The safety of an adenosine A(1)-receptor antagonist, rolofylline, in patients with acute heart failure and renal impairment: findings from PROTECT.

BACKGROUND: Adenosine exerts actions in multiple organ systems, and adenosine receptors are a therapeutic target in many development programmes. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this analysis was to evaluate the safety of rolofylline, an adenosine A(1)-receptor antagonist, in patients with acute heart failure. METHODS: The effect of rolofylline was investigated in patients hospitalized for acute heart failure with impaired renal function. Intravenous rolofylline 30 mg or placebo was infused over 4 hours daily for up to 3 days. Adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs (SAEs) were recorded from baseline through 7 and 14 days, respectively, and clinical events were adjudicated through 60 days. RESULTS: Of 2033 patients enrolled, 2002 received study drug randomized 2 : 1 to rolofylline or placebo. Rolofylline and placebo were associated with a similar risk of pre-specified groups of AEs or SAEs, other than selected neurological events. Investigator-reported seizures occurred in 11 (0.8%) rolofylline-treated patients and zero patients receiving placebo (p = 0.02). Stroke occurred in 21 (1.6%) patients assigned to rolofylline compared with 3 (0.5%) placebo-treated patients through 60 days with a greater risk for stroke in the rolofylline group (hazard ratio 3.49; 95% CI 1.04, 11.71; p = 0.043). There was no temporal relation to rolofylline administration and no specific stroke subtype or clinical characteristics that predicted stroke in the rolofylline group. CONCLUSIONS: Rolofylline treatment was associated with an increased seizure rate, an anticipated complication of A(1)-receptor antagonists. An unanticipated, disproportionate increase in strokes in the rolofylline-treated patients emerged, although no clear temporal relation, aetiology, stroke subtype or interacting factor suggestive of a causal mechanism was identified. Further research into stroke as a potential complication of adenosine-modulating therapies is required. Additionally, this study underscores the value of longer follow-up durations for AEs, even for agents with short treatment periods, such as in acute heart failure.

Impact of serial troponin release on outcomes in patients with acute heart failure: analysis from the PROTECT pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac troponin T (cTnT) elevation is common and is a predictor of outcomes in patients with acute heart failure (AHF). The degree and progression of cTnT release during hospitalization of patients with AHF is unclear. We evaluated the incidence of cTnT release during AHF hospitalization and the relationship of cTnT release with outcomes. METHODS AND RESULTS: The Placebo-controlled Randomized study of the selective A(1) adenosine receptor antagonist rolofylline for patients hospitalized with acute heart failure and volume Overload to assess Treatment Effect on Congestion and renal funcTion (PROTECT) pilot study was a multicenter, double-blind study of patients with AHF. Measurements of cTnT were collected at randomization and days 2, 3, 4, and 7. Patients were classified on the basis of their serum cTnT levels at baseline: positive (>0.03 ng/mL), detectable (>0.01 ng/mL), and negative (≤0.01 ng/mL). A detectable cTnT level developed during the study (after baseline) was classified as cTnT conversion: 288 patients were included; 172 (60%) patients had detectable cTnT levels and 97 (34%) had positive values (>0.03 ng/mL) at baseline. Of the 116 patients with negative troponin at baseline, 24 (21%) had elevated cTnT levels by day 7. On multivariable analysis, positive cTnT at baseline was an independent predictor of the composite end point of cardiovascular/renal rehospitalization or death at 60 days (hazard ratio, 1.84; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-3.26; P=0.036). Kaplan-Meier curves showed similar worse outcomes in patients with troponin conversion and positive troponin at baseline. CONCLUSIONS: There was a high prevalence of baseline cTnT elevation in this cohort; 21% of those negative at baseline converted to detectable levels by day 7. Positive troponin at baseline, and conversion to positive levels, were associated with worse outcomes at 60 days. Clinical Trial Registration- URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifiers: NCT00328692 and NCT00354458.

