Gatifloxacin 400 mg as a single shot or 200 mg once daily for 3 days is as effective as ciprofloxacin 250 mg twice daily for the treatment of patients with uncomplicated urinary tract infections.

The efficacy and safety of two oral dosing regimens of gatifloxacin compared with ciprofloxacin for the treatment of acute uncomplicated lower urinary tract infection was investigated in a double-blind, randomised study, in adult female patients who received either gatifloxacin (400 mg as a single shot or 3 days of 200 mg once daily) or ciprofloxacin (250 mg given twice daily for 3 days). Bacteriological and clinical responses were assessed 7-9 days after the end of treatment (EOT), and 4-6 weeks post-treatment (end of study, EOS). One thousand one hundred and two women were treated, 741 (248 in the gatifloxacin 400 mg group, 252 in the gatifloxacin 200 mg group, and 241 in the ciprofloxacin group) presented with bacteriological proof of infection and entered the efficacy analysis. The bacteriological response per patient at EOT in the three groups were 80% (177/220) [95% CI to ciprofloxacin -8.4%; 6.4%], 83% (184/222) [95% CI to ciprofloxacin -5.9%; 8.7%] and 81% (176/216), respectively. At the follow-up assessment they were slightly lower, 75% (167/224), 79% (169/213) and 79% (171/217), respectively. The clinical responses at EOT were 81% (197/243) [95% CI to ciprofloxacin -10.2%; 3.4%], 85% (213/250) [95% CI to ciprofloxacin -5.7%; 7.2%] and 85% (201/238), respectively. At EOS they were 82% (195/239), 88% (212/241) and 86% (200/233), respectively. The eradication rates for all initial pathogens at the EOT were 90.3% in the gatifloxacin 400 mg S.D. group, 90.6% in the gatifloxacin 200 mg group, and 88.3% in the ciprofloxacin group. All treatment groups showed a similar safety profile. The incidence of treatment-related adverse events was comparable, the majority of adverse events were of mild or moderate intensity and the medications were well tolerated. Both the administration of gatifloxacin 200 mg once daily for 3 days, and gatifloxacin 400 mg as a single shot were shown to be equivalent to ciprofloxacin 250 mg twice daily for 3 days for the treatment of acute uncomplicated lower urinary tract infections.

Comparison of the efficacy and tolerability of topically administered azelastine, sodium cromoglycate and placebo in the treatment of seasonal allergic conjunctivitis and rhino-conjunctivitis.

OBJECTIVE AND SETTING: Azelastine (AZE) in a novel, eye drop, formulation, was compared with topically applied sodium cromoglycate (SCG) and placebo (PLA) in the treatment of seasonal allergic conjunctivitis or rhino-conjunctivitis in a multicentre, parallel group study. RESEARCH DESIGN: 144 subjects ranging in age from 16 to 65 years participated. All had at least a 2-year history of seasonal allergic conjunctivitis and were symptomatic at the time of inclusion. Medications were administered topically either twice daily (AZE/PLA) or four times daily (SCG) over a 2-week treatment period. Method and outcome measures: Azelastine and placebo were compared double-blind; the comparison versus SCG was carried out in an open manner. Itching, redness, flow of tears, eyelid swelling, foreign-body sensation, photophobia, soreness and discharge were scored on a 4-point severity scale. RESULTS: Results for the decrease of main conjunctivitis symptoms (itching, tearing and conjunctival redness) showed a marked effect for both active treatments on day 3 with a sustained improvement on days 7 and 14. A clear response to treatment (an improvement of sum scores for day 3 of >/=3 points compared to baseline) occurred in 85.4% of azelastine-treated patients, 83.0% of sodium cromoglycate patients and 56.3% of placebo patients. Response rates for both active treatments were statistically superior to those for placebo (azelastine p = 0.005; sodium cromoglycate p = 0.007). Global assessment of efficacy was at least 'satisfactory' for 90.0% of azelastine patients, 81.3% of sodium cromoglycate patients and 66.3% of placebo-treated patients. The most frequent adverse effects were transient application site reactions which tended to disappear with increasing duration of treatment, and, less frequently, taste perversion. CONCLUSION: The results of this study indicate that the therapeutic use of azelastine eye drops in patients with seasonal allergic conjunctivitis or rhino-conjunctivitis can be recommended.

A randomised, double-blind, double-dummy comparison of the efficacy and tolerability of lercanidipine tablets and losartan tablets in patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension.

A double-blind, double-dummy, randomised, multicentre study to compare the efficacy and tolerability of lercanidipine with losartan. Patients with mild to moderate hypertension (supine diastolic blood pressure (DBP) 95-115 mm Hg) were enrolled and underwent a placebo run-in period of 14-30 days before random allocation to lercanidipine tablets 10 mg once-daily (n = 234) or losartan tablets 50 mg once-daily (n = 231) during the assessment period (approximately 16 weeks). Titration to lercanidipine 20 mg once-daily (two 10 mg tablets) or losartan 100 mg once-daily (two 50 mg tablets) was allowed after 8 weeks, if necessary. At the end of the study, 71% of patients who received lercanidipine tablets had achieved normalised DBP (ie, < or =90 mm Hg) and 81% had responded to treatment (ie, DBP < or =90 mm Hg or a decrease in DBP > or =10 mm Hg). The corresponding numbers in the losartan tablets group were 65% and 78%, respectively. In those patients who required dose titration, there was evidence of a greater response with lercanidipine tablets than with losartan tablets. Both treatments were well tolerated with a low incidence of adverse drug reactions and a low withdrawal rate. In conclusion, the antihypertensive effects of lercanidipine tablets were comparable with those of losartan tablets; both treatments gave a high response rate for an antihypertensive monotherapy and were very well tolerated.