Log in

No account? Create an account
thehist1hs [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

Update of TIMA Guideline for Bipolar I Disorder [Jul. 7th, 2008|11:50 am]

Guiding Principles of The Texas Implementation of Medication Algorithms (TIMA)

Algorithms were developed after examining the quality and quantity of efficacy data, expert opinion, consumer input, and safety and tolerability issues. Certain treatment options were placed lower in the algorithm due to concerns about safety and tolerability, despite strong efficacy evidence,

These algorithms were intended to provide systematic guidance on possible treatment options for BDI. Medication guidelines should be used to help the clinician and patient develop the most effective medication strategy with the fewest side effects, and are not meant to be rigid or choice-limiting. Although it is recommended that the algorithms be followed as linearly as possible, these guidelines are meant to provide flexibility at each stage of choosing treatments for each patient. The main goals of the algorithms are symptomatic remission, full return of psychosocial functioning, and prevention of relapse and recurrence.  Printer- Friendly Email This

Medscape Psychiatry & Mental Health.  2006;11(1) ©2006 Medscape
This is a part of article Update of TIMA Guideline for Bipolar I Disorder Taken from "Celexa Citalopram 10Mg" Information Blog

link1 comment|post comment

Reduction of High-Risk Polypharmacy Drug Combinations [Jul. 6th, 2008|11:49 am]

Abstract and Introduction


Study Objectives: To enhance physician and patient awareness of polypharmacy; to decrease the risks, drug costs, and waste resulting from polypharmacy; and to make the business case for reducing misuse, overuse, and underuse of drugs by reducing polypharmacy.
Design: Longitudinal, time series cohort.
Setting: Outpatient, managed care, integrated delivery system.
Patients: A total of 195,971 patients who received health care from the Henry Ford Medical Group and had health insurance coverage from the Health Alliance Plan.
Measurements and Main Results: Two identical interventions separated by 1 year were conducted in patients at high risk of harm from polypharmacy based on five categories of high-risk drug combinations (referred to as polypharmacy events). Six months of pharmacy claims data were reviewed before and after each intervention to identify these patients. The intervention program consisted of clinical pharmacists performing drug therapy reviews, educating physicians and patients about drug safety and polypharmacy, and working with physicians and patients to correct polypharmacy problems. Prescription cost/member/month, number of prescriptions/member/month, and rates of polypharmacy events/1000 members were measured before and after each of the two interventions. After the first intervention, the overall rate of polypharmacy events decreased from 29.01 to 9.43/1000 patients (67.5% reduction). The number of prescriptions/member/month decreased from 4.6 to 2.2 (52.2% reduction), prescription cost/member/month decreased from $222 to $113 (49.1% reduction), and overall institution drug cost was reduced by $4.8 million. Six months after the second intervention, the overall rate of polypharmacy events was reduced from 27.99 to 17.07/1000 (39% reduction), the number of prescriptions/member/month decreased from 4.5 to 4.0 (11.1% reduction), and prescription cost/member/month decreased from $264 to $239 (9.5% reduction). Overall institution drug costs were reduced by $1.3 million. Sustained effects were seen for all measures of polypharmacy (p=0.001).
Conclusions: These interventions reduced drug costs and numbers of prescriptions in a managed care cohort of patients at high risk for adverse drug events due to polypharmacy. By providing clinical information, decision support, patient self-management support, and care delivery redesign some of the problems resulting from polypharmacy can be solved.Introduction

A national survey of noninstitutionalized American adults indicated that more than 40% of persons aged 65 years or older take five or more different drugs/week, with 12% taking 10 or more.[1] Polypharmacy, however, may not only be appropriate but is often necessary to improve health outcomes and prevent disease progression in older persons with chronic conditions. However, overuse, underuse, and misuse of drugs have all been linked to serious health problems, disabilities, hospitalizations, and death.[2-4]

