Five-step authorship framework to improve transparency in disclosing contributors to industry-sponsored clinical trial publications.

Authorship guidelines have established criteria to guide author selection based on significance of contribution and helped to define associated responsibilities and accountabilities for the published findings. However, low awareness, variable interpretation, and inconsistent application of these guidelines can lead to confusion and a lack of transparency when recognizing those who merit authorship. This article describes a research project led by the Medical Publishing Insights and Practices (MPIP) Initiative to identify current challenges when determining authorship for industry-sponsored clinical trials and develop an improved approach to facilitate decision-making when recognizing authors from related publications. A total of 498 clinical investigators, journal editors, publication professionals and medical writers were surveyed to understand better how they would adjudicate challenging, real-world authorship case scenarios, determine the perceived frequency of each scenario and rate their confidence in the responses provided. Multiple rounds of discussions about these results with journal editors, clinical investigators and industry representatives led to the development of key recommendations intended to enhance transparency when determining authorship. These included forming a representative group to establish authorship criteria early in a trial, having all trial contributors agree to these criteria and documenting trial contributions to objectively determine who warrants an invitation to participate in the manuscript development process. The resulting Five-step Authorship Framework is designed to create a more standardized approach when determining authorship for clinical trial publications. Overall, these recommendations aim to facilitate more transparent authorship decisions and help readers better assess the credibility of results and perspectives of the authors for medical research more broadly. Please see related article: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/12/214.

Rizatriptan for treatment of acute migraine in patients taking topiramate for migraine prophylaxis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess efficacy and tolerability of rizatriptan orally disintegrating tablet (ODT) for treatment of acute migraine in patients using topiramate for migraine prophylaxis. BACKGROUND: There are limited data from prospective controlled trials demonstrating the benefit of triptans in patients who experience migraine attacks while taking prophylactic medication. METHODS: This was a worldwide, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, multiple-attack study in adults with a >1-year history of migraine taking a stable dose of topiramate for migraine prophylaxis and experiencing ≥2 moderate/severe attacks per month. Participants treated 3 moderate/severe attacks in crossover fashion (2 with rizatriptan 10-mg ODT, 1 with placebo) following random assignment to 1 of 3 treatment sequences. The primary end point was 2-hour pain relief. RESULTS: Two-hour pain relief was significantly greater with rizatriptan compared with placebo (55.0% vs 17.4%, P < .001). Response rates also favored rizatriptan for sustained pain relief from 2-24 hours (32.6% vs 11.1%, P < .001), 2-hour pain freedom (36.0% vs 6.5%, P < .001), normal functional ability at 2 hours (42.2% vs 12.7%, P < .001), and overall treatment satisfaction at 24 hours (60.8% vs 33.6%, P < .001). Few participants reported adverse experiences (16 [15.8%] with rizatriptan, 3 [3.2%] with placebo); none were serious. CONCLUSION: Rizatriptan 10-mg ODT was superior to placebo at all pain end points for treatment of acute migraine in patients using topiramate for migraine prophylaxis. Rizatriptan was generally well tolerated in this population. These results are comparable with those from clinical trials in patients not using prophylaxis, suggesting that the use of topiramate does not affect the efficacy or tolerability of rizatriptan for acute migraine treatment.

Efficacy and tolerability of rizatriptan for the treatment of acute migraine in sumatriptan non-responders.

OBJECTIVE: The study was carried out to assess the efficacy and tolerability of rizatriptan orally disintegrating tablet (ODT) for treating acute migraine in patients who are non-responders to sumatriptan. BACKGROUND: Many migraineurs report dissatisfaction with sumatriptan efficacy. It is unclear whether sumatriptan 100 mg non-responders will respond to other triptans. METHODS: This was a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study in adults with >1-year history of ICHD-II (International Classification of Headache Disorders, second edition) migraine who reported that they generally do not respond to sumatriptan (≥50% unsatisfactory response). In the baseline phase, participants treated a single moderate/severe migraine attack with open-label generic sumatriptan 100 mg. Those who continued to experience moderate/severe pain at two hours post-dose were eligible to enter the double-blind treatment phase, during which participants treated three migraine attacks in crossover fashion (two with rizatriptan 10-mg ODT, one with placebo) after being randomly assigned to one of three treatment sequences (1 : 1 : 1 ratio). The primary endpoint was two-hour pain relief. RESULTS: A total of 102 (94%) participants treated at least one study migraine. Pain relief at two hours was significantly greater with rizatriptan compared with placebo (51% vs. 20%, p < .001). Response rates also favored rizatriptan on two-hour pain freedom (22% vs. 12%, p = .013) as well as 24-hour sustained pain relief (38% vs. 14%, p < .001) and sustained pain freedom (20% vs. 11%, p = .036). Treatment was generally well tolerated. CONCLUSION: Rizatriptan 10-mg ODT was superior to placebo at providing two-hour pain relief and two-hour pain freedom in the treatment of acute migraine in those who do not respond to sumatriptan 100 mg. Rizatriptan was generally well tolerated in this population.

