Efficacy and Safety of Ambroxol Lozenges in the Treatment of Acute Uncomplicated Sore Throat - a Pooled Analysis.

A pooled analysis is presented of 7 placebo-controlled RCT that investigated lozenges containing ambroxol for pain relief in acute sore throat.2 242 patients were treated with different ambroxol doses or control treatments, 2 183 were evaluable for efficacy. The present analysis is focused on the recommended dose of 20 mg (AXL20): 856 patients were treated with AXL20, 847 with matched placebo lozenges (PL).The average reduction in pain intensity over the first 3 h after the first AXL20 ranged from 38% to 52% of the maximum achievable effect (MAE). The overall treatment difference between AXL20 and PL was 11% (95% CI: 8-13%) of the MAE (post-hoc meta-analysis). The corresponding NNT was 6.0 (CI: 4.7-8.4) for an average pain reduction from baseline of 33% of the MAE over the first 3 h.71.9, 79.0, and 85.3% of the AXL20-patients scored the efficacy as "very good or good" at the end of the 1(st), 2(nd) and 3(rd) day, respectively, vs. 57.5, 64.4, and 70.4% of the PL-patients resulting in odds ratios of 1.9 (CI: 1.5-2.3) for the 1(st), 2.1 (CI: 1.7-2.6) for the 2(nd) and 2.43 (CI: 1.8-3.3) for the 3(rd) day.At the end of treatment 'no redness' or 'slightly red' was scored on pharyngeal inspection in 84.4% and 77.3% of AXL20- and PL-patients (OR: 1.6, CI: 1.3-1.9).AXL20-treatment was well tolerated and is safe and efficacious for acute uncomplicated sore throat of recent onset in adolescent and adult patients.

Efficacy and Safety of an Oral Ambroxol Spray in the Treatment of Acute Uncomplicated Sore Throat.

OBJECTIVE: Compare the efficacy and tolerability of oral spray formulations delivering 2.5, 5, and 10 mg ambroxol (AXS) per application (4 actuations/application) in relieving acute sore throat vs. spraying a matched placebo solution. DESIGN: Multi-centre, placebo-controlled, randomised, double-blind trial with up to 6 daily applications of the assigned medication for up to 3 days. PATIENTS: 511 outpatients with acute sore throat were enrolled, 494 were treated. TREATMENTS: Up to 6 spray applications per day as needed for up to 3 days. RESULTS: All treatments led to a reduction in pain intensity (PI); the mean cumulative PI-reductions over the first 2 h after the 1(st) dose (SPIDnorm(0-2)) were 24.7, 26.6, 26.0, and 32.2% (SEM: 0.023) of the predose PI for treatment with placebo, and the 2.5, 5, and 10 mg AXS, respectively. These mean reductions were 2 (CI: -3.6; 7.5), 1.3 (CI: -4.3; 6.8), and 7.5 (CI: 2.0;13.1) percent points larger than for placebo. The 2.5 and 5 mg AXS were not distinguishable from placebo, but the 10 mg AXS was evidently superior. The numbers needed to treat (NNT) when comparing 10 mg AXS with placebo, were 9.5 and 8.8 for an average pain relief of 33 and 50% of the maximum achievable effect over the first 2 h. CONCLUSIONS: 10 mg AXS showed a statistically significantly superior pain reduction relative to the placebo spray. Treatment with 10 mg AXS reaches an extent of pain relief that can be accepted to be clinically meaningful and was well tolerated.

A multi-centre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial on the efficacy and tolerability of GeloMyrtol® forte in acute bronchitis.

UNLABELLED: GeloMyrtol® forte (Myrtol®) is a phytomedicine obtained by distillation from essential oils. The trial was conducted to confirm the efficacy of Myrtol® in the treatment of acute bronchitis. METHODS: Patients with acute bronchitis and without confounding co-morbidity or co-medication were randomly assigned to treatment with either Myrtol® 300 mg 4 times daily or matched placebo in double-blind, parallel-group fashion. Signs and symptoms were evaluated by the investigator at baseline and after 7, 10 and 14 days of treatment; intake of medication, wellbeing and symptoms were recorded daily by the patient in the patients' diaries. FINDINGS: 413 patients were enrolled and randomised (Myrtol®: 202; Placebo: 211); 398 had at least one on-treatment efficacy evaluation (Myrtol®: 196; Placebo: 202). The mean change in coughing fits from D01 (baseline) to D07-D09 (after about one week treatment) was 62.1% (95% CI: 57.6-66.6%) and 49.8% (95% CI: 44.6-55.0%) for treatment with Myrtol® and placebo, respectively (p<0.0001). With Myrtol®, the median time to 50% reduction in coughing fits was statistically significantly shorter and there were more patients without day-time coughing fits; there also were statistically significantly less day-time coughing fits, less difficulty coughing up, less sleep disturbance due to night-time coughing; with Myrtol® there was less symptomatic impairment (composite bronchitis severity score and subscores) and significant more patients had a clinically satisfying response to the investigational treatment.Both treatments were generally well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Myrtol® is statistically significantly superior to placebo in treating acute bronchitis.

