Biomedical subjects

Blair Jarvis

Publications and source records attributed to Blair Jarvis.

17 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2003

Memantine.

Memantine, an uncompetitive antagonist with moderate affinity for NMDA receptors, demonstrates voltage-dependency and relatively fast on/off receptor kinetics. Memantine 20 mg/day significantly slowed the rate of deterioration in outpatients with moderate to severe Alzheimer's disease in a 28-week US randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre study. Memantine 10 mg/day improved measures of dementia in care-dependent inpatients with Alzheimer's disease or vascular dementia in a 12-week randomised, double-blind study. Significantly more memantine than placebo recipients were responders according to Clinical Global Impression of Change scores and the Behavioural Rating Scale for Geriatric Patients Care Dependence subscale. Memantine 20 mg/day significantly improved cognition-related outcomes (cognitive subscale of the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale) in patients with vascular dementia in two 28-week randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre trials. No statistically significant between-group difference was seen in other primary endpoints. Adverse events (incidence in memantine recipients greater than in placebo recipients) occurring in patients with moderately severe to severe dementia included diarrhoea, insomnia, dizziness, headache and hallucination.

Alzheimer Disease↗

PubMed2003

Combined two-dose hepatitis A and B vaccine (AmBirix).

One month after the last dose (i.e. at month 7), geometric mean titres (GMTs) of antibodies directed against hepatitis A virus (anti-HAV) were generally greater in participants (aged 12-15 years) receiving combined two-dose (0 and 6 months) hepatitis A and B vaccine (AmBirix) compared with the three-dose (containing one half the dose of the two active components per dose, given at 0, 1 and 6 months; Twinrix Paediatric) schedule. Moreover, at month 7 all patients had seroconverted to anti-HAV. GMTs of antibodies directed against hepatitis B surface antigen greatly exceeded the threshold for seroprotection (>/=10 mIU/mL) 1 month after the last dose of vaccine. Seroprotection rates against hepatitis B virus (HBV) were similar 1 month after completion of either a two- (97.9%) or three-dose (100%) vaccination schedule. At 24 months' follow-up, all patients tested remained positive for anti-HAV, and 93.3% and 96.2% of those treated with the two- and three-dose schedules, respectively, remained above the threshold for seroprotection against HBV. Administering the second dose in the two-dose series at 12 months rather than at 6 months did not compromise the immune response to the combined vaccine in adolescents aged 12-15 years in a randomised, multicentre trial. Local adverse events reported in the 4 days following administration of combined two-dose hepatitis A and B vaccine include pain or soreness, redness and swelling; systemic symptoms included headache, fatigue, gastrointestinal events and fever.

Adolescent↗

PubMed2003

Carvedilol: a review of its use in chronic heart failure.

Carvedilol (Dilatrend) blocks beta(1)-, beta(2)- and alpha(1)-adrenoceptors, and has antioxidant and antiproliferative effects. Carvedilol improved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in patients with chronic heart failure (CHF) in numerous studies. Moreover, significantly greater increases from baseline in LVEF were seen with carvedilol than with metoprolol in a double-blind, randomised study and in a meta-analysis. Carvedilol also reversed or attenuated left ventricular remodelling in patients with CHF and in those with left ventricular dysfunction after acute myocardial infarction (MI). Combined analysis of studies in the US Carvedilol Heart Failure Trials Program (patients had varying severities of CHF; n = 1094) revealed that mortality was significantly lower in carvedilol than in placebo recipients. In addition, the risk of hospitalisation for any cardiovascular cause was significantly lower with carvedilol than with placebo. Mortality was significantly lower with carvedilol than with metoprolol in patients with mild to severe CHF in the Carvedilol Or Metoprolol European Trial (COMET) [n = 3029]. The Carvedilol Prospective Randomised Cumulative Survival (COPERNICUS) trial (n = 2289) demonstrated that compared with placebo, carvedilol was associated with significant reductions in all-cause mortality and the combined endpoint of death or hospitalisation for any reason in severe CHF. All-cause mortality was reduced in patients who received carvedilol in addition to conventional therapy compared with those who received placebo plus conventional therapy in the Carvedilol Post-Infarct Survival Control in LV Dysfunction (CAPRICORN) trial (enrolling 1959 patients with left ventricular dysfunction following acute MI). Carvedilol was generally well tolerated in patients with CHF. Adverse events associated with the alpha- and beta-blocking effects of the drug occurred more commonly with carvedilol than with placebo, whereas placebo recipients were more likely to experience worsening heart failure. In conclusion, carvedilol blocks beta(1)-, beta(2)- and alpha(1)-adrenoceptors and has a unique pharmacological profile. It is thought that additional properties of carvedilol (e.g. antioxidant and antiproliferative effects) contribute to its beneficial effects in CHF. Carvedilol improves ventricular function and reduces mortality and morbidity in patients with mild to severe CHF, and should be considered a standard treatment option in this setting. Administering carvedilol in addition to conventional therapy reduces mortality and attenuates myocardial remodelling in patients with left ventricular dysfunction following acute MI. Moreover, mortality was significantly lower with carvedilol than with metoprolol in patients with mild to severe CHF, suggesting that carvedilol may be the preferred beta-blocker.

Adrenergic beta-Antagonists↗

PubMed2003

Topical 3% diclofenac in 2.5% hyaluronic acid gel: a review of its use in patients with actinic keratoses.

Topical 3% diclofenac in 2.5% hyaluronic acid (HA) gel (diclofenac HA gel; Solaraze) is an NSAID approved for the treatment of actinic keratoses (AK). The efficacy of diclofenac HA gel (0.5g applied twice daily to each 5cm x 5cm treatment area) in patients with AK has been evaluated in three randomized, double-blind, HA gel vehicle-controlled trials. In each trial, efficacy was assessed 30 days after the end of treatment because an earlier study revealed that resolution of lesions was greater when measured after a 4 week interval, rather than at the end of treatment. In two fully published multicenter trials, there was no difference in baseline characteristics of the study groups. In a further single center study (not yet published), patients randomized to diclofenac HA gel had a significantly higher mean number of target lesions at baseline compared with HA gel vehicle. In the two published studies, the efficacy of diclofenac HA gel increased with increased treatment duration. When compared with HA gel vehicle recipients, significant improvements in total lesion number scores (TLNS), cumulative lesion number scores (CLNS), patient global improvement indices (PGII) and investigator global improvement indices (IGII) were obtained in patients treated for 60 and 90 but not 30 days with diclofenac HA gel. Fifty percent of patients treated for 90 days with diclofenac HA gel (vs 20% in HA gel vehicle recipients) and 33% of those treated for 60 days (vs 10%) had TLNS and CLNS of zero at the end of follow-up. In the third trial, in which treatment was applied for 90 days, there was no statistically significant difference in the proportion of patients with TLNS or CLNS of zero at the end of follow-up. However, when controlling for the significant difference in mean baseline target lesion scores by calculating the mean change from baseline in lesion counts, TLNS and CLNS were significantly lower in recipients of diclofenac HA gel than HA gel vehicle at the end of follow-up. Pruritus was the most frequently reported adverse event in all trials and the incidence was generally similar or lower in patients treated with diclofenac HA gel than HA gel vehicle. In conclusion, diclofenac HA gel produces significant reductions in the number of AK lesions, and can produce complete clearance of lesions when applied twice daily for 60 or 90 days. The product is well tolerated and did not produce serious adverse cosmetic effects in clinical trials. Thus, diclofenac HA gel represents a useful addition to the array of pharmacologic treatments available for AK.

Administration, Topical↗

PubMed2002

Travoprost.

Travoprost is a synthetic ester prodrug of a prostaglandin F(2alpha) analogue used in the treatment of open-angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension. Intraocular travoprost 0.004% once daily was significantly more effective at reducing intraocular pressure (IOP) in patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension than placebo or timolol 0.5% twice daily and was at least as effective as latanoprost 0.005% once daily in randomised, double-blind studies. When used as adjunctive therapy with timolol 0.5% twice daily in patients with elevated IOP not adequately controlled by timolol alone, travoprost 0.004% showed significant additional IOP reduction in a randomised double-blind trial. Travoprost 0.004% was well tolerated in clinical trials. The majority of adverse events such as ocular hyperaemia and eyelash changes were mild and resolved without treatment.

Adult↗

PubMed2002

Tamsulosin: an update of its role in the management of lower urinary tract symptoms.

