A review of the evidence from comparative studies of levocetirizine and desloratadine for the symptoms of allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND: Levocetirizine and desloratadine are newer antihistamines indicated for the treatment of allergic rhinitis and chronic idiopathic urticaria. OBJECTIVE: This article discusses the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of levocetirizine and desloratadine and reviews studies that have directly compared the effects of these 2 drugs in allergic rhinitis and urticaria. METHODS: Relevant articles were identified through a search of MEDLINE from 1999 through 2004 using the main search terms levocetirizine and desloratadine. RESULTS: Levocetirizine is absorbed rapidly and reaches a steady-state plasma concentration more quickly than does desloratadine. It is also metabolized to a lesser extent than desloratadine, has a lower V(d), and has higher specificity for histamine(1) receptors. Eight well-controlled trials were identified that directly compared the effects of levocetirizine and desloratadine in the skin and nose of healthy individuals and patients with allergic rhinitis. Drug activity was measured in terms of wheal, flare, and itch reactions; nasal symptoms or symptom scores; increases in concentrations of inflammatory markers; or facial thermography. In most of these trials, levocetirizine had a faster onset and greater consistency of effect than desloratadine. The differences in the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles of the 2 drugs may partially explain these clinical findings. CONCLUSIONS: Levocetirizine may be preferred to desloratadine as a treatment option for allergic rhinitis because of its faster onset of action and greater consistency of effect. Although comparative studies in chronic idiopathic urticaria are not available, data from histamine-induced wheal and flare studies in healthy volunteers suggest that levocetirizine may be more effective in preventing itching than desloratadine.     

A Randomized,Multicenter, Double-blind,Phase III Study to Evaluate the Efficacy on Allergic Rhinitis and Safety of a Combination Therapy of Montelukast and Levocetirizine in Patients With Asthma and Allergic Rhinitis

Purpose

The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a fixed-dose combination of montelukast and levocetirizine in patients with perennial allergic rhinitis with mild to moderate asthma compared with the efficacy and safety of montelukast alone.

A review of the efficacy of desloratadine,fexofenadine, and levocetirizine in the treatment of nasal congestion in patients with allergic rhinitis

Background: Nasal congestion is the most troublesome symptom of allergic rhinitis (AR). First-generation and older second-generation antihistamines, while effective against nasal itching, sneezing, and rhinorrhea, have limited efficacy in relieving nasal congestion.Objective: This review included nasal challenge studies and clinical trials that reported the effects on nasal congestion of the newer second-generation antihista-mines desloratadine, fexofenadine, and levocetirizine.Methods: MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched for nasal challenge studies and clinical trials published in English between January 1, 1991, and January 31, 2009, using the following terms, alone or in combination: antihistamines, second-generation antihistamines, allergic rhinitis, intermittent allergic rhinitis, perennial allergic rhinitis, persistent allergic rhinitis, seasonal allergic rhinitis, nasal challenge, nasal blockage, and nasal congestion. Studies that were not active or placebo controlled, that did not evaluate change in nasal congestion scores, or that focused on treatments other than desloratadine, fexofenadine, and levoce-tirizine for nasal congestion associated with AR were excluded.Results: Twenty-six clinical trials met the criteria for inclusion in the review. In 11 placebo-controlled trials that included objective assessment of nasal congestion, desloratadine, fexofenadine, and levocetiri-zine were associated with reductions in the severity of nasal congestion through maintenance of nasal airflow. The mean AUC for nasal airflow over 6 hours was significantly greater with desloratadine compared with placebo in 3 studies (P < 0.05); placebo-controlled trials of fexofenadine and levocetirizine had similar results. In 25 placebo- and active-controlled trials that reported subject-rated symptom scores, the 3 newer antihistamines were efficacious in the treatment of nasal congestion associated with AR. In 10 trials that reported objective and/or subjective measures, desloratadine was associated with significant improvements in nasal congestion compared with placebo (P ≤ 0.05), beginning as early as the first 2 hours after allergen challenge. Fexofenadine was associated with significantly lower nasal congestion scores compared with placebo in 4 studies (P <- 0.05); nasal congestion scores were significantly reduced with levocetirizine in 3 placebo-controlled trials (P ≤ 0.005).Conclusions: In the studies reviewed, desloratadine, fexofenadine, and levocetirizine were effective in relieving the nasal congestion associated with AR compared with placebo. This effect began as early as day 2 and was consistent and progressive throughout treatment. Desloratadine, fexofenadine, and levocetirizine are appropriate options for the treatment of nasal congestion in patients with AR.     

