Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Mais filtros











Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Adv Ther ; 41(3): 1025-1045, 2024 Mar.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38183526

RESUMO

INTRODUCTION: Co-crystal of tramadol-celecoxib (CTC) is the first analgesic co-crystal for acute pain. This completed phase 3 multicenter, double-blind trial assessed the efficacy and safety/tolerability of CTC in comparison with that of tramadol in the setting of moderate-to-severe pain up to 72 h after elective third molar extraction requiring bone removal. METHODS: Adults (n = 726) were assigned randomly to five groups (2:2:2:2:1): orally administered twice-daily CTC 100 mg (44 mg rac-tramadol hydrochloride/56 mg celecoxib; n = 164), 150 mg (66/84 mg; n = 160) or 200 mg (88/112 mg; n = 160); tramadol 100 mg four times daily (n = 159); or placebo four times daily (n = 83). Participants in CTC groups also received twice-daily placebo. The full analysis set included all participants who underwent randomization. The primary endpoint was the sum of pain intensity differences over 0 to 4 h (SPID0-4; visual analog scale). Key secondary endpoints included 4-h 50% responder and rescue medication use rates. Safety endpoints included adverse events (AEs), laboratory measures, and Opioid-Related Symptom Distress Scale (OR-SDS) score. RESULTS: All CTC doses were superior to placebo (P < 0.001) for primary and key secondary endpoints. All were superior to tramadol for SPID0-4 (analysis of covariance least squares mean differences [95% confidence interval]: - 37.1 [- 56.5, - 17.6], - 40.2 [- 59.7, - 20.6], and - 41.7 [- 61.2, - 22.2] for 100, 150, and 200 mg CTC, respectively; P < 0.001) and 4-h 50% responder rate. Four-hour 50% responder rates were 32.9% (CTC 100 mg), 33.8% (CTC 150 mg), 40.6% (CTC 200 mg), 20.1% (tramadol), and 7.2% (placebo). Rescue medication use was lower in the 100-mg (P = 0.013) and 200-mg (P = 0.003) CTC groups versus tramadol group. AE incidence and OR-SDS scores were highest for tramadol alone. CONCLUSIONS: CTC demonstrated superior pain relief compared with tramadol or placebo, as well as an improved benefit/risk profile versus tramadol. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT02982161; EudraCT number, 2016-000592-24.


Assuntos
Dor Aguda , Tramadol , Adulto , Humanos , Tramadol/efeitos adversos , Celecoxib/uso terapêutico , Celecoxib/efeitos adversos , Dor Aguda/tratamento farmacológico , Analgésicos Opioides/efeitos adversos , Extração Dentária/efeitos adversos , Método Duplo-Cego , Dor Pós-Operatória/tratamento farmacológico
2.
Neuropsychobiology ; 51(3): 134-47, 2005.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-15838185

RESUMO

AIMS: To evaluate the potential interaction of 20 mg paroxetine and 1 mg alprazolam (early morning once-daily administration) on polysomnographic (PSG) sleep and subjective sleep and awakening quality, both after a single intake and after reaching a steady-state concentration. METHODS: Twenty-two (11 for the PSG) healthy young volunteers of both sexes with no history of sleep disturbances (Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index <5) participated in a double-blind, double-dummy, placebo-controlled, repeated-dose, 4-period, cross-over study. All volunteers received all 4 treatment sequences: paroxetine-alprazolam placebo (PAP); paroxetine placebo-alprazolam (PPA); paroxetine-alprazolam (PA), and paroxetine placebo-alprazolam placebo (PLA), in a randomized order. Each treatment was administered over 15 consecutive days, with a treatment-free interval of 7 days prior to the subsequent study period. In each experimental period, one PSG sleep study was performed on the 1st night (single-dose effects) and another study was performed on the 15th night (repeated-dose effects). Additionally, two other PSG studies were assessed: an adaptation recording, and a control night recording. All-night PSG recordings were obtained following standard procedures. Each 30-second period was scored according to the criteria of Rechtschaffen and Kales by means of an automatic sleep analysis system: Somnolyzer 24x7. A self-rating scale for sleep and awakening quality and early morning behavior was completed no later than 15 min after awakening over the 15 days of each experimental intervention. General lineal models (treatment/time) were applied separately to each variable. RESULTS: (1) No significant effects were observed in any sleep variables when control nights were compared with the 1st night with PLA. (2) Sleep continuity: After PAP a clear awakening effect was seen both in the first and second evaluations, mainly in wake time, movement time, number of awakenings and stage-1 duration. After PPA an evident hypnotic effect was observed on night 1. This effect was mainly observed in maintenance variables and slightly in sleep initiation variables; it had decreased by night 15. After PA an intermediate behavior in the variables related to sleep continuity was seen, highlighting the absence of the tolerance phenomenon observed when PPA was administered alone. (3) Sleep architecture: The most important effects in REM sleep were observed after PAP; an increase in REM latency and decreases in REM sleep. PAP also induced decreases in the number of non-REM and REM periods and increases in the average duration of non-REM periods and sleep cycles. PA presented a similar pattern to PAP, and PPA similar to PLA. In relation to non-REM sleep, PA showed more stage-2 and less slow-wave sleep (SWS). (4) Subjective perception: No significant differences were observed between treatments while they were being taken, but impairments in subjective sleep quality, awaking quality, latency and efficiency were seen, mainly after PA but also after PPA discontinuations. CONCLUSION: The combination of PAP and PPA presented an intermediate pattern in relation to sleep continuity, with less awaking effect than PAP alone and less hypnotic effect than PPA alone, and without developing tolerance. The PAP and PPA combination also showed a similar effect to PAP on REM sleep and was the treatment with the longest stage 2 and shortest SWS. No subjective sleep and awakening effects were seen during drug intake but subjective withdrawal reports were seen after abrupt interruption. The high agreement rate for the epoch-by-epoch comparison between automatic and human scoring confirms the validity of the Somnolyzer 24x7 and thus facilitates sleep studies in neuropsychopharmacological research.


Assuntos
Alprazolam/administração & dosagem , Antidepressivos de Segunda Geração/administração & dosagem , Paroxetina/administração & dosagem , Sono/efeitos dos fármacos , Adulto , Análise de Variância , Ansiolíticos/administração & dosagem , Técnicas de Laboratório Clínico , Estudos Cross-Over , Relação Dose-Resposta a Droga , Método Duplo-Cego , Esquema de Medicação , Combinação de Medicamentos , Estudos de Avaliação como Assunto , Feminino , Humanos , Modelos Lineares , Masculino , Polissonografia/métodos , Autoavaliação (Psicologia) , Sono REM/efeitos dos fármacos , Inquéritos e Questionários , Fatores de Tempo , Vigília/efeitos dos fármacos
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA