Search PubMed⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 10493276

Tegaserod.

L J Scott·C M Perry
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Tegaserod is a serotonin (5-hydroxytryptamine; 5-HT) receptor partial agonist which has been investigated for the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). Specifically, it binds with high affinity to human 5-HT4 receptors, thereby stimulating the release of neurotransmitters and the peristaltic reflex in vitro. Small bowel transit (increased colonic filling over 6 hours) was accelerated in patients with constipation-predominant irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) receiving oral tegaserod 2mg twice daily for 1 week compared with those receiving placebo. In addition, there was a mean 20% increase of proximal colonic emptying in these patients. Oral tegaserod 2 (p < 0.05) or 6mg twice daily improved symptoms of abdominal discomfort, bloating and constipation (assessed using a Subjects' Global Assessment Scale) compared with placebo in patients with constipation-predominant IBS in a double-blind, dose-ranging study. The most frequent adverse events in patients with constipation-predominant IBS receiving oral tegaserod were transient diarrhoea and flatulence. No clinically relevant changes in blood pressure, pulse rate, QRS or QTc interval were reported with tegaserod doses of 25 to 100mg.

Explore related subjects

Clinical Trials as TopicColonic Diseases, FunctionalElectroencephalographyHumansIn Vitro TechniquesIndolesPlacebosSerotonin Receptor AgonistsJournal ArticleReview

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

L J Scott, C M Perry. 1999. Tegaserod.. https://doi.org/10.2165/00003495-199958030-00013

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2003

Analysis of clustered matched-pair data.

Evaluation of the performance of a new diagnostic procedure with respect to a standard procedure arises frequently in practice. The response of interest, often in a dichotomous form, is measured twice, once with each procedure. The two procedures are administered to either two matched individuals, or when practical, to the same individual. A large sample test for matched-pair data is the McNemar test. The main assumption of this test is independent paired responses; however, when more than one outcome from an individual is measured by each procedure, the data are clustered. Examples of such cases can be seen in dental and ophthalmology studies. Variance adjustment methods for the analysis of clustered matched-pair data have been proposed; however, because of unequal cluster sizes, variability of correlation structures within a cluster (within paired responses in a cluster as well as between paired responses in a cluster), and unequal success probabilities among the clusters, the performances of some available methods are not consistent. This research proposes a simple adjustment to the McNemar test for the analysis of clustered matched-pair data. Method of moments is used to calculate a consistent variance estimator. Using Monte Carlo simulation, the size and power of the proposed test are compared to those of two currently available methods. To illustrate practical application, clustered matched-pair data from two clinical studies are analysed.

Clinical Trials as Topic↗
PubMed2003

Gatekeeping strategies for clinical trials that do not require all primary effects to be significant.

In this paper we describe methods for addressing multiplicity issues arising in the analysis of clinical trials with multiple endpoints and/or multiple dose levels. Efficient 'gatekeeping strategies' for multiplicity problems of this kind are developed. One family of hypotheses (comprising the primary objectives) is treated as a 'gatekeeper', and the other family or families (comprising secondary and tertiary objectives) are tested only if one or more gatekeeper hypotheses have been rejected. We discuss methods for constructing gatekeeping testing procedures using weighted Bonferroni tests, weighted Simes tests, and weighted resampling-based tests, all within the closed testing framework. The new strategies are illustrated using an example from a clinical trial with co-primary endpoints, and using an example from a dose-finding study with multiple endpoints. Power comparisons with competing methods show the gatekeeping methods are more powerful when the primary objective of the trial must be met.

Clinical Trials as Topic↗
PubMed2003

Community consultation in HIV prevention research: a study of community advisory boards at 6 research sites.

OBJECTIVE: To better understand how community advisory boards (CABs) can be used to improve the quality of HIV prevention trials. DESIGN: Data collected included descriptive and epidemiologic reports, ethnographic observations, and face-to-face semistructured qualitative interviews with 67 CAB and research team members. Interviews were coded for themes related to community-based consultation. SETTING: The study was conducted at 6 sites of the HIV Prevention Trials Network-Los Angeles, California; Birmingham, Alabama; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Harare, Zimbabwe; Lima, Peru; and Chiang Mai, Thailand. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-six CAB members and 31 research team members, identified with the assistance of research staff at each site, were recruited for interviews across the 6 sites. RESULTS: Both "broad community" and "population-specific" models were identified as strategies for CABs to represent potential participants in HIV prevention trials. CABs viewed their role as a bridge between the research team and trial participants. CABs improved prevention clinical trials by assisting in protocol development, recruitment, and retention. In addition, CABs both identified and helped resolve ethical issues in clinical trials. CONCLUSIONS: When given time to develop, CABs appear to be a good strategy for building partnerships between researchers and communities for collaborative research projects. This approach has the potential to build sustainable capacity to identify and address ethical issues in research as well as community needs.

Clinical Trials as Topic↗