Effects of the adenosine A1 receptor antagonist rolofylline on renal function in patients with acute heart failure and renal dysfunction: results from PROTECT (Placebo-Controlled Randomized Study of the Selective Adenosine A1 Receptor Antagonist Rolofylline for Patients Hospitalized with Acute Decompensated Heart Failure and Volume Overload to Assess Treatment Effect on Congestion and Renal Function).

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to assess the effects of rolofylline on renal function in patients with acute heart failure (AHF) and renal dysfunction randomized in PROTECT (Placebo-Controlled Randomized Study of the Selective A(1) Adenosine Receptor Antagonist Rolofylline for Patients Hospitalized With Acute Decompensated Heart Failure and Volume Overload to Assess Treatment Effect on Congestion and Renal Function). BACKGROUND: Small studies have indicated that adenosine A(1) receptor antagonists enhance diuresis and may improve renal function in patients with chronic heart failure or AHF. METHODS: A total of 2,033 patients with AHF, volume overload, estimated creatinine clearance between 20 and 80 ml/min, and elevated natriuretic peptide levels were randomized (2:1) within 24 h of hospital presentation to rolofylline 30 mg/day or intravenous placebo for up to 3 days. Creatinine was measured daily until discharge or day 7 and on day 14. Persistent worsening renal function was defined as an increase in serum creatinine ≥0.3 mg/dl at both days 7 and 14, or initiation of hemofiltration or dialysis or death by day 7. RESULTS: At baseline, mean ± SD estimated creatinine clearance was 51.0 ± 20.5 ml/min in the placebo group and 50.4 ± 20.0 ml/min in the rolofylline group. Changes in creatinine and estimated creatinine clearance were similar between placebo- and rolofylline-treated patients during hospitalization and at day 14. After 4 days, mean body weight was reduced by 2.6 and 3.0 kg in placebo and rolofylline patients, respectively (p = 0.005). Persistent worsening renal function occurred in 13.7% of the placebo group and 15.0% of the rolofylline group (odds ratio vs. placebo: 1.11 [95% confidence interval: 0.85 to 1.46]; p = 0.44). CONCLUSIONS: In this large, phase III clinical trial, the adenosine A(1) receptor antagonist rolofylline did not prevent persistent worsening renal function in AHF patients with volume overload and renal dysfunction. (A Study of the Selective A1 Adenosine Receptor Antagonist KW-3902 for Patients Hospitalized With Acute HF and Volume Overload to Assess Treatment Effect on Congestion and Renal Function [PROTECT-1], NCT00328692; and [PROTECT-2], NCT00354458).

Early dyspnoea relief in acute heart failure: prevalence, association with mortality, and effect of rolofylline in the PROTECT Study.

AIMS: Dyspnoea and pulmonary and/or peripheral congestion are the most frequent manifestations of acute heart failure (AHF) and are important targets for therapy. We have assessed changes in dyspnoea, their relationship with mortality, and the effects of the adenosine A1 receptor antagonist rolofylline on these endpoints in patients enrolled in the PROTECT trial. METHODS AND RESULTS: PROTECT was a prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled study assessing the effect of rolofylline in patients hospitalized for AHF with dyspnoea, fluid overload, increased plasma natriuretic peptides, and mild-to-moderate renal dysfunction. Early dyspnoea relief, prospectively defined as moderately or markedly better dyspnoea at both 24 and 48 h after the start of study drug administration, occurred in 49.8% of the patients. Early dyspnoea relief was associated with greater weight loss and with reduced mortality at Days 14 and 30 [hazard ratio (HR) 0.28, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.15, 0.50; and 0.35, 95% CI: 0.22, 0.55, respectively]. Rolofylline administration was associated with an increase in the proportion of patients showing early dyspnoea relief (HR 1.30; 95% CI: 1.08, 1.57) and with a numerically lower mortality at 14 and 30 days, largely driven by the mortality due to HF [at 30 days, HR (95% CI, P-value): 0.65 (0.38-1.10, P= 0.107)]. Rolofylline did not reduce episodes of in-hospital worsening HF or post-discharge re-admissions, nor did it improve survival at 60 or 180 days. CONCLUSION: The present analysis from PROTECT demonstrated that more weight loss was associated with early dyspnoea relief and reduced short-term mortality.

