Efficacy and safety of inhaled zanamivir in the prevention of influenza in community-dwelling, high-risk adult and adolescent subjects: a 28-day, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Influenza can cause significant morbidity and mortality in subjects at high risk for complications, including the elderly (age >or=65 years) and those with chronic respiratory, cardiovascular, or metabolic conditions. Effective prophylaxis can significantly reduce the disease burden in this population. Previous studies conducted primarily in non-high-risk subjects have reported the efficacy of inhaled zanamivir in preventing influenza. OBJECTIVE: This study investigated the efficacy and safety of zanamivir in preventing influenza in community-dwelling adult and adolescent subjects at high risk for complications of influenza. METHODS: This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study in community-dwelling subjects aged >or=12 years who were at high risk for developing complications of influenza, were able to use the Diskhaler device (Glaxo Group Limited, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina), and were able to take the first dose of study medication within 5 days of laboratory-confirmed local influenza activity. Eligible subjects were randomized to receive inhaled zanamivir 10 mg or placebo once daily for 28 days. The primary end point was the proportion of randomized subjects who developed symptomatic influenza during prophylaxis, as confirmed by culture and/or serology. All adverse events (AEs) occurring after the first dose of study medication were recorded. RESULTS: The study enrolled 3363 subjects, of whom 58% were female and 93% were white; the mean age of participants was 60.4 years (range, 12-94 years), and 4% were adolescents. Significantly fewer zanamivir-treated subjects developed symptomatic, laboratory- confirmed influenza during prophylaxis compared with placebo recipients (4/1678 vs 23/1685, respectively), representing a relative risk (RR) of 0.17 (95% CI, 0.07-0.44; P < 0.001) and a protective efficacy of 83%. The incidence of complications was reduced in zanamivir-treated subjects compared with placebo recipients (1/1678 and 8/1685), representing an RR of 0.12 (95% CI, 0.02-0.73; P = 0.042) and a protective efficacy of 88%. The numbers of zanamivir recipients (151/1678 [9%]) and placebo recipients (169/1685 [ 10 % ] ) who developed symptomatic influenza-like illness regardless of laboratory confirmation did not differ significantly (RR = 0.86; 95% CI, 0.70-1.06), indicating that zanamivir was not effective in preventing influenza-like illness that was not caused by influenza infection. Similarly, there was no significant difference in the numbers of zanamivir and placebo recipients who developed laboratory-confirmed infection regardless of symptoms (39/1678 [2%] and 52/1685 [3%], respectively; RR = 0.76; 95% CI, 0.50-1.15). Of these, 64 subjects (35 and 29) were asymptomatic; seroconversion occurred in all but 1 subject, indicating that zanamivir prophylaxis did not prevent asymptomatic seroconversion. During prophylaxis, 51% of subjects in both treatment groups reported at least 1 AE. There were no major differences in the frequency or nature of AEs between groups. The most commonly reported AEs (>or=3% of subjects in each treatment group) were consistent with upper respiratory viral infection (headache: 17% zanamivir, 18% placebo; cough: 14% and 15%, respectively; throat and tonsil discomfort/pain: 13% and 14%). There were no differences between groups in the overall incidence of viral respiratory infections (5% in both groups) or ear, nose, and throat infections (2% in both groups). None of the analyzed isolates from confirmed cases of influenza exhibited reduced susceptibility to zanamivir or genotypic evidence of resistance. CONCLUSIONS: Zanamivir, administered once daily for 28 days, was efficacious in preventing infection with the predominant circulating strains in the 2000- 2001 influenza season in the Northern Hemisphere (influenza A/New Calendonia/20/99-1ike and influenza B/ Sichuan/379/99-like) in these high-risk community- dwelling subjects aged >or=12 years. Zanamivir was well tolerated, with a safety profile comparable to that of placebo. No emergence of resistant virus was detected.     

Comparison of cefuroxime axetil and amoxicillin/clavulanate in the treatment of acute bacterial sinusitis.

This double-masked, multicenter, randomized clinical trial compared the efficacy and tolerability of cefuroxime axetil and amoxicillin/clavulanate in the treatment of acute bacterial maxillary sinusitis. A total of 263 patients with acute bacterial maxillary sinusitis were randomly assigned to receive 10 days of treatment with either cefuroxime axetil 250 mg twice daily (n = 132) or amoxicillin/clavulanate 500/125 mg 3 times daily (n = 131). Patients' responses to treatment were assessed once during treatment (6 to 8 days after the start of treatment), at the end of treatment (1 to 3 days posttreatment), and at follow-up (26 to 30 days after cessation of treatment). Clinical success, defined as cure or improvement, was equivalent in the cefuroxime axetil and amoxicillin/ clavulanate groups at the end-of-treatment and follow-up assessments. Patients in both groups showed improvements in symptoms of acute sinusitis at the during-treatment visit. Treatment with amoxicillin/clavulanate was associated with a significantly higher incidence of drug-related adverse events than treatment with cefuroxime axetil (29% vs 17%), primarily reflecting a higher incidence of gastrointestinal adverse events (23% vs 11%), particularly diarrhea. Two patients in the cefuroxime axetil group and 8 patients in the amoxicillin/clavulanate group withdrew from the study due to adverse events (P = 0.06). These results indicate that cefuroxime axetil 250 mg twice daily is as effective as amoxicillin/clavulanate 500 mg 3 times daily in the treatment of acute sinusitis and produces fewer gastrointestinal adverse events. cefuroxime axetil, amoxicillin/clavulanate, acute sinusitis.     