Total migraine freedom, a potential primary endpoint to assess acute treatment in migraine: comparison to the current FDA requirement using the complete rizatriptan study database.

OBJECTIVE: To examine total migraine freedom (TMF), defined as pain freedom and absence of associated symptoms, using rizatriptan clinical trial data and to explore advantages of TMF as a single primary composite efficacy endpoint. BACKGROUND: The FDA has set a higher regulatory hurdle for registration of new migraine agents requiring both pain freedom (or relief) and absence of each associated symptom (phonophobia, photophobia, and nausea). METHODS: Twelve studies representing phase III + efficacy/safety studies of rizatriptan 10 mg in adults treating migraine were included in the meta-analysis. The percentage of patients achieving TMF at 2 hours by study and combined by treatment group was summarized by treatment paradigm (early/mild pain, moderate/severe, menstrual migraine). To demonstrate the impact of the strict migraine regulatory hurdle on clinical trial design and to compare it to TMF, simulation via bootstrap sampling was used. RESULTS: Odds ratios (rizatriptan vs placebo, all P < .001) for TMF were 6.2 (95% CI: [4.9, 7.7]) for moderate/severe, 2.7 (95% CI: [1.8, 4.0]) for menstrual, and 3.1 (95% CI: [2.4, 4.0]) for early/mild. Most with moderate/severe migraine reported photophobia and/or phonophobia at baseline, but only half had nausea. Simulation results showed a substantial loss of power analyzing absence of pain and each symptom compared with the composite TMF endpoint across all treatment paradigms. CONCLUSION: Rizatriptan 10 mg was superior to placebo in achieving TMF at 2 hours post-dose across all treatment paradigms. Given that the majority of patients with migraine do not exhibit all 3 associated symptoms, the TMF endpoint has significant advantages vs establishing efficacy on pain and each symptom individually.

Reports of suicidality in clinical trials of montelukast.

BACKGROUND: In recent years, a number of drugs and drug classes have come under scrutiny by the US Food and Drug Administration regarding suicidality (including suicidal behavior and ideation). OBJECTIVE: We sought to perform 2 reviews (requested by the US Food and Drug Administration) of the number of events possibly related to suicidality reported in Merck clinical trials of montelukast. METHODS: Method 1 was a descriptive review of clinical adverse experiences (AEs) from 116 studies (double-blind and open-label, adult and pediatric, and single- and multiple-dose studies) completed as of March 2008. Summaries were constructed from investigator-reported AE terms possibly related to suicidality (completed suicide, suicide attempt, and suicidal ideation) or self-injurious behavior. Method 2 used a retrospective adjudication of investigator-reported AEs and other events listed in the study database described as possibly suicidality-related adverse events (PSRAEs) in a prespecified set of 41 double-blind, placebo-controlled trials completed as of April 2008. RESULTS: No completed suicides were reported in any study. For the descriptive review, 20,131 adults and children received montelukast, 9,287 received placebo, and 8,346 received active control; AEs possibly related to suicidality were rare and were similar between the montelukast and placebo or active-control groups. For the adjudicated review across 22,433 patients, there were 730 adjudicated events. In 9,929 patients taking montelukast, 1 PSRAE was identified (classified as suicidal ideation); none were identified in 7,780 and 4,724 patients taking placebo and active control, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Assessed by using 2 complementary methods, there were no reports of completed suicide, and reports of PSRAEs were rare in patients receiving montelukast and similar to those seen in control subjects.

Analysis of behavior-related adverse experiences in clinical trials of montelukast.

