Decoupling the Contribution of Surface Energy and Surface Area on the Cohesion of Pharmaceutical Powders

Pharmaceutical Research - Surface area and surface energy of pharmaceutical powders are affected by milling and may influence formulation, performance and handling. This study aims to decouple the...     

Sodium-based osmotherapy for hyponatremia in acute decompensated heart failure

Heart Failure Reviews - Acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) accounts for more than 1 million hospital admissions annually and is associated with high morbidity and mortality. Decongestion with...     

Airway and ventilation management

Airway management is fundamental to ACLS. Success with any airway device relies as much on the operator's experience and skill as on the device itself. The purpose of using an airway device is to provide a patent route for ventilating the lungs and to protect against pulmonary aspiration. Training should emphasize the importance of confirming that the airway device is positioned correctly and that the lungs can be ventilated effectively. If airway intervention is to have a positive effect on outcome, the choice of airway device is less important than thorough training, ongoing experience and review, and close attention to complications. Regardless of whether a provider chooses to use the LMA, the combitube, or the tracheal tube, providers must be familiar with more than one method of airway management because of the possibility of failure to insert or ventilate with their primary airway device of choice.     

Efficacy and safety of rofecoxib 12.5 mg versus nabumetone 1,000 mg in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee: a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the use of starting doses of rofecoxib and nabumetone in patients with osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee. DESIGN: A 6-week, randomized, parallel-group, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. SETTING: One hundred thirteen outpatient sites in the United States. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 1,042 male and female patients aged 40 and older with OA of the knee (>6 months). INTERVENTIONS: Rofecoxib 12.5 mg once a day (n=424), nabumetone 1,000 mg once a day (n=410), or placebo (n=208) for 6 weeks. MEASUREMENTS: The primary efficacy endpoint was patient global assessment of response to therapy (PGART) over 6 weeks, which was also specifically evaluated over the first 6 days. The main safety measure was adverse events during the 6 weeks of treatment. RESULTS: The percentage of patients with a good or excellent response to therapy as assessed using PGART at Week 6 was significantly higher with rofecoxib (55.4%) than nabumetone (47.5%; P=.018) or placebo (26.7%; P<.001 vs rofecoxib or nabumetone). Median time to first report of a good or excellent PGART response was significantly shorter in patients treated with rofecoxib (2 days) than with nabumetone (4 days, P=.002) and placebo (>5 days, P<.001) (nabumetone vs placebo; P=.007). The safety profiles of rofecoxib and nabumetone were generally similar, including gastrointestinal, hypertensive, and renal adverse events. CONCLUSION: Rofecoxib 12.5 mg daily demonstrated better efficacy over 6 weeks of treatment and quicker onset of OA efficacy over the first 6 days than nabumetone 1,000 mg daily. Both therapies were generally well tolerated.