Comparative efficacy of clarithromycin modified-release and clarithromycin immediate-release formulations in the treatment of lower respiratory tract infection

BACKGROUND: A modified-release (MR) formulation of clarithromycin, distinct from the extended-release formulation, has recently been developed and has efficacy and tolerability similar to standard immediate-release (IR) clarithromycin, with the advantage of once-daily dosing. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy (as measured by relief of clinical symptoms and eradication of specific pathogens) and tolerability of clarithromycin MR 500 mg administered once daily versus clarithromycin IR 250 mg administered twice daily for 5 days. METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind (with matching placebo), parallel-group. multicenter, controlled trial, patients with lower respiratory tract infection were randomized to 1 of 2 treatment regimens: clarithromycin MR 500 mg once daily plus clarithromycin IR 250 mg placebo twice daily or clarithromycin IR 250 mg BID plus clarithromycin MR 500 mg placebo once daily. RESULTS: Statistically equivalent clinical cure and success rates, overall symptomatic improvement, and bacteriologic responses were achieved with both treatments. In the clarithromycin MR group, the clinical cure rate was 72.5% (87/120), and the clinical success rate (cure plus symptomatic improvement) was 97.5% (117/120). Of the 124 patients treated with clarithromycin IR 250 mg BID, 98 (79.0%) achieved a clinical cure, and 120 (96.8%) achieved clinical success. There were no statistically significant between-group differences in clinical cure or success rates. More than 85% of patients in both study groups experienced improvement in dyspnea, cough, wheezing, chest discomfort, fatigue, and fever, and the visual appearance of sputum: these symptoms resolved completely in the majority of patients. Bacteriologic response (efficacy against specific pathogens), which was assessed as an objective efficacy criterion, was assessable for 40 patients treated with clarithromycin MR and 49 patients treated with clarithromycin IR. Bacteriologic eradication of the pretreatment target pathogen was achieved in 95.0% (38/40) of assessable patients treated with clarithromycin MR 500 mg once daily and 91.8% (45/49) of patients treated with clarithromycin IR 250 mg BID. Treatment-related adverse events were mild to moderate in all cases. Nausea (n = 9), diarrhea (n = 6), abdominal pain (n = 5), and gastric pain (n = 3) were the only study drug-related adverse events reported by > or = 1 patient in each treatment arm. Diarrhea was reported only in the clarithromycin IR group (n = 6) (P = 0.029 vs clarithromycin MR). CONCLUSIONS: Clarithromycin MR 500 mg administered once daily for 5 days is as effective and well tolerated as the IR formulation, with the advantage of once-daily dosing and fewer episodes of diarrhea.     

Tramadol 37.5-mg/acetaminophen 325-mg combination tablets added to regular therapy for rheumatoid arthritis pain: a 1-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of tramadol 37.5-mg/acetaminophen 325-mg combination tablets (tramadoUAPAP) as add-on therapy in subjects with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) pain that was inadequately controlled by NSAIDs and disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs alone. METHODS: Subjects in this multicenter, double-blind trial were randomized in a 3:1 ratio to receive 1 tramadol/ APAP tablet TID or a matching placebo for 1 week. Stable doses of previous medications were continued during the study. The primary efficacy variable was the mean daily pain relief score over 1 week, measured on a 6-point scale (4 = complete; ' = a lot; 2 = some; 1 = a little; 0 = none; -1 = worse). Secondary outcomes included the mean daily pain intensity score, measured on a 100-mm visual analog scale (VAS) (from 0 mm = no pain to 100 mm = extreme pain); pain intensity and pain relief at day 7; subjects' and investigators' mean overall assessments of study drug, measured on a Likert scale (from 2 = very good to -2 = very poor); and subjects' assessments of 8 aspects of physical function (measured on the Health Assessment Questionnaire). RESULTS: Of 277 subjects randomized to treatment, 267 (201 tramadol/APAP, 66 placebo) were included in the intent-to-treat population. Mean (SD) daily pain relief scores at the end of 1 week were significantly greater in the tramadol/APAP group compared with the placebo group (1.04 [0.89] vs 0.78 [0.80], respectively; P = 0.037), and mean daily pain intensity scores at the end of 1 week were significantly lower (47.23 [19.96] vs 53.81 [16.59]; P = 0.018). Physical function at the end of 1 week did not differ significantly between tramadol/APAP and placebo. Two hundred seventy-two subjects (205 tramadol/APAP, 67 placebo) were evaluable for tolerability. One hundred thirty-three of these subjects had at least 1 adverse event. The incidence of adverse events was significantly higher in the tramadol/APAP group than in the placebo group (57.6% vs 22.4%; P < 0.001). Discontinuations due to adverse events occurred in 19.0% of the tramadol/APAP group and 3.0% of the placebo group (P = 0.001). Of 213 treatment-related adverse events in tramadol/APAP subjects, nausea (34.1%) was the most frequent, followed by dizziness (20.0%) and vomiting (15.6%). One serious adverse event--chest discomfort, nausea, and vomiting after taking study medication-occurred in a subject receiving tramadol/APAP The symptoms resolved 1 day after discontinuing tramadol/APAP. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, tramadol/APAP used as add-on therapy in subjects with symptomatic RA was associated with a significant improvement in pain relief and a significant reduction in pain intensity compared with placebo, with no improvement in physical function. Use of tramadol/APAP may be considered when analgesics are needed in addition to conventional NSAIDs and disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in subjects with RA.     

