Effects of the fixed combination of manidipine plus delapril in the treatment of hypertension inadequately controlled by monotherapy with either component: a phase III, multicenter, open-label, clinical trial

Background: Failure to achieve good blood pressure (BP) control is probably the most important reason for high rates of morbidity and mortality in patients with hypertension. Combination therapy has been shown to increase the percentage of patients in whom BP control is achieved. One combination is a calcium channel blocker (CCB) and an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACE-I).Objective: The aim of this study was to assess the effects of the fixed combination of the CCB manidipine and the ACE-I delapril in the treatment of hypertensive patients already given monotherapy with either component but with poor results (ie, insufficient BP control or adverse events [AEs]).Methods: In this Phase III, multicenter, open-label, clinical trial, patients with mild to moderate hypertension were assigned to 1 of 2 groups. Group 1 comprised patients whose diastolic BP (DBP) was >90 mm Hg or who experienced AEs with manidipine 20 mg once daily. Group 2 comprised patients who had a DBP >90 mm Hg or who experienced AEs with delapril 30 mg BID. In both groups, patients aged <65 years were to be treated with a fixed combination of manidipine 10 mg plus delapril 30 mg once daily for 12 weeks, whereas patients aged ≥65 years were to be treated with manidipine 5 mg plus delapril 15 mg once daily for 2 weeks and then manidipine 10 mg plus delapril 30 mg once daily for 10 weeks. Patients were assessed at baseline and at 2, 4, 8, and 12 weeks of treatment. At each visit, systolic blood pressure (SBP), DBP, and heart rate were measured 24 hours after dosing, and AEs were recorded.Results: Group 1 included 154 patients (80 men, 74 women; mean [SD] age, 55 [6] years); group 2 included 158 patients (79 men, 79 women; mean [SD] age, 56 [5] years). Mean BP decreased significantly in both groups (P<0.01). Compared with baseline values, mean SBP/DBP decreased 16.2 (3.8)/10.1 (1.9) mm Hg in group 1 and 15.8 (3.1)/11.0 (1.5) mm Hg in group 2 at the last visit. The success rate—rate of normalized DBP (≤90 mm Hg) and responder rate (DBP reduction ≥10 mm Hg)—was 79% in group 1 and 82% in group 2. The rates of treatment-related AEs were 11% in group 1 and 8% in group 2. In group 1, heart rate significantly increased from baseline only at 2 weeks (P<0.05); in group 2, at each visit (P<0.05) except at week 12. However, none of these differences were clinically significant.Conclusion: In this study population of patients whose BP was not adequately controlled by monotherapy, the fixed combination of manidipine 10 mg plus delapril 30 mg, once daily, was effective and well tolerated.     

Antihypertensive effect of barnidipine 10 mg or amlodipine 5 to 10 mg once daily in treatment-naive patients with essential hypertension: A 24-week, randomized, open-label, pilot study

Background: Dihydropyridine calcium antagonists are largely employed for the treatment of hypertension, coronary heart disease, and heart failure.Objective: The aim of our study was to compare the antihypertensive effect of the dihydropyridine calcium antagonists barnidipine and amlodipine.Methods: This was a 24-week, randomized, open-label, pilot study. Consecutive treatment-naive patients with grade I or II essential hypertension (office sitting systolic blood pressure [BP] of 140-179 mm Hg and diastolic BP of 90-109 mm Hg) were enrolled. The primary end points were the effect of treatment with either barnidipine 10 mg or amlodipine 5 mg once daily on office and ambulatory BP, left ventricular mass index (LVMI), and markers of cardiac damage, serum procollagen type I C-terminal propeptide, and plasma amino-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide concentrations. Patients were assessed at enrollment, and 12 and 24 weeks. During each visit, the prevalence of adverse events (AEs) was also monitored using spontaneous reporting, patient interview, and physical examination, the relationship to study drug being determined by the investigators. Compliance with treatment was assessed at each study visit by counting returned tablets.Results: Thirty eligible patients (20 men, 10 women; mean [SD] age, 47 [12] years) were included in the study; all patients completed the 24 weeks of study treatment. Twelve weeks after randomization, 6 patients in the amlodipine group had their dose doubled to 10 mg due to inadequate BP control. Mean BP reductions at study end were not significantly different between the barnidipine and amlodipine groups (office BP, −10.3/−9.4 vs −16.6/−9.1 mm Hg; ambulatory BP, 9.4/6.4 vs 8.1/5.1 mm Hg). Reductions in LVMI and markers of cardiac damage were not significantly different between the 2 groups. Significantly more patients in the amlodipine group reported drug-related AEs compared with those in the barnidipine group (9 [60%] vs 2 [13%]; P < 0.05).Conclusion: In this small sample of treatment-naive hypertensive patients, the antihypertensive effect of barnidipine 10 mg once daily was not significantly different from that of amlodipine 5 to 10 mg once daily.     

An open-label, multicenter study of the combination of amorolfine nail lacquer and oral itraconazole compared with oral itraconazole alone in the treatment of severe toenail onychomycosis

Background: Data indicate that combination therapy may provide enhanced clinical and economic benefits over monotherapy in the treatment of onychomycosis.Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of 2 topical amorolfine/oral itraconazole combination regimens with oral itraconazole alone in the treatment of severe toenail onychomycosis. Cost implications of all treatments were assessed in a pilot pharmacoeconomic analysis.Methods: In this multicenter, open-label, 24-week study, patients were randomized to 3 parallel treatment groups: 5% solution of amorolfine nail lacquer applied once weekly for 24 weeks plus itraconazole 200 mg once daily for either 6 weeks (group AI-6) or 12 weeks (group AI-12), or itraconazole alone for 12 weeks (group I-12).Results: Mycologic cure at week 12 was achieved in 93% of patients in group AI-6, 83% in group AI-12, and 41% in group I-12. Combination therapies were significantly more effective than itraconazole monotherapy (P < 0.001). Global assessment (combined measure of mycologic and clinical cure rates) at 24 weeks demonstrated cure rates of 84% for patients in group AI-6, 94% in group AI-12, and 69% in group I-12. The difference between the AI-12 group and the I-12 group was statistically significant (P < 0.05). There were no serious adverse events during the study, and the distribution of adverse events was not significantly different between groups. Pharmacoeconomic assessment demonstrated that both durations of combination therapy were more cost-effective than monotherapy.Conclusions: Our results show that topical amorolfine combined with oral itraconazole was more effective in treating severe toenail onychomycosis than was itraconazole monotherapy. Combination with a short course of oral therapy had a marked pharmacoeconomic advantage over the other regimen, suggesting that switching from the current 12-week itraconazole monotherapy to the 6-week combination therapy would cure more patients for a lower cost.     

Efficacy and Tolerability of Nilvadipine in Combination with an Angiotensin II Receptor Antagonist in Patients with Essential Hypertension: A Multicenter, Open-Label, Uncontrolled Study

Background: Combination therapy with different classes of antihypertensive drugs often is needed to achieve controlled blood pressure (BP). The combination of an angiotensin II receptor antagonist (AIIA) and a calcium antagonist is a preferred option for reducing uncontrolled BP.Objective: The aim of this study was to assess the clinical efficacy and tolerability of nilvadipine, a dihydropyridine calcium antagonist, in combination with an AIIA.Methods: Patients with essential hypertension whose BP was not controlled by an AIIA alone were eligible for this multicenter, open-label, uncontrolled study. One of 3 AIIAs (candesartan cilexetil, losartan potassium, or valsartan) was given for at least 10 weeks before the addition of nilvadipine (daily dose, 4 or 8 mg orally). This combination therapy was given for 8 weeks. BP and heart rate were measured between 2 and 4 weeks before and 0, 4, and 8 weeks after the start of combination therapy. Adverse events were monitored at each visit.Results: Thirty-one patients (18 women [58.1%], 13 men [41.9%]; mean [SD] age, 58.5 [10.5] years) were enrolled. At weeks 4 and 8 of combination therapy, mean systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP) were significantly decreased (P<0.01) (at week 8, by 22.0 mm Hg and 12.5 mm Hg, respectively). The mean BP-lowering effect did not differ significantly between the 3 AIIAs tested. Pulse pressure also decreased significantly at week 8, by 9.6 mm Hg (P<0.01). The responder rate (ie, the percentage of patients with DBP <90 mm Hg or a decrease in DBP ≥10 mm Hg) was 72.0% at week 8. Three patients experienced a total of 4 adverse events: mild or severe flushing, mild headache, and mild palpitation. All of these symptoms resolved after nilvadipine treatment was discontinued.Conclusions: Nilvadipine in combination with an AIIA showed good antihypertensive efficacy and was well tolerated in the hypertensive patients in this study. This combination also significantly decreased pulse pressure, suggesting that this combination therapy also may have a beneficial effect in elderly patients with isolated systolic hypertension.     

Irbesartan monotherapy in systemic hypertension: An open-label, uncontrolled trial

Background: Irbesartan is an orally active, specific blocker of the AT₁ receptor of angiotensin II that produces insurmountable antagonism. Irbesartan's plasma half-life of 11 to 15 hours and higher affinity for the AT₁ receptor versus other angiotensin II receptor subtypes may make it a suitable choice for once-daily treatment of hypertension. Few studies have examined the efficacy of this agent in Asian patients.Objective: The purpose of this open-label, uncontrolled study was to assess the 24-hour efficacy of irbesartan once-daily monotherapy in Chinese outpatients with mild to moderate hypertension.Methods: Patients with stage I or stage II hypertension (as defined by the Sixth Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure) were treated with irbesartan once daily for 6 to 8 weeks. The dose of irbesartan was titrated from an initial dose of 150 mg to 275 mg or 300 mg if adequate blood pressure (BP) control was not achieved by week 3 or 4; doses were taken once daily between 8 am and 9 am. For each patient, 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring was performed twice, once before and once after 6 to 8 weeks of treatment.Results: A total of 25 patients (mean age, 54 years) were enrolled; 24 completed the study. Mean 24-hour systolic/diastolic BP after irbesartan treatment was significantly decreased compared with baseline values (128 ± 14 mm Hg/82 ± 8 mm Hg vs 143 ± 12 mm Hg/91 ± 7 mm Hg, P < 0.05 for both). The mean final dose of irbesartan was 243.8 ± 63.5 mg daily after a 7-week titration period. Mean daytime (6 am to 6 pm) BP decreased from 146 ± 11 mm Hg/94 ± 7 mm Hg to 130 ± 14 mm Hg/84 ± 8 mm Hg (P < 0.05), and nighttime (6 pm to 6 am) BP decreased from 139 ± 14 mm Hg/88 ± 7 mm Hg to 127 ± 15 mm Hg/81 ± 9 mm Hg (P < 0.05). The BP decrease was more pronounced during the day. Before treatment, the circadian variation showed a peak BP at 11 am and a nadir at 4 am. After treatment, significant BP reductions versus baseline (P < 0.05 for both diastolic and systolic BP) were observed for 23 of the 24 hourly mean points. The circadian rhythm of BP cycles was preserved. Mean heart rate did not change after treatment. Two patients reported dizziness and 1 reported heartburn.Conclusions: Irbesartan administered as once-daily monotherapy provided effective BP control during 23 of the 24 hourly mean points while preserving the circadian rhythm of BP cycles, and was well tolerated.     

Treatment and Treatment-Related Adverse Events of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in Residents of Long-Term Care Facilities: A Retrospective Study

Background: In the United States, type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) is most prevalent among adults aged >75 years. Judicious use of available therapies can improve plasma glucose concentration and reduce the risk for complications in elderly patients. However, selecting the appropriate medication for these patients is often challenging.Objectives: The goals of this retrospective study were to determine whether 1 or 2 medications were needed for the treatment of type 2 DM in elderly patients and to identify treatment-related adverse events (AEs).Methods: The charts of residents of long-term care (LTC) facilities in New Jersey and Pennsylvania with a diagnosis of type 2 DM and receiving metformin, a sulfonylurea, rosiglitazone, or pioglitazone, either alone or in combination with insulin or another drug, were included. Data for laboratory values (including fasting plasma glucose [FPG] and serum creatinine concentration), body weight, and AEs were analyzed.Results: The charts of 182 patients (121 women, 61 men) were included. The mean (SD) age of the women was 80.2 (10.2) years; and of the men, 73.7 (12.0) years. Many patients were switched from monotherapy to combination therapy due to a high FPG concentration. Sixty treatment-related AEs occurred in 60 patients; the pioglitazone and metformin groups had the highest incidence of AEs (8/11 [72.7%] patients and 21/48 [43.8%] patients, respectively) and the rosiglitazone group had the lowest (2/13 [15.4%] patients), although the number of patients in the pioglitazone and rosiglitazone groups was extremely low.Conclusions: In this study population of older patients, rosiglitazone monotherapy had favorable tolerability and appeared to be more effective than other therapies for type 2 DM. These results suggest that rosiglitazone monotherapy may be the safest and most effective of the 4 treatments for type 2 DM in older patients. The rosiglitazone group was the only group that did not have a second medication added to control plasma glucose. However, additional studies are suggested to determine whether larger groups of older patients residing in LTC facilities would demonstrate similar results.     