Comparison of pharmacokinetics and metabolism of desloratadine, fexofenadine, levocetirizine and mizolastine in humans

Abstract Absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion of desloratadine, fexofenadine, levocetirizine, and mizolastine in humans have been compared. The time required to reach peak plasma levels (tmax) is shortest for levocetirizine (0.9 h) and longest for desloratadine (> or =3 h). Steady-state plasma levels are attained after about 6 days for desloratadine, 3 days for fexofenadine, 2-3 days for mizolastine and by the second day for levocetirizine. The apparent volume of distribution is limited for levocetirizine (0.4 L/kg) and mizolastine (1-1.2 L/kg), larger for fexofenadine (5.4-5.8 L/kg) and particularly large for desloratadine (approximately 49 l/kg). Fexofenadine and levocetirizine appear to be very poorly metabolized (approximately 5 and 14% of the total oral dose, respectively). Desloratadine and mizolastine are extensively metabolized. After administration of 14C-levocetirizine to healthy volunteers, 85 and 13% of the radioactivity are recovered in urine and faeces, respectively. In contrast, faeces are the preferential route of excretion for 14C-fexofenadine (80% vs. 11% of the radioactive dose in urine). The corresponding values are 41% (urine) and 47% (faeces) for 14C-desloratadine, 84-95% (faeces) and 8-15% (urine) for 14C-mizolastine. The absolute bioavailability is 50-65% for mizolastine; it is high for levocetirizine as the percentage of the drug eliminated unchanged in the 48 h urine is 77% of the oral dose; the estimation for fexofenadine is at least 33%; no estimation was found for desloratadine. Fexofenadine is a P-glycoprotein (P-gp) substrate and P-gp is certainly involved both in the poor brain penetration by the compound and, at least partially, in a number of observed drug interactions. An interaction of desloratadine with P-gp has been suggested in mice, whereas the information on mizolastine is very poor. The fact that levocetirizine is a substrate of P-gp, although weak in an in vitro model, could contribute to prevent drug penetration into the brain, whereas it is unlikely to be of any clinical relevance for P-gp-mediated drug interactions.     

A placebo-controlled comparison of the efficacy and tolerability of candesartan cilexetil, 8 mg, and losartan, 50 mg, as monotherapy in patients with essential hypertension, using 36-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring

This double-blind, randomised, controlled study compared the efficacy of candesartan cilexetil 8 mg (n = 87) and losartan 50 mg (n = 89), once daily for 6 weeks, relative to placebo (n = 80) in patients with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension (diastolic blood pressure (DBP): 95-115 mmHg). Ambulatory BP measurements were done every 15 min over 36 h. At the end of the 6-week treatment, the mean change in DBP between the baseline and the 0-24-h period after the last dose of study medication was greater in patients receiving candesartan cilexetil 8 mg (-7.3 mmHg +/- 6.9 mmHg) compared with losartan 50 mg (-5.1 mmHg +/- 4.9 mmHg) (p < 0.05) or placebo (0.3 mmHg +/- 6.5 mmHg) (p < 0.001). The mean change in systolic BP (SBP) during this time was greater in patients receiving candesartan cilexetil 8 mg (-10.8 mmHg +/- 11.3 mmHg), or losartan 50 mg (-8.8 mmHg +/- 8.9 mmHg) than placebo (1.2 mmHg +/- 9.9 mmHg) (p < 0.001). Candesartan cilexetil 8 mg was associated with a greater reduction in DBP and SBP, relative to placebo, when compared with losartan 50 mg, during both daytime and night-time, and between 12 and 24 h after dosing (p < 0.001). Both active treatments were well tolerated. In patients with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension, candesartan cilexetil 8 mg therefore had greater, more consistent antihypertensive efficacy throughout the day and the night, and long-lasting efficacy after the last dose, compared with losartan 50 mg. This greater efficacy is maintained with an excellent tolerability associated with members of the angiotensin Il type 1-receptor blocker class.     

