Healing of benign gastric ulcer with low-dose antacid or cimetidine. A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial

We conducted a 12-week, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial to determine whether cimetidine (300 mg with meals and at bedtime) or a convenient, liquid aluminum-magnesium antacid regimen (15 ml one hour after meals and at bedtime) would expedite healing or relief of symptoms in patients with benign gastric ulcer. Of the 101 patients who completed the trial according to protocol, 32 received the antacid, 36 cimetidine, and 33 placebo. At 4, 8, and 12 weeks after entry, ulcers had healed in a larger percentage of patients treated with cimetidine than of those treated with placebo: 53, 86, and 89 per cent of the cimetidine group versus 26, 58, and 70 per cent of the placebo group (P = 0.02, 0.01, 0.05), respectively. Healing at the three intervals had occurred in 38, 70, and 84 per cent, respectively, of the antacid-treated patients. Neither cimetidine nor antacid was more effective than placebo in relieving symptoms. The presence or absence of symptoms during the fourth and eighth treatment weeks was a poor predictor of the presence of absence of an ulcer crater. We conclude that cimetidine significantly hastens the healing of benign gastric ulcer.     

Treatment of gastroduodenal ulcers with cimetidine in combination with low-dose propantheline

Fifty-eight adult outpatients with endoscopically verified gastric, prepyloric or duodenal ulcers completed a double-blind trial of treatment with either cimetidine, 1 g daily, plus propantheline, 45 mg daily (group A) or cimetidine, 1 g daily, plus placebo (group B). After neither three nor six weeks of treatment was there any significant difference between the two groups with regard to ulcer healing or symptomatic relief. The ulcers of 22 (79%) of the 28 patients in group A and 25 (83%) of the 30 patients in group B were healed after six weeks, and 93% of the patients in both groups became painfree. We were thus not able to show any advantage in combining cimetidine treatment for ulcer healing with low-dose propantheline. In a small open trial the patients with healed ulcers received prophylactic treatment for 12 months with 1) cimetidine 800 mg daily, 2) cimetidine 400 mg at bedtime plus propantheline 45 mg daily or 3) propantheline 90 mg daily. No significant differences were found between the ulcer recurrence rates, but it cannot be excluded that a larger number of patients in each group might have yielded real differences.     

Long-term management of duodenal ulcer with pirenzepine and cimetidine: a double-blind controlled clinical trial

The effectiveness of pirenzepine in the prevention of duodenal ulcer relapses was assessed by means of a double-blind controlled trial versus cimetidine. Seventy duodenal ulcer out-patients endoscopically healed after a 6-week treatment with either pirenzepine or cimetidine were admitted to the trial. The former pirenzepine patients were treated again with pirenzepine: 1 tablet at breakfast and 2 tablets at bedtime (75 mg daily). The former cimetidine patients were treated again with cimetidine: 2 tablets at bedtime (400 mg daily). They received one placebo tablet at breakfast. Both treatments lasted 12 months. Tablets of a mild antacid were permitted only if necessary to relieve severe ulcer pain and heartburn. Patients underwent clinical and endoscopic assessments after 4, 8 and 12 months of treatment and whenever ulcer symptoms lasted more than 4-5 consecutive days. Only 47 out of the 70 patients that entered the trial underwent all clinical and endoscopic controls. Sixteen out of 23 patients on pirenzepine (70%) and 17 out of 24 patients on cimetidine (71%) did not relapse after 12 months. The difference is not statistically significant. Both treatments were well tolerated. The results show that pirenzepine was as effective as cimetidine in the prevention of duodenal ulcer relapses when administered at a dosage of 75 mg daily (of which 50 mg at bedtime) for one year.     

