Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

K Gruffydd-Jones

Publications and source records attributed to K Gruffydd-Jones.

8 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2005

Clinical and economic issues associated with switching between triptans in clinical practice.

Seven oral triptans are now generally available for the acute treatment of migraine, and physicians may sometimes feel under pressure to switch patients from one triptan to another for nonclinical reasons. This commentary article provides advice on what information should be taken into account by the physician before they consider switching one triptan for another. We review recommendations on switching triptans from international guidelines for migraine management and relate these to data from a recently published study on the economic implications of switching triptans in the UK. Controlled clinical studies reveal that most of the oral triptans have broadly similar efficacy profiles. Switching triptans can therefore only be recommended if the patient experiences problems such as lack of efficacy or intolerable side effects following repeated use of the initial triptan. The retrospective database study revealed that most patients who had their triptan switched were subsequently switched again during a 15 month review period, most usually back to their original triptan. Overall, switching a patient's triptan led to increased costs (analysed as costs of medication and the GP consultation) to the healthcare provider. These data indicate that patients should only be switched from one triptan for another for clinical reasons and not for perceived economic reasons, i.e. cost of the medication.

Decision Making↗
PubMed1997

A within-patient comparison of subcutaneous and oral sumatriptan in the acute treatment of migraine in general practice.

This study compared, for the first time in the United Kingdom, the efficacy and safety of oral 100 mg and subcutaneous 6 mg sumatriptan within a patient for the acute treatment of migraine. The patient's preference for the two formulations of sumatriptan were also recorded. The study was a multicentre, randomized, open, crossover design with an optional open parallel group extension. Individual attacks were treated with one formulation only. Over 70% of patients who treated attack 1 in both treatment periods of the crossover phase reported headache relief with each formulation at 4 h. Only 3% of patients failed to respond to at least one of the formulations at this time point. At the end of the crossover phase patient preference for the injection more than doubled from the pretreatment level in those patients who were previously naive to sumatriptan. During the optional phase of the study, 38% of patients chose to treat some attacks with oral and some with subcutaneous sumatriptan. The main reason for choosing injection was speed of relief, whilst convenience was the major reason for the use of the tablet.

Acute Disease↗
PubMed1997

Quality-of-life measures in asthma--do they matter to the GP?

Asthma is a condition which incurs a great cost to the National Health Service, to the economy and above all to the patient in terms of loss of quality of life. Treatments for asthma need to be evaluated for their cost-effectiveness. Traditional outcome measures, such as airflow measurements have their limitations, especially in mild to moderate asthma. Quality-of-life measurements represent the impact of asthma on the everyday lives of asthmatics across the whole disease spectrum. Disease specific quality-of-life questionnaires, such as the Asthma Quality-of-Life Questionnaire (AQLQ), provide reliable instruments in reflecting disease severity, but also in detecting changes in quality of life produced by different asthma treatments. Quality-of-life measures are becoming increasingly important and are end-points of therapeutic asthma trials in primary care, but should be used in conjunction with more surrogate markers of asthma severity such as peak flow.

Asthma↗
PubMed1996

Management of acute asthma attacks associated with respiratory tract infection: a postal survey of general practitioners in the U.K.

Asthma attacks in general practice are frequently associated with respiratory tract infection. The aim of this study was to examine how U.K. general practitioners (GPs) might use oral steroids and antibiotics in such situations. The timing of follow-up and use of self-management plans were also examined. A postal questionnaire was sent to all 205 GP principals in Bath Health District, U.K. in February and March 1993. Respondents were asked questions regarding the management of an adult and a child presenting with acute asthma associated with respiratory tract infection. Replies were received from 185 of 205 (90%) doctors approached. Antibiotics would have been prescribed by 119 of 179 (66%) doctors for the adult and 98 of 169 (58%) doctors for the child. The modal initial dosage of oral prednisolone was 40 mg for the adult and 30 mg for the child, and modal duration of oral steroid dosage was 5 days for both adult and child. Planned follow-up was mainly doctor initiated within 24 h of initial consultation. There was low reported use of self-management plans (49% for adults and 33% in children over 7 years of age). Antibiotic prescription appears to be common practice by GPs when faced with an acute asthma attack associated with respiratory tract infection. There may also be inadequate duration of oral steroid courses in adults. There is a need to examine further the proper role, if any, of antibiotics in such situations, to determine the optimum dose and course length of oral steroid therapy, and to continue validating the use of self-management plans in acute asthma management.

Acute Disease↗