Comparison of an orally disintegrating ondansetron tablet with the conventional ondansetron tablet for cyclophosphamide-induced emesis in cancer patients: a multicenter, double-masked study. Ondansetron Orally Disintegrating Tablet Emesis Study Group.

A total of 427 cancer patients receiving cyclophosphamide chemotherapy participated in this multicenter, double-masked, double-dummy, parallel-group, randomized study comparing the antiemetic efficacy and safety of an 8-mg conventional ondansetron tablet (OT, n = 212) taken twice daily with an 8-mg orally disintegrating ondansetron tablet (ODT, n = 215) taken twice daily for 3 days. In the primary efficacy analysis, complete or major control of emesis (0 to 2 emetic episodes) between days 1 and 3 was seen in 80% of OT and 78% of ODT patients. The 90% confidence interval for the differences between treatments was -8.6% to 4.4% (defined interval of equivalence, +/-15%), showing that the formulations were equivalent. In the secondary efficacy analysis, no significant differences were observed in the rates of complete control of emesis (no episodes of emesis) over 3 days (63% and 64% of the respective groups) and on day 1 (84% and 81%, respectively) and in the complete control of nausea over 3 days (37% and 43%, respectively) and on day 1 (59% and 61% of patients, respectively). The taste of ODT was acceptable to the majority of patients (89%) who received it. OT and ODT were both well tolerated. Thus 8 mg ODT twice daily represents a palatable, well-tolerated, and effective antiemetic treatment for the control of cyclophosphamide-induced emesis and nausea and provides equivalent treatment to OT 8 mg twice daily.     

Novel, single-dose microsphere formulation of azithromycin versus 7-day levofloxacin therapy for treatment of mild to moderate community-acquired Pneumonia in adults

This randomized, double-blind, noninferiority study was designed to demonstrate that a single 2.0-g oral dose of a novel microsphere formulation of azithromycin was at least as effective as 7 days of levofloxacin, 500 mg/day, in the treatment of adult patients with mild to moderate community-acquired pneumonia (Fine classes I, II, and III). In total, 427 subjects were randomly assigned to receive either a single 2.0-g dose of azithromycin microspheres (n = 213) or a 7-day regimen of levofloxacin (n = 214). At baseline, 219 of 423 (51.8%) treated subjects had at least one pathogen identified by culture, PCR, or serology. The primary end point was the clinical response (cure or failure) in the "clinical per protocol" population at test of cure (days 13 to 24). Clinical cure rates were 89.7% (156 of 174) for azithromycin microspheres and 93.7% (177 of 189) for levofloxacin (treatment difference, -4.0%; 95% confidence interval, -9.7%, 1.7%). Bacteriologic success at test of cure in the "bacteriologic per protocol" population was 90.7% (97 of 107) for azithromycin microspheres and 92.3% (120 of 130) for levofloxacin (treatment difference, -1.7%; 95% confidence interval, -8.8%, 5.5%). Both treatment regimens were well tolerated; the incidence of treatment-related adverse events was 19.9% and 12.3% for azithromycin and levofloxacin, respectively. A single 2.0-g dose of azithromycin microspheres was at least as effective as a 7-day course of levofloxacin in the treatment of mild to moderate community-acquired pneumonia in adult outpatients.     

