Effects of once-daily tadalafil on treatment satisfaction, psychosocial outcomes, spontaneous erections, and measures of endothelial function in men with erectile dysfunction but naive to phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors.

Previous studies established the efficacy of once-daily tadalafil for men with erectile dysfunction. However, no trial has focused on the effects of such treatment on men without previous experience using oral phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors. Patients were randomized (2:1) to once-daily tadalafil 5 mg (with possible down-titration to 2.5 mg; n = 146) or placebo (n = 69) for 12 weeks. Among 215 patients (mean age, 52 years), once-daily tadalafil treatment resulted in 61.7% of study participants reporting their ability to achieve and maintain erections as being much better or very much better (vs 21.7% on placebo; P < .001). Tadalafil significantly improved treatment satisfaction on the Erectile Dysfunction Inventory of Treatment Satisfaction (P < .001 vs placebo at end point) and psychosocial outcomes on the Self-Esteem and Relationship (SEAR) questionnaire (least squares mean difference in SEAR total score change from baseline, 11.8 [95% confidence interval, 5.4%-18.2%; P < .001 vs placebo]). Patients receiving once-daily tadalafil also experienced a higher proportion of daily self-reported spontaneous morning erections at end point (58.7%) compared with placebo (42.2%; P < .001 for the between-treatment difference in changes from baseline). However, no significant differences in parameters of endothelial dysfunction (including biomarkers and peripheral arterial tonometric measures) or nocturnal erections as recorded by the nocturnal electrobioimpedance volumetric assessment were observed between treatment groups. Tadalafil was well tolerated; adverse events included back pain, headache, and dyspepsia. These findings may contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of once-daily tadalafil's effects on phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor-naive men.

Exenatide twice daily versus glimepiride for prevention of glycaemic deterioration in patients with type 2 diabetes with metformin failure (EUREXA): an open-label, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Glycaemic control deteriorates progressively over time in patients with type 2 diabetes. Options for treatment escalation remain controversial after failure of first-line treatment with metformin. We compared add-on exenatide with glimepiride for durability of glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled by metformin alone. METHODS: We did an open-label, randomised controlled trial at 128 centres in 14 countries between Sept 5, 2006, and March 29, 2011. Patients aged 18-85 years with type 2 diabetes inadequately treated by metformin were randomly assigned via a computer-generated randomisation sequence to receive exenatide twice daily or glimepiride once daily as add-on to metformin. Randomisation was stratified by predetermined categories of glycated haemoglobin (HbA(1C)) concentration. The primary outcome was time to inadequate glycaemic control and need for alternative treatment, defined as an HbA(1c) concentration of more than 9% after the first 3 months of treatment, or more than 7% at two consecutive visits after the first 6 months. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with EudraCT, number 2005-005448-21, and ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00359762. FINDINGS: We randomly assigned 515 patients to the exenatide group and 514 to the glimepiride group, of whom 490 versus 487 were the intention-to-treat population. 203 (41%) patients had treatment failure in the exenatide group compared with 262 (54%) in the glimepiride group (risk difference 12·4 [95% CI 6·2-18·6], hazard ratio 0·748 [0·623-0·899]; p=0·002). 218 (44%) of 490 patients in the exenatide group, and 150 (31%) of 487 in the glimepiride group achieved an HbA(1c) concentration of less than 7% (p<0·0001), and 140 (29%) versus 87 (18%) achieved concentrations of 6·5% and less (p=0·0001). We noted a significantly greater decrease in bodyweight in patients given exenatide than in those given glimepiride (p<0·0001). Five patients in each treatment group died from causes unrelated to treatment. Significantly fewer patients in the exenatide group than in the glimepiride group reported documented symptomatic (p<0·0001), nocturnal (p=0·007), and non-nocturnal (p<0·0001) hypoglycaemia. Discontinuation because of adverse events (mainly gastrointestinal) was significantly higher (p=0·0005) in the exenatide group than in the glimepiride group in the first 6 months of treatment, but not thereafter. INTERPRETATION: These findings provide evidence for the benefits of exenatide versus glimepiride for control of glycaemic deterioration in patients with type-2 diabetes inadequately controlled by metformin alone. FUNDING: Eli Lilly and Company; Amylin Pharmaceuticals.