Bioequivalence of a novel minitablet formulation of levetiracetam.

To investigate whether rapidly dissolving levetiracetam minitablets are bioequivalent to a single tablet of the same strength. 2 bioequivalence studies were carried out investigating the 1 000 mg and 1 500 mg strength of such novel medicinal products relative to single-unit film-coated originator tablets for reference. In each study, 16 young healthy subjects (8 males, 8 females) were investigated according to a 2,2,2-cross-over design with 1 week between periods for washout purposes. Each time, the plasma pharmacokinetics were profiled for 36 h after dosing.There were no relevant differences between the formulations with regard to tmax, apparent terminal half-life and the mean residence time. For the 1 000 mg strength, the estimated ratios of the true treatment means for test to reference were 1.008 (90% CI: 0.897-1.133), 1.010 (90% CI: 0.964-1.057), and 1.012 (90% CI: 0.965-1.062) for Cmax, AUC(0-tz), and AUC(0-∞), respectively; for the 1 500 mg strength, the respective ratio estimates were 0.960 (90% CI: 0.892-1.034), 1.005 (90% CI: 0.971-1.040), and 1.006 (90% CI: 0.970-1.042).Rapidly dissolving levetiracetam minitablets are bioequivalent with the originator single-unit reference tablets. Such alternative medicinal products make it easier and more convenient to individualise treatment of patients with epilepsy eligible to treatment with levetiracetam, particularly at higher doses when single-unit tablets, by being very large are difficult to swallow.

Nanotechnologic biosensor ellipsometry and biomarker pattern analysis in the evaluation of atherosclerotic risk profile.

A proteoheparan sulfate coated, hydrophobic silica surface serves as lipoprotein receptor at which the Ca(2+)-driven arteriosclerotic nanoplaque formation can be pursued by laser-based ellipsometry. Any lipoprotein from human blood can be very sensitively tested for its atherogenic properties. From the same blood sample, it is possible to determine the concentration and activity of a series of interacting biomarker molecules which, through a pattern analysis, allow to assess the state of health with respect to cardiovascular diseases. These two interlinked and complementary biosensors make a prospective cardio-cerebro-vascular risk stratification feasible, especially the sequelae of an underlying arteriosclerotic disease. Based on these diagnostic tools, an optimized therapy decision for the patient can be taken and the necessary preventive measures for the still healthy person.

Influence of a continuous prednisolone medication on the time course of neuromuscular block of atracurium in patients with chronic inflammatory bowel disease.

BACKGROUND: Corticosteroids interact with neuromuscular blocking agents. However, experimental data are contradictory: enhancement and attenuation of the neuromuscular block has been observed. This study tested the influence of long-term medication with prednisolone on atracurium-induced neuromuscular block. METHODS: Sixty patients with chronic inflammatory bowel disease undergoing elective abdominal surgery were investigated. Thirty patients received a long-term medication with prednisolone (Group A) and 30 were without corticoid medication (Group B). Additionally, another 30 patients without inflammatory bowel disease and without corticoid medication served as control (Group C). The following parameters of an atracurium-induced neuromuscular block (0.25 mg kg(-1)) were measured: onset time, maximum block, recovery to 25% first twitch height, recovery index (time from 25% until 75% recovery of first twitch), duration to recovery to a train-of-four (TOF) rate of 0.7 and 0.9. RESULTS: The groups did not differ with regard to onset time, maximum block, and recovery index. The duration to 25% twitch height was significantly lower in Group A [18.1 (0-30.7) min] compared with Group B [23.5 (0-36.7) min; P<0.05]. Duration to a TOF rate of 0.7 and 0.9, respectively, were significantly reduced in Group A [36.1 (7.9) and 40.9 (9.0 min)] compared with Group B [47.9 (7.6) and 53.4 (9.2) min; P<0.001]. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term medication with prednisolone resulted in a shorter duration of an atracurium-induced neuromuscular block in patients with Crohn's disease or ulcerative colitis. The presence of the inflammatory bowel disease did not influence the time course of the neuromuscular block.

