The LongitudinAl Nationwide stuDy on Management And Real-world outComes of diabetes in India over 3 years (LANDMARC trial).

INTRODUCTION: LANDMARC (CTRI/2017/05/008452), a prospective, observational real-world study, evaluated the occurrence of diabetes complications, glycemic control and treatment patterns in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) from pan-India regions over a period of 3 years. METHODS: Participants with T2DM (≥25 to ≤60 years old at diagnosis, diabetes duration ≥2 years at the time of enrollment, with/without glycemic control and on ≥2 antidiabetic therapies) were included. The proportion of participants with macrovascular and microvascular complications, glycemic control and time to treatment adaptation over 36 months were assessed. RESULTS: Of the 6234 participants enrolled, 5273 completed 3 years follow-up. At the end of 3-years, 205 (3.3%) and 1121 (18.0%) participants reported macrovascular and microvascular complications, respectively. Nonfatal myocardial infarction (40.0%) and neuropathy (82.0%) were the most common complications. At baseline and 3-years, 25.1% (1119/4466) and 36.6% (1356/3700) of participants had HbA1c <7%, respectively. At 3-years, population with macrovascular and microvascular complications had higher proportion of participants with uncontrolled glycemia (78.2% [79/101] and 70.3% [463/659], respectively) than those without complications (61.6% [1839/2985]). Over 3-years, majority (67.7%-73.9%) of the participants were taking only OADs (biguanides [92.2%], sulfonylureas [77.2%] and DPP-IV inhibitors [62.4%]). Addition of insulin was preferred in participants who were only on OADs at baseline, and insulin use gradually increased from 25.5% to 36.7% at the end of 3 years. CONCLUSION: These 3-year trends highlight the burden of uncontrolled glycemia and cumulative diabetes-related complications, emphasizing the importance of optimizing diabetes management in India.

Two-year trends from the LANDMARC study: A 3-year, pan-India, prospective, longitudinal study on the management and real-world outcome in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

INTRODUCTION: There are limited data on the real-world management of diabetes in the Indian population. In this 2-year analysis of the LANDMARC study, the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and related complications were assessed. METHOD: This multicenter, observational, prospective study included adults aged ≥25 to ≤60 years diagnosed with T2DM (duration ≥2 years at enrollment) and controlled/uncontrolled on ≥2 anti-diabetic agents. This interim analysis at 2 years reports the status of glycaemic control, diabetic complications, cardiovascular (CV) risks and therapy, pan-India including metropolitan and non-metropolitan cities. RESULTS: Of the 6234 evaluable patients, 5318 patients completed 2 years in the study. Microvascular complications were observed in 17.6% of patients (1096/6234); macrovascular complications were observed in 3.1% of patients (195/6234). Higher number of microvascular complications were noted in patients from non-metropolitan than in metropolitan cities (p < .0001). In 2 years, an improvement of 0.6% from baseline (8.1%) in mean glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) was noted; 20.8% of patients met optimum glycaemic control (HbA1c < 7%). Hypertension (2679/3438, 77.9%) and dyslipidaemia (1776/3438, 51.7%) were the predominant CV risk factors in 2 years. The number of patients taking oral anti-diabetic drugs in combination with insulin increased in 2 years (baseline: 1498/6234 [24.0%] vs. 2 years: 1917/5763 [33.3%]). While biguanides and sulfonylureas were the most commonly prescribed, there was an evident increase in the use of dipeptidyl peptidase-IV inhibitors (baseline: 3049/6234, 48.9% vs. 2 years: 3526/5763, 61.2%). CONCLUSION: This longitudinal study represents the control of T2DM, its management and development of complications in Indian population. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CTRI/2017/05/008452.

SGLT2i as a First-line Antihyperglycemic in the Management of Type 2 Diabetes in the Context of Indians: A Systematic Review and Consensus.

