By V. Norris. Indiana University Northwest. 2018.
Numerically more participants experienced dizziness in combination arm compared with either monotherapy arm; numerically more participants experienced hyperkalemia in combination arm compared with irbesartan arm best 120mg sildalis. Combination of ACE-I and AIIRA compared with monotherapy with either ACE-I or AIIRA • Combination therapy of an ACE-I and an AIIRA compared with an ACE-I alone (4 trials) o Losartan and lisinopril compared with lisinopril alone (1 trial; fair quality): No differential effects found between groups for proteinuria reduction purchase sildalis 120 mg with visa. Markers for change in renal function were inconsistent; glomerular filtration rate was lower for those on combination therapy but there was no difference between groups in creatinine clearance 120 mg sildalis mastercard. Creatinine clearance was stable in both groups buy cheap sildalis 120 mg online, both trials. Harms were not delineated by treatment groups or were only delineated for an AIIRA. One dizziness/hypotension event occurred with ramipril monotherapy compared with zero with combination therapy; no hyperkalemia events occurred in either group. Harms were reportedly only for the combination therapy group. Changes in creatinine were numerically similar between groups. A numerical higher percent rate of hyperkalemia was seen in those on maximum dose combination therapy compared with lower dose combination therapy or monotherapy. Detailed assessment Monotherapy: Inter-class comparison of effectiveness, efficacy, and harms between AIIRA and ACE-I Proteinuric chronic kidney disease 83-95 We identified 17 trials that compared monotherapy with an angiotensin II receptor antagonist (AIIRA) to monotherapy with an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor (ACE-I). Trials rated as poor will not be discussed in detail, but additional information can be found in Evidence Table 10. Those trials that were rated poorly were heterogeneous in their flaws. Very high withdrawal rate was evident in 2 studies, 1 for a 99 98 withdrawal rate of 22%, and 1 with a withdrawal rate of 47%. The very high withdrawal rate in the latter, coupled with an overall small sample size (N=19, nine of which were withdrawn), 99 was the primary reason for its poor rating. In the former study, the poor rating stemmed from the lack of statistical analysis of any outcomes of interest and the lack of reporting of any adverse events in addition to the noted small sample size. A third study was rated as poor because the treatment arm groups were different at baseline in terms of both blood pressure and 97 proteinuria, and no adverse events were reported. The fourth trial that was rated poor quality 96 92 was the COOPERATE study, as was one of its sub-studies. This trial has been a point of much consternation and debate in the medical community; 1 correspondence raised concerns about statistical methods as well as better than expected level of similarity among treatment 100 groups at baseline. Recently, a formal retraction of the COOPERATE study was published by 101 the The Lancet. Per this retraction statement, a formal investigation of this trial conducted by the original university hospital revealed that this trial was not double blind, that the presence of a statistician during the data analysis was unclear, and that the patient specific data (on a sample chart review) could not be verified to be authentic. For this reason, the COOPERATE trial and its ambulatory blood pressure sub-study were rated as poor and were not included in this report. Valsartan was compared with lisinopril in 1 trial, to benazepril in 2 trials, and to 85, 95 87 ramipril in 2 trials. Telmisartan was compared with enalapril in 1 trial and irbesartan was 86 compared with fosinopril in 1 trial. We did not find any trials involving comparisons of either eprosartan or olmesartan to an ACE-I, or any trials involving comparisons of captopril, cilazapril, moexipril, or quinapril to an AIIRA. One trial reported a renal survival outcome, including time to end stage renal disease or 88 doubling of serum creatinine. All but 2 trials compared the change in level or percent of proteinuria experienced; the 2 trials that did not report changes in proteinuria did report changes 83, 94 in renal function and were included for the benefit of those analyses. Of note, while blood pressure control was not a primary outcome of interest in this analysis, blood pressure control is DRIs, AIIRAs, and ACE-Is Page 49 of 144 Final Report Drug Effectiveness Review Project known to impact proteinuria (with higher blood pressure leading to more proteinuria compared 106 with lower blood pressure). For that reason, if blood pressure control was reported as statistically not equivalent between groups, effects on proteinuria within that trial will not be considered to be independent of blood pressure control. No quality-of-life results were examined by any of these trials.