Effects of barnidipine on blood pressure and left ventricular diastolic function in patients with hypertension and metabolic syndrome: A 12-week, open-label noncomparison study

Background: Barnidipine is one of a new generation of dihydropyridine calcium-channel blockers. Despite evidence of favorable effects on blood pressure (BP) and insulin sensitivity, this drug has rarely been tested in hypertensive patients with metabolic syndrome (MS).Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of barnidipine on BP and left ventricular (LV) diastolic function in patients with hypertension and MS.Methods: Consecutive subjects aged 18 to 75 years with systolic BP (SBP) of 140 to 179 mm Hg and/or diastolic BP (DBP) of 90 to 109 mm Hg and MS (based on Adult Treatment Panel III criteria) were assessed for inclusion in the study. Lifestyle changes according to current guidelines were recommended and barnidipine monotherapy 10 mg daily was initiated. All patients entered a 2-week run-in period. After a 6-week treatment period, the daily dosage was doubled for the remainder of the study in patients whose BP remained uncontrolled (≥140/≥90 mm Hg). We assessed the glycolipidic profile and LV structure and function using standard Doppler and tissue Doppler imaging (TDI) echocardiography before and after 12 weeks of treatment. Ambulatory BP records and electrocardiographic and echocardiographic tracings were coded and shipped to a central laboratory for blinded analysis. Possible adverse events (AEs) were recorded at predetermined intervals throughout the follow-up period and at unplanned intervals whenever an AE became known to the investigators.Results: Thirty-four consecutive patients were assessed for inclusion. Thirty consecutive patients (20 men, 10 women; mean {SD| age, 55.9 {10.3| years; 5 current smokers) were included in the study. At study entry, mean office SBP was 146 mm Hg, DBP was 87 mm Hg, and heart rate was 72 beats/min. At the study end, mean office SBP/DBP was <140/90 mm Hg in 20 patients (66.7%). From baseline to study end, 24-hour ambulatory BP decreased significantly by 12 and 8 mm Hg for SBP and DBP, respectively (both, P = 0.001). The smoothness index was 0.92 for SBP and 0.82 for DBP. Fasting plasma glucose concentration decreased significantly from 110 to 104 mg/dL (P = 0.001). Total cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol concentrations did not change significantly. From baseline to study end, there were no significant changes in LV structure or systolic function (LV mass, 50.7 vs 50.6 g/ht^2.7; LV diastolic/systolic diameters, 47.50/29.80 vs 48.40/30.76 mm; wall motion score index, 1.0 vs 1.0; ejection fraction, 61% vs 60%), while the peak E/A velocity ratio on TDI increased from 1.078 to 1.245 (P = 0.009). No AEs (including AEs reflected by chemistry values) either unrelated or related to treatment were noted during the 12-week duration of the study.Conclusions: In these hypertensive patients with MS, a 12-week treatment period with barnidipine in addition to lifestyle modifications was associated with significant reductions in 24-hour BP and BP variability, reduction in plasma glucose concentration, and improvement in LV diastolic relaxation. No significant changes in lipid concentrations, LV structure, or systolic function were found.     

Efficacy of interferon alfa and lamivudine combination therapy versus interferon alfa monotherapy in Turkish patients with chronic hepatitis B: A double-blind, randomized, comparative study

Background: Interferon (IFN) alfa and lamivudine are the most effective agents used in the treatment of chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV). Monotherapy with IFN alfa or lamivudine provides significant benefit, but the combination of these drugs is still under investigation. It has been suggested that combination therapy has some advantages over monotherapy.Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of concurrent combination therapy with lamivudine and IFN alfa versus IFN alfa monotherapy in previously untreated patients with chronic HBV.Method: Patients were randomly assigned to 6 months' therapy with IFN alfa 9 million units 3 times weekly alone or in combination with 100 mg/d oral lamivudine. Alanine aminotransferase (ALT) measurements and viral load assessments (HBV DNA level as measured by polymerase chain reaction) were performed at baseline and months 6 and 12. Levels of hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg) and anti-HBeAg were determined at baseline and at the end of treatment (month 12). Knodell histologic activity index score was determined at baseline.Results: Fifty patients were enrolled in each group. ALT normalization rates in the monotherapy and combination therapy groups, respectively, were 56% and 86% (P < 0.05 between groups) at month 6, and 48% and 64% at month 12 (P < 0.05 between groups). In the monotherapy and combination groups, respectively, there were 21 (42%) and 24 (48%) complete responders (P < 0.05); 5 (10%) and 10 (20%) partial responders (P < 0.05); and 24 (48%) and 16 (32%) nonresponders (P < 0.05). HBeAg seroconversion rates were 22% in the monotherapy group and 30% in the combination therapy group at the end of 12 months (P = NS between groups).Conclusion: Concurrent combination therapy with IFN alfa and lamivudine has a more beneficial effect on biochemical parameters (ie, ALT levels) than on viral parameters (ie, HBV DNA, seroconversion to anti-HBeAg) and this effect is more pronounced after 1 year of treatment than after 6 months. Further studies are needed to determine the long-term effects of combination therapy with lamivudine and IFN alfa.     