Documentation and evaluation of adverse drug reactions (ADR)--contribution from a poison information center.

The Department of Clinical Pharmacology in Jena is a pharmacovigilance center in a study on intensified spontaneous adverse drug reaction reporting. Physicians specialized in clinical pharmacology screen admissions to the Department of Internal Medicine for possible adverse drug reactions. Because of the collaboration between the Pharmacology Department and the nearby Poison Information Center (PIC) in Erfurt the question occurred whether the latter might contribute to adverse drug reaction monitoring. We compared the ADR registered by the intensified spontaneous reporting system in 1999 with those of the PIC during the same period. Each symptom observed was regarded as 1 case. Every suspected drug was also treated separately. The symptoms were classified using adverse reaction terminology. The drugs were classified according to the WHO Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) classification index. The causality assessment was based upon bibliographic data and the method of Bégaud et al. [1985]. Only possible, probable or very probable ADR were compared. The PIC registered mainly psychiatric and nervous system disorders sedation and extrapyramidal disorders were the most frequent reactions - unlike the pharmacovigilance study which registered primarily gastrointestinal and heart rate disorders. The PIC registered mainly drugs used in the therapy of disorders of the central nervous system, i.e. mostly psycholeptics and drugs acting on the alimentary tract, mostly anticholinergics. Drugs for the therapy of sensory organs disorders were frequent owing to the systemic and local adverse drug effects of anticholinergic mydriatics. The PIC and pharmacovigilance centers can benefit from co-operation. The PIC provides easy access to qualified drug information and is thus a useful tool in ADR evaluation. Although the number of adverse reactions assessed was small, their evaluation revealed problems in drug usage which would not otherwise be reported. The evaluation has enlarged the pool of ADR data which is the basis for signal detection.

Erythromycin increases plasma concentrations of alpha-dihydroergocryptine in humans.

OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to investigate the potential for relevant pharmacotherapeutic interaction between cytochrome P4503A4 (CYP3A4)-inhibiting agents such as erythromycin and the dopamine agonist alpha-dihydroergocryptine (DHEC). METHODS: The study was carried out as a single-center, controlled, nonblinded, 2-way crossover clinical trial with randomly allocated period-balanced sequences, investigating two treatments of a single oral dose of 10 mg DHEC (on the morning of day 1), once administered alone (reference), once along with a 4-day treatment (days -2 to 1) of 500 mg erythromycin 3 times daily. Periods were separated by a washout of at least 14 days. Nine healthy white male volunteers, 22 to 42 years old, with a body weight range of 58 to 90 kg (body mass index, 20.2-25.1 kg x m(-2)) began the study. One subject discontinued prematurely, and 8 concluded the study in accordance with the study protocol. RESULTS: The plasma and urinary pharmacokinetics of DHEC and its metabolites were characterized by a large variability. Concomitant treatment with erythromycin led to respective increases of 9.5 (95% confidence interval [CI], 6.5 to 13.9) and 16.5 (95% CI, 8.7 to 31.5) times the maximum observed plasma drug concentration and the area under the time course of the plasma concentrations up to the last quantifiable concentration after dosing of unchanged DHEC (determined by radioimmunoassay). The 24-hour urinary excretion was on average 11 times larger (95% CI, 5.9 to 20.7). Qualitatively similar findings were recorded for the total of DHEC plus metabolites (as determined by enzyme immunoassay). CONCLUSIONS: The concomitant use of erythromycin or similarly CYP3A4-inhibiting agents along with direct dopaminergic agonists such as the ergoline DHEC may cause a clinically relevant increase in pharmacokinetic exposure, which may induce exaggerated dopaminergic effects.

Influence of the dopamine agonist alpha-dihydroergocryptine on the pharmacokinetics of levodopa in patients with Parkinson's disease.