Patterns of depressive symptom response in duloxetine-treated outpatients with mild, moderate or more severe depression

AIMS: This was a post hoc analysis to determine whether baseline severity of depression influenced the efficacy of duloxetine in treating major depressive disorder (MDD) and to better characterise the symptom response profile for duloxetine in patients with mild, moderate or more severe depression. METHODS: Data were pooled from four double-blind, placebo-controlled studies in which outpatients with MDD were randomised to duloxetine (60 mg/day) or placebo for 8-9 weeks. Patients were retrospectively stratified according to baseline 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating scale (HAMD17) total scores: mild=total score相似文献   

Efficacy and tolerability of lumiracoxib in the treatment of primary dysmenorrhoea

Two randomised, multicentre, double-blind, placebo- and active-controlled, 3-way crossover studies were performed to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of the novel COX-2 selective inhibitor lumiracoxib in the treatment of primary dysmenorrhoea. Subjects with moderate-to-severe dysmenorrhoea received lumiracoxib 400 mg once daily (od), rofecoxib 50 mg od and placebo (Study 1; n = 84) or lumiracoxib 400 mg od, naproxen 500 mg twice daily and placebo (Study 2; n = 99). For the primary variable, summed pain intensity difference from 0 to 8 h on day 1 (SPID-8), all active treatments were superior to placebo in each study (p < 0.001); lumiracoxib was comparable to rofecoxib and naproxen. For PID (categorical scale), all active treatments were significantly better than placebo from 2 to 12 h; lumiracoxib was generally comparable to rofecoxib and naproxen. All treatments were well tolerated. Lumiracoxib 400 mg is effective and well tolerated in the treatment of primary dysmenorrhoea, with efficacy comparable to rofecoxib and naproxen.     

Desloratadine treatment for intermittent and persistent allergic rhinitis: a review

BACKGROUND: Allergic rhinitis (AR) has a high prevalence and substantial impact on quality of life (QoL). The traditional classification of AR as either seasonal or perennial is being superseded in many countries by the ARIA (Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma) definitions, in which the term intermittent AR denotes the presence of symptoms for <4 days a week or <4 weeks, and the term persistent AR denotes the presence of symptoms for >4 days a week for >4 weeks. These definitions, particularly that of persistent AR, may better reflect the true pattern of AR as it is experienced by patients. Desloratadine has been approved by the European Medicines Evaluation Agency for the treatment of intermittent and persistent AR, as defined by the ARIA classification. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this review was to assess data concerning desloratadine in relation to the ARIA definitions of intermittent and persistent AR. METHODS: Relevant clinical studies and information on treatment guidelines were identified through searches of the English-language literature indexed on MEDLINE through May 2007. Search terms included intermittent AR, persistent AR, seasonal AR, perennial AR, and desloratadine. Results: Desloratadine has been found to be effective and well tolerated in studies in subjects with symptoms of AR analogous to/consistent with the ARIA definitions of intermittent and persistent disease. In a 2-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study in subjects with a > or =2-year history of intermittent AR, desloratadine was associated with greater reductions relative to placebo in congestion scores (P < 0.05) and total symptom scores (TSS) (P <0.01). In a 4-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study in subjects with a > or =2-year history of perennial AR, desloratadine had greater efficacy than placebo in terms of reductions in TSS as early as day 2 (P > or = 0.02), as well as reductions in nasal and nonnasal symptom scores (P > or =0.04). A 4-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study assessing QoL found that desloratadine improved QoL scores to a greater extent than placebo in subjects with a > or =2-year history of perennial AR (P = 0.009). Conclusions: According to the ARIA guidelines, second-generation antihistamines are a cornerstone of pharmacologic therapy for AR. Desloratadine is effective in the treatment of AR across all classifications of disease, either seasonal/perennial or intermittent/persistent.     

Oral pleconaril treatment of picornavirus-associated viral respiratory illness in adults: efficacy and tolerability in phase II clinical trials

We evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of oral pleconaril, an anti-picornavirus agent, in treating acute viral respiratory illness (VRI) in two double-blind, placebo-controlled trials. Otherwise healthy subjects, 14 years of age or older, who presented within 36 h of VRI symptom onset, were randomized to pleconaril 400 mg or matching placebo in liquid (first trial) or tablet (second trial) formulations twice-daily (first trial only) or three-times daily for 7 days. The infected subjects from the corresponding active and placebo groups (three-times daily dosing regimens) were combined for analysis. Among the subset of subjects with proven picornaviral infection in both studies (42% of total enrolled), pleconaril 400 mg three-times daily (n = 323) reduced the time to alleviation of illness (no rhinorrhoea and other symptoms mild or absent for > or = 48 h) compared with placebo (n = 264) (median: 10.0 days for placebo and 8.5 days for pleconaril; P = 0.029). In addition, pleconaril reduced the time to a > or = 50% reduction from baseline in total symptom severity score (median: 4.5 days for placebo and 3.5 days for pleconaril; P = 0.038). Significant reductions in the number of tissues used for nose-blowing (20% reduction) and in nights of disturbed sleep (16% reduction) were also observed. Pleconaril was generally well tolerated; the liquid formulation caused gastrointestinal disturbance in all groups (diarrhoea 10-14%, nausea 5-9%, abdominal discomfort 6-8%), and tablets were associated with a greater incidence of nausea (3% for placebo versus 7% for pleconaril, P = 0.003). Pleconaril 400 mg administered three-times daily reduced the duration and severity of picornaviral VRI in adolescents and adults.     