Switching from latanoprost to fixed-combination latanoprost-timolol: a 21-day, randomized, double-masked, active-control study in patients with glaucoma and ocular hypertension

BACKGROUND: Approximately 40% of patients with glaucoma are concomitantly prescribed >or=2 different intraocular pressure (IOP)-lowering medications. An effective and well-tolerated fixed combination of agents requiring once-daily instillation may improve patient compliance. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety profile of the fixed combination latanoprost 0.005% + timolol maleate 0.5% QD with those of latanoprost 0.005% monotherapy QD in patients whose elevated IOP (>or=21 mm Hg) was inadequately controlled by latanoprost. METHODS: This 21-day, randomized, double-masked, active-control study was conducted at 49 study sites in Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, Peru, the United States, and Venezuela. Adults with glaucoma or ocular hypertension who had failed to reach an IOP of <21 mm Hg while receiving latanoprost for at least 28 days were enrolled. After an additional 28 days of latanoprost run-in, patients were randomly assigned to continue latanoprost monotherapy or to switch to the fixed combination for 21 days. The intent-to-treat (ITT) population included all patients who received at least 1 dose of double-masked study medication; the per-protocol (PP) analysis included patients who completed the study without a major protocol violation and who had IOP measurements both at baseline and at day 21. The primary end point was the proportion of patients whose IOP was decreased >or=2 mm Hg from the baseline level on day 21. Proportions of patients demonstrating IOP decreases >or=3, >or=4, or >or=5 mm Hg from the baseline level and of patients reaching an 10P or=3, >or=4, or >or=5 mm Hg (for each target level, P < 0.001 vs latanoprost group) or final IOP 18 mm Hg (fixed -combination, 35.1%; latanoprost, 17.8%; P < 0.001). Both treatments were well tolerated. Similar proportions of patients in the fixed-combination and latanoprost groups reported at least 1 treatment-emergent AE (10.9% and 12.1%, respectively). CONCLUSION: In this selected population of patients with an inadequate initial IOP response to latanoprost, switching to fixed-combination latanoprosttimolol resulted in a greater decrease in IOP and similar tolerability compared with continuing latanoprost therapy.     

Rosiglitazone is effective and well-tolerated in a range of therapeutic regimens during daily practice in patients with type 2 diabetes

Subjects (N = 22,808) with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) were included in a large 6-month observational study in Germany. Rosiglitazone (RSG) was added to existing therapy in line with daily practice, with 19,962 subjects evaluated for efficacy by treatment group: RSG monotherapy (n = 1017), RSG plus metformin (MET) (n = 7160), RSG plus sulphonylurea (n = 5033), triple oral therapy (n = 4247), and the remaining subject population (n = 2505). Overall, RSG significantly reduced median HbA(1c) and fasting blood glucose by 1.3% and 50 mg/dl over 6 months (p < 0.001 for both). The proportion of subjects achieving glycaemic goals of 相似文献   

Pharmacokinetics and safety of multiple-dose valaciclovir in geriatric volunteers with and without concomitant diuretic therapy.

A randomized, double-blind study was conducted to evaluate the safety and pharmacokinetics of acyclovir following multiple-dose oral administration of valaciclovir (three times a day for 8 days) in geriatric volunteers (65 to 83 years of age). Pharmacokinetic evaluation was performed for three groups: normotensive subjects given 500-mg doses of valaciclovir (n = 11), normotensive subjects given, 1,000-mg doses of valaciclovir (n = 9), and thiazide diuretic-treated hypertensive subjects given 500-mg doses of valaciclovir (n = 9). Valaciclovir, the l-valyl ester of acylclovir, was rapidly absorbed and converted to acyclovir, with plasma valaciclovir concentrations generally undetectable or < or = 0.4 microgram/ml. The peak concentration of drug in plasma (Cmax) for acyclovir occurred at 1 to 2 h, and the half-life of acyclovir was 3 to 4 h in all three elderly groups. The Cmax and area under the concentration-time curve from 0 h to infinity (AUC0-infinity) values of acyclovir obtained on days 1 and 8 indicated no unexpected accumulation at steady state. The steady-state acyclovir Cmax (4.30 and 5.98 micrograms/ml) and daily AUC0-infinity (44 and 74 h.micrograms/ml) following dosing of valaciclovir (500 and 1,000 mg) three times a day were two to three times greater than those expected after high-dose oral acyclovir treatment (800 mg, five times daily). There were no valaciclovir-related changes or abnormalities in safety parameters and no reports of serious adverse experiences in these elderly volunteers. The plasma acyclovir concentration-time curves for the hypertensive and normotensive (500-mg valaciclovir treatment) elderly groups were almost superimposable, and acyclovir pharmacokinetic parameters for the two groups were not significantly different, indicating that concomitant thiazide diuretics do not alter acyclovir pharmacokinetics following valaciclovir dosing in the elderly. Compared with historical data for younger volunteers (creatinine clearance [CLCR] > 75 ml/min/1.73 m2), the elderly subjects (CLCR = 40 to 65 ml/min/1.73 m2) showed higher (approximately 15 to 20%) mean Cmaxs and higher (approximately 30 to 50%) mean AUC(0-infinity)s of acyclovir (P < 0.01), which were consistent with age-related decreases in CLCR. The increased acyclovir exposure from valaciclovir dosing will permit reduced dosing frequency and may result in improved efficacy in the management of herpesvirus diseases.     