UNLABELLED: Tamsulosin is a selective alpha1A- and alpha1D-adrenoceptor antagonist. These alpha1-receptors are predominant in the prostate, prostatic capsule, prostatic urethra and bladder. The relaxation of prostate and bladder smooth muscles may result in improvement in maximum urine flow (Qmax) and reduction of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS). Tamsulosin 0.4 and 0.8 mg/day in a modified-release formulation was significantly more effective than placebo in large (n >250) double-blind, randomised, multicentre, 12- to 13- week clinical trials in patients with LUTS. A greater increase in Qmax from baseline was seen in patients receiving tamsulosin 0.4 or 0.8 mg/day (1.4 to 1.79 ml/sec from a baseline of 9.46 to 10.7 ml/sec) than in placebo recipients (0.4 to 0.93 ml/sec from a baseline of 9.75 to 10.4 ml/sec); the between-group difference was significant in two of three studies. Tamsulosin 0.4 or 0.8 mg/day improved total Boyarsky symptom scores from baseline by a significantly greater extent (by 3.0 to 5.2 points from a baseline of 9.5 to 11.1 points) than placebo (1.9 to 3.2 points from a baseline of 9.3 to 11.0 points). In noncomparative extension studies, the improvement in efficacy parameters with tamsulosin treatment was maintained for up to 4 years. Tamsulosin is effective in patients with mild to severe LUTS, patients with diabetes mellitus or those aged > or = 65 years and does not interfere with the antihypertensive action of nifedipine, enalapril or atenolol. Tamsulosin 0.4 mg/day for 12 weeks and tamsulosin 0.2 mg/day for 4 weeks were as effective as alfuzosin 2.5mg three times daily and terazosin 2 mg/day, respectively, in improving Qmax and symptom scores in randomised comparative trials. With the exception of a numberically greater incidence of abnormal ejaculation, dizziness and rhinitis, the incidence of adverse events with tamsulosin 0.4 mg/day was similar to that seen with placebo in randomised, double-blind studies. The overall incidence of symptoms indicative of orthostasis was 1.4% with tamsulosin 0.4 or 0.8 mg/day treatment. Tamsulosin had less effect on blood pressure than alfuzosin or terazosin. CONCLUSION: Tamsulosin, an alpha1-adrenoceptor antagonist, has a well established place in the treatment of LUTS and has a tolerability profile similar to that of placebo (apart from a higher incidence of abnormal ejaculation, dizziness and rhinitis). Comparative data have shown tamsulosin to be as effective as other alpha1-adrenoceptor antagonists at increasing Qmax and improving symptom scores. However, tamsulosin is unlikely to produce orthostatic hypotensive adverse effects or interfere with concomitant antihypertensive drug therapy. Therefore, tamsulosin is a useful therapeutic option in the management of patients with moderate to severe LUTS.

Adrenergic alpha-Antagonists↗

PubMed2002

Quinapril: a further update of its pharmacology and therapeutic use in cardiovascular disorders.

UNLABELLED: Quinapril is rapidly de-esterified after absorption to quinaprilat (the active diacid metabolite), a potent angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor. Quinapril produces favourable haemodynamic changes, and improves ventricular and endothelial function in patients with various cardiovascular disorders; these effects are mediated through the binding of quinaprilat to both tissue and plasma ACE. Quinapril 10 to 40 mg/day provided effective blood pressure control in most patients with essential hypertension in clinical trials, but some patients required dosages of 80 mg/day and/or concomitant diuretic therapy. In general, quinapril provided similar blood pressure control to other standard antihypertensive therapies including other ACE inhibitors, calcium antagonists and beta-adrenoceptor antagonists in comparative clinical trials. Combined therapy with quinapril and hydrochlorothiazide had a significantly greater antihypertensive effect than either drug as monotherapy in two well designed studies. Quinapril has also been shown to reduce microalbuminuria in patients with hypertension and/or diabetes mellitus. In patients with congestive heart failure, quinapril <or=40 mg/day produced beneficial haemodynamic and echocardiographic changes and improved exercise tolerance, symptoms and functional class. Effects of quinapril on survival have not been investigated, but quinapril 10 to 20 mg/day showed comparable efficacy to captopril 25 to 50mg twice daily in two well designed trials. In patients with coronary artery disease, quinapril 40 mg/day significantly reduced the incidence of ischaemic events after coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in a well controlled study (n = 148). However, a lower dosage of quinapril (20 mg/day) showed no effect on ischaemic events or atherosclerotic progression with 3 years of treatment in a similarly designed study involving 1750 patients undergoing coronary angioplasty. The tolerability of quinapril is similar to that of other ACE inhibitors. In placebo-controlled trials, cough occurred in 2 and 4.3% and hypotension occurred in <1 and 2.9% of quinapril recipients with hypertension or congestive heart failure, respectively. No increase in adverse events was observed when the dosage was increased from 10 to 40 mg/day. CONCLUSION: Quinapril is now firmly established as an effective and well tolerated ACE inhibitor for the treatment of patients with hypertension and congestive heart failure. Quinapril 40 mg/day also significantly reduced the incidence of ischaemic events in patients undergoing CABG in one study; however, a lower dosage of quinapril (20 mg/day) had no effect on ischaemic events in patients undergoing coronary angioplasty in another trial. Additional trials in patients with coronary artery disease receiving optimal dosages of quinapril (40 mg/day) would be useful.

Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors↗

PubMed2002

Candesartan cilexetil plus hydrochlorothiazide combination: a review of its use in hypertension.

UNLABELLED: The combination of candesartan cilexetil [an angiotensin II type 1 (AT(1)) receptor antagonist] plus hydrochlorothiazide (a thiazide diuretic), has been used in the treatment of patients with hypertension. The blood pressure (BP) lowering effect of various doses of this combination, administered orally once a day for 4 to 52 weeks, has been demonstrated in clinical trials. These studies showed that combinations of candesartan cilexetil 4 to 16 mg with hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 or 25 mg induced significant reductions reductions in systolic (S) BP and diastolic (D) BP from baseline in patients with mild to severe hypertension. Data from clinical trials indicated that reductions in BP induced by candesartan cilexetil 4 to 32 mg/hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg combinations were significantly greater than those observed after monotherapy with either drug. Treatment for 8 weeks with candesartan cilexetil 16 mg/hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg or candesartan cilexetil 16 mg induced SBP/DBP reductions of 12.0/7.5 mm Hg and 7.5/5.5mm Hg, respectively (p < 0.05 both comparisons). Moreover, data from a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-finding study in 1038 patients with mild to moderate hypertension showed that the greatest reductions in SBP/DBP were achieved by candesartan cilexetil 16 mg/hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg. Significant differences in BP reduction in favour of the combination were observed when hypertensive patients were given candesartan cilexetil 4 or 8 mg/hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg or hydrochlorothiazide monotherapy for 8 weeks. Additionally, greater efficacy of the combination compared to monotherapy with either drug was demonstrated by response rates to treatment. Moreover, a fixed combination of candesartan cilexetil 16 mg/hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg demonstrated a greater antihypertensive effect than losartan 50 mg/hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg in two clinical trials. Candesartan cilexetil 8 mg/hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg showed a similar antihypertensive effect compared with that of combined lisinopril 10 mg/hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg. Candesartan cilexetil/hydrochlorothiazide combination was well tolerated in patients with hypertension. Combined data from placebo-controlled trials showed that most adverse events were uncommon and not serious. Patients receiving combination therapy exhibited, among other adverse events, headache (3.2 vs 5.5% for candesartan cilexetil/hydrochlorothiazide and placebo, respectively), back pain (3.0 vs 2.4%), dizziness (2.6 vs 1.2%) and respiratory infection (2.5 vs 1.4%). Moreover, 3.3 and 2.7% of patients receiving candesartan cilexetil/hydrochlorothiazide or placebo, respectively, discontinued treatment because of adverse events. CONCLUSION: The combination of candesartan cilexetil and hydrochlorothiazide (AT(1)-receptor antagonist and thiazide diuretic, respectively) is an effective treatment for patients with hypertension. Data from randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials showed that this combination is significantly more efficacious than either agent alone. Moreover, the combination of these two agents showed an excellent adverse event profile. Current data support the use of this combination as an alternative when monotherapy with either agent is not effective, and there are no compelling or specific indications for other drugs. However, data from large clinical trials, evaluating morbidity and mortality outcomes, are needed to determine the precise role of candesartan cilexetil/hydrochlorothiazide combination in the treatment of patients with hypertension.

Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists↗

PubMed2002

Topical pimecrolimus: a review of its clinical potential in the management of atopic dermatitis.