BACKGROUND: Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) have been used for almost a decade and have proven to be effective not only in managing Type 2 diabetes (T2D), but their cardio and renal protective features make them very useful in managing patients with risk of multiple comorbidities. This systematic review was undertaken by the authors because there is no evidence currently available in India that has studied the suitability of SGLT2i as a first-line agent in patients newly diagnosed with T2D in India. MATERIALS AND METHODS: First, literature was searched to identify features that are considered important when deciding on a first-line agent for managing T2D. A total of 5 broad topics were identified-glycemic control, extra glycemic effects, antihyperglycemic combination therapy, safety, and cost-effectiveness. These domains had further subheadings, and a total of 16 domains were identified. Metformin is the drug of choice as a first-line agent in such situations and has been considered the gold standard for evaluating the effects of SGLT2i across these domains. A systematic literature review on each domain was conducted to compare SGLT2i with the gold standard in Indian patients newly diagnosed with T2D. Evidence was graded (levels of evidence (LoE)-A, B, and C), and recommendations (class of recommendation (CoR)-I, II, and III) were classified by the expert group as defined in the methodology. RESULTS: According to the systematic reviews conducted, 11 domains had Level A evidence, 2 domains (impact on lipids and gut microbiome) had Level B, and 3 domains had Level C (ß-cell function, renal protection, and glycemic variability) evidence. Based on evidence and expert opinion, the authors recommend SGLT2i as a first-line agent for managing newly diagnosed patients with T2D with a Class I recommendation for 13 domains and Class II for the remaining 3 (impact on lipids, gut microbiome, and ß-cell function). Although a poorer level of evidence (Level C) was available for the glycemic variability domain, the authors still reported this as Class I recommendations according to their expert opinion and consensus. CONCLUSION: This article advocates adopting SGLT2 inhibitors as the primary treatment choice for treating patients with newly diagnosed T2D in India.

One-year trends from the LANDMARC trial: A 3-year, pan-India, prospective, longitudinal study on the management and real-world outcomes of type 2 diabetes mellitus.

INTRODUCTION: Longitudinal data on management and progression of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in India are scarce. LANDMARC (CTRI/2017/05/008452), first-of-its-kind, pan-India, prospective, observational study aimed to evaluate real-world patterns and management of T2DM over 3 years. METHODS: Adults (≥25 to ≤60 years old at T2DM diagnosis; diabetes duration ≥2 years at enrolment; controlled/uncontrolled on ≥2 anti-diabetic agents) were enrolled. The first-year trends for glycaemic control, therapy and diabetic complications, including those from metropolitan and non-metropolitan cities are reported here. RESULTS: Of 6236 enrolled participants, 5654 completed 1 year in the study. Although the overall mean glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) improved by 0.5% (baseline: 8.1%) at 1 year, only 20% of the participants achieved HbA1c <7%. Participants from metropolitan and non- metropolitan cities showed similar decrease in glycaemic levels (mean change in HbA1c: -0.5% vs. -0.5%; p = .8613). Among diabetic complications, neuropathy was the predominant complication (815/6236, 13.1% participants). Microvascular complications (neuropathy, nephropathy and retinopathy) were significantly (p < .0001) higher in non-metropolitan than metropolitan cities. Hypertension (2623/6236, 78.2%) and dyslipidaemia (1696/6236, 50.6%) continued to be the most commonly reported cardiovascular risks at 1 year. After 1 year, majority of the participants were taking only oral anti-diabetic drugs (OADs) (baseline: 4642/6236 [74.4%]; 1 year: 4045/6013 [67.3%]), while the proportion of those taking insulin along with OADs increased (baseline: 1498/6236 [24.0%] vs. 1 year: 1844/6013 [30.7%]). Biguanides and sulfonylureas were the most used OADs. The highest increase in use was seen for dipeptidyl peptidase-IV inhibitors (baseline: 3047/6236 [48.9%]; 1 year: 3529/6013 [58.7%]). Improvement in all glycaemic parameters was significantly (p < .0001) higher in the insulin vs. the insulin-naïve subgroups; in the insulin-naïve subgroup, no statistical difference was noted in those who received >3 vs. ≤3 OADs. CONCLUSIONS: First-year trends of the LANDMARC study offer insights into real-world disease progression, suggesting the need for controlling risk factors and timely treatment intensification in people with T2DM.

Baseline characteristics of participants in the LANDMARC trial: A 3-year, pan-india, prospective, longitudinal study to assess management and real-world outcomes of diabetes mellitus.