The term polypharmacy suggests that more drugs are prescribed and taken than are warranted clinically. Patients at greatest risk of polypharmacy consequences are the elderly, patients taking five or more concurrent drugs, those with multiple physicians and pharmacies, patients with concurrent comorbidities or impairments in vision or dexterity, and individuals who have recently been hospitalized.[5] According to one study, nearly one in four noninstitutionalized elderly Americans is taking potentially dangerous prescription drugs.[3]

Researchers who evaluated a cohort of older ambulatory persons estimated that as many as 27.6% of adverse drug events are preventable and occur most commonly with cardiovascular drugs, diuretics, nonopioid analgesics, antidiabetic agents, and anticoagulants.[6] Preventable drug-related morbidity is the fifth most costly health condition. In 2000, the United States spent $133 billion on drugs and an estimated $177 billion managing drug-related problems.[7] For every $1.00 spent on drug therapy, as much as $1.30 may be spent managing drug-related problems.[7] These concerns have prompted calls to action by numerous organizations, including the Centers for Medicare and Medical Services, the Institute for Health Care Improvement, the Institute for Health Care Quality, the National Committee for Quality Assurance, the National Quality Forum, and the Institute for Safe Medication Practices. Oversight of pharmaceutical care by clinical pharmacists has proven effective in improving quality and lowering cost of care in various venues.[8-14]

The goal of our longitudinal study was to improve drug safety through the reduction of polypharmacy in managed care patients. In patients receiving polypharmacy, we performed two identical interventions that consisted of clinical pharmacists performing drug therapy reviews, educating physicians and patients about drug safety and polypharmacy, and working with physicians and patients to correct polypharmacy problems. The intervention integrated the practice of pharmaceutical care with data extracted from pharmacy claims. Primary objectives were to enhance physician awareness of polypharmacy within our managed care network, decrease rates of selected high-risk polypharmacy combinations, and reduce drug costs resulting from polypharmacy.

Our secondary objective was to develop the business case for expanding the polypharmacy intervention program to all patients receiving health coverage from our institution. According to some authors, an intervention can be said to fulfill a business case for quality if it leads to a financial return on the investment needed to implement the intervention in a reasonable time and with a reasonable rate of discounting.[15] This return may consist of profit, reduced losses, or avoided costs. For a polypharmacy intervention to be sustainable, it must satisfy the business case for quality.  Printer- Friendly Email This

Pharmacotherapy.  2005;25(11):1636-1645.  ©2005 Pharmacotherapy Publications
This is a part of article Reduction of High-Risk Polypharmacy Drug Combinations Taken from "Comparison Levitra Viagra" Information Blog

linkpost comment

Efficacy and Tolerability of Tricyclic Antidepressants and SSRIs [Jul. 4th, 2008|10:48 am]


Of the 284 articles identified from the initial search strategy, only 12 met the study criteria (Figure 1). Three additional studies were found in a search undertaken in September 2003. No further studies were found in December 2004. There were 890 participants in SSRI studies, 596 in TCA studies, and 1,267 patients on placebo ( Table 1 ).[16–30] Of the 5 possible SSRIs available, 2 studied sertraline, 3 studied escitalopram (a precursor of citalopram), and 1 studied citalopram. Of the TCAs available, 2 studied dothiepin, 4 studied amitriptyline, 2 studied mianserin, and 3 studied imipramine. Ten of the 15 studies were identified as having a competing interest.

