Search

Background: Erectile dysfunction (ED) is an independent risk factor for cardiovascular events sharing mutual risk factors with coronary artery disease. Several guidelines for the management of ED in cardiovascular disease have been proposed, recommending cardiologists to routinely inquire about erectile function. However, males' specific needs and wishes regarding sexual health care in cardiology are unknown. We sought to identify male patients' view concerning possible improvements in sexual health care and preferred forms of sexual counseling in the cardiology practice., Methods: This is a cross-sectional multicentered survey study among randomly selected males visiting a cardiologist., Results: Of 388 respondents, 296 questionnaires were eligible for analysis. Mean age of respondents was 62.9 years. Overall, 56% (n = 165) had ED, with up to 86% in patients with heart failure. Mean bother experienced due to ED was 5.93 (±2.57) on a 0 to 10 scale. Most respondents indicated to feel comfortable discussing sexual health with the cardiologists (88%). Of men with ED (n = 165), 46% would like to have a conversation with the cardiologist about possibilities to improve sexual function, 55% would be helped if questions could be asked during consultation with a specialized nurse, and 58% would appreciate written information. Of all respondents (n = 296), 28% ever tried a phosphodiesterase inhibitor; 4% received the prescription of the cardiologists., Conclusions: Erectile dysfunction is highly prevalent in patients with a variety of cardiovascular diagnosis and care for sexual function is mandatory. Patients indicated that above consultation with the cardiologist, both consultation with a specialized nurse and written information would be helpful., (© 2014.)

Background: We have previously shown that omalizumab, a recombinant humanized monoclonal anti-IgE antibody, reduces asthma exacerbations and decreases inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) requirement in patients with severe allergic asthma who were symptomatic despite moderate-to-high doses of ICSs., Objective: The aim of the present study was to assess the effects of omalizumab on asthma-related quality of life (QOL)., Methods: These analyses were part of a multicenter, 52-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study assessing the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of subcutaneous omalizumab (> or =0.016 mg/kg of IgE [in international unit per milliliter] per 4 weeks) in 525 adults with severe allergic asthma. A 16-week steroid-stable phase was followed by a 12-week steroid-reduction phase and a 24-week double-blind extension phase. The effect of treatment on asthma-related QOL was evaluated by using the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ) administered at baseline and at weeks 16, 28, and 52., Results: The 2 treatment groups were comparable in terms of baseline AQLQ scores. At weeks 16, 28, and 52, omalizumab-treated patients demonstrated statistically significant improvements across all AQLQ domains, as well as in overall score. Moreover, a greater proportion of patients receiving omalizumab achieved a clinically meaningful improvement in asthma-related QOL during each phase of the study. Greater than 50% of both patients and investigators rated treatment similarly with omalizumab as excellent or good compared with less than 40% of placebo recipients., Conclusion: In patients requiring moderate-to-high doses of ICSs for severe allergic asthma, the measurably improved disease control afforded by add-on omalizumab therapy is paralleled by clinically meaningful improvements in asthma-related QOL.

Background: Maintaining asthma control is a major objective of therapy. Traditionally, the effectiveness of asthma therapy has been judged primarily by its effect on airway function rather than on multiaspect asthma control., Objective: An inhaled corticosteroid and a leukotriene receptor antagonist were compared to determine whether they provided equivalent effects, as judged by days of asthma control., Methods: In a randomized, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study, asthmatic patients (n = 782) with FEV(1) percent predicted values of between 50% and 85% and a weekly average beta-agonist use of more than 2 puffs per day were randomized to receive montelukast (10 mg daily), beclomethasone (200 microg twice daily), or placebo treatment for 6 weeks in a double-dummy fashion. We examined the distribution of the primary end point: percentage of days of asthma control. Secondary end points included FEV(1), albuterol use, occurrence of an asthma attack, asthma flare-up, rescue corticosteroid use, sustained asthma control, and adverse experiences., Results: The percentage of days of asthma control was almost identical between the montelukast and beclomethasone groups (98% overlap in the distribution). Montelukast was at least equal to beclomethasone, and both were greater than placebo on the basis of frequency of asthma attacks, asthma flare-ups, and rescue corticosteroid use. Beclomethasone had a greater effect than montelukast and both treatments were better than placebo at improving FEV(1)., Conclusions: Montelukast was as effective as beclomethasone, as judged by indices of clinical control other than FEV(1). When evaluating the outcome of montelukast therapy, FEV(1) might underestimate clinical effectiveness.

Background: The efficacy and safety of mometasone furoate aqueous nasal spray (MFNS; Nasonex) 200 microg once daily for the treatment and prophylaxis of seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) and treatment of perennial rhinitis have been demonstrated in adults. However, the dose response of MFNS in pediatric patients has not yet been characterized., Objective: This study was conducted to determine the dose-response relationship of 3 different doses of MFNS in a pediatric population., Methods: This was a multicenter, double-blind, active- and placebo-controlled study of 679 children 6 to 11 years of age with histories of SAR and documented positive skin test responses. Patients were randomized to one of the following treatment groups for 4 weeks: MFNS 25 microgram once daily, MFNS 100 microgram once daily, MFNS 200 microgram once daily, beclomethasone dipropionate 84 microgram twice daily (168 microgram/day), or placebo. Physician evaluations were performed at days 4, 8, 15, and 29, and patient evaluations were analyzed for days 1 to 15 and 16 to 29., Results: The mean reduction from baseline in physician-evaluated total nasal symptom scores at day 8 (the primary efficacy variable) was significantly greater in the MFNS and beclomethasone dipropionate groups than in the placebo group (P

Background: Azelastine solution is a topically (nasal) administered antiallergy drug with a preclinical profile suggestive of efficacy in patients with allergic rhinitis., Objectives: The study was designed to compare the effectiveness and safety of two dosages of azelastine nasal spray (2 sprays per nostril once daily and twice daily) with that of placebo in the treatment of patients with symptomatic seasonal allergic rhinitis., Methods: Two hundred fifty-one patients (12 years of age or older) were randomized to treatment in this 2-week, double-blind, parallel-group study. Primary efficacy variables were Major Symptom Complex (nose blows, sneezes, runny nose, itchy nose, watery eyes) and Total Symptoms Complex (Major Symptom Complex plus itchy eyes/ears/throat/palate, cough, postnasal drip)., Results: Patients treated with azelastine had mean percent improvements in Total and Major Symptom Complex scores that were consistently superior to placebo at each evaluation point. Overall, improvements were statistically significant (p < or = 0.05) in the Total Symptoms Complex for both azelastine groups and in the Major Symptom Complex for the twice daily group with a trend toward statistical significance for the once daily group. Azelastine was superior to placebo in improving all individual rhinitis symptoms. Adverse experiences in the azelastine groups were minor and infrequent., Conclusion: The results support the efficacy and safety of azelastine nasal spray in the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis.