Topical Esmolol Hydrochloride as a Novel Treatment Modality for Diabetic Foot Ulcers: A Phase 3 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Preclinical and phase 1/2 studies with esmolol hydrochloride suggest its potential role in treatment of diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs). Objective: To study the efficacy of topical esmolol for healing of uninfected DFUs. Design, Setting, and Participants: A randomized, double-blind, multicenter, phase 3 clinical trial was conducted from December 26, 2018, to August 19, 2020, at 27 referral centers across India. Participants included adults with DFUs. Interventions: Participants were randomized after a run-in phase (1 week) to receive esmolol, 14%, gel with standard of care (SoC), SoC only, or vehicle with SoC (3:3:1 proportion) for 12 weeks (treatment phase) and followed up subsequently until week 24. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the proportion of wound closure within the 12-week treatment phase in the esmolol with SoC and SoC only groups. Analysis was conducted using an intention-to-treat safety evaluable population, full analysis set or efficacy-evaluable population, and per-protocol population comparing the esmolol plus SoC and SoC only treatment groups. Results: In the study, 176 participants (122 men [69.3%]; mean [SD] age, 56.4 [9.0] years; mean [SD] hemoglobin A1c level, 8.6% [1.6%]) with DFUs classified as University of Texas Diabetic Wound Classification system grade IA and IC (mean [SD] ulcer area, 4.7 [2.9] cm2) were randomized to the 3 groups. A total of 140 participants were analyzed for efficacy. The proportion of participants in the esmolol with SoC group who achieved target ulcer closure within 12 weeks was 41 of 68 (60.3%) compared with 30 of 72 (41.7%) participants in the SoC only group (odds ratio [OR], 2.13; 95% CI, 1.08-4.17; P = .03). A total of 120 participants completed the end of study visit which were analyzed. Target ulcer closure by the end of the study (week 24) was achieved in 44 of 57 (77.2%) participants in the esmolol with SoC group and 35 of 63 (55.6%) participants in the SoC only group (OR, 2.71; 95% CI, 1.22-5.99; P = .01). The median time for ulcer closure was 85 days for the esmolol with SoC group and was not estimable for SoC only group. Significant benefits of Esmolol with SoC were seen in patients with factors that impede the healing of DFU. Treatment-emergent adverse events were noted in 18.8% of the participants, but most (87.3%) of these events were not attributable to the study drug. Conclusions and Relevance: In this multicenter, randomized, double-blind clinical trial, the addition of esmolol to SoC was shown to significantly improve the healing of DFUs. With these results, topical esmolol may be an appropriate addition to SoC for treating DFUs. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03998436; Clinical Trial Registry, India CRI Number: CTRI/2018/11/016295.

An evaluation of trigger tool method for adverse drug reaction monitoring at a tertiary care teaching hospital.

OBJECTIVE: Trigger tool method (TTM) is an active surveillance method for adverse drug reaction (ADR) monitoring. The study aimed to evaluate TTM for ADR monitoring in indoor patients of the surgery department. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective, observational study was conducted at the Department of Surgery of a Tertiary Care Teaching Hospital in Gujarat. Patients of either gender and more than 18 years of age admitted to two selected surgery units were enrolled with prior informed consent. Preliminary trigger tool list (PTTL) comprising 13 drug triggers (DTs), 13 patient triggers (PTs), 9 laboratory triggers (LTs), and 12 surgical module triggers (STs) were used. Patients were followed up till discharge to monitor the occurrence of triggers and adverse events. RESULTS: A total of 400 patients were included (male: female ratio of 2.3:1; mean age: 43.07 ± 16.4 years; and mean length of hospital stay: 5.75 ± 3.12 days). Of 400 patients, triggers were present in 359 patients (89.75%) and no trigger was observed in 41 patients (10.25%). Of the 47 triggers in PTTL, 24 triggers were observed 1155 times, of these 14 triggers lead to the detection of 49 ADRs in 43 patients. The rate of adverse drug events was 12.25/100 patients. DT was the most common trigger identified (81.64%). Positive predictive values (PPV) for PTs, STs, DTs, LTs were 26.88%, 23.07%, 10.3%, and 5.55%, respectively. The comprehensive PPV of PTTL was 11.97%. Modified trigger tool list consists of 14 triggers. CONCLUSION: TTM is an effective method of ADR monitoring in the surgery department. An awareness of TT helps better detection of ADRs.