Combination Therapy with Olmesartan Medoxomil and Hydrochlorothiazide

Background

The combination of olmesartan medoxomil and hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) [olmesartan medoxomil/HCTZ] has previously been shown to produce significantly greater SBP/DBP reductions than monotherapy with either agent alone in a randomized, double-blind, factorial study in patients with stage 2 hypertension. Compared with the evaluation of a single mean BP reduction in a patient population, determining the efficacy of an antihypertensive agent in achieving multiple BP targets provides additional information about the range of BP reductions attainable within this study population.

Objective

To conduct a secondary analysis of this study to evaluate the proportion of patients achieving combined SBP/DBP targets recommended in current hypertension treatment guidelines as well as individual SBP and DBP targets.

Methods

A total of 502 patients with DBP ≥100 and ≤115 mmHg were randomized to 8 weeks of treatment with placebo, HCTZ 12.5 or 25 mg/day, olmesartan medoxomil 10, 20, or 40 mg/day, or olmesartan medoxomil/HCTZ 10/12.5, 10/25, 20/12.5, 20/25, 40/12.5, or 40/25 mg/day. Mean baseline SBP ranged from 151.9 to 156.6 mmHg and mean baseline DBP ranged from 102.6 to 104.4 mmHg across the twelve treatment arms. The chi-squared test was used to compare the proportion of patients achieving each BP goal in each of the 11 active treatment regimens with that in the placebo group.

Results

The proportion of patients achieving an SBP <140 or <130 mmHg, DBP <90, <85, or <80 mmHg and combined SBP/DBP <140/90, <130/85, <130/80, or <120/80 mmHg typically increased with escalating dosages of olmesartan medoxomil and HCTZ when administered alone or in combination, but was always highest in those treated with the combination. As the BP goal became progressively more stringent, the proportion of patients achieving the BP goal decreased in each treatment group, although the trend toward greater reductions in patients treated with combination therapy remained intact. All combined SBP/DBP goals were achieved by a statistically significant proportion of patients (p<0.05) in the olmesartan medoxomil/HCTZ 20/25, 40/12.5, and 40/25 treatment groups.

Conclusions

A majority of patients with uncomplicated stage 2 hypertension can achieve recommended BP goals when treated with the combination of olmesartan medoxomil and HCTZ.     

Efficacy and Safety of Olmesartan Medoxomil and Hydrochlorothiazide Compared with Benazepril and Amlodipine Besylate

BACKGROUND: Most patients with stage 2 hypertension require two or more antihypertensive agents in order to achieve the BP goals recommended in current treatment guidelines. Accordingly, combinations of two drugs with different mechanisms of antihypertensive action are widely used. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this randomized, double-blind, multicenter 12-week study was to compare the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of a combination of olmesartan medoxomil/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) with that of benazepril plus amlodipine besylate in patients with stage 2 hypertension. METHODS: Patients were eligible for randomization following a 3- to 4-week placebo run-in period if they had either (i) mean seated DBP>or=90 mm Hg but<115 mm Hg and mean seated SBP>or=160 mm Hg but <200 mm Hg, or (ii) mean seated DBP>or=100 mm Hg but<115 mm Hg. The difference in mean seated SBP measured on two separate visits during the run-in period was required to beor=95 mm Hg and<115 mm Hg or SBP>145 mm Hg and相似文献   

Efficacy of Olmesartan Medoxomil and Hydrochlorothiazide Fixed-Dose Combination Therapy in Patients Aged 65 Years and Older with Stage 1 and 2 Hypertension or Isolated Systolic Hypertension

Background: The incidence of hypertension, particularly isolated systolic hypertension, increases with in-creasing age, as does the risk of fatal cardiovascular disease. A combination antihypertensive therapy regimen may be required to reach recommended BP goals in older patients. Objectives: This study set out to report blood pressure (BP) data in elderly patients across the subgroups of stage 1 and stage 2 hypertension (prespecified subgroup) and isolated systolic hypertension (ISH) [post hoc]. Design and Setting: This was a subgroup analysis of a prospective, open-label study carried out in a multicenter, outpatient setting (e.g. the BeniSILVER [Benicar Efficacy: New Investigation Shows OM Treatment Increasingly Leads to Various Elderly Populations to Safe BP Reductions; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00412932] study). The study included 176 patients with a mean age of approximately 72 years; stage 1 hypertension, 60, stage 2 hypertension, 116, and ISH, 98. Intervention: After a 2- to 3-week placebo run-in period, patients were uptitrated every 3 weeks from olmesartan medoxomil (OM) 20 mg daily to OM 40 mg, OM/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 40 mg/12.5 mg, and OM/HCTZ 40 mg/25 mg, if seated cuff BP (SeBP) was ≥120/70 mmHg. Measurements: Measurements included change from baseline in mean 24-hour ambulatory BP and SeBP after 12 weeks of treatment, percentage of patients achieving a cumulative SeBP goal of <140/90mmHg (stage 1 and stage 2 cohorts) or seated cuff systolic BP (SeSBP) goal of <140 mmHg (ISH cohort), and the incidence of adverse events (AEs). Results: Combination therapy was required by 159 patients. Changes from baseline in mean 24-hour ambulatory BP (±standard deviation [SD]) were ?24.2 (± 11.8)/?11.8 (± 6.9) mmHg, ?26.5 (± 11.8)/?12.6 (± 6.7) mmHg, and ?24.7 (? 12.5)/?11.2 (± 6.4) mmHg in the stage 1, stage 2, and ISH cohorts, respectively (all p< 0.001 vs baseline). Mean SeBP changes (± SD) from baseline in patients titrated to OM/HCTZ 40 mg/25 mg were ?24.6 (± 11.4)/?10.5 (± 7.3) mmHg in the stage 1 cohort, ?26.4 (± 17.2)/?11.3 (±9.7) mmHg in the stage 2 cohort, and ?21.5 (± 15.6)/?6.8 (± 7.8) mmHg in the ISH cohort (all p <0.001). The cumulative proportions of patients achieving an SeBP goal of <140/90mmHg by week 12 were 88.3%, 56.0%, and 72.4% in the stage 1, stage 2, and ISH cohorts, respectively, while 72.4% of patients achieved an SeSBP of <140 mmHg in the ISH cohort. Treatment-emergent AEs ranged from 32.3% to 32.8%, with <3% of patients reporting drug-related hypotension. Conclusion: An OM/HCTZ-based titration regimen enabled elderly patients with hypertension to safely reduce BP throughout the 24-hour dosing interval and allowed the majority of these patients to achieve a BP target of <140/90 mmHg or <140 mmHg.     

奥美沙坦酯治疗轻中度原发性高血压的疗效和安全性

目的评价奥美沙坦酯治疗轻中度原发性高血压的疗效和安全性。方法随机、双盲、双模拟、阳性药物(氯沙坦钾)平行对照。40例轻中度原发性高血压患者随机分为奥美沙坦酯或氯沙坦钾组,均治疗8周,观察两组治疗前后的血压、心率、心电图和血、尿常规等实验室检查结果的变化。结果奥美沙坦酯组与氯沙坦钾组比较,患者平均坐位收缩压和舒张压的降低程度均有显著性差异,分别为(18.9±8.7)mmHg和(12.6±7.6)mmHg(P<0.01);(13.8±3.5)mmHg和(11.7±3.3)mmHg(P<0.05)。治疗前后两组血压降低幅度均有显著差异,心率无明显变化。奥美沙坦酯和氯沙坦钾组降压显效率分别为63.2%和57.9%,总有效率分别为84.2%和68.4%,组间无显著差异。两组共出现3例头晕,实验室检查无异常改变。结论奥美沙坦酯治疗轻中度原发性高血压的疗效良好,不良反应发生率低。     

Triple-Combination Therapy with Olmesartan, Amlodipine, and Hydrochlorothiazide in Black and Non-Black Study Participants with Hypertension

