Library

Notes: Abstract Objective: To assess the efficacy, safety and extent of perceived indications of acarbose, a new antidiabetic agent, under routine clinical practice conditions in an unselected Northern Italian population of type II diabetic patients. Methods: The study population was assigned to three different groups according to the physician's clinical judgement: group A (acarbose considered as an elective treatment); group B (acarbose considered to be of uncertain benefit); group C (acarbose deemed not to be appropriate). Group B patients were randomized either to continue their standard treatment or to add acarbose to it. Patients with type II diabetes mellitus were recruited from 17 diabetes outpatient clinics from one Italian region (Lombardy). A total of 1027 patients were recruited (group A: 283; group C: 494; group B: 250, of whom 124 were randomly assigned to standard treatment + acarbose and 126 to standard treatment alone). Acarbose was administered for 1 year at a median dose of 100 mg 3 times daily. Drug efficacy was evaluated in terms of mean HbA1c, pre- and post-prandial glycaemic values. Additional endpoints were the proportion of patients with HbA1c levels below 8% at the end of the study period and the proportion of subjects who needed a modification in the standard treatment. The safety and tolerability profiles of the drug were also investigated. Data on HbA1c, fasting and post-prandial blood glucose levels were analysed over time using repeated-measures analysis [Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) models]. Results: The analysis of Group B showed that, after treatment for 1 year, the mean reduction in HbA1c levels in the acarbose group with respect to the control group was 0.30% (95% confidence limits −0.60 +0.02; P = 0.07), while the mean reduction in post-prandial glycaemia was 17 mg · dl−1 (95% c.l. −33.5 −0.8; P = 0.04). No difference resulted for fasting blood glucose levels. When looking at the baseline HbA1c levels, it emerged that the mean benefit associated with the use of acarbose was 0.14% (95% c.l. −0.6 +0.28; P = 0.5) in patients with HbA1c levels below 8%, 0.28% (95% c.l. −0.6 +0.05; P = 0.09) in those with values between 8% and 9.9% and 0.65% (95% c.l. −1.36 +0.06; P = 0.07) in those with values ≥10%. Only patients treated with diet ± oral anti-diabetic agents (OAA) benefited from acarbose treatment (mean benefit = 0.37%, 95% c.l. −0.65 −0.08), while no effect was shown for insulin-treated subjects. The proportion of patients with HbA1c below 8% increased from 31% to 44% in the acarbose group and from 40% to 45% in the control group (absolute difference between baseline and end-of-study values = 8.0% in favour of acarbose-treated patients; P = 0.058). Patients treated with acarbose were significantly more likely to undergo a dose reduction in concomitant diabetic treatments compared with the control group; they were also less likely to require an increase in the dose of standard treatment and to start insulin during the study period. One third of the patients could not assume the drug for the whole study period, mainly due to gastrointestinal side-effects. Conclusions: The design adopted in this study allowed an integrated evaluation of the overall effectiveness of acarbose in clinical practice. The benefits of the drug in an unselected population of non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (NIDDM) patients are significant but of marginal clinical relevance. Only a better definition of the subgroups of patients who are more likely to benefit from long-term treatment, particularly through possible postponement of secondary OAA failure, will allow a reliable definition of the cost-effectiveness of this complementary component of anti-diabetic strategy.

Notes: Abstract Background: Institutional and physician-related factors can influence the way in which physicians interpret research results. The aim of this study was to determine what physicians know about, and their opinions of, hormone treatment in breast cancer patients, and the factors comprising their medical decision-making. Materials and methods: A questionnaire was mailed to a random sample of physicians inquiring as to their preferences with respect to adjuvant tamoxifen, and the usual duration of the treatment applied in various clinical scenarios (according to a woman's menopausal status, the oestrogen receptor status and the stage of disease). Results: Of 500 physicians identified, 38% returned the questionnaire. Of the non-responders, a random sample of 60 physicians was interviewed by phone. The total number of available questionnaires was 250 (50%). About 3/4 of the doctors would prescribe tamoxifen in older ER+ women and 30%–40% in post-menopausal ERõ- patients, but only 2/5 would do so in younger ER+ women. The vast majority of physicians considered five years as standard for ER+ patients. Nevertheless, about 1/4 of the doctors chose a shorter treatment duration for node-negative, pre-menopausal patients. A minority of physicians used tamoxifen for longer than five years. Older clinicians were less likely to prescribe tamoxifen, particularly for low-risk patients. Conclusions: According to the data of the recent EBCTG overview, an additional 20,000 lives could be saved worldwide each year if tamoxifen were given to all early breast cancer patients with hormone-sensitive disease, irrespective of age and disease stage, and for a minimum of five years. Our study, involving a representative sample of physicians practicing in Italy, shows that tamoxifen is not used optimally, with a substantial under-use in younger women and women with node-negative disease.

Notes: Abstract Background:Several studies have investigated the possible roleof the adjuvant chemotherapy after curative resection for gastric cancerfailing to show a clear indication; previous meta-analyses suggested smallsurvival benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy, but the statistical methods usedwere open to criticisms. Materials and methods:Randomised trials were identified by meansof Medline and CancerLit and by selecting references from relevant articles.Systematic review of all randomised clinical trials of adjuvant chemotherapyfor gastric cancer compared with surgery alone, published before January 2000,were considered. Pooling of data was performed using the fixed effect model.Death for any cause was the study endpoint. The hazard ratio and its95% confidence intervals (95% CI), derived according to themethod of Parmar, were the statistics chosen for summarising the relativebenefit of chemotherapyversuscontrol. Results:Overall 20 articles (21 comparisons) were considered foranalysis. Three studies used single agent chemotherapy, seven combination of5-fluorouracil (5-FU) with anthracyclin, ten combination of 5-FU withoutanthracyclines. Information on 3658 patients, 2180 deaths, was collected. Chemotherapy reduced the risk of death by 18% (hazard ratio 0.82,95% CI: 0.75–0.89, P 〈 0.001). Association ofAnthracyclines to 5-FU did not show a statistically significant improvementwhen compared with the effect of the other regimens. Conclusions:Chemotherapy produces a small survival benefit inpatients with curatively resected gastric cancer. However, taking into accountthe limitations of literature based meta-analyses, adjuvant chemotherapy isstill to be considered as an investigational approach.