Efficacy and tolerability of escitalopram versus citalopram in major depressive disorder: a 6-week, multicenter, prospective, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled study in adult outpatients

BACKGROUND: The S-enantiomer of citalopram (escitalopram) is the active moiety linked to the anti-depressant effects associated with citalopram (the racemate). For escitalopram to be approved for the treatment of depression in Europe, findings from clinical trials of escitalopram are required to match previous results from studies of the racemate, citalopram. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of escitalopram and citalopram in outpatients with major depressive disorder (MDD). METHODS: This prospective, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled study was conducted at 8 psychiatric outpatient clinics in the Federation of Russia. Adult outpatients aged 25 to 45 years with MDD and a total score > or =25 on the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) were eligible. Patients were randomly assigned to receive 6 weeks of treatment with fixed daily doses of escitalopram 10 mg, citalopram 10 mg, or citalopram 20 mg. Efficacy assessments were made at weeks 0 (baseline), 1, 4, and 6 (study end or last observation carried forward). The primary efficacy parameter was the change from baseline in MADRS total score. Secondary measures were the change from baseline in MADRS total score in a subgroup of severely depressed patients (baseline MADRS total score, > or =35), MADRS core depression subscale score, and Clinical Global Impression-Severity and Improvement (CGI-S and CGI-I) scores; and the proportions of patients classified as responders and remitters at study end. Tolerability was assessed using adverse events (AEs) recorded by the investigator. RESULTS: Of 330 assessable randomized patients, 8 withdrew, including 7 who withdrew consent and 1 who withdrew due to recurrence of a preexisting event. Thus, 322 patients were included in the assessment (mean age, 35 years; 41.6% male; all white; escitalopram 10 mg, 108 patients; citalopram 10 mg, 106; citalopram 20 mg, 108). At study end, the mean (SE) change from baseline in MADRS total score was significantly greater in the escitalopram arm than in the 10- and 20-rag citalopram arms (-28.70 [0.78] vs -20.11 [0.80] and -25.19 [0.78]; both, P < 0.001). Improvements were more marked in the severely depressed subgroup (-30.33 [0.95] vs -20.87 [0.99] and -26.34 [0.91]). Changes in the CGI-S and CGI-I scores and the rates of response and remission were significantly greater in the escitalopram group compared with those in the citalopram 10- and 20-mg groups (CGI-S: -2.60 [0.10] vs -1.61 [0.10] and -2.05 [0.10]; CGI-I: +1.58 [0.09] vs +2.35 [0.10] and +1.80 [0.09]; response: 95.4% vs 44.3% and 83.3%; remission: 89.8% vs 25.5% and 50.9% [all, P < 0.001]). Mean (SE) changes from baseline in core depression subscale score were -19.00 (0.59), -13.00 (0.60), and -16.52 (0.58) with escitalopram, citalopram 10 mg, and citalopram 20 mg, respectively. The prevalence of AEs was significantly lower in the escitalopram group (7) compared with the citalopram groups (16 and 19 in the 10- and 20-mg groups, respectively; both, P < 0.05). Nausea (2 [1.9%], 5 [4.7%], and 7 [6.5%] patients in the escitalopram and citalopram 10- and 20-mg groups, respectively) and headache (1 [0.9%], 2 [1.9%], and 4 [3.7%]) were the most frequently reported AEs. CONCLUSIONS: The results from this study suggest that escitalopram 10 mg was more effective than citalopram 10 and 20 mg at 6 weeks in these adult outpatients with MDD. All treatments were well tolerated.     

Comparison of the effects of lornoxicam versus diclofenac in pain management after cardiac surgery: A single-blind, randomized, active-controlled study

Background:

Inadequate pain management after cardiac surgery may result 10 in increased morbidity and length of hospital stay. Although opioids are the mainstay of postoperative analgesia, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) may be used instead to avoid the adverse effects (AEs) associated with opioids. Lornoxicam is a newly developed NSAID, the use of which is increasing. However, lornoxicam has not been studied for use in pain management after cardiac surgery.

Objective:

The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy and tolerability 10 of lornoxicam and diclofenac sodium, an NSAID well established for use in pain management after major surgery, in pain management after coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG).

Methods:

This single-blind, randomized, active-controlled study was conducted 10 at the Gaziantep University Hospital, Gaziantep, Turkey. Adult patients scheduled to undergo valve or CABG surgery for the first time were included. Patients were premedicated with diazepam 10 mg PO at 10 PM on the evening before surgery. General anesthesia was induced using fentanyl, midazolam, and propofol, and maintained using fentanyl and isoflurane in pure oxygen. After extubation and when they stated that they felt pain, patients were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 treatment groups: lornoxicam 8 mg IM q8h or diclofenac 75 mg IM q12h, for 48 hours. Meperidine 1 mg/kg IM was given for additional analgesia when needed (rescue medication). Pain relief was assessed using an I1-point visual analog scale (0 = no pain to 10 = worst pain imaginable) immediately before the first injection (baseline), and at 15 and 30 minutes and 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 12, 18, 24, and 48 hours after the first injection. Sedation was assessed using a 5-point scale (0 = awake and alert to 4 = deep sedation) at the same time points. Tolerability was assessed by monitoring of AEs using patient interview and laboratory analyses.