Effectiveness of hydrochlorothiazide in combination with telmisartan and olmesartan in adults with moderate hypertension not controlled with monotherapy: a prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded end point (PROBE), parallel-arm study

Background:The potential combinations of antihypertensive agents are many, and making rational choices depends on the characteristics of each drug and on their complementary mechanisms of action.Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of adding hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 12.5 mg to olmesartan 20 mg or telmisartan 80 mg on blood pressure (BP) in patients with moderate hypertension.Methods: Consecutive outpatients at the Centro per l'Ipertensione e la Fisiopatologia Cardiovascolare, University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy, of both sexes aged 39 to 75 years were considered eligible for enrollment if they had a sitting diastolic BP (DBP) ->99 mm Hg and <110 mm Hg at the end of an initial 2-week washout period. Patients were random- ized to olmesartan 20 mg QD or telmisartan 80 mg QD according to a prospective, open-label, blinded end point, parallel-arm design. After 8 weeks of monotherapy, patients whose BP was not controlled (DBP ->90 mm Hg) received HCTZ 12.5 mg QD for 8 additional weeks. Clinical and ambulatory BPs were measured at the end of the washout period and at the end of both treatment periods. Adverse events (AEs) were recorded from spontaneous reports and direct inquiry from investigators.Results: One hundred forty-five patients, all of whom were white, were recruited for the study. After the initial washout period, 13 patients did not meet the inclusion criteria and 6 refused to continue. A total of 126 white patients (69 men, 57 women; mean [SD] age, 60.2 [11.6] years) were randomized to receive monotherapy. Of these, 35 patients (56%) in the olmesartan group and 33 (52%) in the telmisartan group had previously received antihypertensive therapy. At the end of monotherapy, the 52 patients in the olmesartan group and the 49 patients in the telmisartan treatment group who were still in the study and had their BP inadequately controlled by treatment had HCTZ 12.5 mg QD added to their treatment regimen. Both combinations induced a greater ambulatory mean (SD) systolic BP (SBP) and DBP reduction than monothera- py (SBP: 145.3 [6.1] in the olmesartan group and 140.1 [6.4] in the telmisartan group, P < 0.05; DBP: 88.1 [5.1] in the olmesartan group and 84.9 [4.9] in the telmisartan group, P < 0.05). The mean (SD) reduction from baseline in the telmisartan/HCTZ-treated patients (21.5 [10.1]/14.6 [5.2] mm Hg for 24 hours, 21.8 [10.2]/14.9 [5.2] mm Hg for daytime, and 20.4 [10.3]/13.7 [5.9] mm Hg for nighttime; all, P < 0.001 vs baseline) was significantly greater than that observed in the olmesartan/HCTZ-treated patients (18.8 [9.8]/12.3 [4.9] mm Hg for 24 hours, 19.3 [9.8]/12.8 [4.9] mm Hg for daytime, and 17.4 [10.2]/10.6 [5.5] mm Hg for nighttime; all, P < 0.001 vs baseline), with a significant difference between the 2 treatment groups (P < 0.01). Compared with mono- therapy, the add-on effect of HCTZ 12.5 mg QD administration was significantly greater in the telmisartan group than in the olmesartan group (P < 0.05); the differ- ence being more evident for nighttime BP values (SBP, P 0.031; DBP, P 0.025). Reported AEs were similar in the olmesartan/HCTZ and the telmisartan/HCTZ groups (4 patients [7%] vs 3 patients [6%]).Conclusion: The addition of HCTZ 12.5 mg to telmisartan 80 mg monothera- py was associated with greater BP reduction than the addition of the same dose of HCTZ to olmesartan 20 nag monotherapy in these patients previously uncontrolled on monotherapy.     

Antihypertensive effect of zofenopril plus hydrochlorothiazide versus zofenopril monotherapy in patients with essential hypertension according to their cardiovascular risk level: A post hoc analysis

Background: International guidelines recommend the use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, possibly in combination with other antihypertensive drugs, to treat hypertension with associated risk factors.Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the antihypertensive effect of the combination of zofenopril plus hydrochlorothiazide versus zofenopril monotherapy in patients with essential hypertension, according to their cardiovascular risk level.Methods: This was a post hoc analysis of a previously published efficacy and tolerability study. After a 4-week placebo washout, patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension (diastolic blood pressure [DBP] 95-115 mm Hg), aged 18 to 75 years, were randomized at a ratio of 2:1:1 to treatment with zofenopril 30 mg plus hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg or monotherapy with zofenopril 30 mg or hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg for 12 weeks in an international, multicenter, double-blind study. This period was followed by 24 weeks of open-label treatment. Systolic BP [SBP] and DBP were measured by mercury sphygmomanometry, and changes associated with treatment were calculated. Patients' cardiovascular risk was computed using the Heart Score algorithm. Patients were classified in quartiles according to distribution of cardiovascular risk level, and comparisons were limited to the zofenopril plus hydrochlorothiazide and zofenopril monotherapy treatment groups. The primary end point was change in office DBP.Results: Two hundred forty-six patients (139 men, 107 women; mean [SD] age, 54 [11] years) were included in the analysis. Mean baseline cardiovascular risk was similar in the zofenopril plus hydrochlorothiazide group and the zofenopril monotherapy group (7% vs 9%). DBP and SBP reductions with treatment were significantly greater (both, P < 0.01) with combination treatment than with monotherapy for each quartile of cardiovascular risk. Cardiovascular risk reduction at the end of the 12 weeks of double-blind treatment was greater in the zofenopril plus hydrochlorothiazide group than in the zofenopril monotherapy group (1.9% vs 0.2%; P < 0.01), particularly in the group of patients with the highest cardiovascular risk at baseline (5.2% vs 2.0%). At the end of the 24-week open-label treatment period, the mean reduction in cardiovascular risk was also significantly greater in the combination treatment group than in the monotherapy group (1.4% vs 0.5%; P < 0.01).Conclusions: In these hypertensive patients, combination treatment with zofenopril plus hydrochlorothiazide was associated with a significantly greater decrease in BP compared with zofenopril monotherapy, regardless of the patient's cardiovascular risk. The difference between combination treatment and monotherapy was particularly evident for the group of patients at highest risk.     

