莫西沙星治疗老年社区获得性肺炎的临床对照试验

目的评价莫西沙星在社区获得性肺炎（CAP）老年人群中的疗效和安全性。方法采用前瞻性设计,将100例老年病人随机分为治疗组（52例）和对照组（48例）,治疗组予莫西沙星片0．4g,po,qd,疗程14d。对照组于头孢呋新针2．5g,iv,bid,联用克拉霉素片0．25g,po,bid,疗程14d。或单用克拉霉素片5．0g,po,bid,疗程14d。统计分析治愈率、症状缓解时间、不良反应等。结果疗程结束后,治疗组和对照组治愈率分别为87％和88％,差异无显著意义（P〉0．05）。但在疗程早期（D3、D5）治疗组治愈率高于对照组有显著差异（P〈0．05）。治疗组多种症状（发热、咳嗽、痰液性状改善、胸痛等）缓解时间更短有显著意义（P〈0．01,P〈0.05）。不良反应少,均可耐受。本次试验病原体检出率低（27．9％）。结论莫西沙星治疗老年CAP病人临床疗效肯定,安全,给药方便。     

Amiodarone: clinical trials

Amiodarone is an antiarrhythmic agent commonly used in the treatment of supraventricular and ventricular tachyarrhythmias. This article reviews the results and clinical implications of primary and secondary prevention trials in which amiodarone was used in one of the treatment arms. Key post-myocardial infarction primary prevention trials include the European Myocardial Infarct Amiodarone Trial (EMIAT) and the Canadian Amiodarone Myocardial Infarction Trial (CAMIAT), both of which demonstrated that amiodarone reduced arrhythmic but not overall mortality. In congestive heart failure patients, amiodarone was studied as a primary prevention strategy in two pivotal trials: Grupo de Estudio de la Sobrevida en la Insuficiencia Cardiac en Argentina (GESICA) and Amiodarone in Patients With Congestive Heart Failure and Asymptomatic Ventricular Arrhythmia (CHF-STAT). Amiodarone was associated with a neutral overall survival and a trend toward improved survival in nonischemic cardiomyopathy patients in CHF/STAT and improved survival in GESICA. In post-myocardial infarction patients with nonsustained ventricular tachycardia and a depressed ejection fraction, the Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial (MADIT) demonstrated that implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICD) statistically improved survival compared to the antiarrhythmic drug arm, most of whose patients were taking amiodarone. In patients with histories of sustained ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation, the Cardiac Arrest Study in Seattle: Conventional Versus Amiodarone Drug Evaluation (CASCADE) trial demonstrated that empiric amiodarone lowered arrhythmic recurrence rates compared to other drugs guided by serial Holter or electrophysiologic studies. However, arrhythmic death rates were high in both treatment arms of the study. Several secondary prevention trials, including the Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillators Study (AVID), the Canadian Implantable Defibrillator Study (CIDS), and the Cardiac Arrest Study Hamburg (CASH), have demonstrated the superiority of ICD therapy compared to empiric amiodarone in improving overall survival. Based on the above findings, amiodarone is safe to use in post-myocardial infarction and congestive heart failure patients that need antiarrhythmic therapy. Although amiodarone is effective in treating malignant arrhythmias, high-risk patients should be considered for an ICD as frontline therapy.     

Performing clinical trials efficiently in Japan--independent clinical trials and GCP]

Part of the revision of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Law in 2002 included the establishment of a system for independent clinical trials. According to the partial revision of the Guideline for Good Clinical Practice (GCP), MHLW Ministerial Ordinance No. 106 dated June 12, 2003, independent clinical trials are now recognized in Japan. MHLW promotes to resolve the issues about compliance with good clinical practice (GCP) guideline and the management of the clinical trials, including independent clinical trials. For our nation, more effective and safer new drug applications based on domestic independent clinical trial documents will soon be reviewed by the Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency (PMDA). For the protection of human rights, important issues about quality control and quality assurance raised by GCP Audit consist of both GCP on-site review and Document-based Conformity Review by the Office of Conformity Audit of the PMDA are studied.     

Controlled treatment trials in the irritable bowel syndrome: a critique

The irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a common and poorly understood chronic condition that is treated with a great variety of drugs and other therapies without notable enduring success. As there are no objective markers of improvement, and because there may be a very large placebo response, potential treatments for IBS are difficult to assess. Probably the only method that can reliably evaluate IBS therapies is the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled treatment trial. The purpose of this review is to critically examine issues central to establishing the efficacy of treatments for IBS in such trials. These include the definition of IBS, measures of efficacy, the placebo response, trial length, maintaining blindedness, the crossover design, ability to generalize, and statistical considerations. With this background, all published IBS treatment trials are examined. It is concluded that not a single study offers convincing evidence that any therapy is effective in treating the IBS symptom complex. Well-designed and executed IBS treatment trials are urgently needed; suggestions are given for essential features of such trials.     

Liraglutide: from clinical trials to clinical practice

Liraglutide, a once-daily glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist, is approved for use as monotherapy in the USA and Japan (but not in Europe or Canada) and in combination with selected oral agents (all regions) for the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes. Guidance from local advisory bodies is emerging on the most appropriate place for liraglutide in the treatment pathway. It is apparent from its phase 3 clinical trial programme that liraglutide provides superior glycaemic control compared with that achieved with other antidiabetic agents used early in the treatment pathway (e.g. glimepiride and sitagliptin). Key additional benefits include a low incidence of hypoglycaemia and clinically relevant weight loss, although these benefits may be ameliorated by concomitant sulphonylurea (SU) treatment and, in the case of hypoglycaemia, reduction of the SU dose may be necessary. Overall, the profile of liraglutide is similar and, in some aspects, superior to twice-daily exenatide. The implementation of liraglutide therapy is straightforward, with simple dose titration from the starting dose of 0.6 to 1.2 mg/day after 1 week; some patients may benefit from additional titration to 1.8 mg/day. Treatment is self-administered by subcutaneous injection. This contrasts with other agents used early in the treatment pathway, but clinical data suggest patients' overall treatment satisfaction with liraglutide is similar (1.2 mg) or better (1.8 mg) than that with sitagliptin despite differing administration methods. Some patients may experience nausea when initiating liraglutide treatment, but the titration regimen is designed to improve tolerability and clinical data indicate nausea is transient.     

Dabigatran in atrial fibrillation: pharmacology and clinical trials

The central pharmacologic approach to stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation has recently changed with the approval of dabigatran by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Dabigatran is an oral anticoagulant that belongs to the class of direct thrombin inhibitors. Dabigatran has predictable pharmacokinetics, without significant drug and food interactions, rapid onset, and requires twice-daily administration without the need for monitoring. The only drug contraindicated with dabigatran is rifampin. In the Randomized Evaluation of Long-Term Anticoagulation Therapy (RE-LY) trial, dabigatran at a dose of 150 mg bid is statistically superior to warfarin in preventing strokes and systemic embolism in patients with atrial fibrillation and has a lower non-statistically significant rate of major bleeding. There is significantly lower rate of intracranial bleeding. The FDA recently approved the 150-mg bid dose for patients with a creatinine clearance above 30 mL/min and 75 mg bid for use in patients with a creatinine clearance of 15 to 30 mL/min. A prespecified subanalysis in both warfarin-experienced and warfarin-naive subgroups mirrored the main results. For cardioversions, a post hoc analysis showed that the rate of thromboembolism and major bleeding within 30 days of cardioversion for dabigatran 150 mg bid was low and comparable to that of warfarin, with or without transesophageal echocardiography guidance. Dabigatran, therefore, is the first novel anticoagulant to offer an alternative to warfarin.