Results:

Forty patients were enrolled in the study (30 men, 10 women; 10 mean [SD] age, 54.4 [11.1 ] years; 20 patients per treatment group). The demographic and clinical characteristics and mean baseline pain relief scores were statistically similar between the 2 treatment groups. The mean pain relief scores at 15 and 30 minutes were statistically similar to baseline values in the 2 treatment groups. However, the mean pain relief scores at ≥1 hour after the first injection were significantly lower compared with baseline values (both groups, P < 0.05 at time points ≥1 hour). No significant between-group differences in mean pain relief scores were found at any time point. The overall mean pain relief scores were statistically similar between the 2 treatment groups. The mean sedation scores were significantly higher at 30 minutes, 1 hour, and 2 hours after the first injection in the diclofenac group compared with the lornoxicam group (all, P < 0.05). No AEs were observed. The need for rescue medication was statistically similar between the 2 treatment groups (lornoxicam, 2 patients; diclofenac, 3 patients).

Conclusions:

In this study of adult patients who underwent CABG, the efficacy 10 of lornoxicam and diclofenac were similar in postoperative pain management. Both study drugs were well tolerated.     

Effects of single-dose injectable paracetamolversus propacetamol in pain management after minor gynecologic surgery: A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, two-parallel-group study

Background:

Intravenous administration is the route of choice for drug therapy in the immediate postoperative period. Propacetamol (ProAPAP), an injectable prodrug of paracetamol requiring reconstitution, has demonstrated efficacy in managing acute pain and fever. However, it has been associated with pain at the injection site. A stable, ready-to-use formulation of paracetamol solution infused intravenously (IV-APAP) has been developed and might be associated with less pain at the injection site compared with ProAPAR

Objective:

The objective of this study was to assess the tolerability and efficacy of a single dose of IV APAP 1 g compared with those of a single dose of ProAPAP 2 g in patients with moderate to severe pain after minor gynecologic surgery.

Methods:

This single-dose, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled,2-parallel-group study was conducted at 23 hospitals and outpatient clinics in France. After minor gynecologic surgery, patients reporting moderate to severe pain were randomized to receive a single 15-minute infusion of IV-APAP 1 g or ProAPAP 2 g (bioeyuivalent doses). Tolerability was monitored using local and systemic adverse event (AE) reporting, clinical examination including vital sign measurement, and patients' ratings of acceptability of the infusion. Efficacy end points included pain intensity at 0, 1, 2, 4, and 6 hours; median time to rescue medication (defined as the time at which 50% of patients requested rescue medication); and percentage of patients requesting rescue medication. Patients' satisfaction with the study drugs was assessed using patient's global evaluation (PGE) and the percentage of patients willing to receive the treatment again.

Results:

Of the 163 women who were randomized, 161 received the studymedication. The IV-APAP group comprised 80 patients (mean [SD] age, 38.3 [12.8] years [range, 18.0-69.0 years]; mean [SD] weight, 61.1 [11.0] kg [range, 49.0-90.0 kg]), and the ProAPAP group comprised 81 patients (mean [SD] age, 33.9 [12.0] years [range, 18.0-67.0 years]; mean [SD] weight, 61.6 [10.2] kg [range, 42.0-95.5 kg]); the difference in mean age between the 2 groups was statistically significant (P < 0.05). The incidence of local treatment-emergent AEs (TEAEs) was significantly lower in the IV-APAP group compared with that in the ProAPAP group (7.5% vs 38.3%; P < 0.001). No between-group differences in the incidence of systemic TEAEs was found. All patients in the IV-APAP group found the infusion tolerable, compared with 95% of patients in the ProAPAP group. The median time to rescue medication was not evaluated because <50% of the patients in each group requested it. No significant differences in mean pain intensity score or percentage of patients requesting rescue medication were found between the 2 groups at any time point. The percentages of patients in the IV-APAP and ProAPAP groups who rated the study medication as good or excellent on the PGE (83.6% vs 75.6%; P < 0.05) and who were willing to receive the same treatment again (96.0% vs 81.0%; P = 0.005) were significantly higher with IV-APAP compared with ProAPAP

Conclusion:

In these patients with moderate to severe pain after minor gynecologic surgery, a single dose of IV-APAP was associated with better local tolerability, similar analgesic efficacy, and greater patient satisfaction compared with a single bioequivalent dose of ProAPAP.     