Effects of low-dose treatment with felodipine versus fosinopril in Chinese patients with nonischemic heart failure and normal blood pressure: A double-blind, randomized, crossover study

Background: Two second-generation calcium channel blockers, felodipine and amlodipine besylate, have been associated with similar high mortality rates in patients with ischemic heart failure (HF) but not in patients with nonischemic causes of HF. In patients with nonischemic HF, amlodipine might have a beneficial effect on survival. However, no difference in mortality rates was found between felodipine and placebo in a nonischemic HF group. Felodipine 10 mg/d was used in 1 large study, a dose considered high for nonischemic HF usually associated with normal blood pressure (BP).Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the effects of 12-week, low-dose treatment with felodipine versus those of an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, fosinopril sodium, in patients with nonischemic HF and normal BP.Methods: This double-blind, randomized, crossover trial was conducted at Taipei Medical University Hospital (Taipei, Taiwan). Patients aged ≥ 18 years with angiographically proved, nonischemic HF and normal BP who were being treated with an optimal regimen of digitalis and diuretics were enrolled. After a 2-week run-in period, patients were randomized to first receive 12 weeks of treatment with felodipine tablets (2.5 mg/d) or fosinopril tablets (7.5 mg/d) and, after a 2-week washout period, were crossed over to the opposite treatment. Efficacy analysis was performed before (baseline) and after treatment and included symptomatic assessment using a 7-grade clinical scale; 2-dimensional echocardiography (2-D echo); exercise tests; and neurohumoral data, including plasma renin activity, plasma aldosterone, and 24-hour urinary epinephrine (E) and norepinephrine (NE) measurements. The primary end point was death due to HF, and the secondary end point was hospital admission due to worsening HF. Compliance was measured using a pill count at the end of each treatment period.Results: We enrolled 33 patients. One developed worsening HF during the run-in period and was admitted. A total of 32 patients entered the study (18 men, 14 women; mean [SD] age, 48.2 [6.3] years [range, 34-56 years]; mean [SD] systolic BP, 117.2 [9.8] mm Hg [range, 100-138 mm Hg]; mean [SD] diastolic BP, 59.4 [5.7] mm Hg [range, 50-72 mm Hg]). No hospital admission or cardiac death due to HF occurred during 12 weeks of treatment. Twenty-seven patients were included in the felodipine assessment, and 30 patients were included in the fosinopril assessment. Significant improvement in clinical score was noted in both treatment groups (both P < 0.01). The clinical scores did not differ significantly between the 2 treatments. No significant differences were found in 2-D echo parameters between treatments or within groups after treatment versus baseline. Significant improvement in exercise duration was noted with both study drugs after treatment versus baseline (both P < 0.01). No significant difference in exercise duration was found between the 2 treatments. Urinary E and NE were not significantly different between treatments or after treatment with either study drug compared with baseline.Conclusion: The present findings suggest that, in Chinese patients with moderate to severe HF who have normal BP and insignificant coronary artery disease and were being treated with diuretics and digitalis, a 12-week, low-dose course of felodipine (2.5 mg/d) as a vasodilator was associated with as satisfactory an outcome as standard treatment with fosinopril (7.5 mg/d).     

A 12-month course of combination therapy with interferon-alfa and lamivudine in patients with chronic hepatitis delta virus: A single-center, prospective, open-label, uncontrolled study

Background: Chronic hepatitis delta virus (HDV) is a severe and rapidly progressive liver disease for which no therapy has been proved to be effective.Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy and tolerability of long-term therapy with a combination of recombinant interferon (IFN)-alfa and lamivudine.Methods: In this single-center, prospective, open-label, uncontrolled study, patients aged 18 to 60 years with chronic HDV were eligible. Patients were treated with a combination of 10 million units of IFN-alfa-2b subcutaneously 3 times weekly and lamivudine 100 mg once daily for 12 months. The primary outcome measures were biochemical and histologic response at the end of treatment and at least 12 months thereafter.Results: Twelve patients (10 men, 2 women; mean age, 33.9 years [range, 19-49 years]) were enrolled (6 treatment-naive patients, 6 previously treated patients). Normalization or decrease of >50% from baseline in serum alanine aminotransferase (ALT) level occurred in 8 (66.7%) of 12 patients at month 12 of treatment. Of the 12 patients, 10 (83.3%) completed the trial; 1 (8.3%) was withdrawn because of severe leukopenia and 1 (8.3%) was lost to follow-up. Relapses occurred in 5 of 8 (63.3%) initial responders shortly after the cessation of therapy. In 3 (25%) patients whose ALT levels became normal at the end of the therapy, the complete biochemical responses persisted for up to 3 years (mean, 31 months). The treatment was associated with a marked improvement in histologic activity.Conclusions: In this study, combination therapy with IFN-alfa and lamivudine was well tolerated and reduced hepatic inflammation was found. Further controlled trials are needed to show possible beneficial effects of this model of therapy and to determine the optimal dose and duration of therapy for chronic HDV.     

Effects of Verapamil Slow Release Plus Trandolapril Combination Therapy on Essential Hypertension

Background: Fixed-dose combination antihypertensive therapy has been recommended for patients with essential hypertension who are unresponsive to monotherapy or as a first-line treatment.Objective: We investigated the effects of a fixed-dose combination of the phenylalkylamine-type calcium channel blocker verapamil slow release (SR)plus the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor trandolapril on blood pressure (BP), serum lipid profile, urinary albumin excretion (UAE), left ventricular mass (LVM), and LVM index (LVMI), as well as the adverse events associated with this treatment.Methods: Patients aged 30 to 65 years with mild to moderate essential hypertension were included in the study. All of the patients received capsules containing combination treatment with verapamil SR 180 mg plus trandolapril 2 mg orally, daily for 12 weeks. Mean arterial pressure (MAP), systolic BP (SBP), diastolic BP (DBP), and heart rate (HR) were measured at baseline and at 4, 8, and 12 weeks of treatment. Serum lipid profile, UAE, LVM, LVMI, and body mass index (BMI) were determined at baseline and at the end of the study period. All patients underwent electrocardiography and echocardiography at baseline and week 12. The primary end point of the study was to achieve an SBP/DBP ≤140/≤90 mm Hg (ie, normotensive) during week 12. All adverse events were assessed as mild, moderate, or severe at each visit. According to the response rate at week 12, patients were divided into 2 groups: those who became normotensive (responders) or those who remained hypertensive (SBP/DBP >140/>90 mm Hg; nonresponders).Results: Forty-one patients (29 women, 12 men; mean [SD] age, 47.7 [7.8] years; mean [SD] BMI, 29.4 [3.5] kg/m²) were enrolled. The median durationof hypertension prior to enrollment was 5 months. Mean MAP, SBP, DBP, UAE, total cholesterol (TC), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), LDL-C/highdensity lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) ratio, LVM, LVMI, and BMI decreased significantly after 12 weeks of combination treatment; HR and triglyceride level did not change significantly. Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 31.7% of patients, and none were severe or caused any patient to withdraw from the study. The most common adverse events were cough, constipation, headache, and dryness in the throat. Microalbuminuria, which may be a marker of endothelial dysfunction, was found in 7 (17.1%) patients at baseline and regressed significantly after 12 weeks.Conclusions: In this study population, the fixed-dose combination of verapamil-trandolapril was an effective and well-tolerated antihypertensive therapy. This combination significantly reduced MAP, BP, TC, LDL-C, LDL-C/HDL-C ratio, UAE, LVM, and LVMI. Also, microalbuminuria decreased after this treatment. Verapamil-trandolapril may be useful in preventing microalbuminuria and left ventricular hypertrophy in patients with essential hypertension.     