The pharmacokinetics, electrocardiographic effects, and tolerability of loratadine syrup in children aged 2 to 5 years

OBJECTIVE: We assessed the pharmacokinetics and tolerability of 5 mg loratadine syrup (1 mg/mL) in children aged 2 to 5 years. METHODS: Two studies were undertaken. A single-dose, open-label bioavailability study was performed to characterize the pharmacokinetic profiles of loratadine and its metabolite desloratadine. Plasma concentrations of loratadine and desloratadine were determined at 0, 1, 2, 4, 8, 12, 24, 48, and 72 hours after a single administration of 5 mg loratadine syrup to 18 healthy children (11 male, 7 female; 12 black, 5 white, 1 other; mean age +/- SD, 3.8 +/- 1.1 years; mean weight +/- SD, 17.4 +/- 4.4 kg). In addition, a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study was performed to assess the tolerability of 5 mg loratadine syrup after multiple doses. Loratadine (n = 60) or placebo (n = 61) was given once daily for 15 days to children with a history of allergic rhinitis or chronic idiopathic urticaria. In the loratadine group, 27 boys and 33 girls (52 white, 8 black) were enrolled, with a mean age +/- SD of 3.67 +/- 1.13 years and a mean weight +/- SD of 17.2 +/- 3.8 kg. In the placebo group, 27 boys and 34 girls (53 white, 7 black, 1 Asian) were enrolled, with a mean age +/- SD of 3.52 +/- 1.12 years and a mean weight +/- SD of 17.3 +/- 2.9 kg. Tolerability was assessed based on electrocardiographic results, occurrence of adverse events, changes in vital signs, and results of laboratory tests and physical examinations. RESULTS: The peak plasma concentrations of loratadine and desloratadine were 7.78 and 5.09 ng/mL, respectively, observed 1.17 and 2.33 hours after administration of loratadine; the areas under the plasma concentration-time curve to the last quantifiable time point for loratadine and desloratadine were 16.7 and 87.2 ng x h/mL, respectively. Single and multiple doses were well tolerated, with no adverse events occurring with greater frequency after multiple doses of loratadine than after placebo. Electrocardiographic parameters were not altered by loratadine compared with placebo. There were no clinically meaningful changes in other tolerability assessments. CONCLUSION: Loratadine was well tolerated in this small, selected group of children aged 2 to 5 years at a dose providing exposure similar to that with the adult dose (ie, 10 mg once daily).     

Ibuprofen, acetaminophen, and placebo treatment of febrile children

A double-blind, parallel-group, triple-dummy-designed, single-oral-dose study compared the efficacy, tolerability, safety, and dose-response of 5 mg/kg (n = 32) and 10 mg/kg (n = 28) ibuprofen suspension, 10 mg/kg acetaminophen elixir (n = 33), and placebo liquids (n = 34) in 127 children (2 to 11 years of age) with fever (101 degrees to 104 degrees F). Blood samples, oral temperatures, pulse, blood pressure, and respiration were obtained before and 1/2, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 8 hours after the dose was administered. The study was terminated early if oral temperature was greater than 104 degrees F or if it increased 1 degree F above baseline. All agents were well tolerated and more effective than placebo (p less than 0.05) for fever control. Ibuprofen, 10 mg/kg, was favored over 10 mg/kg acetaminophen (p less than 0.05). For temperatures greater than 102.5 degrees F, a dose-response relationship for 5 and 10 mg/kg ibuprofen was demonstrated in terms of percentage of fever reduction and in terms of the initial 2-hour rate of decrease in temperature. Antipyretic efficacy for temperatures greater than 102.5 degrees F was 10 mg/kg ibuprofen greater than 5 mg/kg greater than 10 mg/kg acetaminophen greater than placebo. All treatments were well tolerated. No significant clinical or laboratory abnormalities were noted. Ibuprofen suspension may be a safe and effective antipyretic in children.     

Efficacy and safety of topiramate for the treatment of chronic migraine: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of topiramate (100 mg/day) compared with placebo for the treatment of chronic migraine. METHODS: This was a randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, multicenter study consisting of 16 weeks of double-blind treatment. Subjects aged 18 to 65 years with 15 or more headache days per month, at least half of which were migraine/migrainous headaches, were randomized 1:1 to either topiramate 100 mg/day or placebo. An initial dose of topiramate 25 mg/day (or placebo) was titrated upward in weekly increments of 25 mg/day to a maximum of 100 mg/day (or to the maximum tolerated dose). Concomitant preventive migraine treatment was not allowed, and acute headache medication use was not to exceed 4 days per week during the double-blind maintenance period. The primary efficacy endpoint was the change from baseline in the mean monthly number of migraine/migrainous days; the change in the mean monthly number of migraine days also was analyzed. A fixed sequence approach (ie, gatekeeper approach) using analysis of covariance was used to analyze the efficacy endpoints. Assessments of safety and tolerability included physical and neurologic examinations, clinical laboratory parameters, and spontaneous reports of clinical adverse events. RESULTS: The intent-to-treat population included 306 (topiramate, n = 153; placebo, n = 153) of 328 randomized subjects who provided at least 1 efficacy assessment; 55.8% of the topiramate group and 55.2% on placebo were trial completers. The mean final topiramate maintenance dose was 86.0 mg/day. The mean duration of therapy was 91.7 days for the topiramate group and 90.6 days for the placebo group. Topiramate treatment resulted in a statistically significant mean reduction of migraine/migrainous headache days (topiramate -6.4 vs placebo -4.7, P= .010) and migraine headache days relative to baseline (topiramate -5.6 vs placebo -4.1, P= .032). Treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 132 (82.5%) and 113 (70.2%) of topiramate-treated and placebo-treated subjects, respectively, and were generally of mild or moderate severity. Most commonly reported adverse events in the topiramate group were paresthesia (n = 46, 28.8%), upper respiratory tract infection (n = 22, 13.8%), and fatigue (n = 19, 11.9%). The most common adverse events in the placebo group were upper respiratory tract infection (n = 20, 12.4%), fatigue (n = 16, 9.9%), and nausea (n = 13, 8.1%). Discontinuations due to adverse events occurred in 18 (10.9%) topiramate subjects and 10 (6.1%) placebo subjects. There were no serious adverse events or deaths. CONCLUSIONS: Topiramate treatment at daily doses of approximately 100 mg resulted in statistically significant improvements compared with placebo in mean monthly migraine/migrainous and migraine headache days. Topiramate is safe and generally well tolerated in this group of subjects with chronic migraine, a burdensome condition with important unmet treatment needs. Safety and tolerability of topiramate were consistent with experience in previous clinical trials involving the drug.     

A randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, multicenter, placebo-controlled study of the safety and efficacy of extended-release guaifenesin/pseudoephedrine hydrochloride for symptom relief as an adjunctive therapy to antibiotic treatment of acute respiratory infections

Purpose: This study assessed the effi cacy and safety of guaifenesin 600 mg and pseudoephedrine hydrochloride 60 mg extended-release bilayer tablets in providing relief of acute respiratory symptoms when used as an adjunct to antibiotics in patients with an acute respiratory infection (ARI). Methods: Adult patients experiencing symptoms of ARI and meeting the physician's usual diagnostic criteria for oral antibiotic treatment were prescribed an antibiotic and randomized to adjunctive guaifenesin/pseudoephedrine hydrochloride or matching placebo twice daily for 7 days. Patients completed symptom diaries and treatment assessments twice daily and attended offi ce visits on Days 4 and 8. Results: The safety/intent-to-treat (ITT) population analysis included 601 patients (guaifenesin/ pseudoephedrine, n = 303; placebo, n = 298). Mean symptom scores were lower with guaifenesin/ pseudoephedrine from Day 3 for every symptom assessed, with statistically significant improvements in total symptom score from Day 3 (P = 0.026). The greatest effects of treatment with guaifenesin/pseudoephedrine were observed for nasal congestion and sinus headache. Time to overall relief was shorter with guaifenesin/pseudoephedrine (P = 0.038). Signifi cantly more patients reported "the medication was helping during the day" on Day 2 with guaifenesin/ pseudoephedrine (P = 0.002). Patient assessments of symptom relief showed a signifi cant preference for guaifenesin/pseudoephedrine versus placebo (P = 0.021). Treatment with guaifenesin/ pseudoephedrine was well tolerated. Insomnia (2.6%), nausea (2.3%), and headache (1.3%) were the most common treatment-related adverse effects. Conclusions: As adjunctive therapy for symptom relief for patients taking antibiotics for ARIs, guaifenesin/pseudoephedrine shortened time to relief and improved bothersome respiratory symptoms better than placebo, with greatest effects seen for nasal congestion and sinus headache.     