A double-blind, randomized, multicenter, Italian study of frovatriptan versus rizatriptan for the acute treatment of migraine

The objective of this study was to assess patient satisfaction with acute treatment of migraine with frovatriptan or rizatriptan by preference questionnaire. 148 subjects with a history of migraine with or without aura (IHS 2004 criteria), with at least one migraine attack per month in the preceding 6 months, were enrolled and randomized to frovatriptan 2.5 mg or rizatriptan 10 mg treating 1–3 attacks. The study had a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, cross-over design, with treatment periods lasting <3 months. At the end of the study, patients assigned preference to one of the treatments using a questionnaire with a score from 0 to 5 (primary endpoint). Secondary endpoints were pain-free and pain relief episodes at 2 h, and recurrent and sustained pain-free episodes within 48 h. 104 of the 125 patients (83%, intention-to-treat population) expressed a preference for a triptan. The average preference score was not significantly different between frovatriptan (2.9 ± 1.3) and rizatriptan (3.2 ± 1.1). The rates of pain-free (33% frovatriptan vs. 39% rizatriptan) and pain relief (55 vs. 62%) episodes at 2 h were not significantly different between the two treatments. The rate of recurrent episodes was significantly (p < 0.001) lower under frovatriptan (21 vs. 43% rizatriptan). No significant differences were observed in sustained pain-free episodes (26% frovatriptan vs. 22% rizatriptan). The number of patients with adverse events was not significantly different between rizatriptan (34) and frovatriptan (25, p = NS). The results suggest that frovatriptan has a similar efficacy to rizatriptan, but a more prolonged duration of action.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s10194-010-0243-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.     

A double-blind, randomized, multicenter, Italian study of frovatriptan versus almotriptan for the acute treatment of migraine

The objective of this study was to evaluate patients’ satisfaction with acute treatment of migraine with frovatriptan or almotriptan by preference questionnaire. One hundred and thirty three subjects with a history of migraine with or without aura (IHS 2004 criteria), with at least one migraine attack in the preceding 6 months, were enrolled and randomized to frovatriptan 2.5 mg or almotriptan 12.5 mg, treating 1–3 attacks. The study had a multicenter, randomized, double blind, cross-over design, with treatment periods lasting <3 months. At study end patients assigned preference to one of the treatments using a questionnaire with a score from 0 to 5 (primary endpoint). Secondary endpoints were pain free and pain relief episodes at 2 and 4 h, and recurrent and sustained pain free episodes within 48 h. Of the 133 patients (86%, intention-to-treat population) 114 of them expressed a preference for a triptan. The average preference score was not significantly different between frovatriptan (3.1 ± 1.3) and almotriptan (3.4 ± 1.3). The rates of pain free (30% frovatriptan vs. 32% almotriptan) and pain relief (54% vs. 56%) episodes at 2 h did not significantly differ between treatments. This was the case also at 4 h (pain free: 56% vs. 59%; pain relief: 75% vs. 72%). Recurrent episodes were significantly (P < 0.05) less frequent under frovatriptan (30% vs. 44%), also for the attacks treated within 30 min. No significant differences were observed in sustained pain free episodes (21% vs. 18%). The tolerability profile was similar between the two drugs. In conclusion, our study suggests that frovatriptan has a similar efficacy of almotriptan in the short-term, while some advantages are observed during long-term treatment.     

不同给药方案阿仑膦酸钠治疗绝经后骨质疏松的效果及不良反应的比较:6个月随访

目的:阿仑膦酸钠是临床常用的防治骨质疏松药物.实验拟观察不同剂量及用法的阿仑膦酸钠(固邦)对绝经后骨质疏松患者骨密度的影响,以及不良反应的发生情况.方法:①对象:选择2007-05/12在河北医科大学第三医院门诊就诊绝经后妇女100例,年龄46～59岁,绝经年限1～10年.阿仑膦酸钠均为石家庄欧意药业生产,70 mg批号:152070301,10 mg批号:007070501.②分组及给药:将100例患者随机分为2组,分别给予70 mg/周及10 mg/d阿仑膦酸钠口服6个月.③评估:服药前后应用法国MEDILEINK公司Osteocore3二维DEXA骨密度仪测定L2～4前后位、髋部、股骨颈和大转子内侧骨密度,骨密度均值增加0～25%为有效;观察服药前后不良反应及服药前后肝肾功能变化.结果:100例患者全部进入结果分析.①骨密度测定:两组治疗后各部位骨密度均增加(P＜0.01),其中L2～4:70 mg/周组有效47人,总有效率94%;10mg/d组有效46人,总有效率92%.股骨颈:70mg/周组有效43人,总有效率86%;10mg/d组有效41人,总有效率82%.大转子内侧:70mg/周组有效44人,总有效率88%:10mg/d组有效43人,总有效率86%.②不良反应:主要为上腹部不适,70mg/周组发生1例,10mg/d组发生6例.③肝肾功能:两组治疗前后肝肾功能无变化.结论:阿仑膦酸钠70mg/周及10mg/d均可有效增加骨密度,但70mg/周的给药方案不良反应少.     