INTRODUCTION: Longitudinal data on progression, complications, and management of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) across India are scarce. LANDMARC (CTRI/2017/05/008452), the first pan-India, longitudinal, prospective, observational study, aims to understand the management and real-world outcomes of T2DM over 3 years. METHODS: Adults (≥25 to ≤60 years old at T2DM diagnosis; diabetes duration ≥2 years at enrollment; controlled/uncontrolled on ≥2 anti-diabetic agents) were enrolled. Baseline characteristics were analyzed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Of the 6279 recruited participants, 6236 were eligible for baseline assessment (56.6% [n/N = 3528/6236] men; mean ± SD age: 52.1 ± 9.2 years, diabetes duration: 8.6 ± 5.6 years). mean ± SD HbA1c, fasting plasma glucose, and postprandial glucose values were 64 ± 17 mmol/mol (8.1 ± 1.6%), 142.8 ± 50.4 mg/dl, and 205.7 ± 72.3 mg/dl, respectively. Only 25.1% (n/N = 1122/6236) participants had controlled glycemia (HbA1c < 53 mmol/mol, <7%). Macrovascular and microvascular complications were prevalent in 2.3% (n/N = 145/6236) and 14.5% (n/N = 902/6236) participants, respectively. Among those with complications, non-fatal myocardial infarction (n/N = 74/145, 51.0%) and neuropathy (n/N = 737/902, 81.7%) were the most reported macrovascular and microvascular complication, respectively. Hypertension (n/N = 2566/3281, 78.2%) and dyslipidemia (n/N = 1635/3281, 49.8%) were the most reported cardiovascular risks. Majority (74.5%; n/N = 4643/6236) were taking oral anti-diabetic drugs (OADs) only, while 24.4% (n/N = 1522/6236) participants were taking OADs+insulin. Biguanides (n/N = 5796/6236, 92.9%) and sulfonylureas (n/N = 4757/6236, 76.3%) were the most reported OADs. Basal (n/N = 837/6236, 13.4%) and premix (n/N = 684/6236, 11.0%) insulins were the most reported insulins. CONCLUSIONS: Baseline data from LANDMARC help understand the clinical/medical profile of study participants and underscore the extent of suboptimal glycemic control and prevalence of associated complications in a vast majority of Indians with T2DM.

Blood-pressure Lowering Efficacy and Safety of Perindopril / Indapamide / Amlodipine Single-pill Combination in Hypertensive Patients: Phase III Trial in India.

BACKGROUND: Hypertension is the biggest contributor to global burden of disease and mortality. Increasing compliance with antihypertensive treatment and achieving a wide BP control in the population represents a major challenge for clinical practice. The benefits of single pill combination versus free-equivalent combination has been demonstrated in several meta-analyses and is now strongly supported by the latest 2018 ESC/ESH guidelines. The RAAS blocker with CCB and thiazide like diuretic is proposed as the optimal combination in patients inadequately controlled by two drugs. OBJECTIVE: To assess the blood pressure control rate, safety, tolerability and quality of life with triple-drug SPC in patients with grade II/ III hypertension. METHODS: Hypertensive patients uncontrolled (BP ≥ 140/90 mmHg) on two-drug therapy were recruited in an open-label, phase III clinical trial conducted in outpatient setting in India with 6 months treatment period. No other antihypertensive medication except the study medication was received by the patients. RESULTS: Out of 218 evaluable patients the observed average blood pressure reduction achieved from baseline to end of study at 6 months was Systolic Blood Pressure (SBP) 28.5 mm Hg / Diastolic Blood Pressure (DBP) 13.8 mm Hg. The quality of life (QoL) questionnaire demonstrated improvement in QoL for all patients. CONCLUSION: This study showed the clinical efficacy, safety and acceptability of the perindopril/indapamide/amlodipine SPC in patients with grade 2/3 hypertension inadequately controlled with two-drug therapy. The clinical effectiveness was observed in more than 96 % patients. The benefit of single-pill combination (SPC) therapy in hypertension control was reconfirmed in this study.