Figure 1.  (click image to zoom)

Number of studies from the initial search (12 from the initial search and 3 from the updated search)      

Our Results confirm that both TCA and SSRI are significantly effective compared with placebo (Figures 2 and 3). For depression scores the standardized mean difference for TCA vs placebo was –0.42 (95% confidence interval [CI], –0.55 to –0.3). The relative risk for improvement using TCA medications was 1.26 (95% CI, 1.12 to 1.42). For SSRI medications the relative risk for improvement was 1.37 (95% CI, 1.21 to 1.55). The number needed to treat for 1 improved patient ranged from 3 to 4 for the TCA studies that were statistically significant. Likewise, the number needed to treat was 6 for SSRIs. We performed an analysis with 5 studies (not shown) that had treatment group scores of <8 on the HAMD. The weighted mean difference was –3.68 (95% CI, –5.89 to –1.47). There was no significant heterogeneity for any analyses, so a fixed effects analysis was used. No significant differences were found for those studies in which means were approximated from graphs or standard errors were assumed from other studies compared with studies that had published data. A funnel plot of the TCA studies suggested that small studies with a small effect size might be missing (the funnel plot is not shown). The funnel plot methodology gives a qualitative view of publication bias but not a quantitative perspective and is therefore difficult to interpret.

Figure 2.  (click image to zoom)

Tricyclic vs placebo for improvement.      

Figure 3.  (click image to zoom)

SSRI vs placebo for improvement.      

The relative risk for adverse effects leading to study withdrawal for TCAs was 2.35 (95% CI, 1.59 to 3.46) (Figure 4) and for SSRIs the relative risk was 2.01 (95% CI, 1.1 to 3.7) (Figure 5). The number needed to harm in terms of study withdrawal resulting from adverse effects for 2 statistically significant TCA studies was 5 and 10. None of the 4 SSRI studies had statistically significant findings for adverse effects leading to withdrawal, but using the pooled figure and the range of baseline risks, the number needed to harm ranged from 21 to 94.

Figure 4.  (click image to zoom)

Tricyclic vs placebo for adverse effects leading to withdrawal.      

Figure 5.  (click image to zoom)

SSRI vs placebo for adverse effects leading to withdrawal.      

Seven studies did not meet the minimum quality criteria on at least 1 of the key components of methodological quality.[18,22,25,27–29] A score of 0 on any component caused the study to be rated as being poor quality. Only 4 studies used an intention-to-treat analysis, and these studies were the most recent. When studies of low methodological quality for the TCAs (n = 6) were removed from analysis, the pooled standardized mean difference or depression score for TCA vs placebo was –0.50 (95% CI, –0.65 to –0.35). For improvement for the TCAs the relative risk was 1.34 (95% CI, 1.16to 1.55). When studies in which at least one half of its assessors were family practitioners were pooled, the standardized mean difference was –0.43 (95% CI, –0.58 to –0.28) and the relative risk was 1.2 (95% CI, 1.03 to 1.4). There were sufficient data to assess continuous outcomes for TCAs at 1 week, 2 weeks, and 4 weeks. The standardized mean difference at 1 week was –0.02 (95% CI, –0.17 to 0.13), at 2 weeks it was –0.2 (95% CI, –0.36 to –0.04), and at 4 weeks it was –0.34 (95% CI, –0.5 to –0.18). For studies that used a HAMD <8 as an outcome (considered to be a remission) the weighted mean difference was –3.68 (95% CI, –5.89 to –1.47). For the 3 studies that reported no conflict of interest, the weighted mean difference was –4.59 (95% CI, –6.82 to 2.36).

Ten studies included an arm with 100 mg or more of a tricyclic antidepressant or more than 60 mg of mianserin. For the 10 studies in which a high dose was given, the standardized mean difference was –0.42 (95% CI, –0.56 to –0.29). The relative risk for these studies was 1.32 (95% CI, 1.15 to 1.5). For the 4 studies of tricyclic antidepressants using a dose of 100 mg/d or less, the weighted mean difference (all used the HAMD) was –3.15 (95% CI, –5.05 to –1.24). For the 2 studies of tricyclic antidepressants using a dose of 75 mg/d, the weighted mean difference was –3.93 (95% CI, –7.65 to –0.21).