Pimecrolimus (SDZ ASM 981), an ascomycin derivative, is a nonsteroid, has anti-inflammatory activity, and has demonstrated efficacy in reducing symptoms of atopic dermatitis in adult and paediatric patients when applied topically. Compared with vehicle, topical pimecrolimus 1.0% cream was significantly more effective at reducing symptoms of atopic dermatitis, as measured by the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI), in infants aged 3 to 23 months, children aged 2 to 17 years and adults. The median reductions from baseline in the total EASI score in adults after treatment with pimecrolimus 1.0% or corresponding vehicle twice daily for 3 weeks were 47 and 0%, respectively. In infants and children, treatment with pimecrolimus 1.0% twice daily for 6 weeks resulted in significant decreases in mean EASI scores compared with vehicle. The severity of pruritus was significantly reduced in patients of all age groups after topical treatment with pimecrolimus 1.0% cream. Compared with vehicle, the incidence of eczematous flares was also reduced by intermittent long-term use of topical pimecrolimus 1.0% in adults, children and infants. Sixty percent of children treated with pimecrolimus for 1 year completed the first 6 months of treatment without experiencing a flare, compared with 35% of patients who received vehicle. Furthermore, the use of topical corticosteroids for the treatment of uncontrolled flares in adults, children and infants was lower in the pimecrolimus groups than in the vehicle groups. Topical pimecrolimus 1.0% cream is well tolerated in atopic dermatitis patients of all age groups. There were no clinically relevant systemic adverse events reported from any of the studies in patients with atopic dermatitis. The most frequently reported adverse events pertained to application site reactions, such as burning and a feeling of warmth. In conclusion, topical pimecrolimus 1.0% cream has shown efficacy in the treatment of mild to moderate atopic dermatitis in infants, children and adults. Although tolerability data concerning infants and children have not yet been published in full, the drug appears to be well tolerated in all age groups, and there have been no reports of clinically relevant systemic adverse events. Furthermore, pimecrolimus 1.0% cream has shown no potential for skin atrophy, a problem commonly associated with treatment with topical corticosteroids. Pimecrolimus 1.0% cream provides a promising and well tolerated treatment option in the management of infants, children and adults with mild to moderate atopic dermatitis.

Administration, Cutaneous↗

PubMed2002

Moxifloxacin in uncomplicated skin and skin structure infections.

Moxifloxacin is a fluoroquinolone antibacterial agent which attains good penetration into peripheral tissues and inflammatory fluids. The drug shows good in vitro activity against staphylococci and streptococci. Moxifloxacin is therefore a suitable option for the treatment of uncomplicated skin and skin structure infections of bacterial origin. In clinical trials, moxifloxacin was as effective as cephalexin in the treatment of uncomplicated skin and skin structure infections in patients aged >or=18 years. Moxifloxacin 400mg once daily or cephalexin 500mg three times daily for 7 days both resulted in clinical resolution in 84% of patients during a double-blind, randomised trial in 401 patients (intent-to-treat). The main infectious agent in this study was Staphylococcus aureus. Similar results were obtained in two other randomised, double-blind trials published as abstracts. The bioavailability of moxifloxacin is substantially reduced by coadministration with antacids or iron preparations. Moxifloxacin, however, does not show pharmacokinetic interaction with theophylline or warfarin. Dosage adjustments are not required in patients with renal impairment or in patients with mild to moderate hepatic insufficiency. The most common adverse events reported during moxifloxacin treatment are gastrointestinal disturbances. The potential for photosensitivity reactions during moxifloxacin treatment is low.

Anti-Infective Agents↗

PubMed2002

Candesartan cilexetil: an update of its use in essential hypertension.

UNLABELLED: Candesartan cilexetil is converted to the angiotensin II receptor antagonist candesartan during absorption from the gastrointestinal tract. The selective and competitive binding of candesartan to the angiotensin II type 1 (AT(1)) receptor prevents binding of angiotensin II, a key mediator in the renin-angiotensin system. Significant reductions in systolic BP and diastolic BP are achieved with a once-daily dosage of candesartan cilexetil 2 to 32 mg/day in patients with mild to moderate hypertension. In randomised studies, candesartan cilexetil 8 to 16 mg/day was at least as effective as therapeutic dosages of losartan or other angiotensin II receptor antagonists. At a dosage of up to 32 mg/day candesartan cilexetil demonstrated greater antihypertensive efficacy than losartan 50 or 100 mg/day. In comparative trials, candesartan cilexetil demonstrated similar or greater antihypertensive efficacy compared with enalapril or hydrochlorothiazide and equivalent efficacy compared with amlodipine. The efficacy of candesartan cilexetil is not affected by age, and the drug provided significant BP reductions in Black patients and in those with severe hypertension. Long-term clinical studies to assess the effects of treatment with candesartan cilexetil on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality are ongoing. Regression of left ventricular hypertrophy has been seen with candesartan cilexetil treatment in patients with hypertension. Furthermore, the drug has favourable effects on renal function in patients with hypertension with or without coexisting diabetes mellitus. Renal vascular resistance and albumin excretion were reduced following treatment with candesartan cilexetil. Glucose homeostasis and lipid metabolism were not affected by treatment in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Candesartan cilexetil is well tolerated and is not associated with cough, a common adverse effect of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor treatment. A pooled analysis of clinical trials found that the tolerability profile of candesartan cilexetil is not significantly different from that of placebo. Adverse events are not dose-related and are generally of mild to moderate severity. CONCLUSIONS: Candesartan cilexetil is an effective antihypertensive agent with a tolerability profile similar to that of placebo. Comparative data indicate that candesartan cilexetil has antihypertensive efficacy equivalent to that of other major classes of antihypertensive agents and has a long duration of action. Therefore, candesartan cilexetil is a useful therapeutic option in the management of patients with hypertension.

