Cardiovascular outcomes in high risk patients with osteoarthritis treated with ibuprofen, naproxen or lumiracoxib.

BACKGROUND: Evidence suggests that both selective cyclooxygenase (COX)-2 inhibitors and non-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) increase the risk of cardiovascular events. However, evidence from prospective studies of currently available COX-2 inhibitors and non-selective NSAIDs is lacking in patients at high cardiovascular risk who are taking aspirin. OBJECTIVE: To determine the cardiovascular outcomes in high risk patients with osteoarthritis treated with ibuprofen, naproxen or lumiracoxib. METHODS: The Therapeutic Arthritis Research and Gastrointestinal Event Trial (TARGET) of 18 325 patients with osteoarthritis comprised two parallel substudies, comparing lumiracoxib (COX-2 inhibitor) with either ibuprofen or naproxen. A post hoc analysis by baseline cardiovascular risk, treatment assignment, and low-dose aspirin use was performed. The primary composite end point was cardiovascular mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and stroke at 1 year; a secondary end point was the development of congestive heart failure (CHF). RESULTS: In high risk patients among aspirin users, patients in the ibuprofen substudy had more primary events with ibuprofen than lumiracoxib (2.14% vs 0.25%, p = 0.038), whereas in the naproxen substudy rates were similar for naproxen and lumiracoxib (1.58% vs 1.48%, p = 0.899). High risk patients not taking aspirin had fewer primary events with naproxen than with lumiracoxib (0% vs 1.57%, p = 0.027), but not for ibuprofen versus lumiracoxib (0.92% vs 0.80%, p = 0.920). Overall, CHF developed more often with ibuprofen than lumiracoxib (1.28% vs 0.14%; p = 0.031), whereas no difference existed between naproxen and lumiracoxib. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that ibuprofen may confer an increased risk of thrombotic and CHF events relative to lumiracoxib among aspirin users at high cardiovascular risk. The study indicates that naproxen may be associated with lower risk relative to lumiracoxib among non-aspirin users. This study is subject to inherent limitations, and therefore should be interpreted as a hypothesis-generating study.

Safety, tolerability, and efficacy of cyclosporine microemulsion in heart transplant recipients: a randomized, multicenter, double-blind comparison with the oil-based formulation of cyclosporine--results at 24 months after transplantation.

BACKGROUND: The widespread use of cyclosporine has improved the survival of cardiac transplant patients as a result of reduced morbidity and mortality from rejection and infection. The original oil-based form of cyclosporine demonstrated unpredictable absorption resulting in an increased frequency of acute and chronic rejection in patients with poor bioavailability. The primary end. points of the present, prospective, randomized multicenter, double-blind trial were to compare the efficacy of the micro-emulsion form of cycolsporine (CsA-NL) with the oil-based formulation as determined by cardiac allograft and recipient survival and the incidence and severity of the acute rejection episodes and to determine the safety and tolerability of CsA-NL compared with Sandimmune CsA-(SM) in the study population. The 6-month analysis of the study showed reduced number of CsA-NL patients requiring antilymphocyte antibody therapy for rejection, fewer International Society of Heart and Lung Transplantation grade > or =3A rejections in female patients and fewer infections. Our report represents the final analysis of the results 24 months after transplantation. METHODS: A total of 380 patients undergoing de novo cardiac transplants at 24 centers in the United States, Canada, and Europe were enrolled in this double-blind, randomized trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of CsA-NL versus CsA-SM. Acute allograft rejection was diagnosed by endomyocardial biopsy and graded according to the International Society of Heart and Lung Transplantation nomenclature. Kaplan-Meier analysis and Fisher's exact test were used for comparisons between groups. RESULTS: After 24 months, allograft and recipient survival were identical in both groups. There were fewer CsA-NL patients (6.9%) requiring antilymphocyte antibody therapy for rejection than in the CsA-SM-treated patient group (17.7%, P=0.002). There were fewer discontinuations of study drug for treatment failures in the CsA-NL groups (7; 3.7%) compared with the CsA-SM group (18; 9.4%, P=0.037). The average corticosteroid dose was lower in the CsA-NL group (0.37 mg/kg/day) compared with the CsA-SM group (0.48 mg/kg/day, P=0.034) over the 24-month study period. Overall, there was no difference in blood pressure or creatinine between the two study groups. CONCLUSIONS: The final results of this multi-center, randomized study of two forms of cyclosporine confirmed that there were fewer episodes of rejection requiring antilymphocyte antibodies and fewer study discontinuations for treatment failures in CsA-NL-treated patients compared to those treated with CsA-SM. The use of CsA-NL did not predispose these patients to a higher risk of adverse events.