A randomized phase II trial of sequential gemcitabine plus vinorelbine followed by gemcitabine plus ifosfamide versus gemcitabine plus cisplatin in the treatment of chemo-naive patients with stages III and IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

BACKGROUND: Third-generation platinum-based combinations are established as first-line treatment for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Non-platinum regimens could be an alternative if they show similar efficacy with better tolerability. This randomized phase II trial compared the objective tumor response rate (ORR) of sequential gemcitabine plus vinorelbine followed by gemcitabine plus ifosfamide versus gemcitabine plus cisplatin. Secondary objectives included time to disease progression (TTP), overall survival and toxicity. METHODS: Chemo-naive patients with stages III and IV NSCLC and Karnofsky performance status >70 were assigned to receive either (a) gemcitabine 1000mg/m(2) plus vinorelbine 25mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 for 2 cycles, followed by gemcitabine 1000mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 plus ifosfamide 2000mg/m(2) on day 1 (GV-GI arm) for 2 cycles or (b) gemcitabine 1250mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 with cisplatin 70mg/m(2) on day 1 (GC arm) for 4 cycles. RESULTS: Between July 2001 and January 2003, 102 patients were enrolled (50 on the GV-GI arm and 52 on the GC arm). Patient characteristics were balanced between arms (GV-GI arm: median age 59 years, 84% male, 22 stage IIIB, 24 stage IV, 4 stage IIIA; GC arm: median age 56 years, 87% male, 27 stage IIIB, 23 stage IV, 2 stage IIIA). Of the 101 patients evaluable for response, ORR was significantly higher on the GC arm than on the GV-GI arm (25% versus 6%, respectively; p=0.007). No complete responses occurred. TTP was longer on the GC arm than on the GV-GI arm (median 135 and 79 days, respectively), although this difference was not statistically significant (p=0.065). Survival was not significantly different between the arms (median 293 and 197 days, respectively; p=0.16). Although significantly more thrombocytopenia was reported on the GC arm (22% and 4%, respectively; p=0.02), it did not lead to more transfusions (15 transfusions in 5 patients versus 14 transfusions in 6 patients, respectively). There was no significant difference in other safety parameters between treatment arms. CONCLUSIONS: GC appears to produce better response in advanced NSCLC than GV-GI, with a trend towards longer TTP. Except for more thrombocytopenia with GC, similar toxicity profiles were observed.

The effect of raloxifene after discontinuation of long-term alendronate treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare bone mineral density (BMD) and biochemical markers of bone turnover in patients receiving long-term alendronate therapy who continued alendronate, were switched to raloxifene, or discontinued antiresorptive therapy. DESIGN, PATIENTS, AND INTERVENTIONS: Ninety-nine ambulatory women who were diagnosed with postmenopausal osteoporosis and treated with alendronate (10 mg/d) for a mean period of 43 months were randomized to double-blind raloxifene (60 mg/d; n = 33), placebo (n = 33), or continuation of open-label alendronate (n = 33) for 12 months. Patients continued their assigned treatment in a subsequent 12-month, open-label extension phase. All patients received supplemental calcium (500 mg/d) and vitamin D (800 IU/d). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: BMD (lumbar spine, total femur, femoral neck, distal forearm, and total body) and biochemical markers (serum intact amino-terminal propeptide of type I procollagen, type 1 collagen cross-linked C-telopeptide, and osteocalcin) were measured at baseline and follow-up visits. RESULTS: Discontinuation of alendronate therapy resulted in a decrease in lumbar spine BMD at 12 months (-2.66%; P < 0.05), but did not change total femur BMD (+0.35%; nonsignificant). Raloxifene and alendronate, compared with discontinuation, prevented lumbar spine BMD loss (-0.75% and -0.54% at 12 months, respectively; P < 0.05). Raloxifene and alendronate caused a similar increase in total femur BMD at 12 months (1.45% and 1.56%; both P < 0.05 vs. baseline; nonsignificant vs. discontinuation). Patients, who discontinued alendronate therapy experienced an increase in bone turnover. Bone turnover increases were less pronounced in patients taking raloxifene and were absent in those who continued alendronate. Of the three groups, mean bone turnover in raloxifene patients was the closest to premenopausal mean values. CONCLUSIONS: BMD preservation and increase were most pronounced in patients continuing alendronate. Raloxifene treatment, compared with placebo, demonstrated beneficial effects on BMD and bone turnover after discontinuation of long-term alendronate therapy.