BACKGROUND: Frequencies of behavior-related adverse experiences (BRAEs) in controlled clinical studies of leukotriene modifier drugs have not been summarized. OBJECTIVE: We sought to compare the frequency of BRAEs in patients receiving montelukast or placebo in a retrospective analysis of Merck clinical trial data. METHODS: An adverse experience database was constructed to include all double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of montelukast meeting prespecified criteria. BRAEs (described using the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities controlled vocabulary dictionary) were prespecified to include any term in the Psychiatric Disorders System Organ Class, selected terms related to general disorders, and terms related to akathisia. Frequencies of BRAEs (overall, leading to study discontinuation, and/or serious) were summarized. Analyses estimated the odds ratios (ORs) for montelukast versus placebo based on the frequency of patients with BRAEs in each study. RESULTS: In total 35 adult and 11 pediatric placebo-controlled trials were included; 11,673 patients received montelukast, 8,827 received placebo, and 4,724 received active control. The frequency of patients with 1 or more BRAEs was 2.73% and 2.27% in the montelukast and placebo groups, respectively; the OR for montelukast versus placebo was 1.12 (95% CI, 0.93-1.36). The frequency of patients with a BRAE leading to study discontinuation was 0.07% and 0.11% in the montelukast and placebo groups, respectively (OR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.17-1.51). The frequency of patients with a BRAE considered serious was 0.03% in both treatment groups. CONCLUSION: Reports of BRAEs were infrequent in clinical trials of montelukast. Those leading to study discontinuation or considered serious were rare. Frequencies were similar regardless of treatment group.

Expanding access to triptans: assessment of clinical outcome.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether access to more liberal quantities of rizatriptan improves clinical outcome in patients with episodic migraine. BACKGROUND: Currently many pharmacy benefit programs limit the number of triptan tablets/injections per month based on perceived cost savings and the belief that too-frequent use of triptans may lead to medication overuse headache and headache chronification. METHODS: This observer-blind, randomized, parallel-group study enrolled 197 subjects with migraine with or without aura. Subjects completed a 3-month baseline period to establish migraine frequency and then were randomly assigned to receive 9 (formulary limit [FL]) or 27 (clinical limit [CL]) tablets of 10 mg rizatriptan orally disintegrating tablet (ODT) per month for 3 months. The primary endpoint was change in the mean number of migraine days from the baseline to treatment period. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference between the FL and CL groups in mean number of migraine days (FL-CL LS mean: -0.08 [-0.39, 0.23]; P = .613). Subjects in the CL group treated attacks at lower headache severity. No CL subjects were reported to have developed chronic migraine despite utilization of greater than 10 rizatriptan ODT tablets per month. Rizatriptan was generally well tolerated by both groups. CONCLUSION: Providing a greater quantity of rizatriptan ODT 10 mg did not reduce the number of migraine days compared with providing 9 tablets per month for this population with episodic migraine with a frequency of 3-8 migraines per month. Regardless of quantity provided, rizatriptan was generally well tolerated.

Rizatriptan 10-mg ODT for early treatment of migraine and impact of migraine education on treatment response.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the efficacy of rizatriptan 10-mg orally disintegrating tablet (ODT) for treating migraines of mild intensity soon after onset, with or without patient-specific migraine education. BACKGROUND: Studies have shown rizatriptan tablet efficacy in early migraine treatment. METHODS: In this randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, factorial design study, adults with a history of migraine were assigned to rizatriptan 10-mg ODT patient education (personalized summary of early migraine signs and symptoms) or placebo patient education in a 1 : 1 : 1 : 1 ratio. Patients were instructed to treat 1 attack at the earliest time they knew that their headache was a migraine, while pain was mild. During the next 24 hours, patients assessed pain severity, associated symptoms, functional disability, use of rescue medication, and treatment satisfaction. The primary endpoint was pain freedom at 2 hours; a key secondary endpoint was 24-hour sustained pain freedom. RESULTS: Of 207 patients randomized to treatment, 188 (91%) treated a study migraine. Significantly more patients taking rizatriptan reported pain freedom at 2 hours compared with placebo (66.3% vs 28.1%, P < .001). Similarly, significantly more patients taking rizatriptan reported 24-hour sustained pain freedom (52.2% vs 17.7%, P < .001). A greater proportion of patients in the rizatriptan + education group reported pain freedom at 2 hours compared with those in the rizatriptan + no education group (71.7% vs 60.9%, P = .430). Few adverse events were reported. CONCLUSION: Rizatriptan 10-mg ODT, when taken early, while headache pain is mild, was superior to placebo at providing pain freedom at 2 hours and 24-hour sustained pain freedom.