Fluoxetine differentially alters alcohol intake and other consummatory behaviors in problem drinkers

The effects of fluoxetine, a relatively selective long-acting serotonin uptake inhibitor, on the consumption of alcoholic and nonalcoholic drinks, cigarette smoking, and body weight were assessed in 29 men who were early stage problem drinkers. After a 2-week baseline, subjects were randomly assigned to receive 40 mg/day fluoxetine (n = 8), 60 mg/day fluoxetine (n = 11), or placebo (n = 10) for 4 weeks. Fluoxetine 60 mg/day decreased mean daily alcoholic drinks from (X +/- SEM) 8.3 +/- 0.7 during baseline to 6.9 +/- 0.7 and decreased total drinks per 14 days from 115.8 +/- 9.3 to 96.5 +/- 9.5 (p less than 0.01; 17.3% decrease from baseline), with no significant increase in days of abstinence. Neither 40 mg/day fluoxetine nor placebo had effects on intake of alcohol. Fluoxetine 60 mg/day decreased total and mean daily alcoholic drinks compared with 40 mg/day fluoxetine (ANCOVA, both p less than 0.02), but neither dose of fluoxetine was different from placebo. Compared with placebo, both 40 mg/day fluoxetine and 60 mg/day fluoxetine no differences were detected between treatment groups, 60 mg/day fluoxetine increased mean daily nonalcoholic beverages from baseline (5.0 +/- 0.4 to 5.6 +/- 0.3, p less than 0.01) and increased daily cigarettes smoked (from 25.1 +/- 4.6 to 26.9 +/- 4.5, p less than 0.05), whereas no significant changes from baseline were observed with 40 mg/day fluoxetine or placebo.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

Health-related quality-of-life effects of oxaprozin and nabumetone in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are commonly prescribed for the treatment of signs and symptoms of osteoarthritis (OA). Nabumetone and oxaprozin are 2 of the newer NSAIDs and have been shown to have similar safety and efficacy profiles. Nabumetone 1000 mg to 1500 mg once a day (QD) and oxaprozin 1200 mg QD are commonly recommended doses. This study compared the health-related quality of life (HRQOL) of patients receiving oxaprozin 1200 mg QD with that of patients receiving nabumetone 1000 mg QD or nabumetone 1500 mg QD for the treatment of signs and symptoms of OA of the knee. Two similarly designed, independent, randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled clinical trials were conducted. In trial 1, patients were randomized to receive oxaprozin 1200 mg QD (n = 109), nabumetone 1000 mg QD (n = 110), or placebo (n = 109); in trial 2, patients received oxaprozin 1200 mg QD (n = 116), nabumetone 1500 mg QD (n = 115), or placebo (n = 116). HRQOL was measured by the Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form-36 Health Survey (1-week recall period) at baseline and weeks 2 and 6. Data from the 2 trials were combined to assess differences across the 4 groups in 8 domains and 2 summary scores at baseline, and changes in HRQOL scores at weeks 2 and 6. At week 2, the oxaprozin group showed significantly greater improvement than the placebo group in role physical, vitality, and mental component summary (MCS) scores (P < 0.05), and in physical functioning, bodily pain, social functioning, and physical component summary (PCS) scores (P < 0.01). The nabumetone 1500-mg group showed significantly greater improvement than the placebo group in bodily pain and social functioning (P < 0.05), and in vitality and MCS score (P < 0.01). No significant differences were observed between the nabumetone 1000-mg and placebo groups. At week 2, the oxaprozin group showed a greater change than the nabumetone 1000-mg group in PCS score (P < 0.05). At week 6, oxaprozin treatment resulted in significantly greater improvement than placebo in physical functioning, role physical, and bodily pain (P < 0.05); social functioning, role emotional, and mental health (P < 0.01); and vitality and MCS score (P < 0.001). The nabumetone 1500-mg group showed significantly greater responses than the placebo group in vitality (P < 0.05), mental health (P < 0.01), and MCS score (P < 0.001). The oxaprozin group had significantly better scores than the nabumetone 1500-mg group in the PCS (P < 0.05), and it showed significantly greater improvement than the nabumetone 1000 mg group in role physical and PCS score (P < 0.01) and in role emotional (P < 0.05). No statistically significant differences were found between placebo and nabumetone 1000 mg at week 6. Results of this study suggest that oxaprozin 1200 mg QD has a significant positive impact on the HRQOL of patients with OA of the knee compared with nabumetone 1000 mg QD and placebo.     

