Gastrointestinal safety of triflusal solution in healthy volunteers: a proof of concept endoscopic study.

PURPOSE: Triflusal is an antiplatelet agent that irreversibly acetylates cyclooxygenase isoform 1 (COX-1) and therefore inhibits thromboxane biosynthesis. It was initially marketed as capsules containing 300 mg of active substance. In 2006 a new 600 mg (10 ml) oral solution form of triflusal was authorized in Spain. The primary aim of this study was to compare the gastrointestinal safety of the new triflusal oral solution with triflusal capsules in healthy volunteers. METHODS: Sixty healthy subjects were randomly assigned, in a 2.5:2.5: 1 ratio, into one of three groups, with 25 subjects receiving one bottle of triflusal oral solution (600 mg) daily, 25 subjects receiving two triflusal capsules (600 mg) once daily, and ten subjects receiving two placebo capsules once daily, respectively, during 7 consecutive days. Gastroscopy was performed at baseline before the administration of study drugs and after 4-8 h of the last dose of study drugs. Effects on the esophagus, stomach, and duodenum were measured in accordance with a modified Lanza scale. RESULTS: No differences between groups were detected at baseline. After treatment, median global scores in the placebo, triflusal solution, and triflusal capsules groups were, respectively, 0, 1, and 3 (p = 0.003 for comparison between placebo and triflusal capsules and p = 0.042 for comparison between triflusal solution and triflusal capsules). There were no significant differences between the scores on the triflusal solution and placebo groups. All treatments were well tolerated. CONCLUSION: In healthy subjects, triflusal solution induced less endoscopically apparent gastrointestinal mucosal damage than triflusal capsules and did not induce more damage than the placebo in healthy volunteers.

Safety of rupatadine administered over a period of 1 year in the treatment of persistent allergic rhinitis: a multicentre, open-label study in Spain.

BACKGROUND: Rupatadine (Rupafin), a novel antihistamine approved recently in Europe for the treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR) and chronic idiopathic urticaria in patients aged>or=12 years, has been shown to be highly efficacious, and as safe and well tolerated as other commonly employed antihistamines in the treatment of allergic disease. There are, however, few data on the long-term safety of these antihistamines derived in accordance with the clinical safety recommendations of the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products (EMEA) and the International Conference on Harmonisation (ICH) of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use Guideline. OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety and tolerability of treatment with rupatadine 10 mg/day for 12 months in subjects with persistent AR (PER). METHODS: A multicentre, open-label, phase IV study in patients recruited from 33 centres in Spain, from September 2002 to November 2005. The study enrolled 324 male and female patients (aged 12-70 years) with a medical history of PER for at least 12 months and a documented positive skin-prick test to an appropriate allergen. On 4 of the 7 days prior to start of treatment, the patients were required to have a minimum total nasal symptom score (TNSS [for sneezing, rhinorrhoea, nasal obstruction/congestion and nasal itching]) of >or=5. Of the 324 eligible patients starting treatment, 120 needed to be treated for more than 6 months and were followed up until the end of 12 months. All patients received rupatadine 10 mg/day and were allowed to continue their normal concomitant medication for all conditions, other than rhinitis, for up to 6 or 12 months. Safety was assessed by means of adverse events (AEs) reported by patients or detected by investigators, scheduled centralized ECG with special attention to Bazzet corrected QT interval (QTcB) and standard laboratory investigations. RESULTS: Assessment of treatment compliance rates indicated 90% and 83% of patients to be compliant during the 1-6 months and 1-12 months treatment periods, respectively, with compliance rates>80% being associated with the majority of the study population reporting at least one AE. Overall, 74.1% and 65.8% of the patients reported at least one AE during the 1-6 months and 1-12 months treatment periods, respectively, compared with 20.4% and 10.8% of patients reporting at least one treatment-related AE during these periods. Disorders of the nervous system and respiratory thoracic and mediastinal system, in particular headache, somnolence and catarrh, were the three most common AEs reported by >5% of the patients during both treatment periods. Detailed ECG assessments demonstrated no clinically relevant abnormal ECG findings, nor any QTcB increases >60 msec or QTcB values>470 msec for any patient at any time during treatment. Serious AEs were reported in seven patients, of whom six were considered as unlikely to be related to rupatadine treatment, whereas one involving increased blood enzyme levels was considered as possibly related to rupatadine treatment. CONCLUSION: This study confirmed the good long-term safety and tolerability of rupatadine at the therapeutic dose of 10 mg/day in patients with PER.

COPD severity score as a predictor of failure in exacerbations of COPD. The ESFERA study.