Efficacy and Safety of Remogliflozin Etabonate, a New Sodium Glucose Co-Transporter-2 Inhibitor, in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A 24-Week, Randomized, Double-Blind, Active-Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Metformin is the first-line treatment for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), but many patients either cannot tolerate it or cannot achieve glycemic control with metformin alone, so treatment with other glucose-lowering agents in combination with metformin is frequently required. Remogliflozin etabonate, a novel agent, is an orally bioavailable prodrug of remogliflozin, which is a potent and selective sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitor. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of remogliflozin etabonate compared with dapagliflozin in subjects with T2DM in whom a stable dose of metformin as monotherapy was providing inadequate glycemic control. METHODS: A 24-week randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, active-controlled, three-arm, parallel-group, multicenter, phase III study was conducted in India. Patients aged ≥ 18 and ≤ 65 years diagnosed with T2DM, receiving metformin ≥ 1500 mg/day, and with glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels ≥ 7 to ≤ 10% at screening were randomized into three groups. Every patient received metformin ≥ 1500 mg and either remogliflozin etabonate 100 mg twice daily (BID) (group 1, n = 225) or remogliflozin etabonate 250 mg BID (group 2, n = 241) or dapagliflozin 10 mg once daily (QD) in the morning and placebo QD in the evening (group 3, n = 146). The patients were followed-up at weeks 1 and 4 and at 4-week intervals thereafter until week 24. The endpoints included mean change in HbA1c (primary endpoint, noninferiority margin = 0.35), fasting plasma glucose (FPG), postprandial plasma glucose (PPG), bodyweight, blood pressure, and fasting lipids. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), safety laboratory values, electrocardiogram, and vital signs were evaluated. RESULTS: Of 612 randomized patients, 167 (group 1), 175 (group 2), and 103 (group 3) patients with comparable baseline characteristics completed the study. Mean change ± standard error (SE) in HbA1c from baseline to week 24 was - 0.72 ± 0.09, - 0.77 ± 0.09, and - 0.58 ± 0.12% in groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively. The difference in mean HbA1c of group 1 versus group 3 (- 0.14%, 90% confidence interval [CI] - 0.38 to 0.10) and group 2 versus group 3 (- 0.19%; 90% CI - 0.42 to 0.05) was noninferior to that in group 3 (p < 0.001). No significant difference was found between group 1 or group 2 and group 3 in change in FPG, PPG, and bodyweight. The overall incidence of TEAEs was comparable across study groups (group 1 = 32.6%, group 2 = 34.4%, group 3 = 29.5%), including adverse events (AEs) of special interest (hypoglycemic events, urinary tract infection, genital fungal infection). Most TEAEs were mild to moderate in intensity, and no severe AEs were reported. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated the noninferiority of remogliflozin etabonate 100 and 250 mg compared with dapagliflozin, from the first analysis of an initial 612 patients. Remogliflozin etabonate therefore may be considered an effective and well-tolerated alternative treatment option for glycemic control in T2DM. TRIAL REGISTRATION: CTRI/2017/07/009121.

Abrogation of postprandial triglyceridemia with dual PPAR α/γ agonist in type 2 diabetes mellitus: a randomized, placebo-controlled study.

AIMS: Lowering postprandial lipemia may mitigate cardiovascular risk in patients with diabetic dyslipidemia. This study was aimed to investigate whether saroglitazar suppresses postprandial lipemia in patients with diabetes and dyslipidemia. METHODS: This was a 12-week, prospective, multicenter, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study of saroglitazar in patients with diabetes and dyslipidemia. Thirty patients were randomized (1:1) to receive saroglitazar 4 mg or placebo orally once daily with metformin for 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was change in plasma triglyceride (TG) area under the curve (AUC) on a standardized 8-h fat tolerance test. RESULTS: Thirty participants were randomized for interventions and eventually data of 19 participants qualified for per protocol analyses. Mean (SD) age in saroglitazar was 53.1 (8.8) years and 54.9 (7.7) years in placebo group. After 12 weeks, saroglitazar significantly lowered postprandial TG-AUC by - 458.3 (144.0) (- 25.7%, 95% CI - 765.1 to - 151.4) versus an increase of + 10.9 (157.9) (+ 0.5%, 95% CI - 325.6 to 347.3) mg/dL h in placebo group (P < 0.05). Saroglitazar lowered postprandial TG incremental AUC versus placebo: - 329.4 (89.9) (- 59%) versus + 80.4 (99.4) (+ 10%) mg/dL h (P < 0.05). HbA1c (%) decreased by - 0.36 (0.42) in the saroglitazar group as compared to an increase of + 1.26 (0.46) (P < 0.05) with placebo. CONCLUSIONS: The saroglitazar treatment significantly improved postprandial TGs in people with diabetic dyslipidemia. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trial Registry of India; trial Registration No.: CTRI/2015/06/005845 and Date of registration: June 02, 2015.

Unproven Therapies for Diabetes and Their Implications.

Diabetes is a chronic disease and is one of the leading causes of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Being an ancient disease, many individuals follow complementary and alternative medicinal (CAM) therapies for either the cure or prevention of the disease. The popularity of these practices among the general public is in no way a testimony to their safety and efficacy. Due to the possibility of undesirable interactions with conventional medicines, it is imperative that patients are asked about CAM use during patient assessment. Patient- and physician-targeted awareness programs on various aspects of CAM use must be initiated to create a better understanding of evidence-based use of these practices. In addition, there should be guidelines in place based on clinical trial outcomes, and stricter regulations need to be enforced on CAM practices to ensure their safety and effectiveness.