Overall sildalis 120 mg cheap, limited head-to-head evidence from one short-term study (12 weeks) does not support a difference between montelukast and zafirlukast in their ability to decrease rescue medicine use or improve quality of life (Appendix H order sildalis 120mg without prescription, Table H-2) sildalis 120mg for sale. Montelukast compared with Zafirlukast 72 One fair-rated 12-week head-to-head trial comparing montelukast to zafirlukast met the inclusion/exclusion criteria for our review sildalis 120mg on-line. The trial aimed to compare the effect of montelukast (10 mg/day) and zafirlukast (40 mg/day) on quality of life and rescue medication use. The trial enrolled 40 adults with mild persistent asthma from a subspecialty respiratory pathophysiology center in Italy. At endpoint, improvement in beta-agonist use and asthma-related quality of life (AQLQ) were not significantly different between montelukast- and zafirlukast-treated patients. Montelukast compared with Zileuton We did not identify any good or fair quality systematic reviews or head-to-head trials that compared montelukast to zileuton. Zafirlukast compared with Zileuton We did not identify any good or fair quality systematic reviews or head-to-head trials that compared zafirlukast to zileuton. Controller medications for asthma 52 of 369 Final Update 1 Report Drug Effectiveness Review Project Table 9. Characteristics of head-to-head studies comparing leukotriene modifiers in children and adults Study design Country N Study population Comparison Study Duration Setting (total daily dose in mg/day) Quality rating Montelukast (ML) compared with zafirlukast 72 Riccioni et al. RCT Italy ML (10) Fair compared with 40 Age ≥12, mild, smoking status ZAF (40) NR 12 weeks Respiratory Pathophysiology Center Montelukast compared with zileuton No systematic reviews or head-to-head trials found Zafirlukast compared with zileuton No systematic reviews or head-to-head trials found Abbreviations: AQLQ = Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire; ML = Montelukast; NR = not reported; NS = not statistically significant; RCT= randomized controlled trial; ZAF = Zafirlukast. Symbol use: Drug X > Drug Y = statistically significant difference in outcomes favoring Drug X; Drug X > Drug Y trend = point estimate favors Drug X, but the difference is not statistically significant or tests of statistical significance were NR; No difference = no statistically significant difference or tests of statistical significance were not reported and outcomes are similar. Long-Acting Beta-2 Agonists (LABAs) Summary of findings 73-76 We found three fair RCTs that included head-to-head comparisons of one LABA with another LABA meeting our inclusion/exclusion criteria. Two compared eformoterol with 73, 74 75, 76 salmeterol and one compared formoterol with salmeterol. Of note, formoterol was formerly known as eformoterol in the UK and these are generally considered to be the same medicine. We also found one 6-month open-label trial comparing formoterol and salmeterol that 77 we rated poor quality. Detailed Assessment Description of Studies Of the 3 trials, two compared eformoterol (eFM) with salmeterol (SM) and one compared formoterol (FM) with SM (Table 10). The most commonly used delivery devices were MDIs and DPIs: two studies (66%) compared DPI to DPI; one study (33%) compared DPI to DPI and to MDI (eFM DPI compared with SM DPI 74 compared with SM MDI). Controller medications for asthma 53 of 369 Final Update 1 Report Drug Effectiveness Review Project Study Populations The three head-to-head RCTs included a total of 1107 subjects. Two were conducted primarily in 73, 75, 76 74 adult populations. One study was conducted in a pediatric and adolescent population 73, 74 (age 6-17) (Table 10). Two trials (66%) were conducted in the UK and Republic of Ireland 75, 76 and one was conducted in France, Italy, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the UK. Asthma severity ranged from mild to severe persistent: one study (33%) was conducted in patients with 73 74 mild to moderate persistent asthma, one (33%) in patients with moderate persistent, and one 75, 76 (33%) in patients with moderate to severe persistent. All three trials enrolled subjects that were not adequately controlled on ICSs. Smoking status was not reported for the 74 pediatric/adolescent trial. The other two studies (66%) allowed smokers and reported that 14 to 24 percent in each group were smokers. Sponsorship Of the 3 head-to-head trials, 2 (66%) were funded by pharmaceutical companies; 1 trial (33%) did not report the source of funding but at least one author had a primary affiliation with a pharmaceutical company. Eformoterol (eFM) compared with Salmeterol (SM) 73, 74 Two fair-quality RCTs meeting our inclusion/exclusion criteria compared eFM with SM. Both enrolled patients not adequately controlled on ICSs and were conducted in the UK and Republic of Ireland. The first was an 8-week trial that enrolled 469 adolescents and adults ≥12 73 years of age with mild to moderate persistent asthma.