Efficacy and safety of intravenous azithromycin followed by oral azithromycin for the treatment of acute pelvic inflammatory disease and perihepatitis in Japanese women

Pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) is mainly caused by ascending infection from the vaginal flora including the sexually transmitted organisms, Neisseria gonorrhoeae and Chlamydia trachomatis, and lower genital tract endogenous anaerobes, leading to serious consequences including infertility and ectopic pregnancy. To evaluate the efficacy and safety of azithromycin in the treatment of PID that requires initial intravenous therapy, we conducted a multicenter, unblinded, non-comparative phase 3 trial. Intravenous azithromycin (500 mg, once daily) for 1 or 2 days followed by oral azithromycin (250 mg once daily) to complete a total of 7 days treatment was administered to 60 Japanese women with acute PID. The clinical and bacteriological responses were assessed at the end of treatment, and on Days 15 and 29. The most commonly detected baseline causative pathogens were C. trachomatis (12 strains), Prevotella bivia (10 strains), Streptococcus agalactiae (7 strains), N. gonorrhoeae and Peptostreptococcus anaerobius (6 strains each). The clinical success rate on Day 15 was 94.1% (48/51 subjects including perihepatitis). The clinical efficacy and bacterial eradication rates against C. trachomatis and N. gonorrhoeae (including 2 quinolone-resistant strains) were both 100%. Common treatment-related adverse events were diarrhoea, injection site pain, and nausea. All adverse events were mild or moderate in severity. Azithromycin intravenous-to-oral switch therapy demonstrated excellent clinical and bacteriological effects for PID caused by various etiologic agents including quinolone-resistant strains and strains with low susceptibility to azithromycin at in vitro testing. The therapy was well tolerated in the treatment of PID in Japanese women.Registration number: NCT00871494.     

DOUBLE-BLIND STUDY COMPARING THE LONG-TERM EFFICACY OF THE COX-2 INHIBITOR NIMESULIDE AND NAPROXEN IN PATIENTS WITH OSTEOARTHRITIS

This double-blind one-year study compares the long-term efficacy and safety of nimesulide with naproxen in patients with osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee or hip. Patients were randomised to nimesulide 100 mg twice daily (n=183) or naproxen 250 mg morning, 500 mg evening (n=187). The primary efficacy variable was change in pain intensity (WOMAC A scale) at 6 months. Nimesulide tablets showed at least equivalent efficacy to naproxen tablets in reducing pain intensity at 6 and 12 months (nimesulide -22.5% at 6 and 12 months; naproxen -22.4% at 6 months, -19.9% at 12 months; non-inferiority proven). At 6 months the investigator assessed efficacy as ‘good’ or ‘excellent’ in 59.3% of nimesulide and 56.4% of naproxen-treated patients, with corresponding values for patient assessment of 57% and 52.7%. Both treatments were well tolerated, with fewer related gastrointestinal adverse events reported with nimesulide (77 cases, 47.5%) than with naproxen (96 cases, 54.5%). This study shows nimesulide to be as effective as naproxen in the long-term treatment of OA and to be associated with fewer gastrointestinal side-effects.     

Phase III, randomized, double-blind study of clarithromycin extended-release and immediate-release formulations in the treatment of patients with acute exacerbation of chronic bronchitis

BACKGROUND: Clarithromycin has an established efficacy and safety profile in the treatment of respiratory tract infections. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical and bacteriologic efficacy and tolerability of clarithromycin extended-release and immediate-release formulations in patients with acute exacerbation of chronic bronchitis (AECB). METHODS: In a phase III, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, multicenter study. patients aged > or =12 years with signs and symptoms of AECB and a productive cough with purulent sputum received treatment with extended-release (two 500-mg tablets once daily) or immediate-release (one 500-mg tablet twice daily) clarithromycin for 7 days. Assessments were performed before treatment, within 48 hours after treatment, and at the test-of-cure visit (study days 19-21). Patients who took > or =1 dose of study drug were included in the safety analysis. RESULTS: Of 620 patients randomized and treated, 182 were clinically and bacteriologically assessable (100 in the extended-release group and 82 in the immediate-release group). Treatment groups were well matched with respect to demographic characteristics and medical and social history. At the test-of-cure visit, 83% (83/100) of patients in the extended-release and 82% (67/82) of patients in the immediate-release group achieved clinical cure; 86% (85/99) and 85% (70/82), respectively, demonstrated bacteriologic cure. Overall pathogen eradication rates were 86% (100/116) in the extended-release group and 88% (86/98) in the immediate-release group. The most frequently reported adverse events were diarrhea (6% in extended-release group vs 4% in immediate-release group; no significant difference), taste alterations (4% in each group), and nausea (3% in each group); no clinically meaningful changes in laboratory values or vital signs, as assessed by the investigator, were observed. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that clarithromycin extended-release and immediate-release formulations have equivalent clinical and bacteriologic efficacy and tolerability in patients with AECB.     