Background Although awareness of hypertension in Black patients has increased, blood pressure (BP) is frequently inadequately controlled. Objective This prespecified subgroup analysis of the TRINITY study evaluated the efficacy and safety of olmesartan medoxomil (OM) 40 mg, amlodipine besylate (AML) 10 mg, and hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 25 mg triple-combination treatment compared with the component dual-combination treatments in Black and non-Black study participants. Study Design TRINITY was a 12-week, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group evaluation. The first patient was enrolled in May 2008 and the last patient completed the study in February 2009. The study consisted of a 3-week washout period for participants receiving antihypertensive therapy and a 12-week double-blind treatment period. For the treatment phase, all study participants were stratified by age, race, and diabetes mellitus status and randomized to a treatment sequence that led to their final treatment assignment, which they received from weeks 4 to 12 (OM 40 mg/AML 10 mg/HCTZ 25 mg, OM 40 mg/AML 10 mg, OM 40 mg/HCTZ 25 mg, or AML 10 mg/HCTZ 25 mg). In the first 2 weeks of the double-blind treatment period, all participants received either dual-combination treatment or placebo. Participants assigned to dual-combination treatment continued treatment until week 4, and participants receiving placebo were switched at week 2 to receive one of the dual-combination treatments until week 4. At week 4, participants either continued dual-combination treatment or randomly received triple-combination treatment until week 12. Setting 317 clinical sites in the USA and Puerto Rico were included in the study. Patients Study participants eligible for randomization (N = 2492) were ≥18 years of age with mean seated blood pressure (SeBP) ≥140/100 mmHg or ≥160/90 mmHg (off antihypertensive medication). Intervention The intervention was with dual- or triple-combination antihypertensive treatment: OM 40 mg/AML 10 mg/HCTZ 25 mg, OM 40 mg/AML 10 mg, OM 40 mg/HCTZ 25 mg, or AML 10 mg/HCTZ 25 mg. Main Outcome Measure The primary efficacy variable was the change in least squares (LS) mean seated diastolic BP (SeDBP) from baseline to week 12. Secondary efficacy variables included the LS mean change in seated systolic BP (SeSBP), percentage of study participants reaching BP goal, and safety parameters. >Results In both Black and non-Black participants, triple-combination treatment resulted in significant and similar mean reductions in SeDBP and SeSBP (p≤0.0001 vs each dual-combination treatment) with a greater proportion of participants reaching BP goal compared with dual-combination treatments, regardless of race. Most treatment-emergent adverse events were mild or moderate in severity and no new safety concerns were identified. Conclusion Triple-combination treatment provided greater BP reductions than dual-combination treatments regardless of race. Clinical Trial Registration Registered at ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT00649389.     

A Randomized,Controlled Trial Comparing Diltiazem,Hydrochlorothiazide, and Their Combination in the Therapy of Essential Hypertension

Study Objectives . To compare the efficacy of combination therapy with sustained-release diltiazem and hydrochlorothiazide (DTZ SR-HCTZ) with that of monotherapy with DTZ SR, HCTZ, or placebo in the treatment of essential hypertension; and to determine whether the addition of a diuretic to diltiazem at apparent optimum doses of each agent significantly enhances their antihypertensive effects. Design . Multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial with a 6-week treatment phase. Setting . Private and university-based clinics. Patients and Participants . Subjects of either sex, ranging in age from 18–70 years, with a diagnosis of stable essential hypertension made from two consecutive weekly mean supine diastolic blood pressure (DBP) readings of 95 mm Hg or above to 110 mm Hg or less that varied 7 mm Hg or less after 4–6 weeks in the baseline phase. Of the patients enrolled, 298 met the inclusion criteria. Interventions . Combination therapy with DTZ SR-HCTZ 120 mg-12.5 mg, or monotherapy with DTZ SR 120 mg or HCTZ 12.5 mg, or placebo was administered twice daily. Measurements and Main Results . Combination therapy with DTZ SR-HCTZ lowered both supine DBP and SBP significantly (p<0.005) more than either single agent. The combination also lowered DBP and SBP significantly more than either monotherapy. During a 12-hour in-clinic monitoring period spanning a dosing interval, both the combination and DTZ SR therapies maintained efficacy, whereas the antihypertensive effects of HCTZ dissipated after 8 hours. Treatment-related adverse events for the combination and HCTZ were similar but slightly greater than those for DTZ SR and placebo. Conclusions . The addition of a diuretic to sustained-release diltiazem produced an enhanced antihypertensive effect compared with monotherapy with either individual agent.     