Rolofylline, an adenosine A1-receptor antagonist, in acute heart failure.

BACKGROUND: Worsening renal function, which is associated with adverse outcomes, often develops in patients with acute heart failure. Experimental and clinical studies suggest that counterregulatory responses mediated by adenosine may be involved. We tested the hypothesis that the use of rolofylline, an adenosine A1-receptor antagonist, would improve dyspnea, reduce the risk of worsening renal function, and lead to a more favorable clinical course in patients with acute heart failure. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial involving patients hospitalized for acute heart failure with impaired renal function. Within 24 hours after presentation, 2033 patients were randomly assigned, in a 2:1 ratio, to receive daily intravenous rolofylline (30 mg) or placebo for up to 3 days. The primary end point was treatment success, treatment failure, or no change in the patient's clinical condition; this end point was defined according to survival, heart-failure status, and changes in renal function. Secondary end points were the post-treatment development of persistent renal impairment and the 60-day rate of death or readmission for cardiovascular or renal causes. RESULTS: Rolofylline, as compared with placebo, did not provide a benefit with respect to the primary end point (odds ratio, 0.92; 95% confidence interval, 0.78 to 1.09; P=0.35). Persistent renal impairment developed in 15.0% of patients in the rolofylline group and in 13.7% of patients in the placebo group (P=0.44). By 60 days, death or readmission for cardiovascular or renal causes had occurred in similar proportions of patients assigned to rolofylline and placebo (30.7% and 31.9%, respectively; P=0.86). Adverse-event rates were similar overall; however, only patients in the rolofylline group had seizures, a known potential adverse effect of A1-receptor antagonists. CONCLUSIONS: Rolofylline did not have a favorable effect with respect to the primary clinical composite end point, nor did it improve renal function or 60-day outcomes. It does not show promise in the treatment of acute heart failure with renal dysfunction. (Funded by NovaCardia, a subsidiary of Merck; ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT00328692 and NCT00354458.).

Design and rationale of the PROTECT study: a placebo-controlled randomized study of the selective A1 adenosine receptor antagonist rolofylline for patients hospitalized with acute decompensated heart failure and volume overload to assess treatment effect on congestion and renal function.

BACKGROUND: Current treatment for acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) is associated with incomplete resolution of symptoms and signs, recurrent symptoms of heart failure in-hospital and after discharge and high mortality. Studies have consistently demonstrated an association between worsening renal function in ADHF and adverse outcomes. Adenosine A(1) receptor antagonists, such as rolofylline, appear in preliminary studies to produce potentially beneficial effects on natriuresis, diuresis, renal blood flow, and glomerular filtration rate. In a previous dose-finding study, rolofylline 30 mg intravenously daily for 3 days was associated with symptom improvement, less worsening of renal function, and trends toward lower 60-day rates of death or readmission for cardiovascular or renal causes. METHODS AND RESULTS: This manuscript describes the rationale underlying the design of the phase 3 PROTECT (Placebo-controlled Randomized study of the selective A(1) adenosine receptor antagonist rolofylline for patients hospitalized with acute heart failure and volume Overload to assess Treatment Effect on Congestion and renal funcTion) trial. CONCLUSION: Rolofylline 30 mg or matching placebo was given intravenously as a 4-hour continuous infusion on 3 consecutive days and the hospital course was assessed by measurements dyspnea, clinical status, renal function, and subsequent morbidity and mortality in a large population of patients with ADHF with renal impairment.

Efficacy of simvastatin therapy in attainment of LDL-C and TG goal levels in patients with type 2 diabetic dyslipidemia.

