Lack of a clinically significant pharmacokinetic interaction between fenofibrate and pravastatin in healthy volunteers.

This study was conducted to evaluate the potential pharmacokinetic interaction between fenofibrate and pravastatin. A total of 23 healthy adult volunteers received single-dose 201 mg fenofibrate alone, 201 mg fenofibrate + 40 mg pravastatin, and 40 mg pravastatin alone in a three-period crossover experiment. Plasma samples were collected at predetermined times and were analyzed with validated methods for the quantitation of fenofibric acid, pravastatin, and 3 alpha-hydroxy-isopravastatin (3 alpha-iso-PV). Pharmacokinetic parameters of these three compounds were calculated using noncompartmental methods and compared by analyses of variance and bioavailability assessments. Concomitant administration of fenofibrate and pravastatin did not affect the pharmacokinetics of either fenofibric acid or pravastatin. However, the AUC0-infinity and Cmax of 3 alpha-iso-PV were increased by 26% and 29%, respectively. The moderate increase in the formation of this pravastatin metabolite should not raise any clinical concerns due to its much lower pharmacological potency compared to pravastatin and lack of toxicity.

Controlled, dose-response study of sertindole and haloperidol in the treatment of schizophrenia. Sertindole Study Group.

OBJECTIVE: This multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled study evaluated the efficacy and safety of three doses of sertindole (12, 20, and 24 mg/day) and haloperidol (4, 8, and 16 mg/day) in the treatment of psychotic symptoms for 497 hospitalized patients with schizophrenia. METHOD: The patients were randomly assigned to one of the medication groups and received treatment for 8 weeks. Changes in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale, Scale for the Assessment of Negative Symptoms, Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale, and Clinical Global Impression scores were used as evaluations of treatment efficacy. Three rating scales were used to assess extrapyramidal symptoms as well as the occurrence of adverse events and the use of medications related to extrapyramidal symptoms. RESULTS: Both sertindole and haloperidol were comparably effective in the treatment of psychosis, and all dose levels were significantly more effective than placebo. For the treatment of negative symptoms, only sertindole, 20 mg/day, was significantly more effective than placebo. For all extrapyramidal symptom measures, sertindole was clinically and statistically indistinguishable from placebo, and rates of extrapyramidal symptoms were not dose related. All dose levels of haloperidol produced significantly more extrapyramidal symptoms than placebo or sertindole. Adverse events associated with sertindole treatment were mild in severity. CONCLUSIONS: Sertindole is a new antipsychotic agent effective for the treatment of both the positive and negative symptoms of schizophrenia, with motor side effects that are indistinguishable from those associated with placebo.

Illness characteristics of patients in clinical drug studies of mania.

Two recent large-scale studies of the effectiveness and safety of divalproex versus lithium and placebo in the manic phase of bipolar disorder have provided an opportunity to investigate the characteristics of patients enrolled in clinical drug trials of mood stabilizers. Both studies are randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, multicenter trials; the first addresses effectiveness in acute mania, and the second addresses effectiveness in prevention of manic episodes. Data on demographic, illness severity, and treatment response characteristics were compared between Study 1 and six other clinical drug trials in acute mania from the past decade that had data in comparable domains. Although patients experienced onset of bipolar disorder in their early twenties, the average age of enrollment in the studies was about 40. Approximately equal numbers of men and women were enrolled. The patients were severely ill at the time of enrollment, with mean scores on the Global Assessment Scale ranging from 20 to 37. Overall, characteristics were remarkably similar across studies and representative of those reported in epidemiological studies. From Study 2, which is currently in progress, characteristics of patients recruited into the trial were determined. At least 10 subjects were initially assessed for each subject actually enrolled in the trial. The two factors most associated with failure to move from the open phase of the study to the randomized phase were administrative problems (principally failure of subjects to adhere to the medication regimen and protocol requirements) and inability, even with an open treatment protocol, to achieve adequate recovery from the index manic episode within 3 months.

The clinical and health status of patients with recent-onset rheumatoid arthritis.

This study was designed to document the clinical and health status of patients with recent-onset rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Three groups were studied: 108 patients who had had RA for greater than 1 year (established RA group), 313 patients who had had RA for less than or equal to 1 year (recent-onset RA group), and 188 healthy friend of the patients with recent-onset RA (no RA group). Clinical status was measured using tender joint count, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, and overall physician assessment. Health status was measured using the physical, psychological, pain, and arthritis impact scores of the Arthritis Impact Measurement Scales. Scores on all clinical and health status measures indicated substantial disease effects in the group with recent-onset RA. For most of these measures, effect size analysis indicated that clinical and health status impacts in the recent-onset RA group were similar in magnitude to those found in the groups with more established disease, with scores in both groups being substantially different from those found in the no RA group. These results document the magnitude of the clinical and health status impacts in recent-onset RA. They lend support to recent arguments advocating aggressive therapy earlier in the course of this frequently disabling disease.

Reduction of indomethacin induced gastroduodenal mucosal injury and gastrointestinal symptoms with cimetidine in normal subjects.

A study was performed in 57 healthy volunteers to determine the effectiveness of cimetidine on reducing gastrointestinal (GI) mucosal lesions and symptoms induced by indomethacin. Endoscopic evidence of gastroduodenal injury and various GI symptoms appeared within 4 days after initiation of indomethacin therapy (50 mg TID) alone. Concomitant therapy with cimetidine, either 200 mg QID or 400 mg BID reduced the incidence of gastric erosions by up to 25% and duodenal erosions by up to 44% (gastric erosions from 81 to 61 and 78%, and duodenal erosions from 90 to 50 and 61%). The incidence of gastric ulcers was reduced from 24 to 0 and 6%, and of duodenal ulcers from 14 to 0 and 11%). The occurrence of moderate or severe pain was also significantly less with coadministration of cimetidine. Results from our study suggest that cimetidine may provide an effective prophylactic therapy against both NSAID related symptoms and gastroduodenal mucosal lesions.

A double-blind placebo-controlled study of auranofin in patients with psoriatic arthritis.

Two hundred thirty-eight patients with psoriatic arthritis were entered into a 6-month, multicenter, double-blind trial comparing auranofin and placebo. Polyarthritis (greater than 5 tender joints) was present in 90% of the patients, and 94% were seronegative. Auranofin treatment was statistically superior to placebo treatment, according to physician's global assessment and functional scores. A trend in favor of auranofin treatment was seen for each of the other disease parameters studied. Psoriasis worsened in 6 auranofin-treated patients and in 3 placebo-treated patients. The incidence and nature of other side effects were similar to those observed in similar trials of patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Our observations suggest that the use of auranofin in the treatment of psoriatic arthritis is safe, although its therapeutic advantage over treatment with nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs alone is modest.

Incidence and management of diarrhea during longterm auranofin therapy.

The incidence, severity, and management of diarrhea during longterm administration of auranofin (AF)--up to 33 months--were evaluated prospectively in 137 patients with active rheumatoid arthritis. At least 1 episode of diarrhea was reported in 101 patients (74%), but the rate of occurrence/patient-months of therapy was 24% (569 events/2,370 patient-months of treatment). The monthly prevalence declined from a range of 30-40% during the initial 6 months to about 10% for patients treated for 18-24 months. Most diarrhea was intermittent and mild; only 11 patients (8%) discontinued treatment because of diarrheal symptoms. No intervention was required in 46 of the 101 patients affected. In 44 others, loose stools were successfully managed with antidiarrheal medications, a reduction in dosage, or both. Although diarrhea is a common event during AF administration, particularly early in therapy, for most patients it usually does not significantly interfere with treatment.