A large proportion of patients on insulin-based therapy fail to reach glycemic goals. More education of clinicians may improve insulin intensification rates and increase the proportion of patients reaching glycemic targets.

No abstract

The use of antifungal/corticosteroid combinations as topical therapy for dermatophytoses has been criticized as being less effective, more expensive, and the cause of more adverse cutaneous reactions than antifungal monotherapy. The combination of clotrimazole and betamethasone diproprionate (Lotrisone) is a mix of an azole antifungal and a high-potency corticosteroid, and is one of the most widely prescribed of these combinations. Our objective was to describe the beneficial and deleterious effects of Lotrisone in the treatment of common cutaneous fungal infections and its relative cost-effectiveness. We did a literature review documenting clinical trial data and adverse reactions to Lotrisone and collected a cost analysis of topical antifungal prescribing data over a 2-month period from a large midwestern staff-model health maintenance organization (HMO). Lotrisone is approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of tinea pedis, tinea cruris, and tinea corporis in adults and children more than 12 years of age. Treatment is limited to 2 weeks in the groin area and 4 weeks on the feet. The most concerning adverse effects of Lotrisone were reported in children and included treatment failure, striae distensae, hirsuitism, and growth retardation. This combination was also reported to have decreased efficacy in clearing candidal and Trichophyton infections as compared to single-agent antifungals. Lotrisone was considerably more expensive than clotrimazole alone and was found to account for more than 50% of topical antifungal expenditures as prescribed by primary care physicians, but only 7% of topical antifungals prescribed by dermatologists. We found that Lotrisone was shown to have the potential to induce many steroid-related side effects and to be less cost effective than antifungal monotherapy. This combination should be used judiciously in the treatment of cutaneous fungal infections and may not be appropriate for use in children.

No abstract

The potential economic advantage of alternate-day therapy for GERD maintenance must be weighed against the potential cost of failure before it can be widely instituted. The studies presented have helped develop a clinical picture of the patients who may benefit from alternate-day therapy without risk of complications or potential increases in management costs. Bank et al., reporting on a group of patients, found that patients with Grade II-IV disease had a 61% success rate at two to eight years. Bank defined success as both maintenance of endoscopic healing and symptom control. Ladas et al. found a 66.7% success rate defined as clinical and endoscopic remission in Grades II-III disease. Kurucar et al. monitored symptom control and esophageal complications in his patients and found the regimen to have a 26% success rate in Grades III-IV disease. Lind et al. found that 83% of patients could remain symptom free with on-demand therapy if they were endoscopy-negative at baseline. The results of the Mantides et al. study are important because they imply that alternate-day omeprazole therapy may be more effective than alternatives for step-down treatment, such as ranitidine or cisapride. Furthermore, patients can be educated to increase their frequency of use if symptoms should arise. Not only does this give the patient a sense of self-empowerment over his or her disease state, but it avoids the cost of switching to a PPI due to failure with an H2RA or a motility agent. Alternate-day use of omeprazole should be attempted only during the maintenance phase of GERD therapy. Patients requiring >20 mg/d to achieve healing appeared to be poor candidates for alternate-day omeprazole maintenance therapy. Based on available studies, it would seem that patients with Grades 0-II GERD would benefit most from alternate-day therapy. A role for alternate-day therapy in Grades III-IV is apparent from the results presented but requires greater caution in view of the differing success rates (26-61%) in various studies. With Grades II-III esophagitis, a mean 24-hour gastric pH >6 and a gastric pH <4 less than 10% of the time during the initial healing phase with omeprazole 20 mg/d appeared to be associated with success on alternate-day therapy. Evidence that all marketed PPIs have similar success is not available and should not be extrapolated from the data presented. Evidence that downward dosage adjustments of PPIs versus extending dosage intervals are effective in the maintenance of GERD should be recognized. Lansoprazole has been approved for treating erosive esophagitis at 30 mg/d, with the maintenance dose established at 15 mg/d. Studies showing that lansoprazole 15 mg/d is more effective than alternate-day therapy with lansoprazole 30 mg exist, although similar studies with omeprazole have not been performed. The abstracts describing the use of alternate-day omeprazole accounted for all enrollees and included endoscopic grading or pH monitoring to document disease severity at baseline. Most also included these same objective measur...