BACKGROUND: Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) has been identified as the primary target of cholesterol-lowering therapy, with the LDL-C goal set at ≤100 mg/dL for patients at high risk, such as those with diabetes. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of simvastatin (S) in achieving LDL-C levels <70 mg/dL in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM). METHODS: This was a post-hoc analysis of a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, three-way crossover, placebo (PL)-controlled study that evaluated S80 mg or S40 mg versus PL for increasing high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C). Patients with type 2 DM (n = 151), LDL-C >100 mg/dL, HDL-C <40 mg/dL, and triglycerides (TG) >150 and <700 mg/dL were randomized to daily S80 mg, S40 mg, or PL for three 6-week periods. The percentage of patients reaching LDL-C <70 mg/dL and the percentage reaching TG <150 mg/dL after 6 weeks was assessed. RESULTS: After 6 weeks, 59% (82 of 140) of patients in the S80 mg group achieved LDL-C <70 mg/dL versus 43% (60 of 139) receiving S40 m, and 0% (0 fo 140) in the PL group (P < 0.001 for S80 mg and S40 mg vs PL, and S80 mg vs S40 mg). In patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) (n = 32), 63% (20 of 32) receiving S80 mg reached LDL-C <70 mg/dL, versus 50% (15 of 30) in the S40 mg and 0% (0 of 32) in the PL group (P <0.001 for S80 mg and S40 mg vs PL, and P = 0.063 for S80 mg vs S40 mg). For TG levels, 27% (35 of 132) of the S80 mg patients and 23% (30 of 130) of the S40 mg patients reached a goal of TG <150 mg/dL. The dual goal of LDL-C level <70 mg/dL and TG level <150 mg/dL was attained by 14.7% of patients in the S80 mg, 7.8% in the S40 mg, and 0% in the PL group. CONCLUSION: S40 mg or S80 mg daily allowed 43% to 59% of patients with type 2 DM at risk of CHD to reach the goal of lowering LDL-C levels to the National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III optional target level of <70 mg/dL. Reaching TG goals may require additional therapeutic considerations.

Treatment with alendronate plus calcium, alendronate alone, or calcium alone for postmenopausal low bone mineral density.

OBJECTIVE: Bisphosphonates such as alendronate are widely used for postmenopausal osteoporosis. Supplemental calcium is also generally recommended. This trial directly compares alendronate to supplemental calcium and examines the effect of calcium supplementation on alendronate treatment. METHODS: This 2-year, randomized, double-blind, multicenter trial enrolled healthy, postmenopausal women with low bone mineral density (BMD). Patients with a dietary calcium intake > or = 800 mg/day received daily vitamin D 400 IU and alendronate 10 mg/calcium-placebo, alendronate 10 mg/elemental calcium 1000 mg, or alendronate-placebo/calcium 1000 mg (2:2:1). Endpoints included BMD, bone turnover markers (BTMs), and adverse events. RESULTS: Randomized patients (N = 701) were an average of 20.4 years postmenopausal. After 24 months, increases in lumbar spine BMD differed significantly between patients receiving calcium alone (0.8%) and either alendronate alone (5.6%) or alendronate + calcium (6.0%) (p < 0.001). Significant differences were also seen at the trochanter and femoral neck (p < 0.001). BTMs were significantly lower with alendronate-containing treatments than calcium alone (p < 0.001). Addition of calcium supplementation to alendronate did not significantly increase BMD compared to alendronate alone (p = 0.29 to 0.97), but did result in a statistically significant, though small, additional reduction in urinary NTx. Adverse events were similar among treatment groups. Limitations include no assessment of vitamin D levels and a discontinuation rate of approximately 30%, although discontinuation rates were similar among treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: In postmenopausal women with a daily intake of > or =800 mg calcium and 400 IU vitamin D, 24-month treatment with alendronate 10 mg daily with or without calcium 1000 mg resulted in significantly greater increases in BMD and reduction of bone turnover than supplemental calcium alone. Addition of supplemental calcium to alendronate treatment had no effect on BMD and resulted in a small, though statistically significant, additional reduction in NTx.