Effect of omeprazole and cimetidine on duodenal ulcer. A double-blind comparative trial

We conducted a double-blind randomized study of 132 patients to determine whether the new, investigational proton-pump inhibitor, omeprazole (30 mg per day), would accelerate healing and pain relief, as compared with cimetidine (1 g per day), in patients with duodenal ulcer. After two weeks of treatment, which was completed by all patients, the healing rates were 73 per cent in the omeprazole group and 46 per cent in the cimetidine group (P less than 0.01). After four weeks of treatment, which was completed by 118 patients, the corresponding figures were 92 and 74 per cent (P less than 0.05). In the omeprazole group 55 per cent of the patients were free of pain after the first week, as compared with 40 per cent of those treated with cimetidine (P greater than 0.05). No major clinical or biochemical side effects of omeprazole or cimetidine were noted. A six-month follow-up study revealed no significant difference between the recurrence rates after omeprazole and after cimetidine treatment. In May 1984 clinical trials with omeprazole were temporarily suspended, since a study of long-term toxicity in rats had shown the development of gastric carcinoid tumors.     

Successful treatment of intractable gastric ulcers with acetazolamide

An open-controlled trial performed in gastric ulcer cases resistant to previous cimetidine, antacids, vitamin A and polyvinylbutylether therapy applied for at least 4 weeks. A group of 21 patients treated with acetazolamide was compared with 16 patients treated with cimetidine (controls). The period of management was 3 weeks. The number of healed patients (P = 0.009), the surfaces of ulcers after treatment (P = 0.0166) and the duration of complaints (P = 0.0003) differed favourably and significantly in the acetazolamide group as compared to the cimetidine group. In the acetazolamide group, however, several side effects (in 11 cases metabolic acidosis, in 9 cases tingling of extremities) were registered. Side effects were not seen in the control group. It is supposed that in the treatment of gastric ulcers a compound with less carbonic anhydrase inhibition but with the same or more cytoprotective effect would have wider clinical perspectives than acetazolamide alone.     

Effect of topical cyclosporine rinse on oral lichen planus. A double-blind analysis

BACKGROUND. Oral lichen planus is a relatively common disorder of the mouth that can be debilitating. It is frequently palliated with topical or systemic corticosteroids and retinoids. These treatments require prolonged use, however, and are not always effective. METHODS. In a double-blind trial, 16 patients with symptomatic oral lichen planus were randomly assigned to receive either topical cyclosporine or its vehicle. The patients swished and expectorated 5 ml of medication (containing 100 mg of cyclosporine per milliliter) three times daily. RESULTS. After eight weeks, the eight recipients of cyclosporine had marked improvement in erythema (P = 0.003), erosion (P = 0.02), reticulation (presence of white lacelike lesions; P = 0.007), and pain (P = 0.002), whereas the eight recipients of vehicle had no change or minimal improvement. After a switch to cyclosporine for eight weeks, the vehicle-treated patients had improvement similar to that seen in the patients who initially received cyclosporine. There were no systemic side effects. In most cases blood cyclosporine levels were low or undertectable. Cyclosporine levels present in specimens of oral mucosa at the end of therapy four hours after the patients swished were similar to the levels previously reported in psoriatic lesions after treatment with systemic cyclosporine (14 mg per kilogram of body weight per day). CONCLUSIONS. As a topical preparation, cyclosporine may be useful in the treatment of oral lichen planus and possibly other cutaneous disorders.     

Effect of omeprazole and ranitidine on ulcer healing and relapse rates in patients with benign gastric ulcer