A randomized,double-blind,multicenter trial of nimesulide-beta-cyclodextrin versus naproxen in patients with osteoarthritis

BACKGROUND: Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are the most widely used agents in the symptomatic treatment of osteoarthritis (OA). No data are presently available on the medium-term management of this disease with an on-demand treatment regimen, which nevertheless reflects medical practice. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare nimesulide-beta-cyclodextrin and naproxen in terms of short-term (2 weeks) pain control with scheduled dosing and medium-term (5.5 months) pain control with on-demand dosing in patients with OA. METHODS: In this multicenter, randomized, double-blind, controlled study, we compared 2 weeks of scheduled treatment plus 5.5 months of on-demand treatment in patients with OA of the hip and/or knee and moderate to severe pain, with no important concomitant disorders. Treatment consisted of nimesulide-beta-cyclodextrin (400 mg BID, orally = 100 mg nimesulide BID) or naproxen (500 mg BID). The primary outcome measures for scheduled dosing were pain on movement (measured by visual analog scale), morning stiffness score, Lequesne index, and adverse events. For on-demand dosing, the measures were the same as for scheduled dosing, plus duration of treatment and global assessment of efficacy and tolerability by patient and physician. RESULTS: After 2 weeks, there was equivalent reduction from baseline in pain on movement in the 2 treatment groups (nimesulide-beta-cyclodextrin, -41.5%; naproxen, -40.5%); the reduction was significant after 1 week (P < 0.001). The findings were also similar for the morning stiffness score and Lequesne index. There were no significant differences in mean duration of on-demand treatment (nimesulide-beta-cyclodextrin, 163.03 days; naproxen, 166.3 days) or in mean consumption of study drug (nimesulide-beta-cyclodextrin, 0.85 +/- 0.61 sachets/d; naproxen, 0.74 +/- 0.42 sachets/d). Withdrawal due to intolerance occurred in 8 patients given nimesulide-beta-cyclodextrin and 13 patients given naproxen, with no significant difference between groups; 3 and 12 patients, respectively, withdrew due to gastrointestinal intolerance, a finding that was significantly different between groups (P < 0.01). Global assessment of efficacy by patient and physician was similar for both drugs. Assessment of tolerability significantly favored nimesulide-beta-cyclodextrin on the physician assessments (P < 0.05) but was similar for the 2 drugs on the patient assessments (physicians, 46.9% vs 30.9%; patients, 43.5% vs 33.3%). CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that nimesulide-beta-cyclodextrin provides similar pain relief to naproxen in the management of OA of the hip and/or knee and is associated with fewer gastrointestinal adverse reactions. On-demand dosing may be an effective and well-tolerated low-dose regimen of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for the maintenance of pain control in OA in the medium term.     

A dose-ranging study of midazolam for postoperative sedation of patients: a randomized,double-blind,placebo-controlled trial

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the dose range, efficacy, and safety of midazolam for induction of sedation of mechanically ventilated postoperative patients in the intensive care unit. DESIGN: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. SETTING: Thirteen intensive care units in Japan. PATIENTS: We included 98 patients undergoing general surgery who were ASA physical status I-III. The following inclusion criteria were applied to the patients after surgery: under mechanical ventilation, sedation level 2 or 3 on the Ramsay Sedation Scale, and any pain level but 4 on the Pybus and Torda Pain Scale. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Of the 98 patients initially enrolled in the study, 95 patients received one of the study medications: placebo (n = 24), 0.015 mg/kg midazolam (n = 21), 0.03 mg/kg midazolam (n = 26), or 0.06 mg/kg midazolam (n = 24). Level of sedation was assessed by using the Ramsay Sedation Scale before and 10 mins after medication. The proportions of patients with sedation level 4 or deeper after medication were 4.3%, 14.3%, 52.0%, and 90.9% in the placebo and the midazolam 0.015 mg/kg, 0.03 mg/kg, and 0.06 mg/kg groups, respectively. Safety was assessed by routine monitoring of body functions and monitoring for adverse events. Although midazolam dose-dependently reduced mean systolic arterial pressure, the changes in this variable were small; only one or two patients in each treatment group had decreases in systolic arterial pressure of >20%. No clear dose dependency was found for changes in other body functions measured in the intensive care unit. CONCLUSION: The proportion of patients who achieved a satisfactory level of sedation increased with an increasing dose of midazolam. Intravenous bolus injection of midazolam also dose-dependently reduced mean systolic arterial pressure. This study indicated that, balancing sedative efficacy and safety, from 0.03 to 0.06 mg/kg of midazolam provides relatively safe sedation in postoperative patients.     

S-fluoxetine in the prophylaxis of migraine: a phase II double-blind randomized placebo-controlled study

S-fluoxetine is the long-acting enantiomer of the racemic antidepressant serotonin reuptake inhibitor. Sixty-five patients needing migraine prophylaxis were recruited into a phase II, double-blind, placeho-controlled trial. After a 1-month placebo run-in, 53 patients met entry criteria with regard to attack frequency and were randomized, 27 to S-fluoxetine and 26 to matching placebo. Three failed to start treatment and there were 17 early discontinuations, 9 from S-fluoxetine, 8 from placebo, at similar times and for similar reasons. The primary efficacy variable was attack frequency and analysis compared decline-from-baseline in the two groups. This was earlier and greater (1.7 attacks/28 days, or 52%) on active therapy than on placebo (1.1 attacks/28 days, or 27%), and statistically significant in month 2 (F=4.93; p =0.033) and month 4 (F=4.55; p =0.04l). As secondary measures of efficacy, migraine-days per month and Patient's Global Impression of Disease Severity coherently reflected the changes in attack frequency. Mean attack severity and acute medication use (doses per attack) were unaltered by either treatment. There were no serious adverse events. Withdrawals for adverse events were four from each group but none was considered causally related. The finding of greater efficacy of S-fluoxetine than of placebo should he interpreted conservatively, since the analysis in the final month was made on only half of the entered patients. It supports progression to phase III evaluation, which was the purpose of the study.     