The effect of routine, early invasive management on outcome for elderly patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes.

BACKGROUND: Although increasing age is an important risk factor for adverse outcome among patients with acute coronary syndromes, elderly patients are more often managed conservatively. OBJECTIVE: To examine outcome according to age and management strategy for patients with unstable angina and non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (MI). DESIGN: Randomized, controlled trial conducted from December 1997 to June 2000. SETTING: 169 community and tertiary care hospitals in 9 countries. PATIENTS: 2220 patients hospitalized with unstable angina and non-ST-segment elevation MI who were randomly assigned to an early invasive or conservative management strategy. INTERVENTIONS: Medical therapy and coronary angiography at 4 to 48 hours versus medical therapy and predischarge exercise testing. MEASUREMENTS: Rates of 30-day and 6-month mortality, nonfatal MI, rehospitalization, stroke, and hemorrhagic complications. RESULTS: Among patients 65 years of age and older, the early invasive strategy compared with the conservative strategy yielded an absolute reduction of 4.8 percentage points (8.8% vs. 13.6%; P = 0.018) and a relative reduction of 39% in death or MI at 6 months. Outcomes of the 2 strategies were similar, however, among patients younger than 65 years of age (6.1% vs. 6.5%; P > 0.2). Among patients older than 75 years of age, the early invasive strategy conferred an absolute reduction of 10.8 percentage points (10.8% vs. 21.6%; P = 0.016) and a relative reduction of 56% in death or MI at 6 months. The additional cost per death or MI prevented with the early invasive strategy was lower for elderly patients, but major bleeding rates were higher with this strategy in patients older than 75 years of age (16.6% vs. 6.5%; P = 0.009). LIMITATIONS: Because this study involved patients in the Treat Angina with Aggrastat and Determine Cost of Therapy with an Invasive or Conservative Strategy-Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TACTICS-TIMI) 18 trial, its generalizability to elderly patients with excluded comorbid conditions is unknown. CONCLUSION: Despite an increased risk for major bleeding in patients older than 75 years of age, a routine early invasive strategy can significantly improve ischemic outcomes in elderly patients with unstable angina and non-ST-segment elevation MI.

Dorzolamide/Timolol fixed combination versus concomitant administration of brimonidine and timolol in patients with elevated intraocular pressure: a 3-month comparison of efficacy, tolerability, and patient-reported measures.

BACKGROUND: To compare the intraocular pressure (IOP) lowering effect, tolerability, and patient-reported measures of the dorzolamide/timolol fixed combination and the concomitant administration of brimonidine and timolol after 3 months. METHODS: Four hundred ninety-two patients with ocular hypertension, primary open-angle glaucoma, exfoliative glaucoma, or pigmentary glaucoma participated in this randomized, observer-masked, multicenter study. Following 3 weeks of timolol monotherapy, patients with a peak IOP of > or = 2 mm Hg were randomized to receive either fixed combination dorzolamide/timolol twice daily or concomitant brimonidine plus timolol twice daily for 3 months. The IOP-lowering effects at peak and trough, tolerability, and patient-reported convenience and satisfaction were measured at months 1 and 3. RESULTS: At month 3 peak, the dorzolamide/timolol group had an adjusted mean (SE) change from baseline IOP of -4.30 (0.24) mm Hg versus -5.27 (0.23) mm Hg in the brimonidine-plus-timolol group, with a treatment difference of 0.97 mm Hg (95% CI: 0.40, 1.53). At the month 3 trough timepoint and both month 1 timepoints, the 95% CIs of the treatment differences were within the prespecified comparability boundary of +/- 1.5 mm Hg. The incidence of drug-related adverse experiences was similar between treatment groups. Patient-reported assessments of convenience and satisfaction showed no statistically significant differences between treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: The IOP-lowering effect of the dorzolamide/timolol fixed combination and concomitant brimonidine plus timolol were comparable at 3 of the 4 timepoints measured. Patient-reported measures and the incidence of adverse experiences in both treatment groups were similar.