Most studies had heterogeneous diagnoses in their participants. Only 2 TCA studies had major depressive disorder as the single diagnosis, and the weighted mean difference for that study was –1.37 (95% CI, –2.52 to –0.22).[19,29] For the SSRI studies there were 4 studies in which all participants had major depressive disorder.[16,18,19,30] Only 3 of the 4 studies had data suitable for pooling, and the relative risk was 1.39 (95% CI, 1.21 to 1.61).  Printer- Friendly Email This

Ann Fam Med.  2005;3(5):449-456.  ©2005 Annals of Family Medicine, Inc.
This is a part of article Efficacy and Tolerability of Tricyclic Antidepressants and SSRIs Taken from "Celexa Citalopram 10Mg" Information Blog

linkpost comment

Algorithm-Based Program Effective for Major Depressive Disorder [Jul. 3rd, 2008|12:48 pm]

July 7, 2004 — Patients treated with an algorithm-based program for major depressive disorder (MDD) had better outcomes than those treated with usual care, according to the results of a prospective trial published in the July issue of the Archives of General Psychiatry.

"Because no one treatment is a panacea, clinicians often use a sequence of treatment steps (either monotherapies or combinations) to increase the likelihood of response or remission," write Madhukar H. Trivedi, MD, from the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, and colleagues. "Decision tree-based algorithms hold the promise of increased consistency of treatment across practitioners, which in turn should lead to better clinical outcomes and more efficient use of health care resources."

The Texas Medication Algorithm project compared algorithm-guided treatment (ALGO) for MDD with treatment as usual (TAU) in four ALGO clinics, six TAU clinics, and four clinics offering TAU to patients with MDD but ALGO to patients with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder.

Outpatients with MDD were divided into ALGO and TAU groups. The ALGO group included patients who were starting antidepressant therapy or who needed a change of antidepressant medication. The TAU group initially met the same criteria. Because medication changes were less frequent in the TAU group, patients were also recruited if their Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) total score was higher than the median for that clinic's routine quarterly evaluation of each patient.

All patients improved during the one-year study (P < .001). However, ALGO patients had significantly greater symptom reduction than TAU patients on the 30-item Inventory of Depressive-Symptomatology Clinician Rated (IDS-C30) scale, the 30-item Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology-Self-Report (IDS-SR30) scale, and 12-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-12) mental health score (P = .046).

Study limitations include lack of randomization, lack of blinding of the outcome assessors, and varying degrees of algorithm adherence.

"The ALGO intervention package during one year was superior to TAU for patients with MDD based on clinician-rated and self-reported symptoms and overall mental functioning," the authors write. "At the practitioner level, we need to explore mechanisms to increase algorithm adherence, including academic detailing, continuous quality improvement, and computerized decision support systems."

The National Institutes of Mental Health and various governmental agencies, pharmaceutical companies, and private foundations supported this project and some of its investigators.

Arch Gen Psych. 2004;61:669-680

Learning Objectives for This Educational Activity

Upon completion of this activity, participants will be able to: Describe components of the ALGO vs. TAU intervention for patients with MDD.Compare the effect of the ALGO intervention with TAU in an outpatient psychiatric setting.

Clinical Context

MDD affects 7% to 12% of men and 20% to 25% of women in their lifetime. Ten percent to 30% of those with MDD have a chronic course with episodes that last two or more years. MDD accounts for up to 60% of psychiatric hospitalizations and 8% to 15% of patients commit suicide. Patients in the U.S. public mental health sector tend to have severe symptoms, poor daily functioning, concurrent medical conditions, and alcohol and other substance abuse. Undertreatment is common and adherence to therapy is a problem. Efficacy trials indicate that one third of patients respond to medications with remission in six to eight weeks with higher remission rates in longer trials. One study by Hirschfield and colleagues published in the September 2001 issue of the British Journal of Psychiatry reported that in the longer term 10% to 30% of patients who do not respond to initial treatment, subsequently, develop depressive relapses within four to six months. Few studies have addressed the optimal management of patients with unsatisfactory clinical responses.

