A randomized, comparative, multicentric clinical trial to assess the efficacy and safety of zileuton extended-release tablets with montelukast sodium tablets in patients suffering from chronic persistent asthma.

Leukotriene (LT) modifiers are anti-inflammatory drugs that are useful as an add-on therapy with first-line asthma-controller medications. This group includes LT synthesis inhibitors (eg, Zileuton) and receptor antagonists (eg, Montelukast), whose direct comparative clinical data are not available. This study was conducted to assess the comparative efficacy and safety of orally administered Zileuton extended-release (ER) with Montelukast sodium in patients suffering from chronic persistent asthma. Patients of 18-65 years of age with mild to moderate chronic stable asthma were randomized to treatment with Zileuton ER 2400 mg/d or Montelukast 10 mg/d for 12 weeks. Peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR) and asthma symptoms (cough, wheeze, chest tightness, and shortness of breath each on a 4-point scale) were assessed on monthly scheduled out-patient visits. Safety assessments by clinical and laboratory parameters were carried out during the course of the study. Among 210 patients eligible for efficacy assessment, PEFR improved by 64.8 ± 52.8 (95% confidence interval: 54.8-74.7) L/min with Zileuton ER (n = 109) and 40.6 ± 47.5 (31.3-49.9) L/min with Montelukast (n = 101; P < 0.001), whereas percent improvements were 27.0% (22.6%-31.5%) versus 18.4% (14.1%-22.7%), respectively (P = 0.006). Zileuton ER lead to ≥12% PEFR improvements in 74 of 109 [67.9% (59.1%-76.7%)] patients, whereas the same was noted in 52 of 101 [51.5% (41.7%-61.2%)] patients receiving Montelukast (P = 0.015). The reduction in the mean overall symptom intensity score was also significantly better with Zileuton ER [-5.0 ± 2.1 (4.6-5.4) versus -4.2 ± 2.3 (3.8-4.7)] (P = 0.018); however, the same was not observed for the decline in the individual symptom scores. A lesser but not significantly different adverse event rate was reported in the Zileuton ER group than the Montelukast group with the commonest events being headache and gastrointestinal effects in both the groups. Thus, Zileuton ER seems to be more efficacious than Montelukast and well tolerated for the treatment of mild to moderate chronic persistent asthma in adult patient population. Further studies can elucidate the comparative treatment benefits of these LT modifiers in asthma management.

Efficacy and safety of a nano-emulsion gel formulation of adapalene 0.1% and clindamycin 1% combination in acne vulgaris: a randomized, open label, active-controlled, multicentric, phase IV clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Acne vulgaris is a very common skin disease with a significant detrimental effect on the quality of life of the patients. AIMS: To assess the comparative efficacy and safety of a nano-emulsion gel formulation of adapalene and clindamycin combination with its conventional formulation in the treatment of acne vulgaris of the face. It was a prospective, randomized, open label, active-controlled, multicentric, clinical trial. METHODS: Eligible patients suffering from acne vulgaris of the face were randomized to receive once-daily treatment with a nano-emulsion gel or conventional gel formulation of adapalene 0.1% and clindamycin (as phosphate) 1% combination for 12 weeks. Total, inflammatory and noninflammatory lesion counts, with grading of acne severity were carried out on a monthly basis. Safety assessments were done to determine the comparative local and systemic tolerability. Two-tailed significance testing was carried out with appropriate statistical tests, and P-values < 0.05 were considered as significant. RESULTS: 209/212 patients enrolled in the study were eligible for efficacy and safety assessments in both nano-emulsion gel (118/119 patients) and conventional gel (91/93 patients) groups. Significantly better reductions in total (79.7% vs. 62.7%), inflammatory (88.7% vs. 71.4%) and noninflammatory (74.9% vs. 58.4%) lesions were reported with the nano-emulsion gel as compared to the conventional gel (P < 0.001 for all). Mean acne severity score also reduced significantly more with the nano-emulsion formulation (1.9 ± 0.9 vs. 1.4 ± 1.0; P < 0.001) than the comparator. Significantly lower incidence and lesser intensity of adverse events like local irritation (4.2% vs. 19.8%; P < 0.05) and erythema (0.8% vs. 9.9%; P < 0.05) were recorded with the nano-emulsion gel. CONCLUSIONS: The nano-emulsion gel formulation of adapalene and clindamycin combination appears to be more efficacious and better tolerated than the conventional formulation for the treatment of acne vulgaris in Indian patients. Further studies can elucidate the comparative treatment benefits of this nano-emulsion gel formulation.

An open label, active controlled, multicentric clinical trial to assess the efficacy and safety of fluticasone furoate nasal spray in adult Indian patients suffering from allergic rhinitis.

BACKGROUND: Allergic rhinitis is a common upper respiratory tract inflammation associated with a significant morbidity in all the age groups. Fluticasone furoate is a new potent topical glucocorticoid for the treatment of allergic rhinitis. OBJECTIVE: To compare efficacy and safety of fluticasone furoate (FF) nasal spray 110 microg/day with fluticasone propionate (FP) nasal spray 200 microg/day for the relief of symptoms of allergic rhinitis in adult Indian patients. METHODS: Clinically symptomatic patients (n=220) with allergic rhinitis received treatment with FF or FP for 2 weeks in this comparative, open label, multicentric, clinical trial. Nasal symptoms (nasal congestion, rhinorrhea, nasal itching, and sneezing) and ocular symptoms (itching/burning eyes, tearing/watering eyes, and eye redness) were recorded on a 4-point categoric scale by the patients. The efficacy was assessed by the change in nasal and ocular symptom scores as their subtotals (Total Nasal Symptom Score and Total Ocular Symptom Score) and grand total (Total Symptom Score). RESULTS: FF produced significantly better improvement in Total Symptom Score (-10.4 +/- 3.2 vs. -8.9 +/- 3.5, p<0.005) and Total Nasal Symptom Score (-7.3 +/- 2.2 vs. -6.2 +/- 2.6, p<0.005) as compared to FP. Also a significantly larger percentage of patients achieved complete symptomatic relief with FF (45.3% vs. 31.4%, p<0.05). FF was also better tolerated than FP. CONCLUSION: FF nasal spray is significantly more effective and better tolerated than FP nasal spray for the treatment of allergic rhinitis in adult Indian patients.