According to some experts sildalis 120 mg low price, valganciclovir may have a role as maintenance therapy in the future (Bower 2010) discount 120mg sildalis free shipping. In contrast generic 120mg sildalis overnight delivery, antiviral therapy with foscarnet or cidofovir had no benefit (Coty 2003 sildalis 120 mg fast delivery, Senanayake 2003, Berezne 2004). Chemotherapy: well-tolerated chemotherapies such as vincristine (2 mg IV as a bolus at 14-day intervals) or oral etoposide (50 mg daily) have proven effective according to several reports as well as our own experience (Scott 2001, Kotb 2006). CHOP stan- dard chemotherapy can help, but does not seem to significantly prolong survival. It is speculated that IL-6 production is reduced and that a large reservoir of HHV-8 is removed through the splenectomy. In a series of 40 patients, the median survival following splenectomy was 28 versus 12 months (Oksenhendler 2002). According to a US study, the symptoms were improved in 10/10 patients following splenectomy (Coty 2003). Anti-IL-6 antibodies: In HIV-negative patients, very optimistic data from Japan have been published, in which patients were successfully treated with anti-IL-6 receptor antibodies such as tocilizumab (Nishimoto 2005, Matsuyama 2007). In Europe, tocilizumab was approved in 2009 for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. However, there only case reports for HIV-related MCD (Nagao 2014). Data is also lacking for siltuximab, a new IL-6 antibody. In a randomized trial of 53 patients with idiopathic MCD (negative for HHV-8 and HIV), 34% achieved a durable response (van Rhee 2014). Thalidomide: This drug is believed to inhibit cytokine dysregulation as well as the inflammatory component of MCD. Case reports in HIV-related MCD exist (Lee 2003, Jung 2004). It should be noted that thalidomide has been associated with venous thromboembolic events, including deep venous thrombosis and pulmonary emboli. Anticoagulation during thalidomide administration is mandatory. We have seen two patients developing pulmonary emboli despite anticoagulation. Therefore we would not recommend the use of thalidomide in HIV-related MCD. Other immune therapies: For interferon, there are positive as well as negative exam- ples (Coty 2003, Nord 2003). Human herpesvirus 8-positive castleman disease in HIV-infected patients: the impact of HAART. Failure of cidofovir in HIV-associated multicentric Castleman disease. Clinical Features and Outcome in HIV-Associated Multicentric Castleman’s Disease. Brief communication: rituximab in HIV-associated multicentric Castleman disease. Cytokine changes during rituximab therapy in HIV-associated multicentric Castleman disease. How I treat HIV-associated multicentric Castleman disease. Rituximab failure in fulminant multicentric HIV/human herpesvirus 8-associ- ated Castleman’s disease with multiorgan failure: report of two cases. Valganciclovir for suppression of human herpesvirus-8 replication: a ran- domized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover trial. Casquero A, Barroso A, Fernandez Guerrero ML, Gorgolas M. Use of rituximab as a salvage therapy for HIV-asso- ciated multicentric Castleman disease.