A comparison of the effect of alendronate and risedronate on bone mineral density in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis: 24-month results from FACTS-International

Objectives: To compare alendronate 70 mg once weekly (OW) with risedronate 35 mg OW with respect to change in bone mineral density (BMD), biochemical markers and upper gastrointestinal (UGI) tolerability over 24 months. Methods: This was a 12‐month extension to the Fosamax^® Actonel^® Comparison Trial international study (FACTS). Postmenopausal women with osteoporosis randomly assigned to either alendronate 70 mg OW or risedronate 35 mg OW for the 12‐month base study continued taking the same double‐blind study medication. Efficacy measurements were BMD at the hip trochanter, lumbar spine, total hip, and femoral neck and levels of four bone turnover markers at 24 months. The primary hypothesis was that alendronate would produce a greater mean per cent increase from baseline in hip trochanter BMD at 24 months. Results: Trochanter BMD increased significantly from baseline to month 24 in both groups, with a significantly larger increase with alendronate: adjusted mean treatment difference of 1.50% (95% confidence interval: 0.74%, 2.26%; p < 0.001). Similar results were seen at all BMD sites. Significant geometric mean per cent decreases (p < 0.001) from baseline were seen for all four bone turnover markers in both groups, with significantly larger decreases (p < 0.001) with alendronate: adjusted mean treatment differences ranged from 8.9% to 25.3%. No significant differences were seen in incidence of UGI or other adverse events. Conclusions: Alendronate 70 mg OW yielded significantly greater BMD gains and larger decreases in bone turnover marker levels than risedronate 35 mg OW over 24 months, with no difference in UGI tolerability.     

加替沙星注射液治疗急性细菌性感染的多中心双盲随机对照研究

目的：评价国产加替沙星注射液治疗中、重度急性细菌性感染的临床疗效与安全性。方法：采用多中心、双盲、随机对照试验设计，以左氧氟沙星注射液为对照药，两组的用量、用法及疗程均为200mg静脉滴注，每12小时1次，疗程7～10d。结果：本研究共纳入255例，加替沙星组和左氧氟沙星组分别为126例和129例，其中加替沙星组进行ITT分析123例，PP分析112例，左氧氟沙星组进行ITT分析120例，PP分析107例。疗程结束时加替沙星组与左氧氟沙星组的总痊愈率和有效率分别为56．25％与55．14％和86．61％与82．24％，两组细菌清除率分别为94．85％和97．75％；治疗结束后7d随访，两组的总痊愈率和有效率分别为67．57％与69．23％和87．39％与90．38％，两组细菌清除率分别为94．79％和97．70％。以上结果两组间比较及疗程结束时与结束后7d比较，差异均无显著性。加替沙星组和左氧氟沙星组的不良反应发生率分别为17．89％和19．17％，均主要表现为轻度恶心、呕吐、头晕、失眠、局部刺激及转氨酶增高等。结论：国产加替沙星注射液治疗中、重度急性细菌性感染疗效确切，安全性较好。     

Nebulized arformoterol in patients with COPD: a 12-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, placebo- and active-controlled trial

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and tolerability of nebulized arformoterol tartrate (a selective, long-acting beta(2)-adrenergic agonist that is the [R,R] isomer of formoterol) and salmeterol xinafoate versus placebo in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). METHODS: This 12-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, placebo- and active-controlled trial was conducted at 60 centers across the United States. Male and female patients aged >or=35 years with physician-diagnosed COPD received arformoterol (15 microg BID, 25 microg BID, or 50 microg QD via nebulizer), salmeterol (42 microg BID via metered dose inhaler), or placebo. Pulmonary function was assessed by spirometry; dyspnea, by the Transitional Dyspnea Index (TDI); and health status, by the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ). Adverse events (AEs) were assessed by site personnel at all clinic visits (screening, first dose at week 0, and at weeks 3, 6, 9, 12, and follow-up). COPD exacerbations were defined as worsening respiratory status requiring a change in medication or an unscheduled provider visit. RESULTS: A total of 717 patients received study medication.The demographic composition of all treatment arms was similar. The mean age was 62.9 years, 58% were men, and mean baseline forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV(1)) was 1.2 L (41% predicted). Mean improvement in trough FEV(1) over 12 weeks was significantly greater with all 3 arformoterol doses (15 microg BID, +16.9%; 25 microg BID, +18.9%; 50 microg QD, +14.9%) and for salmeterol (+17.4%) relative to placebo (+6.0%; P < 0.001). There were significantly greater improvements in the mean percentage change in FEV(1) AUC(0-12h) from the predose value over 12 weeks (15 microg BID, 12.7%, 25 microg BID, 13.9%, 50 microg QD, 18.9%; salmeterol, 9.8%) versus placebo (2.7%; P 相似文献   