Conversion of psoriasis patients from the conventional formulation of cyclosporin A to a new microemulsion formulation: a randomized, open, multicentre assessment of safety and tolerability.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety, tolerability and efficacy of a new cyclosporin A (CyA) microemulsion formulation, Sandimmun Neoral (Neoral), in patients with severe psoriasis that was stable on CyA administered as Sandimmun (SIM). METHODS: In this 24-week, open, randomized, prospective, multicentre trial, 28 patients continued on the same dosage of SIM, while 30 converted to Neoral at 2.5 mg/kg/day or a dosage equivalent to their pre-conversion SIM dosage. During the study, dosages could be adjusted to maintain efficacy, because of adverse events or after disease stabilization. The maximum permitted dosage for either formulation was 5.0 mg/kg/day. Primary efficacy criteria were change in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) from baseline and time to relapse. RESULTS: The dosage was increased to maintain efficacy in 22 patients (Neoral 13; SIM 9) and 20 dose reductions for safety were required (Neoral 14, SIM 6). In both groups, PASI scores remained stable throughout and relapses were primarily a result of dosage reduction after disease stabilization. No significant difference was found between groups in the proportion of patients remaining relapse-free. Adverse events were recorded in 20 patients receiving Neoral and 14 receiving SIM. Most drug-related events were of mild or moderate severity and reflected the known CyA side-effect profile. Dose titration guidelines ensured that mean blood pressure and serum creatinine concentrations remained stable in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: If the guidelines for CyA use are followed and the Neoral dosage does not exceed 5 mg/kg/day, conversion of stable patients with severe psoriasis from SIM to Neoral should present no clinically relevant safety or tolerability problems and efficacy of treatment is maintained.

24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring and spirapril in mild to severe essential hypertension: a randomized dose comparison.

This was a multicentre randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study to compare the antihypertensive efficacy of spirapril at 3 mg with 12 mg once daily, as determined by 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM), in patients with mild to severe essential hypertension. Following a 4-week placebo run-in phase, 52 male and female outpatients, aged 23-67 years with mild to severe essential hypertension [diastolic blood pressure (DBP) > or = 100 mmHg and < 120 mmHg] were randomized to receive spirapril at either 3 mg or 12 mg once daily for 8 weeks. At the end of active treatment and using the standard mercury sphygmomanometer, the number of responders (sitting DBP < 90 mmHg, but decrease > or = 10 mmHg) was the same in both groups (32% and 37%). There were mean decrease in both systolic blood pressure (SBP) and DBP at trough with both 3 mg and 12 mg doses: -9/-7 mmHg and -12/-7 mmHg, respectively. The rate of normalization (trough DBP < or = 90 mmHg) was 12% and 30% with the 3 mg and 12 mg doses, respectively. Of the 44 patients whose daytime ABPM could be compared, one of 20 patients taking 3 mg of spirapril, and 9 of 24 taking 12 mg of spirapril achieved a DBP < or = 90 mmHg for all time intervals while awake. The differences in blood pressure-lowering were significant with both SBP and DBP during the day and at the end of the dosing interval (p < 0.001 and p < 0.01, respectively). The changes from baseline at 24 hours postdose for SBP/DBP were -3/-6 mmHg with 3 mg and -14/-12 mmHg with 12 mg of spirapril.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Placebo-controlled comparison of spirapril at 6, 12 and 24 mg/day in mild to severe essential hypertension.

In a double-blind, parallel-group study, 260 patients with mild to severe essential hypertension were randomized to treatment with placebo or spirapril at 6, 12 or 24 mg once daily for 6 weeks. When blood pressures were measured at the end of the dosing interval (trough), all spirapril regimens had produced similar reductions in sitting systolic and diastolic blood pressures (siSBP/siDBP) which were significantly greater than those observed in placebo-treated patients. There were no relevant changes in resting heart rate in any of the study groups. At the study endpoint, the mean reductions in siSBP/siDBP were 14.9/11.5 mmHg with spirapril at 6 mg, 15.4/12.0 mmHg with spirapril at 12 mg and 17.8/12.4 mmHg with spirapril at 24 mg/day vs. 3.1/3.6 mmHg with placebo. In a subgroup of 122 patients, blood pressure was recorded at the end of the dosing interval and during the 8 hours immediately postdose to monitor the peak effects on blood pressure. All spirapril dosages produced similar reductions at peak with a mean decrease of siDBP of approximately 20 mmHg in comparison to baseline values vs 6-7 mmHg with placebo. The trough:peak ratios for 6, 12 and 24 mg all lay between 60% and 90% for siSBP and siDBP, indicating that most of the peak effect was maintained at trough. Spirapril was well tolerated; the adverse event profile was not different from that with placebo, and no dose-related adverse events were observed.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Randomised double blind controlled trial of cyclosporin in multiple sclerosis.

In a 2 year double blind controlled trial of cyclosporin against placebo in multiple sclerosis conducted at two centres there was a beneficial effect of the therapy upon the progression of the disease, relapse rate and relapse severity at one of the centres where the patients received a mean dose of 7.2 mg/kg/day. This beneficial effect was not seen in the other centre where a lower dose (mean 5 mg/kg/day) was given. Reduction in clinical progression was accompanied by decreased IgG synthesis in the central nervous system. Side effects included hypertension, renal insufficiency and anaemia and were of such severity to preclude the use of cyclosporin in a high enough dose to alter the course of the disease.