Adsorption↗

PubMed2002

Olmesartan medoxomil.

Olmesartan medoxomil is a nonpeptide angiotensin II receptor antagonist which selectively and competitively inhibits the type 1 angiotensin II receptor without affecting other receptors regulating the cardiovascular system. In well designed randomised trials, olmesartan medoxomil was significantly more effective than placebo, and at dosages of 10 to 20 mg/day was at least as effective as atenolol 50 to 100 mg/day in reducing diastolic blood pressure (DBP). At dosages of 5 to 20 mg/day, olmesartan medoxomil was more effective than captopril 12.5 to 50mg twice daily at lowering seated DBP in patients with mild to moderate hypertension in a dose titration study. Reductions in seated DBP were greater with olmesartan medoxomil 10 to 20 mg/day than losartan 50 to 100 mg/day. Olmesartan medoxomil at 20 mg/day was more effective in lowering seated DBP than losartan 50 mg/day, valsartan 80 mg/day or irbesartan 150 mg/day, and was more efficacious than losartan 50 mg/day or valsartan 80 mg/day at reducing 24-hour ambulatory systolic blood pressure. Olmesartan medoxomil has shown no clinically important pharmacokinetic interactions with digoxin, warfarin or antacid (aluminium magnesium hydroxide). Adverse events were infrequent in clinical studies of olmesartan medoxomil and were similar to those attributed to placebo. With olmesartan medoxomil, the frequency of dizziness was higher than with placebo but similar to that occurring with losartan, valsartan and irbesartan.

Angiotensin II↗

PubMed2002

Rosuvastatin.

Rosuvastatin is a hydroxymethylglutaryl coenzyme A (HMG-CoA) reductase inhibitor used in the treatment of patients with dyslipidaemia. Rosuvastatin is not extensively metabolised and has a low propensity for drug interactions. In well designed trials of between 6 and 52 weeks' duration, rosuvastatin was superior to atorvastatin, simvastatin and pravastatin in improving the lipid profile of patients with hypercholesterolaemia. In a 1-year dose-titration study, rosuvastatin 13.4mg daily (mean dose) allowed more patients to achieve US National Cholesterol Education Program (Adult Treatment panel II)[NCEP] target low-density lipoprotein (LDL)-cholesterol levels than atorvastatin 20.8mg daily (98 vs 87%) with the difference most marked in high-risk patients (97 vs 61%). Similarly, when compared with pravastatin and simvastatin 20 mg/day in a further 1-year trial, 88% of rosuvastatin recipients [9.5 and 13.8 mg/day (mean doses)] achieved NCEP target serum LDL-cholesterol levels compared with 60 and 73% of pravastatin and simvastatin recipients, respectively, with the difference more marked in high-risk patients. In further clinical trials, rosuvastatin improved the lipid profile of patients with heterozygous or homozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia, hypertriglyceridaemia or mixed dyslipidaemias. Rosuvastatin was well tolerated in clinical trials of up to 1 years' duration.

Clinical Trials as Topic↗

PubMed2002

Etoricoxib.