The authors of this descriptive longitudinal study offered an ALGO intervention compared with the TAU approach to MDD patients in the public health mental sector attending 14 psychiatric outpatient clinics to examine the one-year impact on clinician and patient-rated depression and quality-of-life outcomes.

ALGO is an enriched disease-management model that includes a set of physician protocols addressing medication management (using a manual, didactic training, and biweekly telephone expert consultation), on-site clinical coordinator support for patient services, patient and family education program with a manual for the patient, for MDD patients with and without psychosis. Decision points are at weeks 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12. Goals are to enhance adherence and optimal medication selection and dosage with minimal adverse-effect burden.

Study Highlights

Patients from 4 clinics offering ALGO were compared with those from 6 clinics offering TAU only and 4 offering ALGO to patients with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder but not MDD patients for one year.8 of 14 clinics were rural in setting. Ethnicity was described as 12% to 90% white, 2% to 86% Hispanic, and 0.3% to 58% black across the 14 clinics.Inclusion criteria were older than 18 years, psychotic or nonpsychotic MDD requiring medication change, starting antidepressant therapy, or higher than median BPRS-24 score.Exclusion criteria were schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, mental retardation, or primary diagnosis of obsessive compulsive or eating disorder and inpatient detoxification at time of study.Both groups had equal access to the same medications. The TAU group received nonprotocol-driven usual care as determined by patient needs at each visit.Physician adherence to ALGO protocols was not reported. Assessors of outcomes were not blinded to assignment.Primary outcome was change in clinician-assessed IDS-C30 score. A 4.4-point difference in this score is equivalent to a 3-point difference on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression.Secondary outcomes were IDS-SR30, BPRS-24, patient-rated health-related quality of life using the SF-12-Mental Health Summary and Patient Perception of Benefits instrument, and burden of adverse effects.Percentage of patients available for analyses were 100% at 3 months, 99.5% at 6 months, 83.2% at 9 months, and 75.9% at 12 months. The analytic sample (intent-to-treat) consisted of 175 in the ALGO and 175 in the TAU groups.Both groups had significant declines in IDS-C30 scores, and the decline was significantly greater for ALGO than TAU patients in the first 3 months. The magnitude of difference was 4.5 points.On the IDS-SR30, there was also significantly greater symptom reduction associated with the ALGO group compared with the TAU group, with a magnitude difference of 7.5 points between the two groups.The benefits in the ALGO group for both outcomes were accounted for by patients with very severe and severe baseline IDS-C30 scores and worse functioning as indicated by the SF-12 score.By clinician rating, twice as much symptom reduction occurred with ALGO as with TAU. By patient-rating, three times as much benefit was noted by the ALGO group.Mental functioning by the SF-12- Mental Health Summary instrument improved significantly more with the ALGO than the TAU group, with no discernable catch up by the TAU group for one year.Even among responders, substantial symptoms remained at the end of one year.Differences in growth rates in adverse effects during follow-up were not significantly different.

Pearls for Practice

The ALGO intervention model for patients with MDD included a set of physician protocols addressing medication management, on-site clinical coordinator support for patient services, and patient and family education program with a manual for the patient. The TAU group received nonprotocol-driven usual care for MDD as determined by patient needs at each visit.The ALGO intervention for one year is associated with significantly better clinician and patient-reported symptom control, therapy adherence, and quality of life compared with TAU for MDD patients in the public sector.
This is a part of article Algorithm-Based Program Effective for Major Depressive Disorder Taken from "Celexa Citalopram 10Mg" Information Blog

linkpost comment

Like downloading xxxsexmovies videos? [May. 11th, 2008|06:35 pm]

Like downloading xxxsexmovies videos? Try amature home video pics and stories!
linkpost comment

Long-term Tolerance With Viagra [Apr. 13th, 2008|10:26 am]


Is there any indication that there is mental attitude or habituation when sildenafil is used over long periods of time?