Antipsychotic treatment and sexual functioning in first-time neuroleptic-treated schizophrenic patients.

The present study examined sexual functioning among first-time treated schizophrenia patients at the time that they initiated antipsychotic treatment, and again 3 and 6 months later. These first-time treated patients comprise a subgroup of 570 schizophrenia patients who were part of a cohort of 7,655 patients enrolled in the Intercontinental Schizophrenia Outpatient-Health Outcomes observational study (IC-SOHO). As part of a brief clinical assessment conducted at entry to the study, and after 3 and 6 months of antipsychotic medication, patients were asked to rate their sexual functioning, and the investigator was asked to rate the extent to which the patient had neuroleptic-related loss of libido and sexual dysfunction. After being treated, patients treated with olanzapine showed the lowest prevalence of neuroleptic-induced sexual difficulties. At 3 months, there were significant differences between the treatment groups on neuroleptic-related loss of libido, neuroleptic-related sexual dysfunction and change in patient-rated sexual dysfunction. At 6 months, the difference between the groups on neuroleptic-related loss of libido was statistically significant. There were no significant differences between males and females. Many recent onset patients appear to suffer from problems of sexual functioning. Olanzapine may offer an advantage in this area.

Efficacy and treatment satisfaction with on-demand tadalafil (Cialis) in men with erectile dysfunction.

OBJECTIVE: Tadalafil (Cialis) is an inhibitor of phosphodiesterase type 5, which mediates relaxation of vascular smooth muscle in the corpus cavernosum thus facilitating erection. The purpose of this multicentre, randomized, double-blind, parallel group, placebo-controlled study was to evaluate efficacy and treatment satisfaction of on-demand Cialis in men with mild-to-severe erectile dysfunction (ED). METHODS: Following a 4-week treatment-free run in period, patients stratified into three severity groups by the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) Erectile Function (EF) domain score were randomized to receive either placebo or Cialis 20 mg taken on demand over a 12-week period. Efficacy endpoints were change from baseline in IIEF EF domain scores, responses to Sexual Encounter Profile diary (SEP) questions, and responses to the Global Assessment Questions (GAQ). Treatment satisfaction was evaluated using the Erectile Dysfunction Inventory of Treatment Satisfaction (EDITS) questionnaire in two of seven participating countries where validated translations were available. RESULTS: Of the 443 men who entered the trial, 409 (mean age, 52 years) formed the intent-to-treat population. Mean baseline demographics and ED severity measures were balanced between treatment groups except for a higher percentage of patients naïve to sildenafil in the tadalafil group compared to placebo (50% versus 36%). The percentage of patients in each IIEF EF severity class (mild, moderate and severe) was 47%, 30% and 23% for placebo patients and 48%, 29% and 23% for tadalafil patients, respectively. Tadalafil was significantly superior to placebo on all primary efficacy measures (IIEF EF domain scores, SEP15, GAQ1; p < 0.001); notably 64% of tadalafil patients achieved a normal IIEF EF domain score at endpoint compared to 16% of placebo patients (p < 0.001). Of the 185 patients completing the EDITS questionnaire (137 receiving Cialis and 48 receiving placebo), tadalafil-treated patients had a median EDITS score of 84 (95%CI 80, 86), which was significantly higher than the median score for placebo-treated patients of 41 (95%CI 32, 59; p < 0.001; Wilcoxon test). The proportion of patients satisfied with treatment (defined as final EDITS score greater than 50) was 87% for the tadalafil-treated group and 46% for the placebo-treated group (p < 0.001; exact test). Adverse events were significantly more common with tadalafil than placebo (p < 0.01) and included primarily headache (7.2% versus 1.9%) and flushing (4.6% versus 0%). One patient discontinued tadalafil treatment due to back pain. CONCLUSION: In men with mild-to-severe ED, tadalafil 20 mg significantly improves erectile function, demonstrates superior treatment satisfaction relative to placebo, and is well tolerated. This is the first study to yield efficacy data on tadalafil in an Eastern European population of men with erectile dysfunction, and the first to measure satisfaction with the EDITS questionnaire in any study population of men with this condition using tadalafil.