Comparison of the efficacy, tolerability, and smoothness indexes of two nifedipine formulations: a randomized, double-dummy, double-blind, controlled trial

Background: Nifedipine is an effective dihydropyridine calcium channel antagonist used in the treatment of high blood pressure (BP), although side effects related to its potency and short half-life have led to development of a sustained-release formulation, nifedipine gastrointestinal therapeutic system (N-GITS) with osmotic pump.Objective: This study compared the efficacy, tolerability, and smoothness indexes of 2 formulations of nifedipine—N-GITS and slow-release microgranules (N-MG)—in patients with hypertension.Methods: This was a randomized, double-dummy, double-blind, controlled trial in outpatients with mild to moderate essential hypertension (sitting diastolic BP [DBP] >90 and <115 mm Hg). Patients were randomized to receive either N-GITS 30 mg plus N-MG placebo or N-MG 30 mg plus N-GITS placebo once daily for 12 weeks. In patients who had not achieved adequate BP control (DBP <90 mm Hg or a decrease in DBP of >10 mm Hg compared with baseline) at week 3, the dose of the respective formulations was increased to 60 mg once daily for the remainder of the trial. The primary end point was change in mean BP over 24 hours. In addition, the smoothness indexes of both formulations were compared between groups to evaluate the homogeneity of their antihypertensive effects. Tolerability was assessed in terms of the incidence of adverse events.Results: Fifty-four outpatients (44 women, 10 men; mean age, 54 years) were enrolled, 26 in the N-GITS-treated group and 28 in the N-MG-treated group. A decrease in mean BP over 24 hours was observed in both groups, with no significant differences between groups. The N-GITS-treated group showed a slight but statistically significant increase in heart rate (HR) at 12 weeks (P = 0.017); the N-MG-treated group showed a slight but statistically significant decrease in HR (P = 0.03). Smoothness index values (mean ± SD) for active drug versus comparison-drug placebo in all patients (including nonresponders) were 0.466 ± 0.5 for the N-GITS—treated group and 0.459 ± 0.4 for the N-MG—treated group. The corresponding smoothness index values when nonresponders (N-GITS, 1 nonresponder, 25 responders; N-MG, 3 nonresponders, 25 responders) were excluded were 0.716 ± 0.5 and 0.707 ± 0.7, respectively. No statistically significant difference in smoothness index was found between the 2 groups.Conclusion: The results of this study suggest that N-GITS and N-MG have similar therapeutic effects and smoothness indexes.     

Efficacy and tolerability of olanzapine in patients with schizophrenia in lithuania: A 13-week, multicenter, open-label, nonrandomized study

Background: The atypical antipsychotic olanzapine has been approved for the treatment of schizophrenia in Europe since 1996 but has been used primarily as a second-line treatment to the less expensive typical agents. However, similar to other atypical antipsychotic drugs, olanzapine has a lower risk of inducing extrapyramidal symptoms, tardive dyskinesia, neuroleptic malignant syndrome, and sexual dysfunction compared with the typical antipsychotic drugs.Objective: The aim of this study was to determine whether patients with schizophrenia who have a poor response to their present antipsychotic therapy would show improvement when switched to olanzapine.Methods: This 13-week, multicenter, open-label, nonrandomized trial was conducted at 5 centers in Lithuania. Patients were started on oral olanzapine 10-mg tablets once daily, which could be adjusted by 5 mg/d in the dosing range of 5 to 20 mg/d. The primary efficacy measure was the total score on the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), which was extracted from the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS). Efficacy response rate was defined a priori as the percentage of patients achieving ≥40% improvement in the BPRS total score. Secondary assessments included the PANSS total and BPRS and PANSS subscales and scores on the Clinical Global Impression-Severity of Illness (CGI-S), the CGI-Global Improvement (CGI-I), and the Patient Global Impression-Improvement (PGI-I) tests. Tolerability was primarily measured by assessing the incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) according to the Udvalg fuer Kliniske Undersogelser (UKU) Side Effect Rating Scale and laboratory analyses.Results: Twenty-four patients (13 men [54.2%]; mean [SD] age, 32.4 [8.1] years) entered the study. Twenty-three (95.8%) of the 24 patients completed the study. The mean (SD) daily dosage of olanzapine was 11.40 (2.18) mg/d. The total mean (SD) BPRS score improved significantly from 37.8 (7.9) to 19.5 (13.7) (P < 0.001). The response rate was 58.3% (14/24 patients). The mean positive and negative BPRS scores and the mean total and subscale PANSS scores all improved significantly from baseline (P < 0.001). The mean (SD) CGI-S score improved significantly from 4.8 (0.8) at baseline to 3.5 (1.1) at end point (P < 0.001). Twenty-two patients (91.7%) showed improvement on the CGM scale. Similar improvement was found on the PGM scale. Treatment-emergent AEs occurred in 7 patients (29.2%). Improvement was found on 31 of the 48 UKU scale items; no change was shown on 15 items; and slight worsening was shown on 2 items. No clinical abnormalities were detected during the study.Conclusion: In this study of Lithuanian patients with schizophrenia, significant improvement was shown in all efficacy measures. In addition, olanzapine was well tolerated in these patients.     