A Review of the Efficacy of Fixed-Dose Combinations Olmesartan Medoxomil/ Hydrochlorothiazide and Amlodipine Besylate/ Benazepril in Factorial Design Studies

In order to adequately control hypertension, the majority of patients will require treatment with more than one antihypertensive agent. Fixed-dose combination therapy offers several advantages, including improved efficacy, tolerability, and treatment compliance. Certain combinations have benefits in specific patient populations, such as the elderly or those with comorbidities. In this review, we evaluate the BP-lowering efficacy of olmesartan medoxomil/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) and amlodipine besylate/benazepril in similarly designed, randomized, placebo-controlled studies in similar patient populations. This indirect comparison showed that both combinations significantly improve both systolic and diastolic BP compared with monotherapy with the individual agents or placebo; it also demonstrated that the combinations were well tolerated. Both combination therapies significantly improved response rates, but olmesartan medoxomil/HCTZ achieved the highest control rates compared with the individual agents. On the basis of an indirect comparison of published factorial design studies, olmesartan medoxomil/HCTZ appears to be at least as effective as amlodipine besylate/benazepril and may provide quantitatively greater reductions in diastolic BP at commonly used dosages. A randomized clinical trial comparing the two combinations is needed to confirm these findings.     

奥美沙坦酯对原发性高血压患者血压及左心室肥厚的影响

目的观察血管紧张素Ⅱ型受体拮抗剂奥美沙坦酯对高血压患者血压及左心室肥厚的影响。方法采用前瞻性、随机双盲、阳性药物对照研究方法,将54例原发性高血压合并左心室肥厚的患者随机分为奥美沙坦组(治疗组)27例,口服奥美沙坦酯20mg/d,1次/d;缬沙坦组(对照组)27例,口服缬沙坦80mg/d,1次/d,共24周,服药前后分别测量血压,并行心脏超声检查。结果2组治疗前后血压明显下降(P<0.05);左室后壁厚度(PWT)、左心室舒张期室间隔厚度(IVST)、左室重量指数(LVM I)与治疗前相比有明显的统计学意义(P<0.05),2组间比较无差异性(P>0.05)。结论奥美沙坦酯在降低原发性高血压患者血压的同时,可逆转左心室肥厚。     

Efficacy and Safety of a Fixed Combination of Irbesartan/Hydrochlorothiazide in Chinese Patients with Moderate to Severe Hypertension

Background and Objectives

In a multi-center, single-arm, prospective study, we investigated the efficacy and safety of the fixed irbesartan/hydrochlorothiazide combination in Chinese patients with moderate to severe hypertension.

Methods

Eligible patients were aged 18–75 years, with a blood pressure of 160–199 mmHg systolic or 100–119 mmHg diastolic during a 1-week wash-out phase off antihypertensive medication. The enrolled patients started antihypertensive treatment with irbesartan/hydrochlorothiazide 150 mg/12.5 mg once daily, with the possible addition of irbesartan 150 mg once daily and up-titration to irbesartan/hydrochlorothiazide 300 mg/25 mg once daily at 4 and 8 weeks of follow-up, respectively. The primary efficacy variable was the goal blood pressure-attaining rate at 12 weeks of follow-up (<140/90 mmHg, or <130/80 mmHg in patients with diabetes mellitus).

Results

In the intention-to-treat analysis (n = 501) at 12 weeks of follow-up, the goal blood pressure-attaining rate was 57.3 %, and the mean change in blood pressure from baseline was 27.8 mmHg [95 % confidence interval (CI) 26.4–29.1 mmHg; p < 0.001] systolic and 13.5 mmHg (95 % CI 12.6–14.4 mmHg; p < 0.001) diastolic. Similar findings were observed in the per-protocol analysis (n = 449). The prevalence of microalbuminuria and left ventricular hypertrophy significantly (p ≤ 0.01) decreased from 33.4 % (150/449) and 50.4 % (215/427) at baseline to 23.4 % (105/447) and 41.3 % (176/427) at the end of follow-up, respectively. Four patients (2.0 %) reported a serious adverse event.