Greater benefit of early invasive strategy for unstable angina and non-ST elevation myocardial infarction in United States compared with non-United States patients: a TACTICS-TIMI 18 substudy.

BACKGROUND: The TACTICS-TIMI 18 (Treat Angina with Aggrastat and Determine Cost of Therapy with an Invasive or Conservative Strategy - Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 18) trial compared routine invasive to conservative care for the management of patients with unstable angina and non ST-elevation myocardial infarction, and included the routine use of the platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor tirofiban in the initial medical stabilization of all patients. METHODS: Because previous trials utilizing IIb/IIIa inhibition for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients have demonstrated different outcomes in non-US and US patients, the authors sought to determine whether differences in baseline characteristics and practice patterns between 1844 US and 376 non-US patients and physicians would affect outcomes in the TACTICS-TIMI 18 trial. Event rates were stratified by treatment strategy and adjusted for baseline and treatment differences between cohorts. RESULTS: Although US subjects were more likely women, hypertensive, and diabetic, the US and non-US patients did not differ with respect to low, intermediate, or high TIMI risk scores. For US patients, the primary composite end point of death, myocardial infarction (MI), and rehospitalization for ACS was reduced with an invasive strategy by 40% (95% CI: 0.43-0.83) at 30 days and by 30% (95% CI: 0.55-0.88) at 180 days. Non-US patients managed conservatively had 35% fewer events at 180 days than their invasive counterparts resulting in no benefit for the invasive strategy (P = 0.016 for the interaction term between country and treatment group). Similar results were observed for the additional outcome of death and MI, and in troponin-positive patients. Adjustment for baseline characteristics, medications during the initial hospitalization, and the use of cardiac procedures suggested that a higher cross-over rate from conservative to invasive care in non-US patients (59% versus 49%, P = 0.02) was the most likely explanation for the lower event rate in the conservatively managed patients outside the US. CONCLUSION: US patients treated with tirofiban and early routine cardiac catheterization had a 30% reduction in major cardiac events by 6 months compared with those treated with tirofiban and a conservative (selective invasive) approach. Non-US patients treated conservatively had fewer events than US patients, which appears to be related to a higher rate of cross-over to invasive care. These findings emphasize the importance of both risk stratification and invasive management for ACS patients.

Effect on high-density lipoprotein cholesterol of maximum dose simvastatin and atorvastatin in patients with hypercholesterolemia: results of the Comparative HDL Efficacy and Safety Study (CHESS).

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have shown that effects on high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) may differ among statins. METHODS: A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-dose study was conducted in 917 hypercholesterolemic patients to compare the efficacy of 80 mg/d simvastatin versus 80 mg/d atorvastatin on HDL-C and apolipoprotein (apo) A-I for 24 weeks. Efficacy was assessed as the means of weeks 6 and 12 and weeks 18 and 24. Prespecified subgroups analyzed were patients with low HDL-C levels and with the metabolic syndrome. RESULTS: Simvastatin increased HDL-C and apo A-I values significantly more than did atorvastatin for the mean of weeks 6 and 12 (8.9% vs 3.6% and 4.9% vs -0.9%, respectively) and the mean of weeks 18 and 24 (8.3% vs 4.2% and 3.7% vs -1.4%). These differences were observed across both baseline HDL-C subgroups (<40 mg/dL, > or =40 mg/dL) and in patients with the metabolic syndrome. Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and triglyceride reductions were greater with atorvastatin. Consecutive elevations >3x the upper limit of normal in alanine aminotransferase (ALT) and/or aspartate aminotransferase (AST) occurred in significantly fewer patients treated with simvastatin than with atorvastatin (2/453 [0.4%] vs 13/464 [2.8%]), with most elevations observed in women taking atorvastatin (11/209 [5.3%] vs 1/199 [0.5%] for simvastatin). CONCLUSIONS: Simvastatin (80 mg) increased HDL-C and apo A-I significantly more than did atorvastatin (80 mg) in patients with hypercholesterolemia. This advantage was observed regardless of HDL-C level at baseline or the presence of the metabolic syndrome. Significantly fewer consecutive elevations >3x the upper limit of normal in ALT and/or AST occurred in patients receiving simvastatin.