Reaction from Thespian J.
G. Hellstrom, MD, FACS

Professor of Urology

Erectile dysfunction (ED) is defined as the unfitness to attain or maintain an adequate penile building for satisfactory sexual sexual congress. Since the making known into clinical noesis of viagra (sildenafil; Pfizer Pharmaceutical Corp.; New York, NY), there has been a dramatic action in the artistic style algorithm for men with ED.
No longer do all men wretchedness from ED have to repair to the surgical positioning of a penile prosthesis, intracavernosal injections or transurethral insertions of vasoactive agents, or household appliance tumescence devices in ordering to sum-up sexual relations.
Numerous placebo-controlled clinical ED studies lasting less than 1 year have documented the rubber and efficacy of sildenafil in patients with ED of various etiologies.

An unanswered subject in warmness to long-term sildenafil use is that of tachyphylaxis, a pharmacokinetic procedure in which paper sensitiveness to a drug diminishes.
A corresponding writing by El-Galley and colleagues published in 2001 reported that viagra produced tachyphylaxis, since 20% of the patients who were followed for 2 time of life needed increased dosages and 17% discontinued management because of the eventual lack of efficacy.

The results of the El-Galley domain were largely discounted upon poor follow-up; 50% of the men on sildenafil did not respond to a telecom interrogation at 2 years’ follow-up.
In direct contrast, a 3-year follow-up immersion in nerve-sparing measure prostatectomy patients (n = 41) revealed that 71% (29/41) were setup responding to the same dose of sildenafil. Of the 29% of dropouts, half (6/12) stopped because of key of spontaneous erections, with only 5 of 12 gradually losing efficacy.
Hence, most authorities have attributed loss of viagra efficacy not to tachyphylaxis, but to progress in organic disease from associated comorbidities and biological process.

However, a recent musing using cultured rat cavernosal smooth hooligan cells demonstrated molecular upregulation of the phosphodiesterase type 5 (PDE-5) enzyme when the cells treated with high doses of viagra for at least 7 days. These findings suggest that viagra is safe and effective when used at normal clinical doses and recommended dosing frequencies.
However, additional clinical investigation will be needed to evaluate the tachyphylaxis significance in chronic PDE-5 inhibitor use, especially when these agents possess long half-lives.

This is a part of article Long-term Tolerance With Viagra Taken from "Comparison Levitra Viagra" Information Blog

linkpost comment

Impact of H pylori on the Management of Dyspepsia in Primary Care [Apr. 9th, 2008|10:24 am]

Dyspepsia is a common clinical difficulty with an plant life figure in
developed countries of approximately 25%. The establishment of
dyspepsia also represents a large component part of clinical noesis in
heavenly body care register for 5% of all full general employment
consultations. The human action of Helicobacter pylori
revolutionized the clinical glide slope to dyspepsia with the
remembering that eradication of unhealthiness could potentially cure
dyspepsia and eliminate the need for long-term antisecretory therapy.
The Maastricht 2-2000 guidelines and primary winding care guidelines
for the social control of H. pylori
contagion recommend a test-and-treat swing without endoscopy for brute
patients under the age of 45 geezerhood presenting in primary feather
care with persistent dyspepsia.[3, 4] The guidelines further recommend
a urea breathing place test (UBT) or dejection antigen test for the
diagnosis of H. pylori corruption in primary coil care and set therapy containing a proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) with clarithromycin 500mg and amoxicillin or metronidazole as first-line management. Aim: To assess the impingement of H. pylori transmission on the direction of dyspepsia in primary quill care. Methods: Patients referred by primary winding care doctors to an open-access 13-carbon urea rest period test coupling over a 2-year time interval for their gear mechanism urea breathing spell test were included in the scrutiny.
Somebody gentle wind results were linked with data on prescribing obtained from the Chief Medical Services medicinal drug database. Results: Of 805 patients, 374 (47%) had a adjective urea proposition test and 431 (54%) a denial urea breather test.
Of photographic film urea gentle wind test patients, only 245 (64%) were prescribed eradication therapy in the 3 months after the breathing spell test and only 43% were referred back for re-testing.
In the year after the urea rest test, there was a significant fall in prescribing of antisecretory therapy which was greatest in the patients who received H. pylori therapy (P < 0.001). Conclusions: There appears to be under and inappropriate intervention of H. pylori illegality in quill feather care, and a low rate of re-testing after eradication, indicating that line guidelines are not well implemented in cognition.
This is a part of article Impact of H pylori on the Management of Dyspepsia in Primary Care Taken from "Comparison Levitra Viagra" Information Blog

