Comparison of rizatriptan 5 mg and 10 mg tablets and sumatriptan 25 mg and 50 mg tablets.

This randomized, double-blind, two-attack, placebo-controlled, crossover study explored the efficacy and tolerability of rizatriptan 10 mg compared with sumatriptan 50 mg as well as rizatriptan 5 mg compared with sumatriptan 25 mg in the acute treatment of migraine. Following randomization to one of six possible treatment sequences, patients (n = 1447) treated two sequential attacks, of moderate or severe intensity, separated by at least 5 days. Patients assessed pain severity, migraine-associated symptoms, and functional disability at 0.5, 1, 1.5, and 2 h post treatment. Compared with placebo, all treatments were effective. On the primary endpoint of time to pain relief, rizatriptan 10 mg was not statistically different from sumatriptan 50 mg [odds ratio (OR) 1.10, P = 0.161], and rizatriptan 5 mg was statistically superior to sumatriptan 25 mg (OR 1.22, P = 0.007). In general, rizatriptan 10 mg and 5 mg treatment resulted in improvement compared with the corresponding doses of sumatriptan on measures of pain severity, migraine symptoms, and functional disability and the 5-mg dose reached statistical significance on almost all measures. All treatments were generally well tolerated.

Preference comparison of rizatriptan ODT 10-mg and sumatriptan 50-mg tablet in migraine.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the proportion of patients who prefer rizatriptan orally disintegrating tablet (ODT) 10-mg to sumatriptan 50-mg tablet. BACKGROUND: Migraineurs express treatment preference based on a variety of attributes including the speed of pain relief and medication formulation. Rizatriptan ODT is an orally disintegrating formulation of rizatriptan, a selective 5-HT1B/1D receptor agonist. This study was conducted to determine patient preference between rizatriptan ODT 10-mg and sumatriptan 50-mg tablet for the acute treatment of migraine. METHODS: This was a multicenter, randomized, open-label, two-period crossover study conducted in the United States with 524 enrolled patients. Patients treated a single moderate or severe headache in each treatment period. Patients treated one migraine with either rizatriptan ODT 10-mg or sumatriptan 50-mg tablet, then treated a second migraine with the alternate therapy. Patients completed diary assessments at baseline, and 30, 45, 60, 90, and 120 minutes postdose and rated headache severity on a 4-point scale (0 = none, 1 = mild, 2 = moderate, and 3 = severe). At the final study visit following treatment of their second migraine, patients expressed preference for one of the two study medications by completing an interviewer-administered Global Preference Question and then responded to a self-administered series of questions to capture their most important reason for preferring one study medication over the other. Safety measurements were recorded through standard adverse experience reporting. RESULTS: Three hundred eighty-six patients treated two migraine attacks. For those patients who expressed a preference for either rizatriptan ODT or sumatriptan (n = 374), the percentage of patients who preferred rizatriptan ODT 10-mg (57%, n = 213) was significantly greater than those who preferred sumatriptan 50-mg tablet (43%, n = 161) (P<.01). For those patients who treated two migraine attacks and had drug severity measures for both attacks (n = 384), a significantly greater percentage of patients reported pain relief after taking rizatriptan ODT than sumatriptan at the 45- and 60-minute time points (38% versus 29% and 58% versus 49%, respectively) (P<.01). In addition, a significantly greater percentage of patients taking rizatriptan ODT reported a pain-free status at the 60- and 120-minute time points (23% versus 17% [P<.05] and 60% versus 52% [P<.01], respectively). Both rizatriptan ODT and sumatriptan were well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: A significantly greater proportion of patients preferred rizatriptan ODT 10-mg to sumatriptan 50-mg tablet for the acute treatment of migraine. Efficacy and safety data are consistent with the preference findings.

Precision and discriminatory ability of calcaneal bone assessment technologies.

To determine if measuring skeletal status at the calcaneus is a potentially valuable technique for diagnosing osteoporosis, we examined five calcaneal assessment techniques in 53 young normal women and 108 postmenopausal women with osteoporosis and compared these measurements to dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) at the calcaneus, hip, and spine. The five instruments, including single-energy X-ray absorptiometry (SEXA) and four quantitative ultrasound (QUS) instruments, were evaluated for precision, ability to discriminate osteoporotic from young normal subjects, and correlation to the other instruments. The coefficient of variation (%CV) for instrument, positioning, interobserver, and short-term precision of the five calcaneal instruments ranged from 1.34-7.76%, 1.63-7.00%, 1.84-9.44%, and 1.99-7.04%, respectively. The %CVs for positioning, interobserver, and short-term precision were similar for calcaneal DEXA, calcaneal SEXA, and stiffness (as measured by Achilles). The %CVs for instruments precision were similar between calcaneal DEXA and SEXA. The ability of the five calcaneal instruments to discriminate osteoporotic from young normal subjects was similar based on the analysis of area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (range 0.88-0.93) and equivalent to DEXA of the calcaneus and hip (0.88-0.93). The correlations between the measurements of five calcaneal instruments were strong (0.80 < or = r < or = 0.91, p < 0.001). These data suggest that although the precision is variable, the calcaneal QUS and SEXA instruments can discriminate between osteoporotic patients and young normal controls and appear to be a useful technique for assessment of osteoporosis.

The middleman minority characteristics of Korean immigrants in the United States.

"This paper examines the middleman minority characteristics of Korean immigrants in the United States. Like middleman groups in other societies, Korean immigrants in the United States are heavily concentrated in small business. A large proportion of Korean-owned businesses distribute merchandise to minority customers on behalf of large corporations. Korean merchants, like other middleman groups, maintain strong ethnic cohesion, which facilitates their commercial activities.... We conclude that Korean immigrants in the United States exhibit middleman minority characteristics."