Conclusion

The fixed irbesartan/hydrochlorothiazide combination may control blood pressure to the target level in about 60 % of Chinese patients with moderate to severe hypertension, with an acceptable safety profile.     

Central Composite Design for Validation of HPTLC Method for Simultaneous Estimation of Olmesartan Medoxomil,Amlodipine Besylate and Hydrochlorothiazide in Tablets

High performance thin layer chromatographic method for simultaneous estimation of olmesartan medoxomil, amlodipine besylate and hydrochlorothiazide was developed and validated as per ICH guidelines. Moreover, robustness testing was performed applying a central composite design with k factor having 2^k factorial runs, 2k axial experiments and two center points. High performance thin layer chromatographic separation was performed on aluminium plates precoated with silica gel 60F₂₅₄ and toluene:chloroform:methanol:acetonitrile:formic acid (2:7:1.8:0.8:0.2% v/v) as optimized mobile phase. The detection wavelength for simultaneous estimation of three drugs was 232nm. The R_f values for olmesartan medoxomil, amlodipine besylate and hydrochlorthiazide were 0.78, 0.20 and 0.45, respectively. Percent recoveries in terms of accuracy for the marketed formulation was found to be 101.3-104.4, 100.7-104 and 101.5-103.9 for, olmesartan medoxomil, amlodipine besylate and hydrochlorthiazide, respectively. The pooled %relative standard deviation values for repeatability studies and intermediate precision studies was found to be less than 2% for olmesartan medoxomil, amlodipine besylate and hydrochlorthiazide, respectively. All the three factors evaluated in the robustness testing by central composite design were found to have an insignificant effect on the retention factor. However, methanol content in total mobile phase as a factor appeared to have significant effect on robustness, compared to band size and developing distance and hence it is important to be carefully controlled. In summary, a novel, simple, accurate and reproducible high performance thin layer chromatographic method was developed, which would be of use in quality control of these tablets.     

Efficacy of a Non-Hormonal Treatment,BRN-01, on Menopausal Hot Flashes: A Multicenter,Randomized, Double-Blind,Placebo-Controlled Trial

Background

Homeopathic medicines have a place among the non-hormonal therapies for the treatment of hot flashes during the menopause.

Objective

The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of the non-hormonal treatment BRN-01 in reducing hot flashes in menopausal women.

Study Design

This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study carried out between June 2010 and July 2011.

Setting

The study was conducted in 35 active centers in France (gynecologists in private practice).

Patients

One hundred and eight menopausal women, ≥50 years of age, were enrolled in the study. The eligibility criteria included menopause for <24 months and ≥5 hot flashes per day with a significant negative effect on the women’s professional and/or personal life.

Intervention

Treatment was either BRN-01 tablets, a registered homeopathic medicine containing Actaea racemosa (4 centesimal dilutions [4CH]), Arnica montana (4CH), Glonoinum (4CH), Lachesis mutus (5CH), and Sanguinaria canadensis (4CH), or identical placebo tablets, prepared by Laboratoires Boiron according to European Pharmacopoeia standards. Oral treatment (2 to 4 tablets per day) was started on day 3 after study enrollment and was continued for 12 weeks.

Main Outcome Measure

The main outcome measure was the hot flash score (HFS) compared before, during, and after treatment. Secondary outcome criteria were the quality of life (QoL) [measured using the Hot Flash Related Daily Interference Scale (HFRDIS)], severity of symptoms (measured using the Menopause Rating Scale), evolution of the mean dosage, and compliance. All adverse events (AEs) were recorded.

Results

One hundred and one women were included in the final analysis (intent-to-treat population: BRN-01, n = 50; placebo, n = 51). The global HFS over the 12 weeks, assessed as the area under the curve (AUC) adjusted for baseline values, was significantly lower in the BRN-01 group than in the placebo group (mean ± SD 88.2 ± 6.5 versus 107.2 ± 6.4; p = 0.0411). BRN-01 was well tolerated; the frequency of AEs was similar in the two treatment groups, and no serious AEs were attributable to BRN-01.