Rizatriptan efficacy in ICHD-II pure menstrual migraine and menstrually related migraine.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the efficacy of rizatriptan for the treatment of pure menstrual migraine (PMM). BACKGROUND: In 2004, the International Headache Society proposed new research criteria for menstrual migraine (International Classification of Headache Disorders [ICHD-II]). Two subtypes were defined: PMM, in which attacks occur exclusively with menstruation, and menstrually related migraine (MRM), in which attacks may also occur at other times of the cycle. METHODS: The 2 protocols (MM1 and MM2) were identical randomized, double-blind studies. Adult patients with ICHD-II menstrual migraine were assigned to either rizatriptan 10-mg tablet or placebo (2:1). Patients were to treat a single menstrual migraine attack of moderate or severe pain intensity. This prospectively planned substudy pooled data from patients with a diagnosis of PMM from both studies. The primary substudy endpoint was 2-hour pain relief. Efficacy data were summarized for patients with a diagnosis of MRM. RESULTS: Of 707 (MM1: 357, MM2: 350) patients treated in the study, 146 patients (MM1: 81, MM2: 65) had a diagnosis of PMM. The percentage of patients reporting 2-hour pain relief was significantly greater for rizatriptan than for placebo for both PMM (73% vs 50%, P = .006) and MRM subgroups (71% vs 52%, P < .001). Most other efficacy endpoints favored rizatriptan compared with placebo in patients with either PMM or MRM. CONCLUSION: Rizatriptan 10 mg was superior to placebo for the treatment of PMM, as measured by 2-hour pain relief. Rizatriptan was also effective for the treatment of MRM and for relief of migraine-associated symptoms for both headache subtypes.

Efficacy and tolerability of aprepitant for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with breast cancer after moderately emetogenic chemotherapy.

PURPOSE: This is the first study in which the NK(1)-receptor antagonist, aprepitant (APR), was evaluated for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) with moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible breast cancer patients were naive to emetogenic chemotherapy and treated with cyclophosphamide +/- doxorubicin or epirubicin. Patients were randomly assigned to either an aprepitant regimen (day 1, APR 125 mg, ondansetron (OND) 8 mg, and dexamethasone 12 mg before chemotherapy and OND 8 mg 8 hours later; days 2 through 3, APR 80 qd) [DOSAGE ERROR CORRECTED] or a control regimen (day 1, OND 8 mg and dexamethasone 20 mg before chemotherapy and OND 8 mg 8 hours later; days 2 through 3, OND 8 mg bid). Data on nausea, vomiting, and use of rescue medication were collected with a self-report diary. The primary efficacy end point was the proportion of patients with complete response, defined as no vomiting and no use of rescue therapy, during 120 hours after initiation of chemotherapy in cycle 1. The secondary end point was the proportion of patients with an average item score higher than 6 of 7 on the Functional Living Index-Emesis questionnaire. RESULTS: Of 866 patients randomized, 857 patients (99%) were assessable. Overall complete response was greater with the aprepitant regimen than with the control regimen (50.8% v 42.5%; P = .015). More patients in the aprepitant group reported minimal or no impact of CINV on daily life (63.5% v 55.6%; P = .019). Both treatments were generally well tolerated. CONCLUSION: The aprepitant regimen was more effective than the control regimen for prevention of CINV in patients receiving both an anthracycline and cyclophosphamide.

Pharmacokinetic profile of rizatriptan 10-mg tablet and 10-mg orally disintegrating tablet administered with or without water in healthy subjects: an open-label, randomized, single-dose, 3-period crossover study.