Omeprazole blocks the action of H+,K+-ATPase in the gastric mucosa and thus inhibits the secretion of hydrochloric acid. We conducted a double-blind multicenter study (45 centers in 13 countries) of 602 patients with benign gastric or prepyloric ulcers to compare the effectiveness of omeprazole (20 mg once daily, 203 patients, or 40 mg once daily, 194 patients) and ranitidine, an H2-receptor antagonist (150 mg twice daily, 205 patients) in promoting ulcer healing and to evaluate the pattern of ulcer relapse during a six-month follow-up. Healing occurred at four weeks in 80 percent of the patients receiving 40 mg of omeprazole, 69 percent of those receiving 20 mg of omeprazole, 69 percent of those receiving ranitidine. At eight weeks, the corresponding figures were 96, 89, and 85 percent. A multivariate analysis of ulcer healing showed that at four weeks the ulcers of significantly more patients receiving omeprazole had healed as compared with patients receiving ranitidine (omeprazole, 40 mg, vs. ranitidine, P less than 0.0005; omeprazole, 20 mg, vs. ranitidine, P = 0.01). At eight weeks, the 40-mg dose of omeprazole was significantly more effective than ranitidine (P = 0.001) or the 20-mg dose of omeprazole (P = 0.03). Ulcer symptoms were relieved faster with omeprazole. In 68 patients receiving concurrent nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs, the healing rates at four weeks were 81 percent in the group receiving 40 mg of omeprazole, 61 percent in the group receiving 20 mg, and 32 percent in the group receiving ranitidine; at eight weeks, the corresponding figures were 95, 82, and 53 percent. During the six-month follow-up period (without treatment), significantly more patients in the omeprazole groups were free of symptoms and ulcers than in the ranitidine group. We conclude that in the dose used, omeprazole is superior to ranitidine in the treatment of benign gastric ulcers.     

Salmeterol compared with slow-release terbutaline in nocturnal asthma A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, sequential clinical trial

Brambilla C, Chastang C, Georges D, Bertin L. Salmeterol compared with slow-release terbutaline in nocturnal asthma. A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, sequential clinical trial.
The aim of the multicenter, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group clinical trial with a 2-week treatment period was to compare the efficacy and safety of salmeterol (50 ug twice daily) with slow-release (SR) terbutaline (5 μg orally, twice daily) in nocturnal asthma. A total of 159 asthmatic adults (FEV, 50-90% of predicted value; sex ratio: 0.87) with at least two nocturnal awakenings during a 7-d run-in period was included in the study. Patients were centrally randomized with a national computer network (Minitel®). The main variable (number of awakening-free nights during the last week of treatment) was analyzed according to a sequential method with the one-sided triangular test. The number of awakening-free nights (± SD) was significantly higher in the salmeterol group: 5.3 ± 2.4 vs 4.6 ± 2.3 (P = 0.006). Salmeterol was significantly more effective than SR-terbutaline in the following factors: number of patients without any awakening during the last week of treatment (50% vs 27%, P = 0.003), mean morning PEF (351 ± 1091/min^-1 vs 332 + 105 I/min^-1, P = 0.04), PEF diurnal variation 6 ± 10% vs 11 ± 12%, P = 0.01), overall assessment of efficacy by the patient and the investigator (P = 0.001 and 0.005, respectively), and daily rescue salbutamol intakes ( P =0.004). In the salmeterol group, significantly fewer patients reported adverse events (16% vs 29%, P = 0.04). This study confirms that salmeterol, 50 μg twice daily, is particularly useful in controlling nocturnal symptoms of asthma: as compared with the control group, twice as many salmeterol-treated patients were totally free of nocturnal symptoms after 2 weeks of treatment.     

Cimetidine and placebo-cimetidine in the treatment of patients with chronic gastric ulcer (a multiclinical randomized double-blind comparative study)

The efficacy of a 4-week cimetidine treatment was examined by a double-blind randomized study in 37 outpatients with endoscopically verified chronic gastric ulcer. The patients received a daily dose of 3 times 1 tablet and, at night before going to bed 2 more tablet, thus a total amount of 1 g cimetidine, or cimetidine-placebo, but in case of complaints they could take in addition a mixed alkaline powder. Patients not recovering in response to a 4-week treatment, were then administered daily 5 tablets of cimetidine up to their complete recovery. Endoscopic, laboratory and clinical examinations were carried out every other week. As a result of a 4-week treatment, 56% of the cimetidine group recovered. The difference was not significant (P less than 0.2). The size of the ulcer and the intensity of the complaints were reduced significantly in both groups. The decrease in the size of the ulcer was significantly greater in the first two weeks of cimetidine treatment than in the cimetidine-placebo group (P less than 0.05). This favourable dynamics of ulcer healing was not felt in the second two weeks of treatment, and after four weeks there was no difference in the size of the residual ulcer to between the two groups. Cimetidine seemed to be a suitable drug for treating chronic gastric ulcer, since its healing rate proved to be better than that of placebo, the gain in weight also was favourable and there were no side-effects.     