Palonosetron plus dexamethasone for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients receiving multiple-day cisplatin chemotherapy for germ cell cancer

GOALS OF WORK: The aims of this study were to assess the safety and antiemetic efficacy of multiple-day dosing of palonosetron plus dexamethasone in patients receiving highly emetogenic multiple-day cisplatin-based chemotherapy for germ cell tumors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-one men undergoing 5-day cisplatin-based chemotherapy for testicular cancer received palonosetron 0.25 mg IV once daily 30 min before chemotherapy on days 1, 3, and 5 plus IV dexamethasone 20 mg before chemotherapy on days 1 and 2, and 8 mg PO bid on days 6 and 7 and 4 mg bid on day 8. Safety and efficacy were assessed in 24-h intervals for 9 days. Efficacy endpoints included emesis, intensity of nausea and its interference with patient functioning, and rescue antiemetic use. A subset of patients (n = 11) was studied for electrocardiograph effects and pharmacokinetic evaluation. MAIN RESULTS: This multiple-day antiemetic regimen was safe, with headache and constipation the most common treatment-related adverse events, mostly mild. Neither adverse events nor electrocardiographic changes appeared to increase in frequency, duration, or intensity over time despite a 1.42-fold systemic accumulation of palonosetron with repeated doses. The majority of patients had no emesis at any time throughout days 1-5 (51%) or days 6-9 (83%), had no moderate-to-severe nausea, and did not require rescue medication. Most patients reported that nausea had no significant effect on daily functioning on days 1-4 (72%) and days 5-9 (85%). CONCLUSIONS: Palonosetron on days 1, 3, and 5, along with a regimen of dexamethasone, was safe and well tolerated and effectively controlled both nausea and emesis in patients undergoing 5-day cisplatin-based chemotherapy for testicular cancer.     

Comparative efficacy and safety of 3-day azithromycin and 10-day penicillin V treatment of group A beta-hemolytic streptococcal pharyngitis in children.

The efficacy and safety of a 3-day course of azithromycin oral suspension (10 mg/kg of body weight once daily) were compared with those of penicillin V (50,000 U/kg/day in two divided doses) in children aged 3 to 12 years for the treatment of symptomatic pharyngitis caused by the group A beta-hemolytic streptococcus (GABHS). For the 154 evaluable patients, the original infecting strain of GABHS was eliminated at the end of follow-up (34 to 36 days after treatment started) from 67 (85.8%) of 78 penicillin-treated patients and 41 (53.9%) of 76 azithromycin-treated patients (P < 0.0001). Overall clinical success was achieved in 71 (91.0%) of 78 penicillin V-treated patients and 57 (75.0%) of 76 azithromycin-treated patients (P < 0.05). Potential drug-related adverse events were reported for 5.5 and 8.6% of the penicillin V- and azithromycin-treated patients, respectively (P = 0.6). In the present study, a once-daily (10 mg/kg), 3-day oral regimen of azithromycin was as safe as a 10-day course of penicillin but did not represent an effective alternative to penicillin for the treatment of GABHS pharyngitis, even for those children with azithromycin-susceptible strains.     

Efficacy and tolerability of 5-day,once-daily telithromycin compared with 10-day,twice-daily clarithromycin for the treatment of group A beta-hemolytic streptococcal tonsillitis/pharyngitis: a multicenter,randomized, double-blind,parallel-group study

BACKGROUND: Telithromycin, a ketolide antibacterial, has been developed for the treatment of community-acquired respiratory infections. OBJECTIVE: This study compared the efficacy and tolerability of 5-day, once-daily telithromycin with 10-day, twice-daily clarithromycin in adolescents and adults with acute tonsillitis/pharyngitis caused by group A beta-hemolytic streptococci ([GABHS] Streptococcus pyogenes). METHODS: In this multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study, adolescent (aged > or = 13 years) and adult patients with a diagnosis of GABHS tonsillitis/pharyngitis received once-daily telithromycin 800 mg for 5 days (followed by placebo for 5 days) or twice-daily clarithromycin 250 mg for 10 days. Bacteriologic and clinical outcomes were assessed at a test-of-cure visit (days 16 to 23) and a late posttherapy visit (days 31 to 45). RESULTS: A total of 526 patients were enrolled in the study, of which 463 (288 females, 175 males) were randomized to receive treatment (telithromycin, n = 232; clarithromycin, n = 231). The mean age of the telithromycin group was 30.9 years; in the clarithromycin group, it was 30.0 years. Bacterial eradication was achieved in 91.3% of telithromycin-treated patients and 88.1% of clarithromycin recipients (difference, 3.2%; 95% CI, -4.5 to 11.0). Clinical cure was achieved in 92.7% of telithromycin recipients and 91.1% of clarithromycin-treated patients (difference, 1.6%; 95% CI, -5.5 to 8.6). Bacteriologic and clinical cures for the 2 treatment groups also were similar at the late posttherapy visit. Treatment-related adverse events occurred more frequently in the telithromycin group than the clarithromycin group (67.2% vs 57.5%, respectively); diarrhea, nausea, and vomiting were significantly more common with telithromycin than with clarithromycin (P = 0.004, 0.010, and 0.001, respectively). Adverse events were generally mild. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that telithromycin 800 mg once daily for 5 days was an effective and generally well-tolerated treatment for tonsillitis/pharyngitis caused by GABHS, providing similar bacteriologic and clinical efficacy to clarithromycin 250 mg twice daily for 10 days in the per-protocol population.     