Incidence of overall adverse events cheap sildalis 120mg visa, cough-related adverse events purchase sildalis 120mg amex, and overall withdrawals due to adverse events were generally somewhat greater in the enalapril groups purchase sildalis 120 mg fast delivery. Incidence of overall adverse events was only reported in 1 trial and was significantly greater 76 after 3 months in the enalapril group (45% compared with 32% cheap 120 mg sildalis with mastercard, P<0. Compared with enalapril, fewer participants in the losartan group experienced bother due to cough (2% 56 compared with 12%), withdrew due to cough (0 compared with 1 of 14 patients, P value not 73 76 reported), and reported cough (1% compared with 12%, P<0. Differences between drugs in incidence of withdrawals due to adverse events were not significant, but were generally lower 56, 76 for losartan (range, 0% to 3%) than for enalapril (range, 8% to 12%). No trial of losartan compared with enalapril examined subgroups of interest. Losartan compared with captopril, fosinopril, perindopril, quinapril, and ramipril 68 63 One trial each compared losartan 50 mg to captopril 50mg, fosinopril 10 mg, perindopril 4 60 77 71 63 mg, quinapril 10 mg, and ramipril 5 mg. Sample sizes ranged across trials from 33 to 68 60, 68 77 396 participants. The trial with the longest duration was rated poor quality because blinding was not used and insufficient information was provided to determine whether baseline characteristics were balanced across treatment groups, whether attrition was high or differential across groups, or how many 77 participants were included in the efficacy analysis. The trials that compared losartan to 60, 63 fosinopril and perindopril enrolled participants with hypertension plus type 2 diabetes. In 1 of those trials, participants with macroalbuminuria were excluded and changes in albumin level (g/l) and urinary albumin excretion rate (mg/day) were evaluated for the whole sample and separately for the 55% of participants who were normo albuminuric and the 45% who had 63 microalbuminuria. In the trial that compared losartan to ramipril, albumin levels at baseline or 60 at the end of the trial were not reported. In a third trial, participants were nondiabetic and had normal renal function, but were macro albuminuric (baseline mean ranged from 350 mg/24 hours 71 to 460 mg/24 hours). Changes were minimal and there were no significant differences between losartan and any of the ACE-I comparators. There were no significant differences in change in creatinine clearance (mg/min) 63 between losartan and either fosinopril (–34% compared with –27%) or ramipril (–1% compared 71 63, 71 with +3%). In the trial of 33 participants with type 2 diabetes and either normo albuminuria or microalbuminuria, compared with baseline, reduction in albumin excretion rate (mg/day) over 6 months was statistically significant in the 63 fosinopril group overall (–75%), but was not significant in the losartan group overall (–37%). For the subgroup of participants with normo albuminuria (18 of 33), albumin excretion rates 63 increased by 45% for losartan and by 27% for fosinopril. In the subgroup of participants with microalbuminuria (15 of 33), albumin excretion rates decreased by 91% in the fosinopril group (P<0. In the trial of 51 participants with nondiabetic macroalbuminuria, the reduction in urinary albumin excretion rate (g/day) was –40% 71 for losartan and –25% for ramipril, but the difference was not statistically significant. Overall withdrawals within individual treatment groups was only reported in 1 trial and were slightly 68 greater for captopril (12%) compared with losartan (8%). DRIs, AIIRAs, and ACE-Is Page 39 of 144 Final Report Drug Effectiveness Review Project Harms. No significant differences were found between losartan and captopril in the only 68 trial that reported harms within individual treatment groups. Greater numbers of participants in the captopril group reported any adverse events (41% compared with 33%), serious adverse events (5% compared with 2%), cough (7% compared with 6%), and withdrew due to adverse events (6% compared with 3%). There was only 1 case of hyperkalemia in each treatment group. The only subgroup analysis reported among these 4 trials was based on 63 baseline albumin levels and results were described above. Candesartan Candesartan compared with enalapril 66, 69, 75 We included 3 trials that compared starting doses of candesartan 8 mg to enalapril 10 mg. Sample sizes ranged from 129 66 69 participants to 429 participants. In 2 trials, the candesartan and enalapril dosages were 66 doubled after 6 weeks if the diastolic blood pressure was at or above 90 mm Hg or if the 69 overall blood pressure was at or above 130/85 mm Hg.
9 of 10 - Review by V. Norris
Votes: 163 votes
Total customer reviews: 163