This study investigated whether chronic coadministration of alpha-dihydroergocryptine (DHEC) altered the plasma pharmacokinetics of individualized treatments with levodopa in 12 patients with Parkinson's disease. Steady-state pharmacokinetics of plasma levodopa (L-Dopa) under combined treatment were compared with those under treatment with L-Dopa alone. There was no evidence of increased exposure to L-Dopa caused by concomitant treatment with DHEC. In contrast, additional treatment with DHEC reduced the overall exposure to L-Dopa (17.5% reduction in area under the curve; 95% CI: 23%-6%). This effect was small but statistically significant for the area under the plasma concentration-time curve, whereas tmax (time of maximum plasma concentration) and peak-to-trough fluctuation were not affected. Cmax (maximum plasma concentration), on average, was reduced to a similar extent (-14.5%; 95% CI: 38% to -17%), albeit not significantly. The magnitude of the interaction does not suggest changing the current clinical practice of up-titrating DHEC and subsequently adapting L-Dopa to the individual needs of patients.

Systemic bioavailability of nasally applied chlorphenamine maleate (0.4% nasal spray) relative to tablets administered perorally.

AIM: This study investigated the bioavailability of single doses of 1.12 and 2.24 mg chlorphenamine maleate applied intranasally (0.4% nasal spray) relative to a single peroral dose of 8 mg chlorphenamine maleate (tablets). METHODS: Twenty-four (24) subjects were treated with single nasal doses of 1.12 mg and 2.24 mg chlorphenamine maleate (0.4% nasal spray) and two 4 mg chlorphenamine maleate tablets (Piriton) on 3 separate study days according to a 3-way cross-over design with a 7-day wash-out between periods. Blood was sampled before and at 0.25, 0.50, 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, 6.0, 8.0, 12, 16 and 24 hours after drug administration. Additional blood samples were obtained 36, 48 and 72 hours after peroral administration only. All subjects were included in the pharmacokinetic analysis. RESULTS: Nasally applied chlorphenamine maleate was readily absorbed, reaching peak plasma levels after 0.25 to 3.0 hours. The dose-normalized estimated mean Cmax values were 1.24, 1.43 and 1.21 ng/ml for the peroral tablet and the 1.12 mg and 2.24 mg nasal dose, respectively. The dose-normalized estimated mean AUC(0-infinity) values were 25.91, 26.44 and 25.56 ng x h/ml for the tablet and the 1.12 and 2.24 mg nasal dose, respectively. The estimated treatment ratios (nasal dose to tablet) of the dose-normalized values for the 1.12 mg nasal dose were 1.15 (900 CI: 1.0-1.32) and 1.02 (90% CI: 0.88-1.18) for Cmax and AUC(0-infinity), respectively, for the 2.24 mg nasal dose they were 0.98 (90% CI: 0.85-1.13) and 0.99 (90% CI: 0.85-1.13) for Cmax and AUC(0-infinity), respectively. The other pharmacokinetic characteristics (tmax, t(1/2), lambda(z), AUC(0-tf), MRTtot, CL/f and Vz/f) were comparable across all treatments. These data indicate that the disposition of chlorphenamine maleate was independent of the route and dose of administration. CONCLUSIONS: Chlorphenamine maleate is readily absorbed after nasal application using a 0.4% nasal spray. The nasal administration showed that the systemic bioavailability at the two dose levels used was comparable to that for the tablet. Maximum concentrations on the low dose, however, were higher and those on the high dose were comparable to those for the tablet. The nasal application of chlorphenamine maleate does not alter the overall systemic exposure compared to the oral route.

