Geriatric major depression is twice as common in patients receiving home care as in those receiving primary care. Most depressions in patients receiving home care are untreated. The poor medical and functional status of these patients and the complex organizational structure of home health care pose a challenge for determining safe and effective strategies for treating depressed elderly home care patients.

Elderly individuals living in the community who experience clinically significant depressive symptoms and/or cognitive impairment may be at risk for the development of self-neglect and may become candidates for intervention.

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a growing healthcare problem. Early diagnosis and effective treatment would benefit patients and caregivers, as well as having economic implications. We conducted a survey of 741 caregivers of patients with AD in Australia, France, Italy, Spain and the UK to assess the current situation regarding the diagnosis and treatment of AD in routine clinical practice. The average time from when symptoms were first noticed by the caregiver to making the first doctor's appointment was 4 months, but 22% of caregivers waited more than 1 year before consulting a doctor. Although the majority of patients (74%) consulted their general practitioner first, the diagnosis was more likely to be made by a specialist; on average, there was a 1-year delay from when symptoms were first noticed by the caregiver to diagnosis. Access to AD care is restricted by many national healthcare systems. The delay in diagnosis imposed by such restrictions impacts on access to early and effective treatment.

There was clear evidence of the effectiveness of sertraline, paroxetine, and duloxetine. There also appears to be a hierarchy of safety associated with the different antidepressants, although there appears to be a dearth of reporting of safety outcomes.

Switching branded to generic medications has become a common cost-containment measure. Although this is an important objective for health care systems worldwide, the impact of this practice on patient outcomes needs to be carefully considered. We reviewed the literature summarizing the potential clinical and economic consequences of switching from branded to generic medications on patient outcomes. A literature search of peer-reviewed articles published 2003–2013 using key words of “generic switching” or “substitution” was conducted using PubMed, OvidSP, and ScienceDirect. Of 30 articles identified and reviewed, most were related to the diseases of the central nervous system, especially epilepsy. Based on our review, potential impacts of switching fell into 3 broad categories: patient attitudes and adherence, clinical and safety outcomes, and cost and resource utilization. Although in many cases generics may represent an appropriate alternative to branded products, this may not always be the case. Specifically, several studies suggested that switching may negatively impact medication adherence, whereas other studies found that generic switching was associated with poorer clinical outcomes and more adverse events. In some instances, switching accomplished cost savings but did so at increased total cost of care because of increased physician visits or hospitalizations. Although in many cases generics may represent an appropriate alternative, mandatory generic switching may lead to unintended consequences, especially in certain therapeutic areas. Although further study is warranted, based on our review, it may be medically justifiable for physicians and patients to retain the right to request the branded product in certain cases.

Transthyretin hereditary amyloid polyneuropathy, also traditionally known as transthyretin familial amyloid polyneuropathy (ATTR-FAP), is a rare, relentless, fatal hereditary disorder. Tafamidis, an oral, non-NSAID, highly specific transthyretin stabilizer, demonstrated safety and efficacy in slowing neuropathy progression in early-stage ATTRV30M-FAP in a 1.5-year, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, and 1-year open-label extension study, with a second long-term open-label extension study ongoing. Subgroup analysis of the effectiveness of tafamidis in the pivotal study and its open-label extensions revealed a relatively cohesive cohort of patients with mild neuropathy (i.e. Neuropathy Impairment Score for Lower Limbs [NIS-LL] ≤ 10) at the start of active treatment. Early treatment with tafamidis for up to 5.5 years (≥1 dose of tafamidis meglumine 20 mg once daily during the original trial or after switching from placebo in its extension) resulted in sustained delay in neurologic progression and long-term preservation of nutritional status in this cohort. Mean (95% CI) changes from baseline in NIS-LL and mBMI were 5.3 (1.6, 9.1) points and −7.8 (−44.3, 28.8) kg/m2 × g/L at 5.5 years, respectively. No new safety issues or side effects were identified. These data represent the longest prospective evaluation of tafamidis to date, confirm a favorable safety profile, and underscore the long-term benefits of early intervention with tafamidis. Trial Registration: ClincalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00409175, NCT00791492, and NCT00925002.

NCT00409175.

No abstract