Conclusion

BRN-01 seemed to have a significant effect on the HFS, compared with placebo. According to the results of this clinical trial, BRN-01 may be considered a new therapeutic option with a safe profile for hot flashes in menopausal women who do not want or are not able to take hormone replacement therapy or other recognized treatments for this indication.Trial registration number (EudraCT): 2009-016959–21.     

Placebo Effect and Efficacy of Nebivolol in Patients with Hypertension not Controlled with Lisinopril or Losartan: A Phase IV, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial

Background

Most patients with hypertension require more than one antihypertensive to achieve blood pressure (BP) control.

Objective

The purpose of this trial was to assess the efficacy and tolerability of add-on nebivolol, a vasodilatory β-blocker, in patients with untreated or poorly controlled hypertension, receiving stable therapy with lisinopril (an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor) or losartan (an angiotensin II receptor blocker).

Study Design

This was a phase IV double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted from August 2008 to March 2010 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00734630). Patients entered a 2-week, single-blind, placebo-only washout phase, followed by a 3- to 4-week open-label lead-in phase (lisinopril, 10–20 mg/day, or losartan, 50–100 mg/day), and a 12-week randomized, double-blind add-on treatment phase with placebo or nebivolol (5–40 mg/day).

Setting

This study was conducted at 76 outpatient centers in the United States.

Patients

Participants were men and women aged 18–85 years with a diagnosis of primary hypertension and seated trough systolic BP (SBP) at screening in the range of 170–200 mmHg if untreated, 155–180 mmHg if taking 1 antihypertensive medication, or 140–170 mmHg if taking 2 antihypertensive medications.

Intervention

The intervention was 12 weeks’ treatment with nebivolol 5–40 mg/day added to a background therapy of lisinopril 10–20 mg/day or losartan 50–100 mg/day.

Main Outcome Measures

Primary and secondary efficacy parameters were changes from baseline in seated trough cuff SBP and diastolic BP (DBP) at Week 12, respectively. Tolerability was assessed by monitoring treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs).

Results

A total of 491 patients were randomized to receive nebivolol (n = 258) or placebo (n = 233). Efficacy analyses were conducted for 256 nebivolol and 232 placebo patients (intent-to-treat population); completion rates were 88.8 % and 85.8 %, respectively. Mean baseline SBP/DBP values were 163.1/98.2 mmHg (nebivolol) and 162.4/96.8 mmHg (placebo). Nebivolol was associated with a non-significant mean ± SD reduction in SBP (?10.1 ± 16.9 mmHg) versus placebo (?7.3 ± 15.9 mmHg, P = 0.093) and significant mean DBP reduction (?7.8 ± 10.1 mmHg vs ?3.5 ± 10.6 mmHg, P < 0.001). Subgroup analysis suggested a significant effect on DBP for patients receiving background losartan treatment (?8.1 ± 9.2 mmHg vs ?3.1 ± 9.4 mmHg, P < 0.001), but not for those receiving lisinopril (?7.6 ± 10.8 mmHg vs ?3.8 ± 11.6 mmHg, P = 0.076). A total of 28 % nebivolol-treated and 22 % placebo-treated patients reported a TEAE, the most frequent being upper respiratory tract infection (4.3 % and 2.1 %, respectively), bradycardia (2.7 % and 0 %), headache (2.3 % and 2.1 %), and nasopharyngitis (2.3 % and 0.9 %).

Conclusion

These data suggest that nebivolol, when added to lisinopril or losartan, results in an additional BP reduction; however, only the effect on DBP reached statistical significance. A subanalysis suggests that the effect on DBP may be stronger in losartan-treated than lisinopril-treated patients. A relatively strong placebo effect may limit data interpretation. Nebivolol was well tolerated, as there was no difference in TEAEs between nebivolol and placebo.

Funding

This trial (NCT00734630) was funded by Forest Laboratories, Inc.     