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of venlafaxine XR in out-patients with tension-type headache

The aim of this study was to evaluate in a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study the safety and efficacy of venlafaxine extended release (XR) in the prophylactic treatment of out-patients with tension-type headache (TTH) and no current depression or anxiety disorders. Sixty neurology and headache clinic out-patients meeting the International Headache Society diagnostic criteria for TTH were treated with venlafaxine XR (150 mg/day, n = 34) or placebo (n = 26) for 12 weeks. The primary efficacy variable was the decline in number of days with headache. At end-point, the venlafaxine XR group had a significantly greater decrease in the number of days with headache compared with placebo (P = 0.05). Differences with regard to secondary efficacy variables where not significant. The number needed to treat for responders (>or=50% reduction in days with headache) was 3.48. Six patients in the venlafaxine XR group interrupted therapy due to adverse events, while no patients in the placebo group did so for the same reason. The number needed to harm was 5.58. This study provides preliminary evidence for the efficacy and safety of venlafaxine XR 150 mg/day in reducing the number of days with TTH.     

Effect of Saccharomyces boulardii in children with acute gastroenteritis and its relationship to the immune response

We evaluated the effect of Saccharomyces boulardii administration in otherwise healthy children aged between 6 months and 10 years who were admitted for acute diarrhoea (15 males, 12 females). The patients were randomized into two groups: group 1 (n = 16) received 250 mg S. boulardii dissolved in 5 ml of water orally twice daily for 7 days and group 2 (n = 11) received placebo. Clinical and laboratory assessments were performed on admission and on day 7 of follow-up. Both groups experienced reduced daily stool frequency, the decrease being significantly greater in group 1 on days 3 and 4 compared with group 2. Group 1 demonstrated significant increases in serum immunoglobulin A and decreases in C-reactive protein levels on day 7. The percentage of CD8 lymphocytes on day 7 was significantly higher in group 1 than group 2. This study confirmed the efficacy of S. boulardii in paediatric acute gastroenteritis and the findings suggest that S. boulardii treatment enhances the immune response.     

Topiramate for migraine prevention in adolescents: a pooled analysis of efficacy and safety

OBJECTIVE: To characterize the efficacy and safety of topiramate for migraine prevention in adolescents from 3 randomized, 26-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials. BACKGROUND: Limited information is available regarding the efficacy and safety of prophylactic medications for treatment of adolescent migraine, a significant health problem. In studies that included adults and children, topiramate 100 and 200 mg/day were effective and generally well-tolerated in the prevention of migraine headache. METHODS: We performed a post hoc subset analysis of the efficacy and safety data from the 51 patients, ages 12-17 years, enrolled in 3 pivotal trials of topiramate for migraine prophylaxis. RESULTS: Daily treatment with topiramate 50, 100, and 200 mg for 26 weeks reduced monthly migraine frequency from baseline 46% (P= .07), 63% (P= .02), and 65% (P= .04), respectively, compared with placebo (16%). Similarly, topiramate reduced both the monthly mean number of migraine days (1, 4, and 5 days for topiramate 50, 100, and 200 mg/day, respectively, vs 1 day for placebo) and percentage of days during which acute migraine medications were administered (59%, 54%, and 67% for topiramate 50, 100, and 200 mg/day, respectively, vs 42% for placebo), although the treatment differences did not reach nominal statistical significance. Topiramate 200 mg/day did not appear to offer greater efficacy than 100 mg/day. Treatment was generally well-tolerated, although adverse events were most frequent in the 200 mg/day dose group. CONCLUSIONS: This post hoc subset analysis suggests that topiramate 100 and 200 mg/day, and possibly 50 mg/day, administered prophylactically for 26 weeks may reduce migraine in adolescents.     