Extrafine beclomethasone dipropionate breath-actuated inhaler (400 micrograms/day) versus budesonide dry powder inhaler (800 micrograms/day) in asthma

Hydrofluoroalkane-134a beclomethasone dipropionate extrafine aerosol breath-actuated inhaler (Qvar Autohaler; BDP-AH) provides an alternative to chlorofluorocarbon metered dose inhalers or dry powder inhalers (DPIs). The aim of this six-week, open-label study was to determine whether BDP-AH demonstrates equivalent asthma control to twice the dose of budesonide (BUD)-DPI (Pulmicort Turbuhaler). Adults with symptomatic asthma inadequately controlled on BUD-DPI 400 micrograms/day and beta-agonist were enrolled. Patients (n = 193) were randomised to receive 400 micrograms/day BDP-AH (n = 98) (two puffs of 100 micrograms/actuation inhaler twice daily) or 800 micrograms/day BUD-DPI (n = 95) (two puffs of 200 micrograms/actuation inhaler twice daily). Both groups showed a statistically significant change from baseline in morning (a.m.) peak expiratory flow (PEF) at weeks 5-6 (p < 0.01), indicating study treatment improved a.m. PEF over prestudy 400 micrograms/day BUD. Changes from baseline in a.m. PEF at weeks 5-6 were 15.9 l/min for BDP-AH and 14.2 l/min for BUD-DPI; the groups were statistically equivalent (90% CI -7.02-10.44; p < -0.001 [equivalence = within +/- 25 l/min]). Other efficacy assessments (evening PEF, FEV1, asthma symptoms, beta-agonist use) confirmed the treatments were clinically equivalent. Thirty-nine (40%) patients on BDP-AH and 35 (37%) on BUD-DPI experienced at least one adverse event (p = 0.767). Four (4%) patients on BDP-AH and 3 (3%) on BUD-DPI reported increased asthma symptoms. BDP-AH at half the daily dose provided equivalent asthma control to BUD-DPI; both treatments were well tolerated.     

Open-label,randomized comparison of the efficacy and tolerability of clarithromycin,levofloxacin, and cefuroxime axetil in the treatment of adults with acute bacterial exacerbations of chronic bronchitis

BACKGROUND: In the absence of a confirmed pathogen, empiric antimicrobial treatment of patients with acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis and acute bacterial exacerbations of chronic bronchitis (ABECB) is accepted as standard practice and recommended in treatment guidelines. OBJECTIVE: This study compared the efficacy and tolerability of a 10-day course of 3 antimicrobial regimens commonly used to treat adults with ABECB. METHODS: This prospective, open-label, randomized study assessed clarithromycin 500 mg twice daily, levofloxacin 500 mg once daily, and cefuroxime axetil 250 mg twice daily, each administered for 10 days with food, in patients with ABECB. Efficacy was determined on the basis of the clinical response to treatment and need for hospitalization and/or further antimicrobial therapy. RESULTS: A total of 283 patients (150 men, 133 women) with a mean age of 55 years (range, 29 to 86 years) were randomized to receive clarithromycin (n = 97), levofloxacin (n = 94), or cefuroxime axetil (n = 92). Of 262 clinically assessable patients, clinical cure or improvement occurred in 87.9% (80/91) of those treated with clarithromycin, 87.4% (76/87) of those treated with levofloxacin, and 79.8% (67/84) of those treated with cefuroxime axetil. Eight (8.8%) clarithromycin-treated patients, 6 (6.9%) levofloxacin-treated patients, and 12 (14.3%) cefuroxime axetil-treated patients required a change in antimicrobial therapy to achieve clinical cure/improvement; between-group differences were not significant. No patients treated with clarithromycin required hospitalization for further antimicrobial treatment, compared with 3.4% (3/87) of levofloxacin-treated and 3.6% (3/84) of cefuroxime axetil-treated patients (P = NS). A total of 6.2% (6/97) of clarithromycin-treated patients were prematurely discontinued from treatment due to adverse events, compared with 7.4% (7/94) and 8.7% (8/92) of levofloxacin- and cefuroxime axetil-treated patients, respectively. CONCLUSION: A high rate of clinical efficacy and tolerability was observed in this population of patients with ABECB treated with clarithromycin 500 mg twice daily, levofloxacin 500 mg once daily, or cefuroxime axetil 250 mg twice daily for 10 days.     