Topical Rapamycin Therapy to Alleviate the Cutaneous Manifestations of Tuberous Sclerosis Complex: A Double-Blind,Randomized, Controlled Trial to Evaluate the Safety and Efficacy of Topically Applied Rapamycin

Background and Objectives

Facial angiofibromas are disfiguring facial lesions, present in up to 80% of patients with tuberous sclerosis complex. Recent elucidation of the complex cell signaling pathways that are disrupted in tuberous sclerosis indicates that rapamycin may be successful in alleviating the appearance of these lesions. The objectives of the current study were to evaluate the safety of topically applied rapamycin in patients with tuberous sclerosis complex and to determine its potential effectiveness in treatment of facial angiofibromas.

Patients and Methods

The study was a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study performed at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston. Study subjects were recruited from the patient populations at the University of Texas Tuberous Sclerosis Center of Excellence. All subjects were over the age of 13 years and had a diagnosis of tuberous sclerosis complex. Subjects were excluded if they were using any form of rapamycin or if they were pregnant. Study subjects applied the study product to their facial angiofibromas nightly for a duration of 6 months. The investigational product contained one of three doses of rapamycin compounded with Skincerity®: (i) no rapamycin; (ii) 1 mg of rapamycin per 30 cc (0.003%); or (iii) 5 mg of rapamycin per 30 cc (0.015%). Plasma rapamycin concentrations were measured monthly to test for systemic absorption. Complete blood counts were performed monthly to test for anemia, neutropenia, or thrombocytopenia. Upon completion of the trial, subjects were asked if the formulation had improved the appearance of their facial angiofibromas.

Results

Twenty-three subjects completed the study. There was no detectable systemic absorption of rapamycin (all blood concentrations were <1.0 ng/mL). There were no significant changes in white blood cell, red blood cell, or platelet counts. Seventy-three percent of subjects in the treatment arms versus 38% of subjects in the placebo arm reported a subjective improvement in the appearance of their facial angiofibromas.

Conclusion

The application of low-dose topical rapamycin (0.003–0.015%) to the face can safely decrease the appearance of facial angiofibromas in patients with tuberous sclerosis complex.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: {"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT01031901","term_id":"NCT01031901"}}NCT01031901Tuberous sclerosis complex (TSC) is an autosomal-dominant genetic disorder characterized by the formation of benign tumors in multiple organ systems. Facial angiofibromas appear as red or pink papules over the central face, especially on the nasolabial folds, cheeks, and chin,[1] in people with TSC. Lesions arise in early childhood and are present in up to 80% of TSC patients.[1,2] In some patients, the lesions become confluent and can result in severe disfigurement. Although multiple treatments have been developed to alleviate the appearance of facial angiofibromas – curettage, cryosurgery, chemical peels, dermabrasion, shave excisions, and laser therapy[3–8] – these are uncomfortable and need to be repeated at periodic intervals to treat recurrence.[9]In patients with TSC, the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) is aberrantly activated in fibroblast-like cells located within the dermal layer of the skin. These cells produce an epidermal growth factor, epiregulin, which stimulates epidermal cell proliferation.[10] Epidermal cells are produced at a faster rate than the ability to slough the dead cells from the skin surface.[11] This overproduction of skin cells, in conjunction with angiogenesis, results in the initial appearance and continued progression of facial angiofibromas over time.Recent elucidation of the complex signaling relationship between the tuberous sclerosis 1 (TSC1) and tuberous sclerosis 2 (TSC2) gene products and mTOR has led to an explosion of research related to the use of mTOR inhibitors, such as rapamycin, in TSC. These mTOR inhibitors are showing promise in treating multiple tumor types, including renal angiomyolipomas (AMLs), sub-ependymal giant cell astrocytomas (SEGAs), and lymphangioleiomyomatosis (LAM).[12–15]Rapamycin is a naturally occurring antifungal macrolide, first isolated from Streptomyces hygroscopicus in 1965. Rapamycin binds with high specificity to mTOR, and binding results in inhibition of mTOR activity and ultimately in downregulation of cell growth.[16] Rapamycin has a molecular weight of 914.2 grams/mol, allowing for its absorption through the superficial layers of the epidermis to the deep dermal layer implicated in the development of facial angiofibromas.The primary goal of this study was to evaluate the safety of topical rapamycin (0.003% and 0.015%) in patients with TSC. The secondary goal of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of the topical product for treatment of facial angiofibromas.     