BACKGROUND: Exacerbations are a frequent cause of morbidity and mortality in COPD. It is crucial to identify risk factors for failure after treatment of exacerbations of COPD. This study evaluates the COPD severity score (COPDSS) as a predictor of clinical failure, together with other severity, activity and quality of life measurements, in patients with exacerbated COPD. METHOD: Multicenter, prospective, observational study in ambulatory patients with exacerbation of COPD. The patients completed the COPDSS, the London Chest Activities of Daily Living (LCADL) and the EuroQol 5D (EQ-5D). A follow-up visit was scheduled one month after presentation with the exacerbation to assess the clinical evolution. RESULTS: A total of 346 patients were included (mean age 68.5 years (SD=9.5 years and 90.7% male) and mean FEV(1)(% predicted) 46.9% (SD=17)). After one month, 28.2% of episodes were classified as failures, with half of them requiring hospital admission. Patients who failed were more frequently active smokers, with more severe dyspnoea at presentation and worse lung function. They had significantly worse scores of COPDSS, LCADL, EQ-5D index and EQ-5D visual analogue score (VAS) and shorter mean time walking per day. ROC analysis of relationship between COPDSS and failure gave AUC 0.72, which improved only to 0.77 when the other significant variables in univariate analysis were considered. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical failure after ambulatory treatment of exacerbation of COPD is frequent. Usual markers of severity (impaired lung function, active smoking and severe dyspnoea) are associated with failure; however, a short severity questionnaire (COPDSS) provides better predictive value than the usual variables.

Comparative bioavailability study of triflusal oral solution vs. triflusal capsules in healthy subjects. A single, randomized, two-way cross-over, open-label phase I study.

Triflusal (CAS 322-79-2) is an antiplatelet agent that irreversibly acetylates cyclooxygenase isoform 1 (COX-1) and therefore inhibits thromboxane biosynthesis. The main metabolite of triflusal, 2-hydroxy-4-trifluoromethyl benzoic acid (HTB), possesses also antiaggregant activity. Recently a new oral 600 mg (10 ml) solution form of triflusal has been developed. The purpose of this clinical trial was to study the relative bioavailability of the new oral solution of triflusal versus the capsules formulation, both administered as a single dose. This was a randomized, two-way, cross-over, open-label, single-site phase I clinical trial, in 24 healthy volunteers who received triflusal as 600 mg oral solution and as two 300 mg capsules in a single administration separated by a washout period of at least 17 days. Blood samples were collected and plasma concentrations of HTB were measured. Pharmacokinetic parameters used for bioequivalence assessment included AUC(0-t), AUC(0-inf) and Cmax. The formulations were considered bioequivalent if the geometric mean ratios of AUC(0-t), AUC(0-inf) and Cmax were within the predetermined equivalence range (80% to 125%). Tolerability was based on the recording of adverse events (AEs), physical examination, electrocardiogram (ECG) and laboratory tests. The parameters for bioequivalence, mean [SD] values were as follows: AUC(0-t) (microg x h/ml): 3574.08 [628.17] for triflusal oral solution and 3901.78 [698.43] for triflusal capsules; AUC(0-infinity) (microg x h/ml): 4089.21 [842.54] for triflusal oral solution and 4471.33 [905.93] for triflusal capsules; Cmax, (microg/ml): 91.24 [12.88] for triflusal oral solution and 88.61 [13.46] for triflusal capsules; Cmax/AUC(0-infinity) (h(-1)): 0.03 (0.00) for triflusal oral solution and 0.02 (0.00) for triflusal capsules. The 90% confidence intervals for the ratio experimental/control by analysis of variance after log transformed AUC(0-infinity), AUC(0-t), and Cmax were within 80% to 125%. Similar results were found for the data without log transformation. All adverse events were of mild or moderate intensity and all subjects recovered. Nine and 12 subjects reported at least one adverse event during treatment with triflusal oral solution and with triflusal capsules, respectively. The most frequently reported adverse events were headache and dizziness. It was concluded that the 600-mg solution of triflusal appeared to be bioequivalent to the reference formulation capsules. Both formulations were well tolerated.

Role of low-molecular-weight heparin in the management of acute coronary syndromes.

In the past few years, several clinical trials with low-molecular-weight heparins in acute coronary syndromes without ST-segment elevation have been published. In the acute phase of treatment, enoxaparin obtained better results than unfractionated heparin, but dalteparin and nadroparin did not. Enoxaparin also obtained better results than tinzaparin. From these results, it can be assumed that the efficacy of enoxaparin is higher than that of dalteparin and nadroparin. However, because low-molecular-weight heparins have not been compared head to head (except in the case of enoxaparin and tinzaparin), and given the differences between studies in patient selection criteria, design, treatment strategies, and efficacy variables, it cannot be concluded that one low-molecular-weight heparin is superior to another in the acute phase of treatment. Prolonged dalteparin treatment suggests a benefit, particularly for patients at high risk (defined as those with high troponin levels), and it can also be useful in patients waiting for invasive procedures.