Patient preference for once-weekly alendronate 70 mg versus once-daily alendronate 10 mg: a multicenter,randomized, open-label,crossover study

BACKGROUND: Alendronate, an oral bisphosphonate, is available for the treatment of osteoporosis in a 70-mg once-weekly and a 10-mg once-daily formulation. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to determine patient preference for once-weekly versus once-daily dosing with alendronate, and to determine which treatment regimen the patients believed was more convenient and would be easier to comply with for a long period. METHODS: This was a multicenter, randomized, open-label, preference study in which postmenopausal women with osteoporosis were enrolled to receive 9 weeks of treatment in crossover fashion (4 weeks with each study regimen separated by a 1-week washout period). The study regimens included once-weekly alendronate 70 mg and once-daily alendronate 10 mg. The primary and secondary end points were assessed with a questionnaire completed by the patient. Adverse events (AEs) were recorded to assess patient tolerability of the study medications. RESULTS: A total of 324 patients met the eligibility requirements; 288 were randomized to treatment, 287 (mean age, 64.8 years) received treatment, 272 completed the questionnaire, and 266 completed the study. Of the patients who completed the questionnaire, 235 patients preferred the 70-mg once-weekly dosing regimen compared with the 10-mg once-daily regimen (86.4% vs 9.2%; P < 0.001). Most patients also believed that once-weekly dosing was more convenient than once-daily dosing (89.0% vs 7.7%; P < 0.001) and would allow them to achieve better long-term compliance (87.5% vs 8.5%; P < 0.001). Clinical AEs were reported in 30.7% of patients treated with once-weekly alendronate and 30% of patients treated with once-daily alendronate, with no significant differences between treatments. CONCLUSION: When once-weekly alendronate 70 mg was compared with once-daily alendronate 10 mg in this study, 70-mg once-weekly alendronate was the preferred dosing regimen.     

Cefdinir versus levofloxacin in patients with acute rhinosinusitis of presumed bacterial etiology: a multicenter, randomized, double-blind study

BACKGROUND: Treatment guidelines for acute bacterial rhinosinusitis (ABRS) recommend 10 to 14 days of therapy with high-dose amoxicillin, amoxicillin/clavulanate, cefdinir, cefpodoxime, cefuroxime, a macrolide, or a newer fluoroquinolone, among other agents. OBJECTIVE: This study compared the clinical efficacy and tolerability of cefdinir and levofloxacin in patients with a diagnosis of acute rhinosinusitis of presumed bacterial origin. METHODS: In this multicenter, double-blind, noninferiority study, ambulatory adult patients who had signs and symptoms for >7 to 21 days before the screening visit and radiographic findings consistent with acute rhinosinusitis were randomized to receive cefdinir 600 mg or levofloxacin 500 mg, each once daily for 10 days. Clinical and radiologic response rates were determined at the test-of-cure (TOC) visit, which took place 9 to 14 days after the completion of treatment. RESULTS: Two hundred seventy-one patients (138 cefdinir, 133 levofloxacin) were enrolled and randomized to treatment at 27 study centers in the United States and Poland between November 2003 and March 2004. Of these, 241 (123 cefdinir, 118 levofloxacin) were clinically evaluable. The cefdinir group consisted of 75 women and 48 men, of whom 117 were white and 6 black; their mean (SD) age was 42.5 (14.3) years. The levofloxacin group consisted of 71 women and 47 men, of whom 111 were white and 7 black; their mean age was 40.4 (13.6) years. The 2 groups were similar in terms of presenting signs and symptoms and baseline radiographic findings. The most common presenting symptoms were sinus pain, sinus pressure, and purulent nasal discharge, each of which was reported by > or =89% of patients. Clinical cure rates at the TOC visit in the cefdinir and levofloxacin groups were 83% (102/123) and 86% (101/118), respectively (95% Cl for the difference in cure rates, -12.3 to 7.0). Cefdinir and levofloxacin were comparable in the treatment of infections classified as moderate to severe. The incidence of drug-related adverse events was generally comparable in the 2 treatment groups, although there were significant differences between cefdinir and levofloxacin in the incidence of vaginal moniliasis in women (11% vs 0%, respectively; P = 0.003), drug-related diarrhea (8% vs 1%; P = 0.005), and insomnia (0% vs 4%; P = 0.027). Only 2% of patients discontinued therapy prematurely as a result of a drug-related adverse event. CONCLUSION: In this population of patients with ABRS, the extended-spectrum cephalosporin cefdinir was as efficacious as the fluoroquinolone levofloxacin, suggesting that cefdinir may be a suitable alternative to the currently recommended fluoroquinolones.     