Early effects of aspirin desensitization treatment in asthmatic patients with aspirin-exacerbated respiratory disease.

BACKGROUND: Aspirin (ASA)-exacerbated respiratory disease (AERD) is characterized by aggressive inflammation of the respiratory tract and often requires topical and/or systemic corticosteroids to maintain partial control of this disease. Previous studies have revealed that ASA desensitization and subsequent treatment with ASA is associated with clinical improvement in AERD. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study was to determine the effect of daily ASA treatment for the first 4 weeks after ASA desensitization. METHODS: Thirty-eight patients underwent ASA oral challenge followed by ASA desensitization and daily ASA therapy. Changes in nasal and asthma symptoms, combined with changes in oral prednisone, were recorded daily during 4 weeks before and after desensitization. Severity of symptoms ranged from a scale of 1 to 5 (1 = asymptomatic and 5 = most severe symptoms). For statistical analyses the sum of nasal symptoms and asthma symptoms was calculated. Olfactory scores were also analyzed. RESULTS: Nasal and asthma symptom scores, as well as olfactory scores, improved significantly (P < 0.0001). For the 15 patients taking prednisone, their mean doses decreased from 10.7 to 5.9 mg daily (P = 0.0003). CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that ASA desensitization treatment is effective during the first 4 weeks of daily treatment with ASA.     

Coated oral 5-aminosalicylic acid therapy for mildly to moderately active ulcerative colitis. A randomized study

We assessed oral 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA) prepared with a pH-sensitive polymer coating in 87 patients with mildly to moderately active ulcerative colitis in a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Patients were randomly assigned to receive 5-ASA at a dosage of either 4.8 or 1.6 g per day or placebo for six weeks. The outcome was monitored by flexible proctosigmoidoscopic examinations and physicians' assessments at three-week intervals and by patients' recordings of daily symptoms. Results showed 24 percent complete and 50 percent partial responses in those receiving 4.8 g of 5-ASA per day as compared with 5 percent complete and 13 percent partial responses in those receiving placebo (P less than 0.0001, rank-sum test). At a dosage of 1.6 g per day, the response was twice as good as with placebo, but the difference did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.51). Age, sex, duration of disease, duration of active symptoms, or extent of disease did not affect the clinical outcome. We conclude that oral 5-ASA administered in a dosage of 4.8 g per day is effective therapy, at least in the short term, for mildly to moderately active ulcerative colitis.     

Efficacy and safety of cyclosporine eyedrops in vernal keratoconjunctivitis.

BACKGROUND: Corticosteroids have been the only effective topically administered treatment for severe vernal keratoconjunctivitis (VKC), but their prolonged use is often associated with complications. Topical cyclosporine therapy has been used in the past decade, but few controlled trials have been conducted, and conflicting results have been reported. OBJECTIVE: This study sought to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ocular administration of cyclosporine in VKC. METHODS: Twenty-four children with severe VKC were treated with cyclosporine 2% eyedrops. The treatment began in spring and lasted 4 months. One eye was treated with cyclosporine (Cs-eye); the fellow eye received the vehicle as placebo (Pl-Cs-eye) during the first 2 weeks in a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial and thereafter was treated with cyclosporine (open trial). Patients were instructed to protect their eyes against sunlight. Ocular symptoms and signs were scored at entry and at 2 weeks, 4 weeks, and 4 months after the beginning of treatment. All children underwent biochemical and immunologic evaluations. RESULTS: Compared with baseline, scores for ocular signs and symptoms at 2 weeks decreased significantly in the Cs-eyes (P < 0.001), and signs improved in the Pl-Cs-eyes (P = 0.001). A significant difference was noted between Cs-eyes and Pl-Cs-eyes at 2 weeks for both subjective (P < 0.005) and objective (P < 0.001) scores. At 4 weeks, scores for signs (P < 0.001) and symptoms (P = 0.01) were reduced in the Pl-Cs-eyes, with no further improvement in the Cs-eyes. At 4 months, clinical scores had declined further, and serum eosinophil cationic protein levels were significantly lower than at entry (P = 0.009). Most patients reported mild burning sensation and tearing after administration of cyclosporine. Four patients (17%) required an additional brief period of topical corticosteroid therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Cyclosporine eyedrops were effective and safe for treating severe VKC, without causing major side effects. Most of the therapeutic effect was achieved after 2 weeks. The initial therapeutic effect was maintained during the next 3 months, with a further slow decrease in the symptoms.     

Efficacy and safety of dry powder fluticasone propionate in children with persistent asthma.

BACKGROUND: Flovent Diskus is a powder formulation of the inhaled corticosteroid fluticasone propionate (FP) delivered via a breath-actuated, multidose inhaler. OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy and safety of dry powder FP administered once or twice daily (200 microg per day) to children with persistent asthma. METHODS: Twelve-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial with a 52-week, open-label extension. Children aged 4 to 11 were required to have pulmonary function 50% to 85% of predicted values. The population was stratified for baseline therapy (inhaled corticosteroid/cromolyn or bronchodilators only). After a 2-week placebo run-in, 242 patients received dry powder FP 200 microg each morning, dry powder FP 100 microg BID, or placebo for 12 weeks; 192 were rerandomized to the QD or BID regimen for an additional 52 weeks of open-label treatment. Primary endpoints were mean changes in FEV1 and morning PEF recorded at clinic visits. RESULTS: Both dry powder FP regimens significantly improved FEV1, evening PEF, and asthma symptoms at the double-blind phase endpoint (P < or = .017 compared with placebo). The BID regimen also significantly improved morning PEF and nighttime awakenings due to asthma (P < or = .005). Among patients previously treated with inhaled corticosteroids/cromolyn, improvements observed with the QD and BID regimens were similar. Patients switched from BID to open-label QD treatment showed additional improvements at week 52 generally comparable to patients who received the BID regimen during both phases. Fluticasone propionate was well tolerated for up to 64 weeks with few reports of drug-related adverse events or morning plasma cortisol abnormalities. CONCLUSIONS: Once daily dosing of dry powder FP 200 microg is an effective and convenient alternative for children whose asthma is controlled with a more frequent dosing regimen of inhaled corticosteroids.     

Efficacy and safety of ebastine 20 mg compared to loratadine 10 mg once daily in the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study

BACKGROUND: Few randomized studies have compared loratadine to ebastine in the symptomatic treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) patients. METHODS: This double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized, parallel-group, comparative trial compared the efficacy and safety of ebastine 20 mg (E20), loratadine 10 mg (L10) and placebo (P), administered once daily, in the control of SAR symptoms over a 2-week period. An additional 2-week treatment period was included in order to check sustained efficacy and tolerability. RESULTS: A total of 703 patients were enrolled: 282 patients in the E20 group, 279 in the L10 group and 142 in the P group. E20 showed a greater decrease from baseline in the main efficacy variable (mean daily reflective total symptom score) than L10 (p = 0.0018) or P (p = 0.0024), whereas the difference between L10 and P was not significant. Moreover, reductions from baseline in all composite/individual daily reflective rhinitis symptom scores were significantly larger in patients receiving E20 than in patients receiving L10 or P. Most significant differences between E20 and L10 or P were maintained after 4 weeks of treatment. Overall, all treatments were safe and well tolerated. There was no significant difference in the percentage of patients who reported one or more adverse events (AEs) between the groups, and most AEs were mild to moderate (89.9%). CONCLUSIONS: E20 given once daily for 2 weeks was more effective in the treatment of SAR symptoms than L10 or P. E20 also showed a sustained efficacy after 4 weeks of treatment, and overall was well tolerated and proved safe.     

Sertraline versus imipramine to prevent relapse in chronic depression.

