials, it cannot be confirmed that intravenous naftidrofuryl is effective in the treatment of people with critical limb ischaemia. However, these results were based on trials of generally low methodological quality which had only a small number of participants, the duration of treatment was extremely short, and the methods varied between the trials. The wide range of endpoints effectively precluded any meaningful pooling of the results. Intravenous naftidrofuryl was withdrawn as a treatment for severe peripheral arterial disease in 1995 because of reported side effects.

A systematic review and economic evaluation of cilostazol, naftidrofuryl oxalate, pentoxifylline and inositol nicotinate for the treatment of intermittent claudication in people with peripheral arterial disease.

BACKGROUND: Peripheral arterial disease (PAD) is a condition in which there is blockage or narrowing of the arteries that carry blood to the legs and arms. It is estimated to affect around 4.5% of people aged between 55 and 74 years within the UK. The most common symptom of PAD is intermittent claudication (IC), characterised by pain in the legs on walking that is relieved with rest. OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of cilostazol, naftidrofuryl oxalate, pentoxifylline and inositol nicotinate, compared with no vasoactive drugs, for IC due to PAD in adults whose symptoms continue despite a period of conventional management. DATA SOURCE: Electronic bibliographic databases were searched during April to June 2010 (MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library databases, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Web of Science, Conference Proceedings Citation Index, BIOSIS Previews). REVIEW METHODS: Effectiveness outcomes sought were maximal walking distance (MWD), pain-free walking distance (PFWD), ankle-brachial pressure index, cardiovascular events, mortality, adverse events (AEs) and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). A narrative synthesis was provided for all outcomes and a network meta-analysis was undertaken for the walking distance outcomes. A Markov model was developed to assess the relative cost-effectiveness of the interventions from a NHS perspective over a lifetime. The model has three states: vasoactive drug treatment, no vasoactive drug treatment and death. Each 1-week cycle, patients may continue with the drug, discontinue the drug or die. Regression analysis was undertaken to model the relationship between MWD and utility so that a cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) outcome measure could be presented. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were undertaken. All costs and outcomes were discounted at 3.5%. RESULTS: Twenty-six randomised controlled trials were identified that met the inclusion criteria for the clinical effectiveness review. There was evidence that walking distance outcomes were significantly improved by both cilostazol and naftidrofuryl oxalate; the 95% credible intervals for the difference from placebo in the logarithm mean change MWD from baseline were 0.108 to 0.337 and 0.181 to 0.762, respectively. It was not possible to include inositol nicotinate within the meta-analysis of MWD and PFWD owing to the lack of 24-month data; however, the shorter-term data did not suggest a significant effect. AEs were minor for all drugs and included headaches and gastrointestinal difficulties. The incidence of serious adverse events (SAEs), including cardiovascular events and mortality, was not increased by the vasoactive drugs compared with placebo; however, most studies had a relatively short follow-up time to address this outcome. HRQoL data were limited. Two studies of limited quality were identified within the review of cost-effectiveness. The de novo model developed suggests that naftidrofuryl oxalate dominates cilostazol and pentoxifylline and has a cost per QALY gained of around £6070 compared with no vasoactive drug. This result is reasonably robust to changes within the key model assumptions. Inositol nicotinate was not included within the main analysis owing to lack of data. However, it is unlikely to be considered to be cost-effective due to its high acquisition cost (£900 vs £100-500 per year for the other drugs). CONCLUSIONS: Naftidrofuryl oxalate and cilostazol both appear to be effective treatments for this patient population, with minimal SAEs. However, naftidrofuryl oxalate is the only treatment that is likely to be considered cost-effective. The long-term effectiveness is uncertain and hence a trial comparing cilostazol, naftidrofuryl oxalate and placebo beyond 24 weeks would be beneficial. Outcomes associated with naftidrofuryl oxalate could also be compared with those associated with supervised exercise programmes and angioplasty.

Naftidrofuryl for dementia.

BACKGROUND: Dementia is a brain disorder characterized by the permanent loss of higher cognitive functions. A number of vasodilatory drug treatments are prescribed for dementia. Naftidrofuryl is one such medicine which is reported to improve clinical symptoms significantly. The efficacy and possible adverse events of naftidrofuryl need to be reviewed systematically and assessed critically to inform clinical practice and guide the continued search for new treatment regimens. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of naftidrofuryl in the treatment of dementia. SEARCH METHODS: We searched ALOIS: the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group's Specialized Register on 11 January 2011 using the terms: naftidrofuryl. ALOIS contains records of clinical trials from major healthcare databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, LILACS and CINAHL), trial registries (such as ClinicalTrials.gov) and grey literature sources. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised placebo-controlled trials in which patients with dementia were treated with naftidrofuryl were considered eligible for inclusion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, assessed trial quality, and extracted data using data extraction forms. The domains assessed for risk of bias were sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, incomplete outcome data, and selective outcome reporting. We used odds ratios (OR) for reporting dichotomous data, and mean differences (MD) and standardized mean differences (SMD) for continuous data. We assessed statistical heterogeneity using the I(2) statistic. MAIN RESULTS: We identified nine randomised controlled trials involving 847 patients with Alzheimer's disease, vascular dementia, mixed dementia, senile dementia and unspecified dementia. The beneficial effects were found on functional performance and behaviour (-1.04 standardized points, 95% CI -1.73 to -0.35, P = 0.003) with a high-level heterogeneity (I(2) = 54%), and mood (-0.80 standardized points, 95% CI -1.26 to -0.34, P=0.0006) for patients with dementia, as well as on cognitive function (-0.36 standardized points, 95% CI -0.71 to -0.02, P=0.04). However, this was not confirmed by clinical global measures. Naftidrofuryl was found to be well-tolerated by patients with dementia. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Oral administration of naftidrofuryl is well-tolerated by patients with dementia.The low-quality evidence shows that, by use of naftidrofuryl, people with dementia may benefit on performance, behaviour, cognition, and mood. However, the benefit on global impression is inconsistent and unconvincing.