氨氯地平联合替米沙坦或复方阿米洛利的疗效及安全性比较

目的:比较氨氯地平联合替米沙坦和氨氯地平联合复方阿米洛利对轻中度原发性高血压患者的降压疗效和不良反应。方法:选择96例轻、中度原发性高血压患者,按随机及平行对照原则分为氨氯地平/复方阿米洛利组(A组)48例和氨氯地平/替米沙坦组(B组)48例,分别观察两组降压疗效,血生化指标影响及不良反应。观察时间12个月。结果:两组用药后收缩压和舒张压均有显著下降,组间比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。两组治疗前后肝、肾功能及血糖等指标均无变化。A组治疗6月时血钾无变化,12月时血钾升高,6月和12月时尿酸均较入组时明显升高(P<0.05);B组治疗6月和12月时血钾及尿酸较入组时均无明显变化。B组不良反应发生率明显低于A组(P<0.05)。结论:氨氯地平联合替米沙坦与氨氯地平联合复方阿米洛利均有显著的降压效果。氨氯地平联合复方阿米洛利组不良反应发生率明显高于氨氯地平联合替米沙坦组。氨氯地平联合替米沙坦是更优化的联合治疗方案。     

手法治疗网球肘的临床研究

目的:本研究旨在探讨手法治疗网球肘的临床疗效。方法:本研究将76例符合纳入标准的患者随机分为两组,治疗组予手法治疗,对照组予以电脑中频治疗。运用患者自评量表VAS(visual analog scale)评分Mayo12点评分(Mayo Clinic Elbow Performance Index)(表1)在疗程0d、2d时进行评估,对比所获得分值进行比较,对比临床效果。临床疗效分析运用尼莫地平法分为临床痊愈、显效、有效、无效四级。结果:研究结果表明两组治疗措施均有疗效,治疗组2d后总用效率为86.85%,对照组总用效率为78.95%,治疗组、对照组在2d评分均分别与治疗前比较有统计学意义(P<0.05);治疗组与对照组在2d评分比较有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论:本研究结果表明,手法治疗网球肘有止痛、改善关节功能的作用。     

Effects of Metformin on Left Ventricular Size and Function in Hypertensive Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Results of a Randomized,Controlled, Multicenter,Phase IV Trial

American Journal of Cardiovascular Drugs - Metformin is the most widely used oral antihyperglycemic agent for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Despite the possible benefits of...     

A Review of the Efficacy and Tolerability of Combination Amlodipine/Valsartan in Non-White Patients with Hypertension

This article discusses racial/ethnic disparities in hypertension, with particular focus on non-white populations including blacks, Hispanics/Latinos, and Asians. Hypertension and its related morbidity and mortality affect a disproportionate number of black patients compared with white patients. Blacks, Hispanics/Latinos, and Asians have poor rates of hypertension awareness, treatment, and control. Given the high prevalence of comorbidities (e.g., obesity, diabetes, and metabolic syndrome) in these populations, renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system blockers are a good choice for foundation therapy. This review also discusses the importance of adherence and persistence with antihypertensive medication, which remain suboptimal in these non-white populations. Evidence suggests improvement with the use of single-pill combination therapy. Lastly, clinical trial data on the antihypertensive efficacy and safety of the combination of a dihydropyridine calcium channel blocker and an angiotensin receptor blocker, a widely utilized combination, in non-white populations are presented. PubMed was searched using the title/abstract key words (amlodipine AND valsartan AND [hypertension OR hypertensive] AND [black(s) OR African American(s) OR Hispanic(s) OR Latino(s) OR Mexican(s) OR Asian(s)]). In total, eight studies in patients with stage 1 or 2 hypertension were identified (n = 1,111 black, n = 389 Hispanic/Latino, and n = 3,094 Asian). Results showed that treatment with the combination of amlodipine plus valsartan is a reasonable choice for initial therapy or in patients who fail to respond to monotherapy. These drug classes have complementary mechanisms of action and, when used concomitantly, the magnitude of blood pressure lowering in these non-white populations is generally comparable with that seen in non-Hispanic white patients.