Search

Introduction: To avoid bias and optimize statistical power of disease-modifying therapeutic trials, it is critical to include homogeneous populations with similar rate of progression over time. Patients with Progressive Supranuclear Palsy (PSP)-Parkinsonism phenotype have overall slower disease progression than those with PSP-Richardson syndrome phenotype. However, it is unclear if the progression rate of PSP Parkinsonism is the same when the PSP-Parkinsonism converts to PSP Richardson syndrome. We aimed to determine and compare disease progression rate of patients with the two most common PSP phenotypes: PSP-Parkinsonism and PSP Richardson syndrome, participating in the TAUROS trial. Methods: 138 patients, 56 with PSP-Parkinsonism and 82 with PSP-Richardson syndrome, with similar clinical severity at baseline, were followed up to 60 weeks. PSP-Parkinsonism allocation was based on experts' judgement and PSP-Richardson on probable NINDS-PSP criteria. Global disease progression was measured by the PSP Rating Scale as primary outcome measure and several secondary outcome measures. Results: PSP-Richardson syndrome patients had significantly faster progression based on the primary and three secondary outcome measures: the Dementia Rating Scale-2, Frontal Assessment Battery, and lexical fluency scale. Analyses including only patients with a baseline symptom duration under five years showed similar results. PSP phenotype was the strongest predictor for disease progression. Conclusion: This research showed that even when disease severity and clinical features at baseline arc similar, patients with PSP- Richardson syndrome progressed significantly faster than those with PSP-Parkinsonism. Therefore, unless stratified by phenotype, future therapeutic clinical trials should not lump PSP patients with these phenotypes as a single disorder even if they have similar disease severity at screening.

Contains fulltext : 48550.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access) AIMS: In order to assess adherence to guidelines and international variability in management, the Euro Heart Survey of Newly Presenting Angina prospectively studied medical therapy, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), and surgery in patients with new-onset stable angina in Europe. METHODS AND RESULTS: Consecutive patients, 3779 in total, with a clinical diagnosis of stable angina by a cardiologist were enrolled. After initial assessment by a cardiologist, 78% were treated with aspirin, 48% with a statin, and 67% with a beta-blocker. ACE-inhibitors were prescribed by the cardiologist in 37% overall. Revascularization rates were low, with only 501 (13%) patients having PCI or coronary bypass surgery performed or planned. However, when restricted to patients with coronary disease documented within 4 weeks of assessment, over 50% had revascularization performed or planned. Among other factors, the national rate of angiography and availability of invasive facilities significantly predicted the likelihood of revascularization, OR 2.4 and 2.0, respectively. CONCLUSION: This survey shows a shortfall between guidelines and practice with regard to the use of evidence-based drug therapy and evidence that revascularization rates are strongly influenced by non-clinical, in addition to clinical, factors.

Background Beta-blockers, used as an adjunctive to diuretics, digoxin and angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors, improve survival in chronic heart failure. We report a prospectively planned economic analysis of the cost of adjunctive beta-blocker therapy in the second Cardiac Insufficiency BIsoprolol Study (CIBIS II). Methods Resource utilization data (drug therapy, number of hospital admissions, length of hospital stay, ward type) were collected prospectively in all patients in CIBIS . These data were used to determine the additional direct costs incurred, and savings made, with bisoprolol therapy. As well as the cost of the drug, additional costs related to bisoprolol therapy were added to cover the supervision of treatment initiation and titration (four outpatient clinic/office visits). Per them (hospital bed day) costings were carried out for France, Germany and the U.K. Diagnosis related group costings were performed for France and the U.K. Our analyses took the perspective of a third party payer in France and Germany and the National Health Service in the U.K. Results Overall, fewer patients were hospitalized in the bisoprolol group, there were fewer hospital admissions perpatient hospitalized, fewer hospital admissions overall, fewer days spent in hospital and fewer days spent in the most expensive type of ward. As a consequence the cost of care in the bisoprolol group was 5-10% less in all three countries, in the per them analysis, even taking into account the cost of bisoprolol and the extra initiation/up-titration visits. The cost per patient treated in the placebo and bisoprolol groups was FF35 009 vs FF31 762 in France, DM11 563 vs DM10 784 in Germany and pound 4987 vs pound 4722 in the U.K. The diagnosis related group analysis gave similar results. Interpretation Not only did bisoprolol increase survival and reduce hospital admissions in CIBIS II, it also cut the cost of care in so doing. This `win-win' situation of positive health benefits associated with cost savings is Favourable from the point of view of both the patient and health care systems. These findings add further support for the use of beta-blockers in chronic heart failure.