Plasma and urine pharmacokinetics of the dopamine agonist alpha-dihydroergocryptine in patients with hepatic dysfunction.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the pharmacokinetic behavior of unchanged alpha-dihydroergocryptine (DHEC, Almirid, Desitin Arzneimittel GmbH, Hamburg, Germany, under licence of Polichem S.A., Luxembourg) and total DHEC (unchanged DHEC and pooled metabolites) in plasma and urine in patients with impaired hepatic function, following administration of single oral doses. METHODS: The study was carried out according to an open, uncontrolled, parallel-group design, investigating two study groups: patients with hepatic dysfunction, i.e. with evidence of stable cirrhosis (n = 10) and age- and sex-matched healthy subjects (n = 8). Each subject received a single dose of 20 mg DHEC. Blood samples were taken at specified intervals up to 72 h after dosing and urine was collected fractionally for 24 h. Concentrations of unchanged DHEC were determined by RIA and concentrations of total DHEC (unchanged and pooled metabolites) by EIA. RESULTS: The plasma and urinary pharmacokinetics of DHEC and its metabolites were characterized by large variability. In patients with impaired hepatic function, the geometric mean Cmax and AUC(0-infinity) values for unchanged DHEC were 571.3 pg/ml (CV: 0.87) and 4038 pg x h/ml (CV: 1.04) and were approximately 2 times (2.04, 95% CI: 0.93 to 4.46 and 2.11, 95% CI: 0.58 to 7.73 for Cmax and AUC(0-infinity), respectively) larger than those measured in age-matched healthy controls. The 24-hour urinary excretion was approximately 3 times (3.41, 95% CI: 0.95 to 12.21) higher in patients with hepatic dysfunction. Similar results were obtained for total DHEC. CONCLUSIONS: The results reflect an increased systemic exposure in patients with impaired hepatic function which is not due to a reduced urinary excretion/elimination or reduced renal clearance. The most likely mechanism involved is a reduction in pre-systemic biotransformation. The observed range of effects on the pharmacokinetics of DHEC in patients with compromized hepatic function does not suggest the need to revise the dosage recommendations, since treatment with DHEC is generally started with low doses and is slowly up-titrated according to the individual response and the occurrence of adverse effects. Nevertheless, lower maintenance doses are likely to be achieved.

Alpha1-blocker therapy for lower urinary tract symptoms suggestive of benign prostatic obstruction: what are the relevant differences in randomised controlled trials?

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) provide the best available external evidence for the use of alpha1-blockers in treating lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) suggestive of benign prostatic obstruction (BPO). Placebo-controlled and actively-controlled RCTs evidenced the efficacy of alpha1-blockers in augmenting urine flow, relieving symptoms, reducing bother and improving quality of life in patients with LUTS. This improvement involves both filling (irritative) and voiding (obstructive) symptoms, occurs promptly and is well-maintained over time. Treatment benefit is independent of prostate size and baseline prostate specific antigen (PSA). There is no evidence of relevant differences between the different alpha1-blockers in this regard and all alpha1-blockers can be accepted as appropriately efficacious at the presently recommended doses. The best available external evidence for relevant differential properties of alpha1-blockers relates to their clinical selectivity in terms of the absence/presence of ancillary cardiovascular, i.e. anti-hypertensive effects. Anti-hypertensive alpha1-blockers (terazosin and doxazosin in particular) are more likely to cause dizziness and other cardiovascular untoward effects, eventually leading to premature treatment discontinuation. Alfuzosin (although primarily developed as an anti-hypertensive agent) and tamsulosin in contrast, are better tolerated; the former nevertheless carries a more distinct risk of symptomatic impairment of blood pressure control. Although indirect comparisons between different studies suggest a higher risk of retrograde ejaculation with tamsulosin, this hypothesis failed to be confirmed in direct comparative RCTs.

Efficacy and tolerability of myrtol standardized in acute bronchitis. A multi-centre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled parallel group clinical trial vs. cefuroxime and ambroxol.