Survival advantage associated with heterozygous factor V Leiden mutation in patients with severe sepsis and in mouse endotoxemia.

Sepsis is associated with systemic inflammation, coagulopathy, and disrupted protein C (PC) pathway function. The effect of prothrombotic polymorphism, factor V Leiden (Arg506Gln; FV Leiden), was examined in a large clinical trial (PROWESS) of severe sepsis and a mouse endotoxemia model. In PROWESS, 4.1% (n = 65) of patients were heterozygous FV Leiden (VL+/-) carriers. The 28-day mortality was lower in VL+/- (13.9%) than in non-FV Leiden (VL-/-; 27.9%) patients (P =.013). The mortality benefit of recombinant human activated PC (rhAPC) treatment was similar in VL+/- (placebo, 15.6%; rhAPC,12.1%) and VL-/- patients (placebo, 31.0%; rhAPC, 24.7%; interaction P =.981). VL+/- status did not appear to influence baseline biomarkers of coagulopathy and inflammation or disease severity, with the exception that vasopressor usage was less in VL+/- patients (46.2% versus 63.0%; P =.009). In a median lethal dose (40 mg/kg) endotoxin mouse model, VL+/- mice had lower mortality than wild-type mice (19% versus 57%; P =.008), whereas the mortality of homozygous (VL+/+) mice was almost identical to that of wild-type mice (65% versus 57%; P =.76). The findings suggest that FV Leiden constitutes a rare example of a balanced gene polymorphism that maintains the FV Leiden mutation in the general gene pool due to a survival advantage of VL+/- in severe sepsis.

Drotrecogin alfa (activated) in the treatment of severe sepsis patients with multiple-organ dysfunction: data from the PROWESS trial.

OBJECTIVE: Based on the results of the PROWESS trial the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products has recently approved drotrecogin alfa (activated) for treatment of adult patients with severe sepsis and multiple-organ failure. We report study's data on efficacy and safety in patients with multiple-organ dysfunction. DESIGN AND SETTING: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial in 164 medical centers. PATIENTS: 1271 patients (75.2% of the intention-to-treat population, n=1690) with multiple-organ dysfunction at study entry. INTERVENTIONS: Drotrecogin alfa (activated) n=634, 24 micro g/kg per hour for 96 h or placebo ( n=637). RESULTS: Observed 28-day mortality was significantly lower with drug treatment than with placebo (26.5%vs. 33.9%), cardiovascular and respiratory organ dysfunction resolved more rapidly over the first 7 days, and serious bleeding events were more frequent (2.4% vs. 1.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with drotrecogin alfa (activated) significantly reduced 28-day mortality and more quickly resolved cardiovascular and respiratory organ dysfunction. The difference in serious bleeding event rates may be clinically significant; however, the overall benefit-risk profile appears favorable.

Effects of drotrecogin alfa (activated) on organ dysfunction in the PROWESS trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess morbidity in patients with severe sepsis managed with and without drotrecogin alfa (activated). DESIGN: Analysis of secondary end points in a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter, phase 3 trial (PROWESS). SETTING: A total of 164 medical institutions in 11 countries. PATIENTS: A total of 1,690 consecutive adult patients with severe sepsis. INTERVENTIONS: A 96-hr infusion of drotrecogin alfa (activated) (human recombinant activated protein C) or placebo. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores for cardiovascular, respiratory, renal, hematologic, and hepatic organ systems were measured for 28 days. Mean cardiovascular SOFA scores were significantly lower for patients treated with drotrecogin alfa (activated) compared with placebo patients over this time period (p = .022). Drotrecogin alfa (activated)-treated patients also showed significantly faster resolution of cardiovascular (p = .009) and respiratory (p = .009) dysfunction and significantly slower onset of hematologic organ dysfunction (p = .041) compared with placebo patients for days 1 to 7. No significant differences in morbidity were observed between treatment groups among 28-day survivors. CONCLUSION: Drotrecogin alfa (activated) demonstrated significant improvements in organ function compared with placebo in a large phase 3 clinical trial that has shown a mortality benefit in patients with severe sepsis.