Análisis de los costes y la efectividad del uso de cilostazol frente a naftidrofurilo y pentoxifilina en el tratamiento de la claudicación intermitente en España / Cost-effectiveness analysis of cilostazol vs naftidrofuryl and pentoxifylline for the treatment of intermittent claudication in Spain

Introducción: El cilostazol es un inhibidor reversible de la fosfodiesterasa III que presenta actividad antiagregante plaquetaria y vasodilatadora. El objetivo de este estudio fue estimar las consecuencias clínicas y económicas del uso de cilostazol en comparación con naftidrofurilo y pentoxifilina en el tratamiento de la claudicación intermitente (CI) en España. Métodos: Se ha construido un modelo fármaco económico basado en la literatura para describir el manejo de la CI y sus consecuencias clínicas y económicas para cada opción terapéutica evaluada en pacientes con 40 o más años y una historia de CI sintomática, secundaria a enfermedad vascular periférica de las extremidades inferiores. Los resultados clínicos provienen de una revisión de los ensayos clínicos respectivos. Se utilizaron costes unitarios españoles para medir las consecuencias económicas asociadas al uso de recursos sanitarios a partir de un estudio similar realizado en el Reino Unido. Resultados: Iniciar el tratamiento con cilostazol en lugar de pentoxifilina aumentaría la distancia máxima recorrida en un 72%, reduciendo los costes en un 11,5%. En comparación con naftidrofurilo, cilostazol se asoció a un aumento de la efectividad del 34% y un aumento de los costes sanitarios del 11,2%. Estos resultados suponen que cilostazol, naftidrofurilo y pentoxifilina presentarían ratios de coste por punto porcentual de aumento de la distancia máxima recorrida de 7,8, 9,1 y 14,7 € respectivamente. Conclusiones: Los resultados de este estudio muestran que iniciar tratamiento con cilostazol presenta una relación de costes y efectividad más favorable respecto a otros tratamientos para la CI en España(AU)

Introduction: Cilostazol is a reversible selective inhibitor of phosphodiesterase III which has platelet antiaggregating and vasodilatory activity. The aim of this study was to estimate the clinical and economic consequences of the use of cilostazol compared with naftidrofuryl and pentoxifylline in the treatment of intermittent claudication (IC) in Spain. Methods: A pharmaco economic model was built based on the literature to describe the management of IC and its clinical and economic consequences for each treatment option evaluated in patients 40 years or older with a medical history of symptomatic IC secondary to peripheral vascular disease of the lower extremities. Clinical results were obtained from a review of clinical trials of the comparators. Spanish unit costs were used to measure the economic consequences associated with the use of healthcare resources based on a similar study performed in the UK. Results: Starting treatment with cilostazol instead of pentoxifylline would increase the maximum distance covered by 72%, reducing costs by 11.5%. Compared with naftidrofuryl, cilostazol was associated with an increase in effectiveness of 34% and an increase in healthcare costs of 11.2%. These results mean that cilostazol, naftidrofuryl and pentoxifylline would have a cost, per one percentage point increase of the maximum distance covered, of € 7.8, € 9.1 and € 14.7, respectively. Conclusions: The study results demonstrate that starting treatment with cilostazol has a more favourable cost-effectiveness ratio compared to other treatments for IC in Spain(AU)

Farmacoterapia en el paciente con claudicación intermitente / Pharmacological treatment in the patient with intermittent claudication

La claudicación intermitente es la manifestación más frecuente de la enfermedad arterial periférica. Además de la limitación en la calidad de vida del paciente, es en sí misma un factor de riesgo independiente y elevado de mortalidad de origen cardiovascular. El tratamiento global empieza por un adecuado control de los factores de riesgo vascular y hábitos de vida del paciente. Debemos asociar además fármacos para reducir la aparición de complicaciones isquémicas periféricas o de otros sectores arteriales, entre los que contamos antiagregantes, estatinas y antihipertensivos. El tratamiento específico de la propia claudicación incluye programas de ejercicio físico supervisado y un tratamiento farmacológico donde debemos optar en primer lugar por los fármacos de mayor evidencia actual –cilostazol y naftidrofurilo- considerando la pentoxifilina sólo como segunda alternativa(AU)

Intermittent claudication is the most common symptom of peripheral arterial disease. Besides the limitation in the quality of life of the patient, it represents an independent risk factor and high cardiovascular mortality. The overall treatment strategy begins with an adequate control of vascular risk factors and lifestyle habits of the patient. We also associate drugs to reduce the occurrence of ischemic complications or other peripheral arterial sectors, essentially, antiplatelet agents, statins and antihypertensives. The specific treatment for claudication includes supervised exercise programs and drug treatment. We must first choose from the drugs with most updated evidence, cilostazol and naftidrofuryl, considering pentoxifylline only as the second alternative(AU)