linkpost comment

Sildenafil Citrate Does Not Affect Cardiac Contractility in Human or Dog Heart [Feb. 4th, 2008|10:56 am]

Target area: This view evaluated whether sildenafil citrate, an oral organization for erectile dysfunction and a selective inhibitor of phosphodiesterase type 5 (PDE5) with modest vasodilating properties, affects cardiac contractility in vitro .
Investigation Drawing and Methods: Slices of freshly obtained human ( n = 2) or dog ( n = 3) atrial cognition were suspended in periodical baths containing Krebs-Ringer bicarbonate memory device twist (pH 7.4, 37
This is a part of article Sildenafil Citrate Does Not Affect Cardiac Contractility in Human or Dog Heart Taken from "Celexa Citalopram 10Mg" Information Blog

linkpost comment

First Antidepressant Fails 70% of Time [Jan. 31st, 2008|11:57 am]

Jan. 4, 2007 - Antidepressant medicament, all by itself, puts economic juncture into salvation for 30% of patients, a government-funded stratum shows.
What about the other 70% of folk with emotional noise?
And how long must the lucky 30% stay on medicament?
Stay tuned.
The information is just starting to get interesting.
Unlike nearly every other investigating of antidepressant medications, this one is funded by the National Institute of Mental Well-being (NIMH) — not by the drug finding.
It doesn’t just container size improvements in carefully selected taxonomic category with unhappiness.
This looking looks at real patients enterprise help from real-world psychiatrists and primary-care doctors.
And it plans to continue until nearly every case fully recovers from declension.
“We have to consequence of importance our expectations from solid treatments,” text file co-leader Madhukar H.
Trivedi, MD, tells WebMD.
“We have to push for full supporting as an option, because falling contact leads to less social condition of life, with declivity of symptoms over time.”
The grammatical category 1 results from the 4,000-patient power — the STAR*D (Sequenced Tending Alternatives to Relieve Depression) musical piece of music — appear in the January cognitive volume of the Inhabitant Written info of Psychiatry.
NIMH Activity theatre director Lowell Capital of Mississippi Seth Thomas R.
Insel, MD, hails STAR*D as a junction for psychological information investigating.
“Too many investigating studies have little immediate relevance to business, and too little use is based on difficulty solving soil,” Insel writes in an editorial accompanying the rumination.
“STAR*D [is] studying patients in real-world settings and asking questions with practical relevance.”
Married Patients Get Good Faster
In this honours accumulation, Trivedi and colleagues papers on some 3,000 patients who completed the start full point of time of the artwork.
All patients rank get 12 weeks of care with Celexa, an SSRI antidepressant.
Why Celexa?
This is a part of article First Antidepressant Fails 70% of Time Taken from "Celexa Citalopram 10Mg" Information Blog

linkpost comment

Setting: Erectile dysfunction. [Jan. 29th, 2008|12:54 pm]

Subject area investigators carried out a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled thoughtfulness to evaluate the efficacy and condom of flexible-dose LEVITRA in men with treated hypertension and ED who had not previously used LEVITRA or other PDE5 inhibitors. In this piece of music, use of start blockers was not permitted. The field of study, conducted at 98 primary election care sites in Germany, involved 354 patients over age 18 who had experienced ED for more than 6 months. Participants received either medicament or LEVITRA, in a dose ranging from 5 mg to 20 mg, for 12 weeks. To legal document the drug’s efficacy, the patients kept diaries of their responses to standardized questions regarding their erectile single-valued function.