Clinical and bacteriological efficacy and safety of 5 and 7 day regimens of telithromycin once daily compared with a 10 day regimen of clarithromycin twice daily in patients with mild to moderate community-acquired pneumonia

OBJECTIVES: This study was conducted to investigate the potential equivalence in clinical efficacy and assess safety of a 5 or 7 day regimen of oral telithromycin (800 mg once daily) and a 10 day regimen of oral clarithromycin (500 mg twice daily) in treating community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). Bacteriological efficacy was also compared. METHODS: This was a multicentre, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled study. Patients with mild to moderate CAP received telithromycin 800 mg once a day for 5 (n=193) or 7 (n=195) days or clarithromycin 500 mg twice a day for 10 days (n=187). In these groups, 159, 161 and 146 patients, respectively, completed the study. RESULTS: At the post-therapy/test-of-cure evaluation, clinical cure rates (per-protocol clinical population) were 89.3% (5 days) and 88.8% (7 days) for telithromycin, and 91.8% for clarithromycin 10 days. Satisfactory bacteriological outcome rates (per-protocol bacteriological population) were 87.7% and 80.0% for 5 and 7 days of telithromycin, respectively, and 83.3% for 10 days of clarithromycin. Bacteriological eradication rates in the respective treatment groups were, for Streptococcus pneumoniae, 95.8% (23/24), 96.7% (29/30) and 88.5% (23/26); for Haemophilus influenzae, 88.0% (22/25), 84.0% (21/25) and 88.2% (15/17) and for Moraxella catarrhalis, 1/1, 4/5 and 3/4. Both telithromycin regimens demonstrated clinical efficacy against pneumococcal bacteraemia (19/19), atypical pathogens (9/9) and erythromycin-resistant S. pneumoniae isolates (5/5). Most treatment-emergent adverse events were mild to moderate in intensity with most commonly reported adverse events involving the gastrointestinal system. CONCLUSIONS: Telithromycin 800 mg administered once a day for 5 or 7 days was as effective and safe as clarithromycin 500 mg administered twice a day for 10 days in treating patients with CAP caused by common respiratory pathogens, including macrolide-resistant isolates, and pneumococcal bacteraemia.     

A comparison of valdecoxib and naproxen in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis symptoms

OBJECTIVES: The primary aim of this work was to compare the efficacy of valdecoxib 10, 20, and 40 mg QD with that of placebo and naproxen 500 mg BID in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The overall safety and tolerability profiles of valdecoxib and naproxen were also compared. METHODS: A 12-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo- and active-controlled study was performed in patients with adult-onset RA whose disease was in a flare state after discontinuing NSAIDs or other analgesics. Patients were randomly assigned to valdecoxib 10, 20, or 40 mg QD, naproxen 500 mg BID, or placebo. The primary efficacy measures were the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20% responder index (ACR-20), physicians' assessments of tender/painful joint count and swollen joint count, and patients' and physicians' global assessments of disease activity. Adverse events, clinical laboratory data, and vital signs were assessed by the investigator and compared between treatment groups to evaluate overall tolerability and safety. RESULTS: A total of 1093 patients were randomized to receive either valdecoxib 10 mg QD (n=226), valdecoxib 20 mg QD (n=219), valdecoxib 40 mg QD (n=209), naproxen 500 mg BID (n=219), or placebo (n=220). At all time points, the proportion of ACR-20 responders was significantly higher in the valdecoxib groups than the placebo group at weeks 2 (10 mg, P<0.001; 20 mg, P=0.008; 40 mg, P= 0.004), 6 (all, P<0.001), and 12 (10 mg, P=0.006; 20 mg, P=0.004; 40 mg, P<0.001). Similarly, at all time points, the proportion of ACR-20 responders was significantly higher in the naproxen 500-mg group than the placebo group (all time points, P<0.001). In addition, mean changes in the number of tender/painful joint counts were significantly greater in the valdecoxib groups than the placebo group at weeks 2 (all, P<0.001), 6 (10 mg, P=0.002; 20 and 40 mg, P<0.001), and 12 (10 mg, P=0.004; 20 mg, P= 0.012; 40 mg, P<0.001). Naproxen treatment was also associated with greater reductions in tender/painful joint count than placebo (all, P<0.001). Mean changes in swollen joint count decreased at all time points in all groups, with significantly greater changes in the valdecoxib and naproxen treatment groups than the placebo group (valdecoxib 20 and 40 mg: week 6, P= 0.014 and P=0.003, respectively; naproxen: week 2, P=0.014; week 6, P=0.015; week 12, P=0.030). Physicians' global assessments of disease activity scores were significantly lower in the valdecoxib (10 mg: weeks 2 and 6, P<0.001; week 12, P=0.001; 20 and 40 mg: all weeks, P<0.001) and naproxen (all time points, P<0.001) treatment groups than the placebo group. Adverse events were reported by 45.5% patients in the placebo group, 51.8% in the valdecoxib 10 mg QD group, 58.0% in the valdecoxib 20 mg QD group, 56.9% in the valdecoxib 40 mg QD group, and 62.6% in the naproxen 500 mg BID treatment group. CONCLUSIONS: Valdecoxib 10, 20, and 40 mg QD were efficacious for treating the signs and symptoms of RA in these patients. The efficacy of valdecoxib 20 and 40 mg QD was not significantly different from that of naproxen 500 mg BID. Valdecoxib was generally well tolerated in this study.     

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.