This open-label, 3-period crossover study compared the plasma concentration profiles of rizatriptan tablet, orally disintegrating tablet with water (ODTc), and ODT without water (ODTs) in 24 healthy volunteers aged 18 to 45 years. At each period, subjects received a single dose of either 10-mg rizatriptan tablet, 10-mg rizatriptan ODTs, or 10-mg rizatriptan ODTc. The authors hypothesized that ODTc has a greater geometric mean AUC(0-2h) than ODTs and that ODTc has a greater geometric mean AUC(0-1h) than tablet. A secondary end point was to compare the time of occurrence of the maximum rizatriptan plasma concentration (t(max)) of each dosing method. ODTc had a statistically significantly greater geometric mean AUC(0-2h) compared with ODTs (33.84 h x ng/mL vs 18.83 h x ng/mL; P < .001). ODTc had a slightly, but not statistically significantly, greater geometric mean AUC(0-1h) compared with rizatriptan tablet (17.07 h x ng/mL vs 13.32 h x ng/mL). The median t(max) was 0.67 hours for ODTc and tablet and 1.33 hours for ODTs. ODTc showed a slightly, but not significantly, faster rate of absorption compared with tablet. ODTs with water had a faster rate of absorption than ODTc. Future studies are needed to determine whether this pharmacokinetic difference produces differential efficacy in a clinical setting.

Short-term and long-term asthma control in patients with mild persistent asthma receiving montelukast or fluticasone: a randomized controlled trial.

PURPOSE: To determine whether montelukast is as effective as fluticasone in controlling mild persistent asthma as determined by rescue-free days. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Participants aged 15 to 85 years with mild persistent asthma (n = 400) were randomized to oral montelukast (10 mg once nightly) or inhaled fluticasone (88 mug twice daily) in a year-long, parallel-group, multicenter study with a 12-week, double-blind period, followed by a 36-week, open-label period. RESULTS: The mean percentage of rescue-free days was similar between treatments after 12 weeks (fluticasone: 74.9%, montelukast: 73.1%; difference = 1.8%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -3.2% to 6.8%) but not during the open-label period (fluticasone: 77.3%, montelukast: 71.1%; difference = 6.2%, 95% CI: 0.8% to 11.7%). Although both fluticasone and montelukast significantly improved symptoms, quality of life, and symptom-free days during both treatment periods, greater improvements occurred with fluticasone in lung function during both periods and in asthma control during open-label treatment. Post hoc analyses revealed a difference in rescue-free days favoring fluticasone in participants in the quartiles for lowest lung function and greatest albuterol use at baseline. CONCLUSION: In patients with mild persistent asthma, rescue-free days and most asthma control measures improved similarly with fluticasone or montelukast over the short term, but with prolonged open-label treatment, asthma control improved more with fluticasone. Improved asthma control with fluticasone appeared to occur in those with decreased lung function and greater albuterol use at baseline. In the remaining patients, the two treatments appeared to be comparable. These results suggest that classification criteria for mild persistent asthma may need to be re-evaluated.

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.

Effects of aprepitant on the pharmacokinetics of ondansetron and granisetron in healthy subjects.

BACKGROUND: The neurokinin-1-receptor antagonist aprepitant, when given in combination with a corticosteroid and a 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 (5-HT(3))-receptor antagonist, has been shown to be effective for the prevention of acute and delated chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). OBJECTIVE: Two studies were conducted to determine whether concomitant administration of aprepitant altered the pharmacokinetic profiles of ondansetron and granisetron, two 5-HT(3)-receptor antagonists commonly used as antiemetic therapy for CINV. METHODS: The 2 studies were randomized, open-label, crossover trials conducted in healthy subjects aged between 18 and 46 years. Study 1 involved the following 2 treatment regimens: aprepitant 375 mg PO, dexamethasone 20 mg PO, and ondansetron 32 mg IV on day 1, followed by aprepitant 250 mg PO and dexamethasone 8 mg PO on days 2 through 5; and dexamethasone 20 mg PO and ondansetron 32 mg IV on day 1, followed by dexamethasone 8 mg PO on days 2 through 5. Study 2 involved the following 2 treatment regimens: aprepitant 125 mg PO with granisetron 2 mg PO on day 1, followed by aprepitant 80 mg PO on days 2 and 3; and granisetron 2 mg PO on day 1 only. Individual plasma samples were used to estimate area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time zero to infinity (AUC(0- infinity )), peak plasma concentration, and apparent terminal elimination half-life (t(12)) of both ondansetron and granisetron. RESULTS: Study 1 included 19 subjects (10 women, 9 men), and study 2 included 18 subjects (11 men, 7 women). Coadministration of aprepitant 375 mg produced a small but statistically significant increase in the AUC(0- infinity ) for intravenous ondansetron (from 1268.3 to 1456.5 ng.h/mL; P = 0.019), with no significant effect on peak concentration at the end of the infusion (360.8 ng/mL with aprepitant vs 408.4 ng/mL without) or t(12) (5.0 vs 4.5 hours, respectively). Coadministration of aprepitant 125 mg/80 mg did not alter the mean pharmacokinetic characteristics of oral granisetron (AUC(0- infinity ), 101.4 ng.h/mL with aprepitant vs 92.2 ng.h/mL without; maximum plasma concentration, 9.0 ng/mL with and without aprepitant; time to maximum plasma concentration, both 3.0 hours; t(12), 6.5 vs 6.9 hours, respectively). CONCLUSION: Concomitant administration of aprepitant had no clinically significant effect on the mean pharmacokinetic characteristics of either ondansetron or granisetron in these healthy subjects.