Etoricoxib is a cyclo-oxygenase (COX)-2-selective NSAID with a higher COX-1 to COX-2 selectivity ratio than the other COX-2-selective NSAIDs rofecoxib, valdecoxib or celecoxib. In patients with rheumatoid arthritis, improvements in tender and swollen joint counts and patient and investigator global assessment of disease activity were significantly greater in etoricoxib than in placebo recipients in two studies. Etoricoxib was also significantly more effective than naproxen in one of these studies. In patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee, etoricoxib was significantly more effective than placebo and had similar efficacy to naproxen with regards to improvements in pain and physical function scores and patient global assessment of disease status scores in two studies. Etoricoxib had similar efficacy to diclofenac in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee. Single-dose etoricoxib relieved pain in patients with postoperative dental pain in two studies. Similar scores assessing total pain relief over 8 hours (TOPAR8) were reported in etoricoxib and naproxen sodium or ibuprofen recipients, and higher TOPAR8 scores were reported with etoricoxib than with paracetamol (acetaminophen)/codeine. Pain relief was significantly better with etoricoxib than placebo in two studies in patients with chronic low back pain. Etoricoxib had similar efficacy to indomethacin in a study in patients with acute gout, and single-dose etoricoxib had similar efficacy to naproxen sodium in a study in women with primary dysmenorrhoea. Compared with non-COX-selective NSAIDs, etoricoxib was associated with significantly fewer upper gastrointestinal (GI) perforations, ulcers or bleeds, and was significantly less likely to result in treatment discontinuation because of NSAID-type GI symptoms or any GI symptoms.

Administration, Oral↗

PubMed2002

Spotlight on rizatriptan in migraine.

Rizatriptan is an orally active serotonin 5-HT(1) receptor agonist that potently and selectively binds to 5-HT(1B/1D) subtypes. Earlier clinical trials demonstrated that rizatriptan 5 or 10mg is more effective than placebo at providing pain relief and a pain-free state, relieving associated symptoms of migraine, normalising functional ability and improving patient quality of life, and showed that rizatriptan provides faster freedom from pain and reduces nausea to a greater extent than oral sumatriptan. More recently, rizatriptan 10mg was shown to be more effective than zolmitriptan 2.5mg or naratriptan 2.5mg at producing a pain-free state 2 hours postdose. Furthermore, compared with naratriptan, significantly more patients who received rizatriptan were pain free or had pain relief from 1 hour onwards. The number of patients with normal functional ability at 2 hours was significantly higher after rizatriptan than after naratriptan or zolmitriptan. Rizatriptan was also generally more effective than zolmitriptan or naratriptan at relieving migraine-associated symptoms. Rizatriptan is generally well tolerated, and adverse events are usually mild and transient. The most common adverse events associated with rizatriptan in recent randomised trials were asthenia/fatigue, dizziness, somnolence and nausea. There was a trend towards a lower incidence of adverse events with rizatriptan compared with zolmitriptan (31.2 vs 38.8%). However, rizatriptan was associated with a significantly higher incidence of adverse events than naratriptan (39 vs 29%). The incidence of chest pain was similar after the administration of rizatriptan, zolmitriptan or naratriptan (2-4%). In conclusion, rizatriptan is an effective drug for the acute treatment of moderate or severe migraine. Oral rizatriptan 5 and 10mg have shown greater efficacy than placebo in providing pain relief, an absence of pain, relief from associated symptoms, normal functional ability and an improvement in patient quality of life. Earlier results showed that rizatriptan provides faster freedom from pain and reduces nausea to a greater extent than oral sumatriptan. More recent studies have shown that rizatriptan 10mg provides faster pain relief and a higher percentage of patients with an absence of pain and normal functional ability at 2 hours than naratriptan 2.5mg or zolmitriptan 2.5mg. The efficacy of rizatriptan is retained when used in the long term, and the drug is generally well tolerated. Although well designed studies comparing rizatriptan with almotriptan, eletriptan and frovatriptan would further define the position of rizatriptan, current data suggest that rizatriptan should be considered as a first-line treatment option in the management of migraine.

Animals↗

PubMed2002

Spotlight on peginterferon-alpha-2a (40KD) in chronic hepatitis C.