Oral formulations of the selective serotonin3 antagonists ramosetron (intraoral disintegrator formulation) and granisetron hydrochloride (standard tablet) in treating acute chemotherapy-induced emesis, nausea, and anorexia: A multicenter, randomized, single-blind, crossover, comparison study

Background: Chemotherapeutic drugs used to treat cancer may cause nausea and emesis by inducing the release of 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT) in the small intestine. Blockage of 5-HT₃ receptors in the small intestine by 5-HT₃-receptor antagonists might prevent the nausea and vomiting associated with chemotherapy for cancer.Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of the selective 5-HT₃ antagonists ramosetron (0.1-mg intraoral disintegrator preparation) and granisetron hydrochloride (2-mg standard tablet) in the treatment of acute chemotherapy-induced digestive disturbances.Methods: Male and female Chinese cancer patients aged 16 to 74 years were eligible for this multicenter, randomized, single-blind, crossover, comparison study. Patients were randomized to 1 of 2 treatment groups. Group 1 received 1-time administration of ramosetron 0.1 mg orally without water, followed by a 2-week washout period after which they received granisetron 2 mg orally with water. Group 2 received granisetron 2 mg orally with water, followed by a 2-week washout period after which they received ramosetron 0.1 mg orally without water. Each study drug was administered 1 time, 1 hour before infusion of the chemotherapeutic agent. For the efficacy assessment, response data were recorded every 6 hours for a total of 24 hours after the start of chemotherapy infusion. For the tolerability assessment, adverse events (AEs) were recorded continuously over 24 hours.Results: A total of 73 patients (46 males, 27 females; mean age, 49.6 years [range, 17-70 years]) were enrolled. Group 1 comprised 37 patients; group 2, 36 patients. Data from 62 (84.9%) patients were used in the efficacy assessment; data from 70 (95.9%) patients were used in the tolerability assessment. The ability of ramosetron to prevent emesis, nausea, and anorexia was similar to that of granisetron during the 0-to-6-hour and 0-to-24-hour periods following administration of cisplatin or doxorubicin chemotherapy. The tolerability of ramosetron was similar to that of granisetron; AEs were generally mild and transient.Conclusions: In this study, both the intraoral disintegrator formulation of ramosetron and the standard tablet formulation of granisetron were clinically useful for preventing chemotherapy-induced digestive disturbances in cancer patients.     

Efficacy and Tolerability of Combination Therapy with Interferon-Alfa Plus Ribavirin in Patients with Chronic Hepatitis C Virus Infection: A Single-Center Study in Relapsers and Nonresponders to Previous Treatment with High-Dose Interferon-Alfa Monotherapy

Background: In chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection, interferon (IFN) monotherapy usually is carried out at doses of 3 to 6 million units (MU) 3 times per week, but treatment efficacy is low.Objective: The aim of our study was to assess the efficacy and tolerability of IFN-alfa_2b in combination with ribavirin in relapsers and nonresponders to high-dose IFN treatment (5 to 6 MU 3 times per week). We measured the biochemical and virologic responses to treatment and the risk for relapse during the 24 weeks following the end of treatment.Methods: Patients with chronic HCV infection (relapsers and nonresponders to a previous treatment with high-dose IFN) received IFN-alfa_2b, 3 MU 3 times per week, and ribavirin, 1000 or 1200 mg/d for 24 or 48 weeks. The patients were then followed up for an additional 24 weeks. Sustained response was defined as normal serum alanine aminotransferase (ALT) level and undetectable HCV RNA 24 weeks after treatment was stopped.Results: Forty-three patients (32 men, 11 women; mean [SD] age, 45 [2] years; 10 relapsers, 33 nonresponders) were included in the study. Four patients were withdrawn from the study at week 4 of treatment because of treatment-related adverse events, and 1 dropped out. At the end of the treatment period, normalization of serum ALT levels and undetectable HCV RNA levels were seen in 58.1% and 30.2% of patients, respectively. No significant difference in virologic response at the end of treatment was found between nonresponders (10/33 [30.3%]) to previous IFN therapy and relapsers (3/10 [30.0%]). At the end of follow-up, 3 (7.0%) treated patients had sustained response (2 nonresponders to the first IFN course and 1 relapser). All of the patients with sustained response were treated for 24 weeks.Conclusion: Based on the results of our study, combination therapy with IFN-alfa and ribavirin may be of value in a limited number of patients with chronic HCV infection who do not respond to, or relapse after, a first course of treatment with high-dose IFN monotherapy.     

An observational study of the effect of two thiazolidinediones on blood lipid levels: Rosiglitazone and pioglitazone in routine clinical practice

Background: Rosiglitazone maleate and pioglitazone hydrochloride are established antihyperglycemic agents that are effective when used as monotherapy or in combination with other medications. However, the data regarding the effects of these agents on blood lipid levels are contradictory.Objective: The aim of this study was to determine whether the use of rosiglitazone and pioglitazone in clinical practice is associated with any changes in blood lipid levels.Methods: A retrospective chart review using electronic medical record data was conducted of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus who were newly treated with either rosiglitazone or pioglitazone and had 1 lipid measurement within 6 months prior to and 12 months following initial thiazolidinedione (TZD) therapy. Outcome measures were mean changes in low- and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C and HDL-C, respectively). To control for differences in baseline characteristics and/or selection bias, the treatment cohorts were compared using multivariate statistical techniques.Results: A total of 371 patients were included in the study; the pioglitazone cohort comprised 148 patients (82 women, 66 men; mean [SD] age, 64.9 [10.8] years) and the rosiglitazone cohort comprised 223 patients (113 men, 110 women; mean [SD] age, 66.1 [11.9] years). Pioglitazone-treated patients had a statistically higher mean baseline LDL-C compared with rosiglitazone-treated patients (125.0 mg/dL vs 116.6 mg/dL; P = 0.04). On average, LDL-C levels decreased over the study period, with no significant differences between the 2 cohorts (9.9 mg/dL vs 4.3 mg/dL for pioglitazone and rosiglitazone, respectively), although changes in both cohorts were statistically significant (P < 0.001).Conclusions: TZD therapy appears to be associated with a small decrease in LDL-C within the first 6 months after initiation. No differences in changes in LDL-C or HDL-C could be discerned between patients treated with rosiglitazone compared with pioglitazone.     

