Clinical evaluation of switching from immediate-release to prolonged-release lithium in bipolar patients, poorly tolerant to lithium immediate-release treatment: A randomized clinical trial.

AIM: The effect of switching from lithium immediate release (Li-IR) to lithium prolonged release (Li-PR) on lithium-induced tremor after 1 and 12 weeks of treatment was evaluated in a randomized, multicenter, open trial, in bipolar patients from the participating sites with a tremor severity ≥2 (Udvalg for Kliniske Undersøgelser [UKU] rating scale) despite optimal lithium titration. METHODS: The primary endpoint was the evaluation of tremor by means of the UKU scale after 1 week of treatment. Secondary endpoints included manic Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) and depressive symptoms (Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale), a global assessment of the patient's status (Clinical Global Impression), polyuria/polydipsia (UKU item 3.8) and patient-reported outcomes. RESULTS: Owing to difficulties in including suitable patients the enrollment phase was closed when 73 patients were randomized. Notwithstanding the lower number of patients, in the modified intention-to-treat population (n = 70) the primary endpoint was statistically significant: tremor improved after 1 week in 62.9% in Li-PR group against 20.0% of patients in Li-IR group (p = .0006; two-tailed Fisher's exact test). The difference remained statistically significant after 4 (p = .0031) and 12 weeks (p = .0128). The same analysis performed in the PP population confirmed these results. Among the secondary endpoints, only the factor convenience of the treatment satisfaction questionnaire showed a statistically significant difference between groups. There were no apparent differences in the safety profile of the two formulations. CONCLUSIONS: This study is the first comparative documentation of a potential benefit of the prolonged-release formulation in reducing the symptom tremor, a well-known adverse effect of lithium therapy. Indeed, the study results should be interpreted taking into account the sample size lower than planned.

A double-blind randomised study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of bindarit in preventing coronary stent restenosis.

AIMS: Bindarit (BND) is a selective inhibitor of monocyte chemotactic protein-1 (MCP-1/CCL2), which plays an important role in generating intimal hyperplasia. Our aim was to explore the efficacy and safety of bindarit in preventing restenosis following percutaneous coronary intervention. METHODS AND RESULTS: A phase II, double-blind, multicentre randomised trial included 148 patients randomised into three arms (BND 600 mg, n=48; BND 1,200 mg, n=49; PLB, n=51). Bindarit was given following PCI and continued for 180 days. Monthly clinical follow-up and six-month coronary angiography were conducted. The primary endpoint was in-segment late loss; the main secondary endpoints were in-stent late loss and major adverse cardiovascular events. Efficacy analysis was carried out on two populations, ITT and PP. There were no significant differences in the baseline characteristics among the three treatment groups. In-segment and in-stent late loss at six months in BND 600, BND 1,200 and PLB were: (ITT 0.54 vs. 0.52 vs. 0.72; p=0.21), (PP 0.46 vs. 0.53 vs. 0.72; p=0.12) and (ITT 0.74 vs. 0.74 vs. 1.05; p=0.01), (PP 0.66 vs. 0.73 vs. 1.06; p=0.003), respectively. The MACE rates at nine months among treatment groups were 20.8% vs. 28.6% vs. 25.5% (p=0.54), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This was a negative study with the primary endpoint not being met. However, significant reduction in the in-stent late loss suggests that bindarit probably exerts a favourable action on the vessel wall following angioplasty. Bindarit was well tolerated with a compliance rate of over 90%. A larger study utilising a loading dose and targeting a specific patient cohort may demonstrate more significant results.