Efficacy and safety of sibutramine for weight loss in obese patients with hypertension well controlled by beta-adrenergic blocking agents: a placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomised trial.

Sibutramine is a serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor that is effective for long-term weight reduction and maintenance in obese patients when used as an adjunct to dietary and behavioural measures. Because the inhibition of noradrenaline reuptake may be expected to increase systolic and diastolic blood pressure (SBP and DBP) and pulse rate (PR), a 12-week multi-centre, placebo-controlled, double-blind study was designed to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of sibutramine for weight loss in obese patients whose hypertension was well controlled (DBP < or = 95 mm Hg) by beta-adrenergic blocking agents (beta-blockers), with or without concomitant thiazide diuretics. Of the 61 patients randomised to sibutramine 20 mg once daily or placebo, 55 patients (90%) completed the study. After 12 weeks, sibutramine-treated patients lost significantly more weight than placebo-treated patients: mean weight reductions were 4.2 kg (4.5%) in the sibutramine group vs 0.3 kg (0.4%) in the placebo group (P<0.001). Greater weight reduction on sibutramine was accompanied by trends for greater mean reductions in serum triglycerides and very low density lipoprotein cholesterol. Sibutramine was well tolerated, and most adverse events were mild or moderate in severity. No sibutramine patient discontinued treatment because of an adverse event. Mean supine and standing DBP and SBP were not statistically significantly different between the sibutramine group and the placebo group at any post-baseline visit during the 12-week trial. At week 12, mean increases from baseline supine SBP and DBP, respectively, were 1.6 and 1.7 mm Hg for the sibutramine group vs increases of 0.4 and 1.3 mm Hg for the placebo group. At week 12, mean increases from baseline standing SBP and DBP, respectively, were 1.5 and 1.8 mm Hg for the sibutramine group vs an increase of 0.3 and a decrease of 0.8 mm Hg for the placebo group (P > 0.05 for treatment comparison). A statistically significant mean increase of 5.6 bpm (+/-8.25, s.d.) in supine PR from a baseline of 62 bpm was reported in sibutramine-treated patients at week 12, whereas placebo-treated patients had a mean supine PR decrease of 2.2 bpm (+/-6.43) (P < 0.001). In summary, sibutramine was well tolerated and effective in weight reduction. The addition of sibutramine did not result in an increase in BP in obese patients whose hypertension was well controlled by a beta-blocker. However, based on the potential for changes in BP and PR, obese patients being treated with sibutramine should be monitored periodically for changes in BP and PR and managed appropriately.

Tramadol/acetaminophen combination tablets and codeine/acetaminophen combination capsules for the management of chronic pain: a comparative trial.

BACKGROUND: Opioid/acetaminophen (APAP) combination analgesics are widely prescribed for the relief of moderate pain. Tramadol is a synthetic analgesic that has been shown to be effective both alone and in combination with APAP. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of tramadol/APAP tablets with codeine/APAP capsules. METHODS: This 4-week, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, active-control, double-dummy, multicenter trial compared tramadol/APAP (37.5 mg/325 mg) with codeine/APAP (30 mg/300 mg) for the management of chronic nonmalignant low back pain, osteoarthritis (OA) pain, or both in adults. Pain relief (scale, 0 = none to 4 = complete) and pain intensity (scale, 0 = none to 3 = severe) were measured 30 minutes and then hourly for 6 hours after the first daily dose each week. Patients and investigators assessed the efficacy (scale, 1 = poor to 5 = excellent) of each medication, and patients recorded daily doses of study and rescue medications. RESULTS: A total of 462 patients (mean age, 57.6 years) were randomly assigned to treatment, with 112 (24%) reporting chronic low back pain, 162 (35%) reporting OA pain, and 188 (41%) reporting both low back and OA pain; 309 patients (67%) received tramadol/APAP and 153 (33%) received codeine/APAP. Pain relief and changes in pain intensity were comparable from day 1, as early as 30 minutes after the first dose, and lasted for at least 6 hours. Total pain relief scores (11.9 for tramadol/APAP; 11.4 for codeine/APAP) and sum of pain intensity differences (3.8 for tramadol/APAP; 3.3 for codeine/APAP) were also comparable throughout. Overall assessments of efficacy by patients (mean score 2.9 in each treatment group) and investigators (mean score 3.0 for tramadol/APAP, 2.9 for codeine/APAP) were similar for the 2 treatment groups. Equivalent mean doses (3.5 tablets or capsules daily) and maximum daily doses (5.5 tablets or 5.7 capsules) were used in the 2 treatment groups. The overall incidence of adverse events was comparable, with a significantly higher proportion of patients in the codeine/APAP group reporting somnolence (24% [37/153] vs 17% [54/309], P = 0.05) or constipation (21% [32/153] vs 11% [35/309], P < 0.01) and a larger proportion of patients in the tramadol/APAP group reporting headache (11% [34/309] vs 7% [11/153], P = 0.08). CONCLUSION: The results of this study suggest that tramadol/APAP tablets (37.5 mg/325 mg) are as effective as codeine/ APAP capsules (30 mg/300 mg) in the treatment of chronic nonmalignant low back pain and OA pain and are better tolerated.