A comparison of the effects of oral montelukast and inhaled salmeterol on response to rescue bronchodilation after challenge.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the effects of addition of montelukast or salmeterol to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) on the response to rescue beta2-agonist use after exercise-induced bronchoconstriction. METHODS: A double-blind, placebo-controlled study was performed at 16 centers in the United States. Patients with asthma (n = 122, ages 15-58) whose symptoms were uncontrolled on Low-dose inhaled fluticasone and who had a history of exercise-induced worsening of asthma were randomized to receive either montelukast (10 mg once daily), salmeterol (50microg twice daily), or placebo for 4 weeks. Standardized spirometry after exercise challenge and beta2-agonist rescue was performed at baseline, week 1 and 4. RESULTS: Maximum achievable forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) percent predicted after rescue beta2-agonist improved in the montelukast (+1.5%) and placebo (+1.2%) groups at 4 weeks, but diminished in the salmeterol (-3.9%) group (P < 0.001). Although pre-exercise FEV1 was greatest with salmeterol (P = 0.10), patients taking montelukast had significantly greater protection from an exercise-induced decrease in FEV1 than those taking salmeterol (P < 0.001). Both the magnitude and rate of rescue bronchodilation were greater with montelukast compared with salmeterol (P < 0.001). Five minutes after rescue beta2-agonist, 92% of patients taking montelukast and 68% of those taking placebo had recovered to pre-exercise levels, whereas only 50% of those taking salmeterol had recovered to pre-exercise levels. CONCLUSION: In patients whose asthma symptoms remain uncontrolled using ICS, addition of montelukast permits a greater and more rapid rescue bronchodilation with a short-acting beta2-agonist than addition of salmeterol and provides consistent and clinically meaningful protection against exercise-induced bronchoconstriction.

Variability of symptoms in mild persistent asthma: baseline data from the MIAMI study.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the variability of the asthma phenotype in patients with mild persistent asthma enrolled in the Mild Asthma Montelukast versus Inhaled Corticosteroid (MIAMI) study. METHODS: The variability of asthma rescue-free days, asthma symptoms, albuterol use, medical resource use, and exercise Limitations among patients with documented mild persistent asthma was compared between the month before study enrollment and the last 2 weeks of the run-in period. RESULTS: Patients eligible for randomization (n = 400), aged 15-85 years, exhibited symptoms (mean +/- SD) 3.6 +/- 1.3 days/week, beta-agonist use 3.5 +/- 1.3 days/week, and normal FEV1 (94.0 +/- 9.9% predicted) during the last 2 weeks of the run-in period. In the year before enrollment, medical intervention for asthma flares was common: 38.5% made office visits, 15.8% had oral corticosteroids, and 8.3% required emergency room or hospitalized care. In the month before enrollment, 11.8% experienced daily symptoms, and 28.3% had limitations of normal activity. Patients with daily symptoms in the month before study enrollment, compared with those having less-than-daily symptoms, experienced fewer rescue-free days (P = 0.024) and had more days per week with symptoms (P = 0.008) and requiring albuterol (P = 0.048) during the run-in; FEV1 was similar for both groups (93.1% vs. 94.2% predicted, respectively). CONCLUSION: Patients with mild persistent asthma reported a substantial disease burden in the year before enrollment. The asthma burden experienced by these patients both before and during the run-in period was of sufficient severity to support the recommendation that mild persistent asthma should be managed with daily controller therapy.

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.

Quantifying monocyte infiltration in response to intradermal tetanus toxoid injection.

