Evaluation of efficacy and tolerability of glimepiride and metformin combination: a multicentric study in patients with type-2 diabetes mellitus, uncontrolled on monotherapy with sulfonylurea or metformin.

The objectives of this study were to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of glimepiride plus extended release metformin (MET) on glycemic control in patients with type-2 diabetes mellitus uncontrolled on monotherapy with sulfonylurea or MET. This was a prospective, open-labeled, multicentric study over 12 weeks. Patients who were diagnosed with type-2 diabetes and were uncontrolled on monotherapy with single oral hypoglycemic agents such as glimepiride or MET and characterized by glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) ≥7% and ≤10% and fasting plasma glucose (FPG) ≥ 140 mg/dL were enrolled in this study. Treatment regimen was started at 1 mg of glimepiride plus 500 mg of MET once a day and was titrated to next dose level depending on the clinician's judgment, not exceeding a total daily dose of 8 mg of glimepiride and 2000 mg of MET. After 12-weektreatment, glimepiride plus MET combination showed improvement in metabolic control as assessed by changes in HbA1c, FPG, and post prandial glucose (PPG). Primary efficacy parameter, HbA1c, was significantly reduced to (7.65 ± 1.70) at the end of the treatment from the baseline value (8.35 ± 0.93) (P < 0.001). Of the patients, 65.79% showed ≥0.5% reduction in HbA1c and or HbA1c <7% at the end of the therapy. FPG and PPG were significantly reduced at the end of the therapy as compared with baseline values (P < 0.001). Moreover, the lipid profile was also improved during the treatment period. The addition of glimepiride to MET is an effective treatment for patients inadequately controlled on sulfonylurea or Met alone. A combination of glimepiride with MET achieves good glycemic control with better tolerability profile.

Efficacy and tolerability of a fixed-dose combination of metoprolol extended release/amlodipine in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension: a randomized, parallel-group, multicentre comparison with losartan plus amlodipine.

BACKGROUND: Epidemiological studies and clinical trials have shown that prevention of cardiovascular disease, the ultimate goal of hypertension treatment, requires a sufficient reduction in blood pressure. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this study was to compare the mean decrease in systolic (SBP) and diastolic (DBP) blood pressure between metoprolol extended release (XL)/amlodipine fixed-dose combination and losartan plus amlodipine combination in patients with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension. The secondary objectives of this study were to compare the proportion of responders in the two treatment groups and to evaluate the tolerability of the study medications. METHODS: This was a randomized, parallel-group, multicentre comparative study conducted at the outpatient departments of three teaching hospitals in India. Patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension (defined as DBP 90-109 mmHg) aged between 18 and 75 years were enrolled in this study and followed up for 12 weeks. Response to study treatments was evaluated in terms of mean decrease in SBP and DBP and the response rate (reduction to SBP <140 mmHg and DBP <90 mmHg). RESULTS: Out of 152 patients who underwent a 1-week placebo washout, 148 eligible patients were randomized to receive either metoprolol XL 25 mg/amlodipine 2.5 mg fixed-dose combination (76 patients) or losartan 25 mg plus amlodipine 2.5 mg (72 patients). The two treatment groups were similar with respect to demographic and baseline characteristics. Non-responders after 4 weeks of therapy were escalated to metoprolol XL 50 mg/amlodipine 5 mg fixed-dose combination or losartan 50 mg plus amlodipine 5 mg, respectively. The study was completed by 66 patients in each group, of whom 43 patients in each group responded to the starting doses. After 4 weeks' therapy, both treatments were associated with significant decreases in SBP and DBP from baseline (p < 0.001) and were comparable with respect to mean decrease in SBP (p = 0.304), mean decrease in DBP (p = 0.630) and response rate (p = 1.0). Also, both the step-up therapies were comparable with respect to mean decrease in SBP (p = 0.484), mean decrease in DBP (p = 0.650) and response rate (p = 0.134) at week 12. Both treatments were well tolerated in the studied population. CONCLUSION: Metoprolol XL/amlodipine fixed-dose combination was found to be as effective and well tolerated as losartan plus amlodipine in the treatment of essential hypertension.

Efficacy of Low-Dose Chlorthalidone and Hydrochlorothiazide as Assessed by 24-h Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring.

BACKGROUND: Thiazide and thiazide-like diuretic agents are being increasingly used at lower doses. Hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) in the 12.5-mg dose remains the most commonly prescribed antihypertensive agent in the United States. OBJECTIVES: This study compared chlorthalidone, 6.25 mg daily, with HCTZ, 12.5 mg daily, by 24-h ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) monitoring and evaluated efficacy. Because HCTZ has been perceived as a short-acting drug, a third comparison with an extended-release formulation (HCTZ-controlled release [CR]) was added. METHODS: This 12-week comparative, double-blind, outpatient study randomized 54 patients with stage 1 hypertension to receive either chlorthalidone, 6.25 mg, (n = 16); HCTZ 12.5 mg (n = 18); or HCTZ-CR 12.5 mg (n = 20). ABP monitoring was performed at baseline and after 4 and 12 weeks of therapy. RESULTS: All 3 treatments significantly (p < 0.01) lowered office BP at weeks 4 and 12 from baseline. At weeks 4 and 12, significant reductions in systolic and diastolic 24-h ambulatory and nighttime BP (p < 0.01) were observed with chlorthalidone but not with HCTZ. At weeks 4 (p = 0.015) and 12 (p = 0.020), nighttime systolic ABP was significantly lower in the chlorthalidone group than in the the HCTZ group. With HCTZ therapy, sustained hypertension was converted into masked hypertension. In contrast to the HCTZ group, the HCTZ-CR group also showed a significant (p < 0.01) reduction in 24-h ABP. All 3 treatments were generally safe and well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with low-dose chlorthalidone, 6.25 mg daily, significantly reduced mean 24-h ABP as well as daytime and nighttime BP. Due to its short duration of action, no significant 24-h ABP reduction was seen with HCTZ, 12.5 mg daily, which merely converted sustained hypertension into masked hypertension. Thus, low-dose chlorthalidone, 6.25 mg, could be used as monotherapy for treatment of essential hypertension, whereas low-dose HCTZ monotherapy is not an appropriate antihypertensive drug. (Comparative Evaluation of Safety and Efficacy of Hydrochlorothiazide CR with Hydrochlorothiazide and Chlorthalidone in Patients With Stage I Essential Hypertension; CTRI/2013/07/003793).

Zaltoprofen, a noninferior alternative to diclofenac for the treatment of primary knee osteoarthritis -- a comparative evaluation of efficacy and safety in a 4-week, multicentric, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy trial.

OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate the clinical noninferiority of the analgesic effect of zaltoprofen (80 mg t.i.d.) compared with diclofenac (50 mg t.i.d.) in active knee osteoarthritis patients. METHOD: In this multicentric, double-blind, double-dummy, randomized, parallel-group, comparative study, 213 patients of either sex, aged 40 - 65 years having radiological and clinically confirmed primary knee osteoarthritis were randomized either to zaltoprofen (n = 105) or diclofenac (n = 108) and were followed-up at weeks 1, 2, 3 and 4. The treatment period was preceded by a washout period of 1 week. RESULTS: Patients in both the zaltoprofen and diclofenac groups exhibited significant improvement (p < 0.001) in pain intensity, functional status and pain relief at each visit from baseline with no statistically significant difference between the two treatment groups. There was no statistically significant difference between the treatment groups for global assessment rating done by the patient and investigator at the end of therapy (p > 0.05) and the proportion of patients who consumed ranitidine (p = 0.135) and paracetamol (p = 0.086) tablets during the treatment period on both the treatment arms. Both the study medications were well tolerated with no incidence of serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that efficacy and safety of zaltoprofen is clinically noninferior to that of diclofenac.

Efficacy and safety of aceclofenac and drotaverine fixed-dose combination in the treatment of primary dysmenorrhoea: a double-blind, double-dummy, randomized comparative study with aceclofenac.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of aceclofenac-drotaverine combination against aceclofenac alone in patients with primary dysmenorrhoea. STUDY DESIGN: This double-blind, double-dummy, randomized, comparative, multicentric study enrolled 200 women (100 women in each arm) in the age range of 18-35 years with primary dysmenorrhoea at four centers. The patients were randomly allocated to either aceclofenac 100mg-drotaverine 80 mg b.i.d or aceclofenac 100mg alone b.i.d for a maximum of 3 days. Primary efficacy parameters were total area under pain relief (PR) score up to 4 and 8h (TOPAR/4 and TOPAR/8). Secondary efficacy measurements were pain-intensity difference (PID), sum of PID over 4 and 8h (SPID/4 and SPID/8), peak PID over 4 and 8h and peak PR over 4 and 8h, total study drug consumption, and patient's and investigator's global evaluation of the efficacy. RESULTS: Both treatments showed significant improvement in baseline values in all efficacy parameters. The combination was significantly superior to monotherapy in terms of TOPAR/4 (24.0 vs 18.54) (p=0.000) and TOPAR/8 (40.3 vs 35.2) (p=0.003), SPID/4 (-17.9 vs -13.88) (p=0.000) and SPID/8 (-31.06 vs -26.8) (p=0.001), peak PID/4 (-6.60 vs -5.75) (p=0.001) and peak PR/4 (8.26 vs 7.10) (p=0.000). At the end of 8h, both treatments were comparable with respect to peak PID/8 and peak PR/8 (p>0.05). The total number of doses consumed by patients treated with combination therapy was less than with monotherapy (150 vs 168 doses). The combination was significantly superior to monotherapy with respect to patient's and investigator's global evaluation of the efficacy (p=0.002 and p=0.001, respectively). Both treatments were well tolerated. CONCLUSION: This study establishes the efficacy of aceclofenac-drotaverine combination in patients with primary dysmenorrhoea. The fixed-dose combination of aceclofenac and drotaverine should therefore be considered as a suitable, effective and well tolerated treatment option for primary dysmenorrhoea.