UNLABELLED: Myrtol standardized (Gelomyrtol forte) is a phytotherapeutic extract (distillate) consisting mainly of three monoterpenes: (+)alpha-pinene, d-limonene and 1,8-cineole. OBJECTIVE: This study describes and compares the efficacy, safety and tolerability of a 2-week treatment with myrtol stand. (4 x 300 mg, day 1-14), cefuroxime (CAS 55268-75-2) (2 x 250 mg daily for day 1-6), ambroxol (CAS 18683-91-5) (3 x 30 mg for day 1-3, 2 x 30 mg for days 4-14) and matched placebo in acute bronchitis. PATIENTS: 676 male and female outpatients, aged > or = 18 years, with acute bronchitis of recent onset (within last 5 days), with an FEV1 > 75% of the normal EGKS-value and without evidence or suspicion of chronic pulmonary disease or any further confounding illness were included in the study. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomly assigned to a 2-week treatment course with either myrtol stand. (N = 170), cefuroxime (N = 171), ambroxol (N = 163) or placebo (N = 172) in a double-blind, placebo-matched, parallel-group fashion. Evaluations were at baseline (visit 1), after 1 and 2 weeks of treatment (visits 2 and 3) and at 2 weeks after conclusion of the treatments (visit 4). CRITERIA: Responder- and non-responder rates (primary), signs (abnormal auscultation), symptoms (daily diary data on nightly cough, coughing fits during the day, sputum consistence and general well-being; visit data on bronchial hyperreactivity and absence/presence of associated symptoms), FEV1, overall efficacy, absence of relapse, safety and tolerability (adverse events, laboratory screens, vital signs and physical examination). Criteria were evaluated for the intention-to-treat data-set (ITT) and the 'efficacy evaluable' sample (EAP), i.e. excluding patients with missing values (incl. discontinued non-responders and drop-outs for other reasons) at the time of assessment. RESULTS: The signs and symptoms of acute bronchitis regressed readily in all treatment groups, but regression was slower and less complete in the patients treated with placebo. In patients treated with placebo, the acute bronchitis was considered to have deteriorated to such an extent that discontinuation was indicated ('non-responder') in 36 patients (ITT: 20.9%, 95% CI: 15.1 to 27.8% and EAP: 21.3%, CI: 15.4 to 28.3%) after 1 week (visit 2) and in 19 further patients (ITT: 11.0%, CI: 6.8 to 16.7%; EAP: 14.8%, CI: 9.2 to 22.2%) after 1 further week (visit 3). In contrast, in the group of patients treated with myrtol stand. the non-responder rates at visits 2 and 3 were only 5.3% (ITT, CI: 2.4 to 9.8%; EAP: 5.4%, CI: 2.5 to 10.0%) and 1.2% (ITT, CI: 0.1 to 4.2%; EAP: 1.3%, CI: 0.2 to 4.7%); the responder rates at visit 2 were statistically significantly higher (p < 0.001) for myrtol stand. (ITT: 92.9%, CI: 88.0 to 96.3) compared to placebo (ITT: 77.3%, CI: 70.3 to 83.4), and similar to those for cefuroxime (ITT: 92.4%, CI: 87.4 to 95.9) and ambroxol (ITT: 89.6%, CI: 83.8 to 93.8%). The superiority of the active treatments vs. placebo with little difference among the treatments was confirmed for all further criteria of evaluation. There was no evidence of bronchoconstriction or relapse in any treatment group for the patients continuing treatment (i.e. for those who were not discontinued because of non-response). The treatments were safe and comparably well tolerated. CONCLUSION: Compared to placebo, treatment with myrtol stand. was well tolerated but evidently superior in terms of efficacy, resulting in a more rapid and more complete recovery; although well comparable with the other active treatments, myrtol stand. tended to be superior to cefuroxime and ambroxol for several ancillary criteria. Myrtol stand. is a well-evidenced alternative to antibiotics for acute bronchitis without specified infective agent, without the risk to promote the development of bacterial resistance.

Study on the interaction of the dopamine agonist alpha-dihydroergocryptine with the pharmacokinetics of digoxin.

AIM: The study was carried out to explore the potential for pharmacokinetic interaction of a single oral dose of alpha-dihydroergocryptine (CAS 14271-05-7, DHEC, Almirid) with digoxin. METHODS: The serum pharmacokinetics of digoxin were analysed after the administration of single oral doses of 0.5 mg digoxin administered either alone or concomitantly with 20 mg DHEC according to a randomised, non-blinded, two-period cross-over design, with study periods 2 weeks apart. Twelve healthy male subjects, 23 to 39 years of age were enrolled and were investigated in accordance with the protocol. Venous blood was sampled up to 48 h after dosing. Concentrations of digoxin in serum were determined by a competitive radioimmunoassay. RESULTS: The mean Cmax were 1.97 +/- 0.87 (after a median tmax of 1 h) and 2.05 +/- 0.95 ng/ml (after a median tmax of 0.83 h) after the administration of digoxin with (test) and without (reference) concomitant DHEC, respectively; the corresponding estimated treatment ratio for test: reference was 0.939, 95% CI: 0.781 to 1.129. The mean AUC(0-48) were 13.6 +/- 5.0 ng.h/ml and 13.3 +/- 4.7 ng.h/ml for the test and reference treatment, respectively; the corresponding estimated treatment ratio for test: reference was 1.011, 95% CI: 0.866 to 1.142. In addition, no clinically significant changes were observed by ECG monitoring. The tolerability of digoxin alone was good, significantly more adverse events occurred when co-administered with DHEC; these corresponded with the known adverse reaction profile and were of moderate intensity. No premature study termination was thus necessary. CONCLUSION: The present study did not demonstrate clinically relevant interaction of a single dose of DHEC on the pharmacokinetics of digoxin. On the basis of these observations there is no indication for an a priori adjustment of the dose of digoxin when concomitant treatment with DHEC is initiated.