Cost-effectiveness of drotrecogin alfa (activated) in the treatment of severe sepsis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of drotrecogin alfa (activated) therapy, which was recently shown to reduce mortality in severe sepsis. DESIGN: Estimates of effectiveness and resource use were based on data collected prospectively as part of a multicenter international trial. Estimates of hospital costs were based on a subset of the patients treated in the United States (33% of all enrolled patients). Lifetime projections were modeled from published sources and tested in sensitivity analyses. Analyses were conducted from the United States societal perspective, limited to healthcare costs, and using a 3% annual discount rate. SETTING: A total of 164 medical institutions in 11 countries. PATIENTS: Adults > or = 18 yrs of age with severe sepsis INTERVENTIONS: Eligible patients were randomly assigned to receive a 96-hr intravenous infusion of drotrecogin alfa (activated) at 24 microg/kg/hr (n = 850) or placebo (n = 840). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Base Case: incremental short-term (days 1-28) healthcare costs per day-28 survivor; Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine Reference Case: incremental lifetime healthcare costs per quality-adjusted life-year. Over the first 28 days (short-term Base Case), drotrecogin alfa (activated) increased the costs of care by $9,800 and survival by 0.061 lives saved per treated patient. Thus, drotrecogin alfa (activated) cost $160,000 per life saved (with 84.7% probability that ratio is <$250,000 per life saved). Projected to lifetime (lifetime Reference Case), drotrecogin alfa (activated) increased the costs of care by $16,000 and quality-adjusted survival by 0.33 quality-adjusted life-years per treated patient. Thus, drotrecogin alfa (activated) cost $48,800 per quality-adjusted life-year (with 82% probability that ratio is <$100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year). Estimates were generally robust to sensitivity analyses, although cost-effectiveness deteriorated to >$100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year if survivors lived <4.6 yrs on average. Drotrecogin alfa (activated) cost $27,400 per quality-adjusted life-year when limited to patients with an Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score > or = 25 and was cost-ineffective when limited to patients with a score <25. CONCLUSIONS: Drotrecogin alfa has a cost-effectiveness profile similar to that of many well-accepted healthcare strategies and below commonly quoted thresholds.

The Comparative Peripheral Anticholinergic-Like Adverse Event Profiles of Olanzapine and Risperidone.

OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis that reported in vitro muscarinic receptor affinity differences between olanzapine and risperidone would be reflected in peripheral solicited anticholinergic adverse event frequencies. METHOD: Data from a double-blind, randomized trial of olanzapine versus risperidone in 339 patients (age range, 18-65 years) with DSM-IV schizophrenia spectrum acute psychosis were retrospectively analyzed. Subgroups based on the median of the mean daily drug dose were constructed (olanzapine 17 mg; risperidone 6 mg). Mean daily dose of adjunctive anticholinergic medication was compared using ANOVA, and frequencies of treatment-emergent solicited adverse events defined by the Association de Méthodologie et de Documentation en Psychiatrie (AMDP-5) were analyzed using categorical methods. RESULTS: Mean daily anticholinergic dose was significantly higher overall for the risperidone group (0.68 +/- 1.27 mg) than for the olanzapine group (0.27 +/- 0.76 mg) (p =.002). When only patients who did not receive anticholinergic adjunct therapy were considered, no significant differences in the frequency of specific anticholinergic adverse events occurred in olanzapine-treated patients as compared with risperidone-treated patients (p >/=.245). There was also no significant difference between olanzapine and risperidone in the frequency of any anticholinergic adverse event (p =.458). CONCLUSION: At clinically effective doses, olanzapine and risperidone did not differ significantly in frequency of peripheral anticholinergic events. These results support the view that, for olanzapine and risperidone, in vitro anticholinergic receptor binding (K(i) values) may not predict in vivo peripheral events.