Effects of amlodipine and candesartan on arterial stiffness estimated by cardio-ankle vascular index in patients with essential hypertension: A 24-week study

Background: Aortic stiffness assessed by brachio-ankle pulse wave velocity (baPWV) can be used to predict cardiovascular events. However, baPWV is dependent on blood pressure. Antihypertensive drugs have been reported to reduce baPWV; but it is difficult to determine if this effect is associated with lowered blood pressure or reduced arterial stiffness.Objectives: The primary end point of this study was to assess whether antihypertensive drugs reduce arterial stiffness as estimated by cardio-ankle vascular index (CAVI). The secondary end point was to compare the effects of 2 widely used drugs, the calcium-channel blocker amlodipine and the angiotensin II receptor blocker candesartan, on arterial stiffness.Methods: Between October 2005 and September 2006, consecutive Japanese outpatients with essential hypertension (EHT) (defined as using antihypertensive drugs at screening, systolic blood pressure [SBP] > 140 mm Hg, or diastolic BP [DBP] >90 mm Hg) were assigned to treatment for 24 weeks with either amlodipine (5-10 mg/d) or candesartan (8-12 mg/d). Arterial stiffness was evaluated with CAVI before and after 24 weeks of treatment. Relative change in arterial stiffness from baseline was also compared. The evaluator was blinded to treatment.Results: Twenty patients (11 men, 9 women; mean [SD] age, 62 [10] years) were included in the study. There were no significant differences in clinical characteristics between the 2 groups. At baseline, mean (SD) CAVI was not significantly different in the amlodipine group compared with the candesartan group (8.93 [0.93] vs 8.46 [1.34], respectively). During the 24-week treatment period, mean SBP and DBP decreased significantly in both the amlodipine (14/10 mm Hg; P = 0.006 and P = 0.005) and the candesartan groups (13/11 mm Hg; P = 0.033 and P = 0.005). Amlodipine was associated with a significant change in CAVI from baseline (8.93 [0.93] vs 8.60 [1.50]; P = 0.017), whereas candesartan was not (8.46 [1.34] vs 8.81 [1.20]). The percentage change in CAVI was significantly different in the amlodipine group compared with the candesartan group (−7.14 [8.83] vs 5.85 [16.0], respectively; P = 0.038). After 24 weeks of treatment, the CAVI of the amlodipine group was still numerically larger than baseline CAVI of the candesartan group, although the difference was not statistically significant. Furthermore, there was no significant difference in absolute CAVI between the 2 groups after 24 weeks, but the relative change from baseline was significant in favor of amlodipine. Logistic regression analysis revealed that amlodipine improved CAVI independent of its antihypertensive effect.Conclusion: These data suggest that amlodipine and candesartan had different effects on aortic stiffness estimated by CAVI, despite similar effects on brachial blood pressure after 24 weeks of treatment in these Japanese patients with EHT.     

Comparison of ramosetron, dexamethasone, and a combination of ramosetron and dexamethasone for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in Korean women undergoing thyroidectomy: A double-blind, randomized, controlled study

Background: Thyroidectomy is associated with a relatively high incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), ranging from 51% to 76%. Because these symptoms are distressing for patients, prophylactic medication to avoid or reduce PONV is recommended.Objective: The aim of the present study was to compare the efficacy of ramosetron, dexamethasone, and a combination of ramosetron and dexamethasone in preventing PONV in Korean women undergoing thyroidectomy.Methods: In this double-blind, randomized, controlled trial, consecutive adult female patients who were scheduled to undergo thyroidectomy under general anesthesia at the Kyungpook National University Hospital (Daegu, Korea) were randomly assigned to receive ramosetron 0.3 mg alone, dexamethasone 8 mg alone, or a combination of ramosetron 0.3 mg and dexamethasone 8 mg administered intravenously as a single dose immediately after induction of anesthesia. The primary end point of this study was the total PONV rate up to 24 hours postanesthesia. The secondary end points were the incidence of nausea, incidence of vomiting, severity of nausea (0 = no nausea to 10 = nausea as bad as it could be), use of rescue antiemetic drugs, and the occurrence of adverse events (AEs) determined through interview or spontaneous patient report for 24 hours postanesthesia.Results: A total of 198 female patients were approached for study inclusion, 18 of whom were excluded. Therefore, 180 Korean women (mean [SD] age, 46.5 [12.6] years; height, 159.8 [2.7] cm; weight, 53.2 [3.6] kg) were enrolled and completed the study. The total PONV rates up to 24 hours postanesthesia were 35%, 13%, and 10% in the dexamethasone, ramosetron, and combination groups, respectively. The PONV rate was significantly lower in the combination group than in the dexamethasone alone group (P = 0.006). The PONV rate was not significantly different in the combination group compared with the ramosetron alone group. The PONV rate in the dexamethasone alone group was significantly higher than that in the ramosetron alone group (P = 0.03). The severity of nausea (median [25th-75th percentiles], 0 [0-0] vs 0 [0-4]; P = 0.009) and rate of use of rescue antiemetic drugs (5% vs 27%; P = 0.006) were significantly lower in the combination group than in the dexamethasone alone group, whereas the severity of nausea (median [25th-75th percentiles], 0 [0-0] vs 0 [0-0]) and rate of use of rescue antiemetic drugs (5% vs 7%) were not significantly different between the combination and ramosetron alone groups. The severity of nausea (median [25th-75th percentiles], 0 [0-4] vs 0 [0-0]; P = 0.033) and the rate of use of rescue antiemetic drugs (27% vs 7%; P = 0.018) were significantly higher in the dexamethasone alone group than in the ramosetron alone group. The rates of AEs (headache: 15%, 20%, and 18%; dizziness: 18%, 22%, and 15%) were not significantly different in the dexamethasone alone, ramosetron alone, or combination groups, respectively.Conclusions: The combination of ramosetron and dexamethasone was more effective in reducing PONV than was dexamethasone monotherapy. However, the combination did not show additional benefits compared with ramosetron alone in preventing PONV after thyroidectomy in these Korean women.