Topiramate for migraine prevention in children: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and safety of topiramate for the prevention of pediatric migraine with or without aura in a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. BACKGROUND: Treatment options for pediatric migraine are currently limited, and no migraine preventive agents are approved for use in children in the United States. Topiramate is an effective migraine preventive therapy in adults, as demonstrated in several large, randomized, placebo-controlled trials. METHODS: One hundred and sixty-two children with migraine (age, 6 to 15 years) were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive topiramate (n = 112) or placebo (n = 50). This study was designed to ensure that 150 participants were randomized to study medication. An additional 12 qualified patients were randomized because they had successfully completed the screening phase. The double-blind phase of the trial consisted of a titration period and a maintenance period. Topiramate was initiated at 15 mg/day and titrated over 8 weeks to 2 to 3 mg/kg per day, or maximum tolerated dose, whichever was less (maximum allowed dose was 200 mg/day). The target dose was maintained for 12 weeks. The primary efficacy variable was the change in mean number of migraine days per month (28 days) during the double-blind phase relative to the 4-week prospective baseline phase for each treatment group. RESULTS: Topiramate treatment was associated with a mean reduction over the entire double-blind phase of 2.6 migraine days per month, compared with a mean reduction of 2.0 migraine days per month for placebo (P = .061 topiramate vs. placebo). A significantly greater percentage of topiramate patients (32%) experienced a > or = 75% reduction in mean monthly migraine days compared with placebo (14%, P = .02). Discontinuation rates due to adverse events were low: 6.5% for the topiramate group and 4.0% for the placebo group. The adverse events that occurred most commonly in the topiramate group at an incidence rate greater than in the placebo group were: upper respiratory tract infection, anorexia, weight decrease, gastroenteritis, paresthesia, and somnolence. The mean average daily dose of topiramate during the maintenance period was 2.0 mg/kg per day. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study suggests that topiramate may be an effective migraine preventive therapy in children. Topiramate was well tolerated in this population. Further randomized studies would be required to definitively establish the efficacy of topiramate for pediatric migraine prevention.     

Pharmacokinetic and safety profile of desloratadine and fexofenadine when coadministered with azithromycin: a randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study

BACKGROUND: Significant cardiac toxicity has been associated with some older antihistamines (eg, terfenadine and astemizole) when their plasma concentrations are increased. There is thus a need for a thorough assessment of the cardiac safety of newer antihistamine compounds. OBJECTIVE: This study was undertaken to assess the effects of coadministration of desloratadine or fexofenadine with azithromycin on pharmacokinetic parameters, tolerability, and electrocardiographic (ECG) findings. METHODS: Healthy volunteers aged 19 to 46 years participated in this randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, third-party-blind, multiple-dose study. Subjects received desloratadine 5 mg once daily, fexofenadine 60 mg twice daily, or placebo for 7 days. An azithromycin loading dose (500 mg) followed by azithromycin 250 mg once daily for 4 days was administered concomitantly starting on day 3. Group 1 received desloratadine and azithromycin, group 2 received desloratadine and placebo, group 3 received placebo and azithromycin, group 4 received fexofenadine and azithromycin, and group 5 received fexofenadine and placebo. RESULTS: The results of the pharmacokinetic analysis revealed little change in mean maximum concentration (Cmax) and area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) values for desloratadine with concomitant administration of azithromycin: Cmax ratio, 115% (90% CI, 92-144); AUC, ratio 105% (90% CI, 82-134). The corresponding ratios for 3-hydroxydesloratadine were 115% (90% CI, 98-136) and 104% (90% CI, 88-122), respectively. A substantial increase was observed in mean Cmax and AUC values for fexofenadine when administered with azithromycin: Cmax, ratio, 169% (90% CI, 120-237); AUC ratio, 167% (90% CI, 122-229). Compared with the group receiving desloratadine and azithromycin, subjects receiving fexofenadine and azithromycin also displayed greater variability in pharmacokinetic parameters for the antihistamine. Mean Cmax and AUC values of azithromycin were slightly higher when administered with desloratadine (Cmax ratio, 131% [90% CI, 92-187]; AUC ratio, 112% [90% CI, 83-153]) but were lower when given in combination with fexofenadine (Cmax ratio, 87% [90% CI, 61-124]; AUC ratio, 88% [90% CI, 65-1201). The most common adverse event for all regimens was headache, reported in 20 (22%) subjects. All combinations of desloratadine or fexofenadine with and without azithromycin were well tolerated, and no statistically significant changes in PR, QT, or QT, interval, QRS complex, or ventricular rate were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Small increases (<15%) in mean pharmacokinetics of desloratadine were observed with coadministration of azithromycin. By contrast, peak fexofenadine concentrations were increased by 69% and the AUC was increased by 67% in the presence of the azalide antibiotic. Based on the reported adverse-events profile and the absence of changes in ECG parameters, the combination of desloratadine and azithromycin was well tolerated. This study suggests that desloratadine has a more favorable drug-interaction potential than does fexofenadine.