"Concerns on an association between GLP - 1 agonists and pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer have been raised [ Butler et al . 2013 ; Cohen , 2013 ] . The EMA concluded earlier in 2013 that ' while there are still some uncertain - ties with respect to long term pancreatic safety ' , ' no new data has emerged that implies that this risk is higher compared to what has previously been concluded ' ( http : / / www . "
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Public health initiatives focused on obesity prevention and lifestyle intervention programmes for patients with obesity have struggled to contain the obesity epidemic to date. In recent years, antiobesity drug therapies have had a limited role in clinical treatment algorithms for patients with obesity. Indeed, a number of high-profile antiobesity drug suspensions have markedly impacted upon the landscape of obesity pharmacotherapy. In this review, we discuss the advent of an increasing array of pharmacotherapeutic agents, which are effective both in inducing weight loss and in maintaining weight loss achieved by lifestyle measures. The development of these drugs as antiobesity agents has followed varying paths, ranging from lorcaserin, a selective serotonin agent, exploiting the beneficial central actions of fenfluramine but without the associated systemic side effects, to liraglutide, a gut hormone already used as a glucose-lowering drug but with appetite-suppressant properties, or the novel drug combination of phentermine/topiramate, two 'old' drugs used in lower doses than with previous therapeutic uses, resulting in an additive effect on weight loss and fewer side effects. We summarize the key findings from recent randomized controlled trials of these three drugs. Although these agents lead to clinically important weight loss when used as monotherapy, the use of antiobesity drugs as adjunctive therapy post intensive lifestyle intervention could prove to be the most successful strategy. Moreover, a progressive approach to obesity pharmacotherapy perhaps offers the best opportunity to finally address the obesity crisis on a mass scale.
Therapeutic Advances in Chronic Disease 05/2014; 5(3):135-148. DOI:10.1177/2040622314522848
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: The official prescribing information document distributed with a prescription drug is a key source of safety information, but it may include excessive or insufficient details. OBJECTIVES: To compare prescribing information approved by the US Food and Drug Administration with the UK, Canada and Australia to identify content differences in safety warnings. METHODS: For 20 top-selling prescription drugs, we used an automated natural language processing tool to calculate the number and severity of reported adverse drug reactions (ADRs). We fit hierarchical Poisson models and included fixed effects for other prescribing information characteristics. Separately, we analysed the appearance and content of 'black box' warnings. RESULTS: There was substantial variation in safety content of approved prescribing information. Canada had the highest median ADRs per drug (138 (IQR 86-234)) and the UK had the lowest (84 (IQR 51-111)). The number of ADRs reported was on average 50% higher in Canada compared with the USA (ratio of ADRs/document: 1.5, 95% CI 1.4 to 1.6, p<0.001). By contrast, there were on average 15% fewer ADRs listed in the UK compared with the USA (ratio of ADRs/document 0.85 (95% CI 0.78 to 0.93, p<0.001), and 21% fewer ADRs listed in Australia compared with the USS (ratio of ADRs/document 0.79, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.85, p<0.001). There were no variations in ADR severity. The presence and qualitative content of boxed warnings also showed substantial diversity. CONCLUSIONS: International variations exist in the presentation of safety data in drug prescribing information, which may have important implications for patient safety. Better international coordination is necessary to enhance use of this information for patient decision-making.
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.