Cefditoren pivoxil versus cefpodoxime proxetil for community-acquired pneumonia: results of a multicenter,prospective, randomized,double-blind study

BACKGROUND: According to recently issued treatment guidelines, appropriate empiric choices for ambulatory patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) are a macrolide, doxycycline (for patients aged > or = 8 years), or an oral beta-lactam agent with good activity against pneumococci. OBJECTIVE: This study was designed to compare cefditoren pivoxil, a new beta-lactam, with cefpodoxime proxetil, a beta-lactam with an established role in the treatment of CAP. METHODS: This was a multicenter, prospective, randomized, double-blind study conducted in the United States and South Africa. Ambulatory patients with a diagnosis of CAP were randomized to 14 days of treatment with cefditoren 200 or 400 mg BID or cefpodoxime 200 mg BID. Assessments of clinical cure and pathogen eradication were conducted at 2 visits during treatment, 1 posttreatment visit (s48 hours after completion of treatment), and 1 follow-up visit (7-14 days after completion of treatment). The development of resistant pathogens was assessed at the follow-up visit but not thereafter. The relative cost of treatment was not assessed. RESULTS: The study enrolled 851 patients. Comparable clinical cure rates were observed among evaluable patients in the 3 treatment groups at both the posttreatment and followup visits: at the posttreatment visit, cure rates were 90.5% (162/179) for cefditoren 200 mg, 89.7% (148/165) for cefditoren 400 mg, and 92.2% (153/166) for cefpodoxime 200 mg; at the follow-up visit, they were a respective 88.4% (160/181), 87.2% (143/164), and 90.4% (151/167). Of the 171 strains of Streptococcus pneumoniae isolated before treatment, 22 (12.9%) had reduced susceptibility to penicillin, 5 (2.9%) of them penicillin resistant (minimum inhibitory concentration > or = 2 microg/mL). At the posttreatment visit, the overall eradication rates of pathogens isolated from microbiologically evaluable patients were 88.7% (134/151), 89.9% (134/149), and 95.7% (134/140) in the respective treatment groups (P = 0.031, cefditoren 200 mg vs cefpodoxime). Eradication rates of S pneumoniae were 93.8% (45/48), 95.7% (45/47), and 95.6% (43/ 45) in the respective treatment groups; those of Haemophilus influenzae were 90.2% (46/51), 97.7% (43/44), and 97.4% (37/38). The rates of resolution and/or improvement in clinical signs and symptoms were comparable between groups. The study drugs were well tolerated, with 1.7%, 2.5%, and 1.4% of patients in the respective groups discontinuing study drug prematurely due to a treatment-related adverse event, the majority of these associated with the digestive system. CONCLUSION: The results of this study suggest that cefditoren may have a role in the treatment of CAP in ambulatory patients.     

Safety and efficacy of ranibizumab in diabetic macular edema (RESOLVE Study): a 12-month, randomized, controlled, double-masked, multicenter phase II study

OBJECTIVE

The expression of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) is elevated in diabetic macular edema (DME). Ranibizumab binds to and inhibits multiple VEGF variants. We investigated the safety and efficacy of ranibizumab in DME involving the foveal center.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This was a 12-month, multicenter, sham-controlled, double-masked study with eyes (age >18 years, type 1 or 2 diabetes, central retinal thickness [CRT] ≥300 μm, and best corrected visual acuity [BCVA] of 73–39 ETDRS letters [Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study]) randomly assigned to intravitreal ranibizumab (0.3 or 0.5 mg; n = 51 each) or sham (n = 49). The treatment schedule comprised three monthly injections, after which treatment could be stopped/reinitiated with an opportunity for rescue laser photocoagulation (protocol-defined criteria). After month 1, dose-doubling was permitted (protocol-defined criteria, injection volume increased from 0.05 to 0.1 ml and remained at 0.1 ml thereafter). Efficacy (BCVA and CRT) and safety were compared between pooled ranibizumab and sham arms using the full analysis set (n = 151, patients receiving ≥1 injection).

RESULTS

At month 12, mean ± SD BCVA improved from baseline by 10.3 ± 9.1 letters with ranibizumab and declined by 1.4 ± 14.2 letters with sham (P < 0.0001). Mean CRT reduction was 194.2 ± 135.1 μm with ranibizumab and 48.4 ± 153.4 μm with sham (P < 0.0001). Gain of ≥10 letters BCVA from baseline occurred in 60.8% of ranibizumab and 18.4% of sham eyes (P < 0.0001). Safety data were consistent with previous studies of intravitreal ranibizumab.