Dorzolamide/timolol combination versus concomitant administration of brimonidine and timolol: six-month comparison of efficacy and tolerability.

PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy and tolerability of the 2% dorzolamide/0.5% timolol combination ophthalmic solution twice daily to the concomitant administration of 0.2% brimonidine ophthalmic solution twice daily and 0.5% timolol ophthalmic solution twice daily. DESIGN: Randomized, multicenter, observer-masked, parallel-group study. PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred ninety-three patients with ocular hypertension or primary open-angle glaucoma participated. INTERVENTION: After an open-label 3-week 0.5% timolol run-in period, patients with an hour 2 intraocular pressure (IOP) of > or = 22 mmHg were randomly assigned to receive either the dorzolamide/timolol combination twice daily or the concomitant use of brimonidine twice daily and timolol twice daily (brimonidine + timolol) for 6 months. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The IOP-lowering effects at hour 0 and hour 2 were collected at 1, 3, and 6 months. We hypothesized that both treatment regimens would have comparable hour 2 IOP-lowering effects at month 3. The treatments were considered comparable if the two-sided 95% confidence interval of the treatment difference was within +/- 1.5 mmHg. Tolerability data were also collected at 1, 3, and 6 months. RESULTS: The primary efficacy analysis was based on the modified intent-to-treat population. At month 3, hour 2, the dorzolamide/timolol group had an adjusted mean (standard error) change in IOP of -5.04 (0.30) mmHg versus -5.41 (0.30) mmHg in the brimonidine + timolol group, with a treatment difference of 0.36 (0.40) mmHg (95% confidence interval [CI] of -0.42-1.14 mmHg). At month 3, hour 0, the dorzolamide/timolol group had a change in IOP of -3.66 (0.29) mmHg versus -4.15 (0.28) mmHg in the brimonidine + timolol group, with a treatment difference of 0.49 (0.39) mmHg (95% CI of -0.27-1.25 mmHg). Likewise, at all other observed time points, the 95% confidence interval of the treatment difference was within +/- 1.5 mmHg. Ninety-three patients (64%) in the dorzolamide/timolol group and 88 patients (60%) in the brimonidine + timolol group had adverse experiences that were deemed drug related by the investigator, for which 7 patients (5%) in the dorzolamide/timolol group and 8 patients (5%) in the brimonidine + timolol group were discontinued from the study. CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy of the dorzolamide/timolol combination and the concomitant administration of brimonidine and timolol were comparable. The incidence of drug-related adverse experiences and the incidence of discontinuations caused by drug-related adverse experiences were similar between groups.

Alendronate improves bone mineral density in elderly women with osteoporosis residing in long-term care facilities. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Many elderly female residents of long-term care facilities have osteoporosis and could benefit from intervention to increase bone density. OBJECTIVE: To examine the efficacy and safety of alendronate for treatment of osteoporosis in elderly female residents of long-term care facilities. DESIGN: Multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled 2-year study. SETTING: 25 long-term care facilities. PATIENTS: 327 elderly women with osteoporosis. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomly assigned to receive alendronate, 10 mg/d, or placebo. All patients also received vitamin D, 400 IU/d, and some patients received supplemental calcium (total intake, approximately 1500 mg/d). MEASUREMENTS: Bone mineral density (BMD) of the spine and hip and biochemical markers of bone turnover. RESULTS: Alendronate produced significantly greater increases in BMD than did placebo (24-month differences: spine, 4.4% [95% CI, 3.3% to 5.5%]; femoral neck, 3.4% [CI, 2.3% to 4.4%]). Alendronate produced greater decreases from baseline in biochemical markers of bone turnover than did placebo (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Alendronate increased BMD at both the spine and hip in elderly female residents of long-term care facilities.