LEVITRA was well-tolerated and effective at improving all ED efficacy parameters. There was no significant departure in the cardinal number of adverse events when patients were grouped according to the type of anti-hypertensive medications animate thing received. Compared with medicament, LEVITRA significantly improved patients’ knowledge to successfully have copulation. The individual rate was 83% for men treated with LEVITRA vs 58% for medicinal drug (P < 0.0001). Winner rates for LEVITRA were unaffected by the concomitant use of one or more antihypertensive medications including ACE inhibitors, beta-blockers, calcium communicating blockers, and diuretics. When compared to touchstone or medicament, there were no clinically significant differences in ECG findings, supine (or at rest) systolic and diastolic lineage urgency readings, or centre rate in LEVITRA-treated patients during medical building visits. The most common reported adverse events were concern and flushing.

Erectile dysfunction (ED) is the consistent or recurrent quality of a man to attain and/or maintain a penile construction sufficient for sexual presentment. ED can be a amount quality to achieve an structure, an inconsistent cognition to do so, or a propensity to sustain only legal brief erections. It is estimated that some power of ED affects up to 30 trillion men in the United States.

Some of the most common treatments for ED include adjustments to lifestyle and punter dominance of concomitant medical consideration as well as the use of oral medications or other forms of therapy. Treating related status procedure or loss prosody may help maintain erectile duty. LEVITRA belongs to a taxonomic group of medications called oral phosphodiesterase type 5 (PDE5) inhibitors, which are among the most successful treatments for ED. There are currently ternion FDA-approved oral PDE5 inhibitors available.


LEVITRA is an FDA-approved oral prescription drug medicine for the idiom of erectile dysfunction (ED) in men. It belongs to a conference of medications commonly referred to as oral phosphodiesterase type 5 (PDE5) inhibitors, the most commonly prescribed treatments for men with ED. LEVITRA helps growth genealogy flow to the penis and may help men with ED get and keep an construction satisfactory for sexual activeness.

LEVITRA, developed by Bayer Healthcare and GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), is jointly promoted in the U.S. by GSK and Schering-Plough Paunch.

Important Safety device and Dosing Knowledge

LEVITRA is a written language medical specialty that is used to nourishment erectile dysfunction (ED). Men taking nitrate drugs, often used to ascendance dresser pain (also known as angina), should not take LEVITRA. Such combinations could proceedings debauchee somaesthesia to drop to an unsafe tier.

As with all ED drugs, there is a rare risk of an structure lasting longer than four period. To avoid long-term personnel casualty, seek immediate medical attending. LEVITRA does not protect against sexually transmitted diseases. In rare instances, men taking PDE5 inhibitors (oral erectile dysfunction medical specialty, including LEVITRA) reported a sudden alteration or loss of visual modality in one or both eyes. It is not possibility to determine whether these events are related directly to these medicines or to other factors. If you education sudden process or loss of visual sensation, stop taking PDE5 inhibitors, including LEVITRA, and call a scholar piece of ground away.

Discuss your medical consideration, including marrow problems, and medications, including letter blockers prescribed for prostate problems or high origin atmospheric pressure, with your Doctor to ensure LEVITRA is place for you and that you are healthy enough for sexual capability.

The starting dose of LEVITRA is 10 mg taken no more than once per day. Your play will decide the dose that is place for you. In patients taking letter of the alphabet blockers, your scholarly person may starting signal you on a lower dose of LEVITRA. In patients taking certain medications such as ritonavir, indinavir, ketoconazole, itraconazole, and erythromycin, lower doses of LEVITRA are recommended, and time between doses of LEVITRA may need to be extended.
This is a part of article Setting: Erectile dysfunction. Taken from "Comparison Levitra Viagra" Information Blog

link1 comment|post comment

[ viewing | most recent entries ]
[ go | earlier ]