BACKGROUND: Chronic depressions are common, disabling and under-treated, and long-term treatment is little studied. We report the continuation phase results from a long-term treatment study. METHODS: After 12 weeks of acute phase treatment in a double-blind, randomized, parallel-group, multi-center trial of sertraline or imipramine, patients with chronic depression (> or = 2 years in major depression, or major depression superimposed on dysthymia) continued study drug for 16 weeks. Initially, 635 patients were randomized to sertraline or imipramine in a 2:1 ratio. Nonresponders after 12 weeks entered a 12-week double-blind crossover trial of the alternate medication. Entry into continuation treatment required at least a satisfactory response (partial remission) to initial or crossover treatment. RESULTS: Of 239 acute or crossover responders to sertraline, 60% entered continuation in full remission and 40% with a partial remission. These proportions were identical for imipramine patients (n = 147). For both drug groups, over two-thirds of those entering in full remission retained it. For those entering in partial remission, over 40% achieved full remission. Patients requiring crossover treatment were less likely to maintain or improve their response during continuation treatment. The two drugs did not differ significantly in response distribution, drop out rates or discontinuation due to side effects during continuation treatment. LIMITATIONS: The absence of a placebo group constrains interpretation of our results, but chronic depressions have low placebo response rates. CONCLUSIONS: Most chronic depression patients who remit with 12 weeks of sertraline or imipramine treatment maintain remission during 16 weeks of continuation treatment. Most patients with a satisfactory therapeutic response (partial remission) after 12 weeks of treatment maintain it or further improve. Patients treated with imipramine experienced more side effects, but both drugs were well tolerated.     

Controlled clinical trial of treatment with cimetidine for non-ulcer dyspepsia

The effect of cimetidine (1 g daily) and placebo was studied in a controlled clinical trial comprising 50 patients with non-ulcer dyspepsia in whom an organic abnormality responsible for the dyspeptic symptoms was not disclosed by a standardized and extensive examination programme. Reduction of symptoms occurred in 13 (54%) out of 24 patients treated with cimetidine and in 16 (62%) out of 26 treated with placebo. The difference was insignificant, as were the alterations in the individual dyspeptic symptoms between the groups. Only 6 patients (25%) on cimetidine and 8 (31%) on placebo treatment had a total relief of symptoms. Of these, all cimetidine-treated patients remained free from symptoms during the successive 3-month observation period, while the dyspeptic symptoms relapsed in 3 (38%) placebo-treated patients. Subsequent resumption of placebo treatment reduced the symptoms in all 3 patients, but only one became free from symptoms. Cimetidine does not seem to be superior to placebo in the treatment of non-ulcer dyspepsia in patients without any previous history of ulcer or without any sign on endoscopy of an active or previous ulcer disease.     

A randomized study of maintenance therapy with ranitidine to prevent the recurrence of duodenal ulcer

After an active duodenal ulcer has healed in response to medical therapy, the rate of recurrence during the subsequent year is relatively high. We therefore enrolled 140 patients with healed duodenal ulcers in a two-year randomized, double-blind trial comparing maintenance therapy (ranitidine, 150 mg nightly) with placebo for the prevention of recurrent duodenal ulceration. We performed endoscopy annually and when symptoms suggested the recurrence of ulcers. Verified recurrent ulcers in either group were treated for four or eight weeks with open-label ranitidine (150 mg twice a day). Patients whose ulcers healed within eight weeks resumed randomized treatment. Prophylactic therapy with ranitidine reduced the rate of ulcer relapses from 63 percent in the placebo group to 37 percent in the ranitidine group (P less than 0.05). Treatment with ranitidine extended the median ulcer-free interval from one to two years (P less than 0.05). The first recurrences of ulcer were asymptomatic in half the ranitidine group and in a quarter of the placebo group. Prophylactic therapy with ranitidine also reduced the frequency of recurrent ulcers that were unhealed by eight weeks, that were bleeding, that were in the stomach, or that were the second recurrent ulcer within six months, from 43 percent in the placebo group to 21 percent. Patients who drank alcohol, smoked, had a history of ulcer disease, or had duodenal scarring or erosion at the time of entry into the study were at the greatest risk for recurrence and benefited the most from prophylactic ranitidine. We conclude that prophylactic treatment with ranitidine is effective in preventing the recurrence of duodenal ulceration.     