Evaluation of CoaguChek Pro ACT in cardiac catheterization laboratory.

The objective of this study was to assess the analytical performance of CoaguChek Pro ACT assay versus Hemochron Celite ACT assay concerning activated clotting time (ACT) values and the correlations versus heparin. Enrolled were 158 patients and 101 normal subjects from five cardiac catheterization laboratories (cathlabs). Two different CoaguChek Pro ACT lots were compared to different lots of Hemochron Celite ACT. All sites used arterial blood and one site also used venous blood. Determinations were carried out before and directly after heparinization, and 1-4 h later. Besides the ACT values, hematocrit, platelet counts and factor Xa levels were also determined. The correlations between the Hemochron Celite lots and the two different CoaguChek Pro lots for arterial and venous blood for all sites were good (r=0.88 and 0.84). The agreement between both CoaguChek Pro ACT lots was excellent (r=0.99). The correlations between heparin and CoaguChek Pro ACT were similar to those for the Hemochron Celite lots. There was no influence of the hematocrit and the platelets. The imprecision of the method was very good (CV<6%). This demonstrates that the CoaguChek Pro ACT assay is especially useful for monitoring heparin in cathlabs.

Short-term comparison of once- versus twice-daily administration of glimepiride in patients with non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the metabolic effects and frequency of adverse events with 6 mg of glimepiride, a new oral sulfonylurea, given both in once- and twice-daily dosages to patients with non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (NIDDM). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This 15-week study involved 161 subjects with NIDDM. Subjects were randomized into two groups. For 4 weeks, group 1 received glimepiride 3 mg twice daily, and group 2 received glimepiride 6 mg once daily. After a 3-week placebo-washout period, twice- and once-daily regimens were crossed over for a second 4-week treatment period. Subjects were hospitalized at the end of each placebo or active-treatment phase. Their glucose concentrations were recorded at 20 time points over a 24-hour period, and their insulin and C-peptide concentrations were recorded at 16 time points over the same period. Parameters that were calculated included fasting, 24-hour, and postprandial concentrations of glucose, insulin, and C-peptide. RESULTS: One hundred six patients were randomized to receive treatment; 94 completed the entire study. Existing physiologic mechanisms of glucose control were apparently unimpaired by glimepiride treatment. Insulin concentrations increased more during the postprandial glucose peaks than when subjects were fasting. Both twice- and once-daily regimens proved equally effective in reducing concentrations of fasting, postbreakfast, postlunch, and postdinner plasma glucose. Twenty-four-hour mean glucose concentrations showed a slightly greater decrease from baseline for the twice-daily regimen; the difference between the regimens was statistically significant but not clinically meaningful. The incidence of adverse events with glimepiride approximated that obtained with placebo, with both groups reporting only one adverse event, headache, in more than 5% of the subjects. CONCLUSIONS: Glimepiride is equally effective whether administered once or twice daily. Glimepiride seems to stimulate insulin production primarily after meals, when plasma glucose concentrations are highest, but controls blood glucose throughout the day.