Peginterferon-alpha-2a (40KD) is a new 'pegylated' subcutaneous formulation of interferon-alpha-2a that has been developed to improve on the pharmacokinetic profile and therapeutic efficacy of interferon-alpha-2a. Peginterferon-alpha-2a (40KD) is produced by the covalent attachment of recombinant interferon-alpha-2a to a branched mobile 40KD polyethylene glycol moiety, which shields the interferon-alpha-2a molecule from enzymatic degradation, reduces systemic clearance and enables once-weekly administration. Peginterferon-alpha-2a (40KD) was significantly more effective than interferon-alpha-2a in interferon-alpha therapy-naive adults with chronic hepatitis C in three nonblind, randomised, multicentre trials. Virological responses (intention-to-treat results) were achieved in 44 to 69% of patients with or without cirrhosis after 48 weeks of treatment with peginterferon-alpha-2a (40KD) 180 microg/week; sustained virological responses 24 weeks after the end of treatment occurred in 30 to 39% of patients. Virological responses at the end of treatment and at long-term follow-up were significantly higher than those achieved with interferon-alpha-2a. Peginterferon-alpha-2a (40KD) was significantly more effective than interferon-alpha in patients with or without cirrhosis infected with HCV genotype 1. Sustained biochemical responses achieved with peginterferon-alpha-2a (40KD) 180 microg/week ranged from 34 to 45% and were significantly higher than with interferon-alpha-2a. Recipients of peginterferon-alpha-2a (40KD) also experienced histological improvements; 24 weeks after discontinuation of treatment with peginterferon-alpha-2a (40KD) 180 microg/week, 54% to 63% of patients had a >/=2-point improvement in histological activity index score. Peginterferon-alpha-2a (40KD) produced histological responses in patients (with or without cirrhosis) with or without a sustained virological response. Peginterferon-alpha-2a (40KD) produced better results than interferon-alpha-2a alone or interferon-alpha-2b plus oral ribavirin on various measures of quality of life in patients with chronic hepatitis C. The tolerability profile of peginterferon-alpha-2a (40KD) is broadly similar to that of interferon-alpha-2a in patients with chronic hepatitis C with or without cirrhosis. Headache, fatigue and myalgia are among the most common adverse events. In conclusion, peginterferon-alpha-2a (40KD) administered once weekly produces significantly higher sustained responses, without compromising tolerability, than interferon-alpha-2a administered thrice weekly in noncirrhotic or cirrhotic patients with chronic hepatitis C, including those infected with HCV genotype 1 - a group in whom interferon-alpha treatment has usually been unsuccessful. Peginterferon-alpha-2a (40KD) is a valuable new treatment option and appears poised to play an important role in the first-line treatment of patients with chronic hepatitis C, including difficult-to-treat patients such as those with compensated cirrhosis and/or those infected with HCV genotype 1.

Antiviral Agents↗

PubMed2002

Spotlight on topical pimecrolimus in atopic dermatitis.

Pimecrolimus (SDZ ASM 981), an ascomycin derivative, is a nonsteroid, has anti-inflammatory activity, and has demonstrated efficacy in reducing symptoms of atopic dermatitis in adult and pediatric patients when applied topically. Compared with vehicle, topical pimecrolimus 1.0% cream was significantly more effective at reducing symptoms of atopic dermatitis, as measured by the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI), in infants aged 3 to 23 months, children aged 2 to 17 years, and adults. The median reductions from baseline in the total EASI score in adults after treatment with pimecrolimus 1.0% or corresponding vehicle twice daily for 3 weeks were 47 and 0%, respectively. In infants and children, treatment with pimecrolimus 1.0% twice daily for 6 weeks resulted in significant decreases in mean EASI scores compared with vehicle. The severity of pruritus was significantly reduced in patients of all age groups after topical treatment with pimecrolimus 1.0% cream. Compared with vehicle, the incidence of eczematous flares was also reduced by intermittent long-term use of topical pimecrolimus 1.0% in adults, children and infants. Sixty-one percent of children treated with pimecrolimus for 1 year completed the first 6 months of treatment without experiencing a flare, compared with 35% of patients who received vehicle. Furthermore, the use of topical corticosteroids for the treatment of uncontrolled flares in adults, children and infants was lower in the pimecrolimus groups than in the vehicle groups. Topical pimecrolimus 1.0% cream is well tolerated in atopic dermatitis patients of all age groups. There were no clinically relevant systemic adverse events reported from any of the studies in patients with atopic dermatitis. The most frequently reported adverse events pertained to application site reactions, such as burning and a feeling of warmth. In conclusion, topical pimecrolimus 1.0% cream has shown efficacy in the treatment of mild to moderate atopic dermatitis in infants, children and adults. Although tolerability data concerning infants and children have not yet been published in full, the drug appears to be well tolerated in all age groups, and there have been no reports of clinically relevant systemic adverse events. Furthermore, pimecrolimus has shown no potential for skin atrophy, a problem commonly associated with treatment with topical corticosteroids. Topical pimecrolimus 1.0% provides a promising and well tolerated treatment option in the management of infants, children and adults with mild to moderate atopic dermatitis.

Administration, Topical↗