Evaluation Series on Safety and Efficacy of Nutritional Supplements in Newly Diagnosed Hyperglycemia: A Placebo-Controlled, Randomized Study.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes is endemic with developing economies contributing to the bulk of this pandemic. Despite the evidence of incremental benefit of glycemic control starting early in life, acceptance of and adherence to modern medications remain suboptimal. AIMS: To determine the hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c)-lowering efficacy and safety of nutritional supplement, PreCrea(®), in adult Indians with newly diagnosed hyperglycemia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Double-blind, randomized study conducted in six diabetes centers in India. A total of 193 treatment-naïve subjects with newly diagnosed hyperglycemia and fasting plasma glucose (FPG) >100 mg/dL were randomized into either PreCrea(®) 600 mg (n = 90) or matched placebo (n = 89) capsules twice daily, along with lifestyle modification, for 12 weeks. The main outcomes were changes in HbA1c and FPG levels, attainment of the American Diabetes Association (ADA)-defined goals for HbA1c, and clinical and biochemical measures of safety. RESULTS: At 12 weeks, mean HbA1c in PreCrea(®) group reduced by 0.91% compared with 0.08% increase in the placebo group (P < .001). The reductions in the mean FPG at week 4 (P < .001) and week 12 (P = 0.04) were significant compared to the baseline. ADA goal of HbA1c <7% increased from 15.5% at the baseline to 35.6% at week 12 in PreCrea(®) subjects. Clinical safety and biochemical safety did not change. Hypoglycemia and weight gain were not observed with PreCrea(®). CONCLUSIONS: Nearly 1% point reduction in HbA1c at week 12 with PreCrea(®) is comparable with most first-line glucose-lowering drugs. The safety and tolerability of PreCrea(®) highlights its potential as a first-line therapy in newly detected hyperglycemia.

DRESS Syndrome: Drug Rash with Eosinophilia and Systemic Symptoms.

DRESS Syndrome is caused by exposure to certain medications that may cause fever, rash, inflammation of internal organs, lymphadenopathy and characteristic hematologic abnormalities such as eosinophilia, thrombocytopenia and atypical lymphocytosis. We herein report a case of DRESS syndrome who presented with fever and rash, secondary to sulfasalazine ingestion. Diagnosis of DRESS is often delayed, as several diseases have clinical and laboratory features similar to DRESS syndrome.

Oral lixivaptan effectively increases serum sodium concentrations in outpatients with euvolemic hyponatremia.

Hyponatremia is the most common electrolyte disorder in clinical practice. Its incidence increases with age and it is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Recently, the vaptans, antagonists of the arginine vasopressin pathway, have shown promise for safe treatment of hyponatremia. Here we evaluated the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of oral lixivaptan, a selective vasopressin V2-receptor antagonist, for treatment of nonhospitalized individuals with euvolemic hyponatremia (sodium less than 135 mmol/l) in a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III study. About half of the 206 patients were elderly in a chronic care setting. Of these patients, 52 were given a placebo and 154 were given 25-100 mg per day lixivaptan, titrated based on the daily serum sodium measurements. Compared with placebo (0.8 mmol/l), the serum sodium concentration significantly increased by 3.2 mmol/l from baseline to day 7 (primary efficacy endpoint) with lixivaptan treatment. A significantly greater proportion of patients that received lixivaptan achieved normal serum sodium (39.4%) by day 7 relative to placebo (12.2%). Overall, lixivaptan was considered safe and well-tolerated. Thus, oral lixivaptan can be safely initiated in the outpatient setting and effectively increases serum sodium concentrations in outpatients with euvolemic hyponatremia.