Respimat (a new soft mist inhaler) delivering fenoterol plus ipratropium bromide provides equivalent bronchodilation at half the cumulative dose compared with a conventional metered dose inhaler in asthmatic patients.

BACKGROUND: Respimat, a possible alternative to the conventional metered dose inhaler (MDI), is a novel, reusable, propellant-free, multidose soft mist inhaler. Respimat slowly releases a metered dose of active substance as a soft mist with a high proportion of the dose in the fine particle fraction, leading to improved lung deposition following inhalation when compared with the conventional MDI. OBJECTIVES AND METHODS: The equipotent bronchodilating efficacy and safety of a combination of fenoterol hydrobromide and ipratropium bromide (F/I) in cumulative doses delivered by either Respimat or pressurised MDI was assessed in a randomised, controlled, double-blind (within device) 4-way crossover study. Forty-three patients with stable asthma (mean FEV(1) 62% predicted) responsive to F/I inhaled cumulatively 16 puffs on each of 4 test days (1 + 1 + 2 + 4 + 8 puffs at 50-min intervals) via Respimat delivering 50/20, 25/20 or 25/10 microg F/I per puff or via MDI delivering 50/20 microg F/I per puff. RESULTS: Cumulative doses of 400/160 and 400/320 microg F/I via Respimat produced bronchodilation (evaluated by average increase in FEV(1) 45-245 min after first inhalation) equivalent to that achieved with a cumulative 800/320 microg F/I via MDI (mean increase in FEV(1) above baseline 0.76, 0.73 and 0.71 litres, respectively). The tolerability of the F/I combination via Respimat was also comparable to that of twice the dose delivered via MDI. CONCLUSION: Therefore, a fenoterol hydrobromide/ipratropium bromide combination delivered by Respimat is as safe and effective as the MDI at half the cumulative dose, on acute administration to patients with asthma.

[Sense and nonsense in post-authorization surveillance]. / Sinn und Unsinn von Anwendungsbeobachtungen.

Post-authorization surveillance studies analyze the intended use of medications in accordance with their authorized labeling. They are characterized by the principle of non-intervention, i.e. they do not take influence on the decision whether or how to treat and to survey treatment in the individual patient. These aspects define the difference between surveillance studies and phase-IV clinical trials. In consequence, surveillance studies--in contrast to phase-IV trials--are not subject to the regulations of sections 40, 41 of the German Drug Law and national and international Recommendations on Good Clinical Practice (GCP). In essence, they are pharmaco-epidemiological investigations that make use of personified patient data. Within the context of the European regulatory policies they are part of the overall pharmacovigilance effort. In Germany, surveillance studies may have an additional regulatory impact. Indeed, they may be accepted as a relevant extension to the documentation on both safety and efficacy and in some cases even as an alternative to the tedious experimental investigation thereof, provided they meet newly defined quality criteria (that are discussed here more extensively). Although not developed to this purpose and although these recommendations are mainly formal with some relevant shortcomings in defining content quality, they are an important source of reference for the individual physician to guide his decision about the value and acceptability of any surveillance study, including those not primarily intended to be used in a regulatory context.

Efficacy of orally administered extract of red vine leaf AS 195 (folia vitis viniferae) in chronic venous insufficiency (stages I-II). A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

