Bioequivalence of cyclobenzaprine hydrochloride extended-release capsule taken intact or sprinkled over applesauce
.

OBJECTIVE: Difficulty swallowing pills can compromise pain control in painful musculoskeletal disorders. This open-label, 2-period crossover study assessed pharmacokinetics and safety of cyclobenzaprine extended-release (CER) 30-mg capsule contents sprinkled over applesauce compared with intact capsules in healthy subjects. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 32 subjects were randomized to treatment sequences AB or BA (A = single CER intact capsule; B = single CER capsule contents sprinkled over applesauce (15 mL)). Treatments were separated by a ≥ 14-day washout. Pharmacokinetic assessments included maximum observed plasma drug concentration (Cmax), time to Cmax (tmax), time to first quantifiable plasma drug concentration (tlag), and area under the plasma drug concentration-vs.-time curve from time 0 to the last measurable drug concentration (AUC0-t) and extrapolated to infinity (AUC0-∞). Bioequivalence was established if the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) of the geometric least squares (LS) means ratios of B:A of Cmax, AUC0-t, and AUC0-∞ were 80 - 125%. Safety was also assessed. RESULTS: Mean plasma drug concentration-vs.-time profiles were similar for CER intact and sprinkled over applesauce. The 90% CIs of LS means ratios indicated bioequivalence: Cmax 91.96 - 100.76%, AUC0-t 96.18 - 103.50%, and AUC0-∞ 95.70 - 103.07%. Median tmax was not significantly different (p > 0.05), and median tlag was the same (1 hour). All adverse effects were mild and resolved during the study. No clinically meaningful changes were noted for clinical laboratory values. CONCLUSION: CER capsules intact and sprinkled over applesauce are bioequivalent. Sprinkling CER capsule contents is not expected to affect efficacy or safety and can, therefore, be an option for patients with musculoskeletal pain and difficulty swallowing capsules.
.

Improving asthma management: the case for mandatory inclusion of dose counters on all rescue bronchodilators.

BACKGROUND: Asthma remains a serious global health challenge. Poor control of asthma symptoms is due in part to incorrect use of oral inhaler devices that deliver asthma medications, such as poor inhalation technique or use of a metered dose inhaler (MDI) after the recommended number of doses is expelled. OBJECTIVE: To review published research on the potential for patients to overestimate or underestimate the amount of asthma rescue medication in MDIs without integrated dose-counting mechanisms. METHODS: We searched PubMed and EMBASE using search terms "dose counter and asthma" and "dose counter and metered dose inhaler" for English language publications up to July, 2012, with a manual search of references from relevant articles. RESULTS: Up to 40% of patients believe they are taking their asthma medication when they actually are activating an empty or nearly empty MDI. Device design makes it impossible for an MDI to cease delivering drug doses at an exact point, and the number of actuations in an MDI may be twice the nominal number of recommended medication doses. Once the recommended number of medication doses is expelled, remaining actuations deliver decreasing concentrations of active medication and increasing concentrations of propellants and excipients. This phenomenon, called "tail-off," is particularly problematic when medications are formulated as suspensions, as are rescue medications to control acute bronchospasm. Reliable inhalation of rescue medication could reduce asthma-related morbidity. CONCLUSION: By helping to ensure that patients receive accurate metered doses of asthma rescue medication to relieve bronchoconstriction, dose counters may help to improve asthma management.

Rasagiline: time to onset of antiparkinson effect is similar when used as a monotherapy or adjunct treatment.

OBJECTIVE: Rasagiline, a monoamine oxidase type B inhibitor, is indicated for both the initial treatment of Parkinson disease (PD) and as adjunctive (add-on) treatment for patients already taking dopaminergic therapy. This open-label prospective community-based clinical trial was designed to determine the time-to-onset and the magnitude of the beneficial effects of rasagiline in PD patients. METHODS: Patients received rasagiline of 1.0 mg once daily as monotherapy or 0.5 mg once daily as adjunct therapy (adjunct therapy dose could be increased to 1 mg/d if clinically indicated) for 12 weeks. Dietary restrictions and recommendations regarding concurrent antidepressant treatment consistent with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations were in keeping with typical usage. Effectiveness was measured as change from baseline in bradykinesia scores and physicians' and patients' global impression. Patients were prospectively monitored for treatment emergent dopaminergic side effects, tyramine reactions, and possible interactions with commonly used antidepressants. RESULTS: Objective and subjective measures of symptom severity improved at 1 week in 272 PD patients treated with once-daily rasagiline (n=123 monotherapy, n=149 adjunct therapy). The magnitude of beneficial effect was similar in monotherapy and adjunct therapy patients. No significant dopaminergic side effects, tyramine reactions, or interactions with antidepressants were observed in the 12-week trial. CONCLUSIONS: Rasagiline has a measurable beneficial effect on PD symptoms within 1 week of treatment. Rasagiline has a similar magnitude of benefit in monotherapy and adjunct therapy patients. Adverse interactions between antidepressants and rasagiline were not observed in patients in this trial. The usual use of rasagiline in community neurology practice, consistent with the FDA labeling, seems safe and effective.

Examination of the UPDRS bradykinesia subscale: equivalence, reliability and validity.

Administering items or subscales separately from the measure for which they were designed to be a part may have unintended consequences for research and practice in Parkinson's disease (PD). The current study tested the equivalence of the bradykinesia subscale when administered alone versus as a component of the full 14-item Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) motor examination, as well as examined the reliability and validity of the bradykinesia subscale. The study sample consisted of 112 patients with PD. Patients were randomly assigned to either the bradykinesia subscale alone group (n = 56), who were administered the bradykinesia subscale separately from the rest of the UPDRS motor examination, or the full scale group (n = 56), who were administered the UPDRS motor examination in its standard format. The two one-sided t-test (TOST) procedure was used to test for mean equivalency between the two administration groups. Additionally, reliability and validity analyses were performed. The bradykinesia subscale mean scores from the full scale group and the subscale alone group were not statistically equivalent. However, in both groups, the bradykinesia subscale had exceptional reliability and was strongly and similarly related to age, activities of daily living, disability, and other assessments of motor symptom severity. The bradykinesia subscale is a valid and reliable assessment when administered separately from the rest of the UPDRS motor examination; however, caution should be taken when comparing mean scores across studies or occasions when different administrations are used.