CONCLUSIONS

Ranibizumab is effective in improving BCVA and is well tolerated in DME. Future clinical trials are required to confirm its long-term efficacy and safety.Diabetes affects >220 million people worldwide (1). Diabetic macular edema (DME) is one of the major causes of visual impairment (VI) in patients with diabetic retinopathy (2,3). With diabetes prevalence estimated to double during the next 20 years (4), in the future it is likely that DME may be responsible for substantial vision loss unless treated adequately.Laser photocoagulation is the mainstay of DME treatment; it reduces the risk of moderate vision loss by ∼50%, with 3% of eyes showing vision improvement (≥3 lines), but a substantial proportion of treated eyes remain unresponsive (5). In a recent report of a 2-year study, focal/grid laser photocoagulation was more effective and had fewer side effects than intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide (6). Pars plana vitrectomy is another treatment modality investigated for DME; however, both intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide and pars plana vitrectomy have limited efficacy and/or significant side effects (7,8).There is currently a significant unmet medical need for an effective DME treatment that not only stabilizes but improves and maintains vision and has a better safety profile than the available DME treatment options. Several proinflammatory cytokines including vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) have been shown to be extensively involved in the development and progression of DME (9). VEGF promotes neovascularization and microvascular leakage (10). Thus, inhibiting VEGF may provide an alternative therapeutic approach in DME. Anti-VEGF agents have been extensively investigated in neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD). Given that anti-VEGF drugs delivered within the vitreous could pass into the systemic circulation, VEGF inhibition could in turn produce systemic adverse effects, which may be potentially serious for diabetic patients (11). Therefore, randomized clinical trials are required to establish both the efficacy and systemic adverse effects in this population.Ranibizumab is a fully humanized monoclonal antibody fragment (Fab), which binds to multiple variants of VEGF-A (12), and is approved for the treatment of nAMD. In a pilot study (10 patients with DME), ranibizumab was effective and well tolerated in maintaining or improving best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and in reducing central retinal thickness (CRT) (13). The 6-month Ranibizumab for Edema of the Macula in Diabetes (READ-2) study (phase II) was the first to compare the efficacy of ranibizumab with laser photocoagulation or a combination of both in patients with VI due to DME; ranibizumab led to significant improvements in mean BCVA (7.2 letters) compared with laser photocoagulation (−0.4 letters) or the combination (3.8 letters) (14). Studies in DME have also been conducted with other anti-VEGF agents, pegaptanib and bevacizumab (15–19). Initial results from these studies are encouraging in some patients with DME; further prospective randomized clinical trials may confirm their effects in DME.We report the results of the phase II RESOLVE study in patients with VI due to DME. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of ranibizumab compared with sham treatment over 12 months.     

Hemodynamic effect of angiotensin II receptor blockade in postmenopausal women on a high-sodium diet: A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study

Background: Hypertension becomes increasingly prevalent after menopause. Postmenopausal women are more responsive to salt than premenopausal women, and they have been reported to develop marked renal vasoconstriction on a high-sodium diet.Objective: The aim of this study was to assess whether angiotensin II receptor blockade can restore a normal pattern of renal response to salt in postmenopausal women on a high-sodium diet. We also assessed segmental renal sodium handling in that population.Methods: Normotensive and hypertensive postmenopausal women not receiving hormone replacement therapy were enrolled in this prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study. They were assigned to receive irbesartan 150 mg or placebo for 6 weeks; the sequence in which they received irbesartan or placebo was randomized. During the last week of treatment, they received a high-sodium diet (250 mmol/d). Ambulatory blood pressure (ABP), glomerular filtration rate (GFR), and effective renal plasma flow (ERPF) were measured using sinistrin and para-amino-hippurate clearances. Renal sodium handling was assessed by measuring endogenous lithium clearance on day 7 of the high-salt diet.Results: Nineteen women (mean age, 54.7 years; range, 43–72 years; 7 normotensive subjects [mean age, 53.4 years; range, 47–61 years] and 12 hypertensive subjects [mean age, 55.4 years; range, 43–72 years]) were included in the study. When the data for all 19 subjects were pooled, ABP was significantly lower with irbesartan than placebo both during the day (120 [3]/79 [2] vs 127 [3]/85 [2] mm Hg; both, P < 0.01) and at night (systolic BP, 107 [4] vs 111 [4] mm Hg [P < 0.01] and diastolic BP, 71 [2] vs 75 [2] mm Hg [P < 0.05]). Compared with placebo, irbesartan was not associated with a significant change in GFR in either the normotensive or the hypertensive women. When the data for all 19 subjects were pooled, irbesartan was associated with a significant increase in ERPF compared with placebo (372 [21] vs324 [18] mL/min · 1.73 m²; P < 0.05). When the hypertensive and normotensive women were considered separately, the effect was more pronounced in the hypertensive women than in the normotensive women, but the changes did not reach statistical significance. When the data for all subjects were pooled, irbesartan was associated with a significant increase in daytime urinary sodium excretion compared with placebo (135 [13] vs 106 [13] μmol/min; P < 0.05) and a significant decrease at night (109 [13] vs 136 [19] μmol/min; P < 0.05). Fractional excretion of lithium (FELi), an inverse marker of proximal sodium reabsorption, increased significantly during the daytime with irbesartan compared with placebo (47% [6.5%] vs 35% [4.7%]; P < 0.05). At nighttime, FELi was significantly higher in the hypertensive subjects receiving irbesartan compared with placebo (43% [7.2%] vs 29% [6.5%]; P < 0.05). The fractional distal reabsorption of sodium did not change significantly with irbesartan compared with placebo.Conclusions: The results from this study suggest that angiotensin II receptor blockade had a favorable impact on BP, renal hemodynamics, and renal sodium handling in these salt-replete postmenopausal women. Blockade of the renin-angiotensin system restored the normal pattern of renal response to high sodium intake in these women.