UNLABELLED: Red vine leaf extract (RVLE) is a herbal medicine containing several flavonoids, with quercetin-3-O-beta-glucuronide and isoquercitrin (quercetin-3-O-beta-glycoside) as the main components. OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and safety of once-daily doses of 360 and 720 mg RVLE (pharmaceutical extract code AS 195; Antistax Venenkapseln) compared to placebo in patients with stage I and incipient stage II chronic venous insufficiency (CVI). DESIGN: A 12-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, multi-center study. PATIENTS: Male and female outpatients aged 25 to 75 years with stage I to stage II CVI (i.e. without extensive trophic changes), not having any other significant medical conditions and not treated with compression stockings, diuretics or other drugs affecting fluid balance. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomly assigned to a double-blind treatment with placebo, 360 mg AS 195 or 720 mg AS 195 once daily for 12 weeks, preceded and followed by a single-blind 2-week placebo treatment for baseline run-in and end-of-trial washout, respectively. Study criteria were evaluated at baseline, after 6 and 12 weeks of treatment and 2 weeks after discontinuation of treatment. RESULTS: Of the 260 patients enrolled and randomized, 219 completed the study in accordance with the protocol. In the intention-to-treat analysis (N = 257), the mean (+/- SD) lower leg volume (measured by water displacement plethysmography) of the patients treated with placebo (N = 87) increased by 15.2 +/- 90.1 g (displaced water mass) and by 33.7 +/- 96.1 g after 6 and 12 weeks compared to baseline. In contrast, for patients treated with AS 195, lower leg volume decreased, and after 12 weeks of treatment, the difference in mean lower leg volume between the active treatment groups and the placebo group was -75.9 g (95% CI: -106.1 to -45.8 g) and -99.9 g (95% CI: -130.3 to -69.6 g) for the group treated with 360-mg AS 195 (N = 86) and 720-mg AS 195 (N = 84), respectively. The changes in calf circumference showed a similar pattern: in patients treated with AS 195, both the higher dose (720 mg) and, albeit to a lesser extent, the lower dose (360 mg) resulted in a clear reduction in circumference over time, whereas, circumference remained largely unchanged in patients treated with the placebo (95% CI of the estimated treatment effects vs. placebo after 12 weeks: -1.40 to -0.56 cm and -1.73 to -0.88 cm for 360 and 720 mg AS 195, respectively). These differences were statistically significant (p < 0.001). The reductions in ankle circumference were qualitatively similar but quantitatively less marked. Subjectively, there was an improvement in key CVI symptoms (VAS) at 6 weeks with all treatments, but a further improvement at week 12 was seen only in the active treatment groups; at 12 weeks, the changes compared to baseline were significantly greater (p < 0.001) in both active treatment groups than in the placebo group. The treatments were well tolerated; Adverse events were rare and usually mild. Two adverse events (AEs) during treatment with the placebo led to hospitalization and were hence labeled as 'serious'. Three further patients were withdrawn because of AEs which occurred during treatment with the placebo. CONCLUSION: Once-daily doses of 360 and 720 mg AS 195 were confirmed to be safe and effective in the treatment of mild CVI, reducing significantly lower leg edema and circumference whilst improving key CVI-related symptoms to a clinically relevant extent. The edema reduction is at least equivalent to that reported for compression stockings and/or other edema-reducing agents. The higher dose was as well tolerated as the lower dose but resulted in a slightly greater and more sustained improvement.

alpha(1)-blockers for BPH: are there differences?

alpha(1)-blockers are well established for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) suggestive of benign prostatic obstruction (BPO), previously referred to as benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). The various available alpha(1)-blockers do not differ in terms of their clinical efficacy, but there are several indications that alpha(1)-blockers differ qualitatively with regard to their cardiovascular safety and tolerability, albeit the quantification of these differences is subject to several constraints and pitfalls. Clinical selectivity, i.e. the capacity of separating between desired urological and undesired (actually redundant) cardiovascular alpha(1)-blockade is not unlikely to relate to pharmacological selectivity (the relative preference to block the alpha(1A)- and alpha(1D)-adrenoceptor subtypes in vitro, whilst hardly blocking alpha(1B)-adrenoceptors). On the other hand, both clinical and pharmacological selectivity are not unequivocally reflected by experiments on so-called functional selectivity (in vivo experiments that differentiate urological and cardiovascular effects). Generally, alpha(1)-blockers that are efficacious in hypertension (doxazosin, terazosin, alfuzosin) are more likely to impair safety-relevant, physiological blood pressure control in normotensives with LUTS than tamsulosin, which does not reduce elevated blood pressure in comparison with placebo and has little effect on orthostatic blood pressure control. However, clinical selectivity and cardiovascular safety are also defined by the treatment regimen (dose, dosage interval, formulation, step-up dose-increments for treatment initiation, etc.) and by relevant patient-treatment interactions (co-morbidity and co-medication in particular). On the basis of the available information, tamsulosin administered once daily at a dose of 0.4 mg after breakfast (without step-up increments) can be accepted as a highly convenient and efficacious way to treat LUTS with a low cardiovascular safety risk, i.e. with a high level of clinically selectivity. Copyrightz1999S. KargerAG,Basel