Management of hypertension with the fixed combination of perindopril and amlodipine in daily clinical practice: results from the STRONG prospective, observational, multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: Current clinical guidelines recognize that the use of more than one agent is necessary to achieve target BP in the majority of patients. The ASCOT-BPLA trial demonstrated that the free combination of amlodipine and perindopril effectively controlled BP and was better than a beta-adrenoceptor antagonist (beta-blocker)/diuretic combination in reducing total mortality and cardiovascular outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of a fixed combination of perindopril and amlodipine in the clinical setting. STUDY DESIGN: The STRONG (SafeTy & efficacy analysis of coveRsyl amlodipine in uncOntrolled and Newly diaGnosed hypertension) study was a prospective, observational, multicenter trial. SETTING: This was a naturalistic, real-world, clinic-based, outpatient study involving 336 general practitioners/primary care physicians in 65 cities in India. PATIENTS: Adults aged 40-70 years with newly diagnosed/untreated stage 2 hypertension (BP >/=160/100 mmHg), hypertension uncontrolled with monotherapy (BP >140/90 mmHg), or hypertension inadequately managed with another combination therapy. INTERVENTION: Fixed combination perindopril 4 mg/amlodipine 5 mg once daily for 60 days. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURE: The primary outcomes were the mean change in BP from baseline and the proportion of patients achieving adequate BP control (180 mmHg at baseline (newly diagnosed: n = 50; uncontrolled on monotherapy: n = 53; inadequately managed on combination therapy: n = 58), BP was reduced by 63.2 +/- 32.5/29.0 +/- 21.9 mmHg (p < 0.0001) at day 60. The fixed combination was safe and well tolerated. All 1175 patients completing the 60-day study (94%) adhered to their treatment regimen. CONCLUSION: Fixed combination perindopril/amlodipine was found to be an effective and well tolerated antihypertensive treatment, with an excellent rate of treatment adherence in the clinical setting. Fixed combination perindopril/amlodipine is expected to be useful in the management of hypertension in primary healthcare, with a positive impact on treatment adherence.

S-amlodipine--the 2007 clinical review.

S-amlodipine is the only vaso-active enantiomer of amlodipine. This article reviews the published data in nearly 5000 patients. Randomised controlled trials of S-amlodipine at half the dose of racemate in the treatment of hypertension, have shown it to be as effective as racemic amlodipine. The postmarketing surveillance studies (n = 4089) of S-amlodipine confirmed its antihypertensive efficacy and showed that the incidence of peripheral oedema is negligible with S-amlodipine compared to racemic amlodipine. Further, the patients with peripheral oedema who were switched over from racemic amlodipine to S-amlodipine resolved their oedema associated with the racemate, while sustaining the blood pressure control. Subgroup analyses showed S-amlodipine to be effective and safe in elderly hypertensives and isolated systolic hypertension patients. A clinical study in normotensive angina patients confirmed the anti-anginal efficacy of S-amlodipine at half the dose of racemate. Fixed-dose combinations of S-amlodipine with atenolol and S-amlodipine with hydrochlorothiazide have been shown to be effective and well tolerated in clinical practice. In the light of its efficacy and favourable tolerability profile, S-amlodipine used alone or in combination with other antihypertensive or anti-anginal drugs, is a valuable treatment option in the management of hypertension and angina.

Comparative clinical trial of S-pantoprazole versus racemic pantoprazole in the treatment of gastro-esophageal reflux disease.

AIM: To compare the efficacy and tolerability of S-pantoprazole (20 mg once a day) versus racemic pantoprazole (40 mg once a day) in the treatment of gastro-esophageal reflux disease (GERD). METHODS: This multi-centre, randomized, double-blind clinical trial consisted of 369 patients of either sex suffering from GERD. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either one tablet (20 mg) of S-pantoprazole once a day (test group) or 40 mg racemic pantoprazole once a day (reference group) for 28 d. Patients were evaluated for reduction in baseline on d 0, GERD symptom score on d 14 and 28, occurrence of any adverse effect during the course of therapy. Gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy was performed in 54 patients enrolled at one of the study centers at baseline and on d 28. RESULTS: Significant reduction in the scores (mean and median) for heart burn (P < 0.0001), acid regurgitation (P < 0.0001), bloating (P < 0.0001), nausea (P < 0.0001) and dysphagia (P < 0.001) was achieved in both groups on d 14 with further reduction on continuing the therapy till 28 d. There was a statistically significant difference in the proportion of patients showing improvement in acid regurgitation and bloating on d 14 and 28 (P = 0.004 for acid regurgitation; P = 0.03 for bloating) and heart burn on d 28 (P = 0.01) between the two groups, with a higher proportion in the test group than in the reference group. Absolute risk reductions for heartburn/acid regurgitation/bloating were approximately 15% on d 14 and 10% on d 28. The relative risk reductions were 26%-33% on d 14 and 15% on d 28. GI endoscopy showed no significant difference in healing of esophagitis (P = 1) and gastric erosions (P = 0.27) between the two groups. None of the patients in either group reported any adverse effect during the course of therapy. CONCLUSION: In GERD, S-pantoprazole (20 mg) is more effective than racemic pantoprazole (40 mg) in improving symptoms of heartburn, acid regurgitation, bloating and equally effective in healing esophagitis and gastric erosions. The relative risk reduction is 15%-33%. Both drugs are safe and well tolerated.