Two double blind trials of diclofenac sodium with aspirin and with naproxen in the treatment of patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

In 2 multicenter, double blind studies, the efficacy and safety of diclofenac, 150 mg/day, were compared with those of aspirin, 3.6 g/day, in 194 patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in Study 1 and with those of naproxen, 1000 mg/day, in 223 patients with RA in Study 2. After single blind, placebo washout periods of 2 days to 2 weeks, patients entered 12-week treatment periods in each study. In both studies, diclofenac, aspirin, and naproxen produced statistically significant improvement (p less than or equal to 0.01) from baseline in all primary efficacy variables at each assessment visit. There were no significant differences between treatments. In both studies, significantly fewer (p less than or equal to 0.05) patients receiving diclofenac experienced adverse effects compared to the aspirin and naproxen groups. Significantly fewer (p less than 0.05) patients in the diclofenac group compared to the aspirin group discontinued the trial due to side effects (primarily tinnitus and deafness). In Study 2, fewer patients in the diclofenac group discontinued the trial due to adverse effects than in the naproxen group. In conclusion, diclofenac, aspirin, and naproxen demonstrated similar efficacy; however, diclofenac was significantly better tolerated than either aspirin or naproxen.

Final report on the cost of treating arthritic disease: comparison between salicylates and nonsalicylate nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.

The cost of antacids or other drugs and hospital admission for the treatment of gastrointestinal side effects must be factored into any comparison between costs of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and salicylate drugs in the treatment of arthritis. Records and interviews of 534 patients treated for arthritis, 310 treated with nonsalicylate nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and 224 treated with salicylates, were evaluated for this comparison. Costs of the basic drug, medical treatment for gastrointestinal side effects, and hospitalization for such treatment were added, averaged for 30-day per patient treatment periods, and compared. When hospital costs were excluded, costs per patient per month of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug therapy were comparable to costs of nonacetylated salicylate therapy, and both sums were more than twice the cost of therapy with an aspirin compound. When hospital costs were included, average non-acetylated salicylate costs per patient per month were far higher than those for treatment with either aspirin or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. These findings suggest the value of randomized multicenter studies to establish the cost-effectiveness nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug therapy v salicylate therapy in the treatment of arthritis.

Nalbuphine, acetaminophen, and their combination in postoperative pain.

In a double-blind study with the use of subjective reports of patients as indices of analgesia, we compared the analgesic effect of oral nalbuphine and acetaminophen and determined the contribution of each to the efficacy of their combination. In this parallel 2 X 2 factorial study, 129 inpatients after surgery were randomly assigned to treatment with a single oral dose of nalbuphine hydrochloride (30 mg), acetaminophen (650 mg), the combination of nalbuphine (30 mg) and acetaminophen (650 mg), or placebo. In the factorial analysis, both the nalbuphine and acetaminophen effects were significant for virtually every measure of total and peak analgesia, whereas the interaction contrast was not significant for any measure of analgesic effect. This indicates that the analgesic effect of the combination represents the additive effect of its constituents and is consistent with the results of studies of combinations of codeine and other opioids with aspirin or acetaminophen. There were few adverse effects other than sedation, which occurred twice as frequently in patients treated with nalbuphine as in those receiving acetaminophen or placebo. Our data suggest that this combination should prove at least as effective as any currently marketed narcotic-containing combination. Since nalbuphine has less dependence liability than narcotics and exhibits a ceiling on respiratory depression, its combination with acetaminophen should also be safer than comparable narcotic combinations.

A 12-hour evaluation of the analgesic efficacy of diflunisal, acetaminophen, and acetaminophen-codeine combination, and placebo in postoperative pain.

The analgesic efficacy of single 500 and 1,000 mg doses of diflunisal, a new nonsteroidal antiinflammatory analgesic, was compared in a double-blind study with acetaminophen 600 mg, the combination of acetaminophen 600 mg with codeine 60 mg, and placebo in 132 inpatients with postoperative pain. Using a self-rating record, patients rated their pain and its relief hourly for up to 12 hours after medication. Diflunisal 500 and 1,000 mg were significantly superior to placebo for every measure of total and peak analgesia, and a significant analgesic effect persisted for 8 hours. Acetaminophen alone and the acetaminophen-codeine combination were significantly superior to placebo for most measures of analgesia, and their effects were significant for 4 and 5 hours respectively. Differences among the active medications were not statistically significant for measures of total or peak analgesia.

A 12-Hour Evaluation of the Analgesic Efficacy of Diflunisal, Acetaminophen, an Acetaminophen-Codeine Combination, and Placebo in Postoperative Pain.

The analgesic efficacy of single 500 and 1,000 mg doses of diflunisal, a new nonsteroidal antiinflammatory analgesic, was compared in a double-blind study with acetaminophen 600 mg, the combination of acetaminophen 600 mg with codeine 60 mg, and placebo in 132 inpatients with postoperative pain. Using a self-rating record, patients rated their pain and its relief hourly for up to 12 hours after medication. Diflunisal 500 and 1,000 mg were significantly superior to placebo for every measure of total and peak analgesia, and a significant analgesic effect persisted for 8 hours. Acetaminophen alone and the acetaminophen-codeine combination were significantly superior to placebo for most measures of analgesia, and their effects were significant for 4 and 5 hours respectively. Differences among the active medications were not statistically significant for measures of total or peak analgesia.