AIMS: To characterize monocyte response in a delayed-type hypersensitivity reaction to intradermal tetanus toxoid (TT) injection. MATERIALS & METHODS: Men with positive serum anti-tetanus titers were stratified by last TT vaccination. Subjects were administered three intradermal injections of TT and one saline control on the same side of the back. Skin biopsies were taken post-injection. After 2 weeks, the procedure was repeated on the contralateral side. RESULTS: Men who received TT booster vaccination 1 month before the study showed greater reproducibility and lower variability in monocyte responses than those who were not revaccinated. Monocyte concentration in subjects re-vaccinated within 1 month of study start appeared maximal at 48 h post-injection. CONCLUSION: This assay represents a novel approach that allows for quantification of dermal monocyte/macrophage influx. This clinical methodology has potential utility in the pharmacodynamic evaluation of therapies targeting inflammatory disorders, which involve monocyte tissue recruitment, like the delayed-type hypersensitivity response.

Odanacatib in the treatment of postmenopausal women with low bone mineral density: three-year continued therapy and resolution of effect.

The selective cathepsin K inhibitor odanacatib (ODN) progressively increased bone mineral density (BMD) and decreased bone-resorption markers during 2 years of treatment in postmenopausal women with low BMD. A 1-year extension study further assessed ODN efficacy and safety and the effects of discontinuing therapy. In the base study, postmenopausal women with BMD T-scores between -2.0 and -3.5 at the lumbar spine or femur received placebo or ODN 3, 10, 25, or 50 mg weekly. After 2 years, patients (n = 189) were rerandomized to ODN 50 mg weekly or placebo for an additional year. Endpoints included BMD at the lumbar spine (primary), total hip, and hip subregions; levels of bone turnover markers; and safety assessments. Continued treatment with 50 mg of ODN for 3 years produced significant increases from baseline and from year 2 in BMD at the spine (7.9% and 2.3%) and total hip (5.8% and 2.4%). Urine cross-linked N-telopeptide of type I collagen (NTx) remained suppressed at year 3 (-50.5%), but bone-specific alkaline phosphatase (BSAP) was relatively unchanged from baseline. Treatment discontinuation resulted in bone loss at all sites, but BMD remained at or above baseline. After ODN discontinuation at month 24, bone turnover markers increased transiently above baseline, but this increase largely resolved by month 36. There were similar overall adverse-event rates in both treatment groups. It is concluded that 3 years of ODN treatment resulted in progressive increases in BMD and was generally well tolerated. Bone-resorption markers remained suppressed, whereas bone-formation markers returned to near baseline. ODN effects were reversible: bone resorption increased transiently and BMD decreased following treatment discontinuation.

Odanacatib, a cathepsin-K inhibitor for osteoporosis: a two-year study in postmenopausal women with low bone density.

Cathepsin K, a cysteine protease expressed in osteoclasts, degrades type 1 collagen. Odanacatib selectively and reversibly inhibited cathepsin K and rapidly decreased bone resorption in preclinical and phase I studies. A 1-year dose-finding trial with a 1-year extension on the same treatment assignment was performed in postmenopausal women with low bone mineral density (BMD) to evaluate the safety and efficacy of weekly doses of placebo or 3, 10, 25, or 50 mg of odanacatib on BMD and biomarkers of skeletal remodeling. Women with BMD T-scores of -2.0 or less but not less than -3.5 at the lumbar spine or femoral sites were randomly assigned to receive placebo or one of four doses of odanacatib; all received vitamin D with calcium supplementation as needed. The primary endpoint was percentage change from baseline lumbar spine BMD. Other endpoints included percentage change in BMD at hip and forearm sites, as well as changes in biomarkers of skeletal remodeling. Twenty-four months of treatment produced progressive dose-related increases in BMD. With the 50-mg dose of odanacatib, lumbar spine and total-hip BMD increased 5.5% and 3.2%, respectively, whereas BMD at these sites was essentially unchanged with placebo (-0.2% and -0.9%). Biochemical markers of bone turnover exhibited dose-related changes. The safety and tolerability of odanacatib generally were similar to those of placebo, with no dose-related trends in any adverse experiences. In summary, 2 years of weekly odanacatib treatment was generally well-tolerated and increased lumbar spine and total-hip BMD in a dose-related manner in postmenopausal women with low BMD.