A controlled trial of metoclopramide in symptomatic gastroesophageal reflux.

Since metoclopramide increases lower-esophageal-sphincter pressure in patients with gastroesophageal reflux, we compared the effects of metoclopramide, 10 mg four times daily, with those of placebo on symptoms in 31 patients with chronic heartburn. Eighteen patients completed a random-order, double-blind crossover study of two consecutive eight-week periods. The final 13 patients crossed over only if their symptoms were not substantially improved after the first eight weeks. Response of low-esophageal-sphincter pressure to metoclopramide did not correlate significantly with symptomatic improvement. After the metoclopramide treatment period, mean basal pressure was unchanged from values before study. In both treatment periods, metoclopramide-treated patients had significantly more symptomatic improvement than the control group (P less than 0.05).     

A randomized controlled trial of the effect of dietary soy and flaxseed muffins on quality of life and hot flashes during menopause

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of daily ingestion of soy flour (S), ground flaxseed (F), or wheat flour (W) muffins, on quality of life and hot flash frequency and severity in postmenopausal women. DESIGN: This was a double-blind, randomized, controlled, intention-to-treat trial. Ninety-nine women, 1 to 8 years after menopause, ingested muffins with 25 g of flaxseed (50 mg of lignans), 25 g of soy (42 mg of isoflavones), or wheat (control) daily for 16 weeks. Subjects completed the Menopause-specific Quality of Life instrument monthly along with daily hot flash frequency and severity diaries. Compliance measures included a 3-day food diary and urinary isoflavone and lignan analyses at weeks 0 and 16 and returned muffin counts monthly. RESULTS: Eighty-seven women (28, ground flaxseed muffins; 31, soy flour muffins; and 28, wheat flour muffins) completed the trial. Multivariate analysis of variance of all quality-of-life domains yielded an insignificant treatment x time interaction (F46,122 = 0.92, P = 0.62) but a significant time main effect (P <.0001). Repeated-measures analyses of covariance controlling for body mass index showed no significant group x time interaction nor time nor group differences on all quality-of-life domains and hot flash measures except severity. Hot flashes were less severe with flaxseed (P = 0.001) compared to placebo; however, the group x by time interaction was not significant. Phytoestrogen excretion analysis showed treatment group exposure as allocated and no contamination. CONCLUSION: Neither dietary flaxseed nor soy flour significantly affected menopause-specific quality of life or hot flash symptoms in this study.     

Antacid treatment of duodenal ulcer

Sixty-seven consecutive outpatients with endoscopically verified duodenal ulcer were randomised to a double-blind treatment with either 10 ml of an antacid suspension (buffering capacity 85 mmol/10 ml, packed in single dosage pads) 1 and 3 h after each meal and at bedtime or cimetidine 400 mg b.i.d. The double-dummy technique was employed. Endoscopy was performed after 4 weeks treatment and, if the ulcer had not healed, after 8 weeks treatment. When ulcer healing had occurred, the patient entered a 1 year follow-up study. The cumulative healing rates after 4 and 8 weeks treatment were 83 and 97% vs. 69 and 94% in the antacid and cimetidine groups respectively. No significant differences were observed between the treatment groups regarding ulcer healing, symptom relief or compliance. Adverse reactions were few and only 3 (9%) patients in the antacid group had to discontinue the treatment due to diarrhoea. Of the cimetidine treated patients, 61% had symptomatic relapse during the 1 year follow-up compared to 71% of the antacid treated patients. There were no significant differences in recurrence rate or time to relapse. The moderate dose antacid treatment used here is efficient, well tolerated, safe, convenient and is a good alternative treatment of the duodenal ulcer patient.