Celecoxib-tramadol co-crystal in patients with moderate-to-severe pain following bunionectomy with osteotomy: Secondary analyses by baseline pain intensity and use of rescue medication of a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, factorial, active- and placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: In the randomized, phase 3, SUSA-301 trial, celecoxib-tramadol co-crystal (CTC) provided significantly greater analgesia compared with celecoxib, tramadol, or placebo in adults with acute, moderate-to-severe, postoperative pain. This post hoc, secondary analysis further evaluated the use of rescue medication and the incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). METHODS: Patients (N = 637) were randomized 2:2:2:1 to receive oral CTC 200 mg twice daily (BID; n = 184), tramadol 50 mg four times daily (QID; n = 183), celecoxib 100 mg BID (n = 181), or placebo QID (n = 89). Post hoc analyses were conducted on the use of rescue medications up to 4 and 48 h post-study drug dose, stratified by baseline pain intensity (moderate/severe), and on the incidence of TEAEs, stratified by rescue medication use. RESULTS: A significantly lower proportion of patients received any rescue medication within 4 h post-study dose with CTC (49.5%) versus tramadol (61.7%, p = 0.0178), celecoxib (65.2%, p = 0.0024), and placebo (75.3%, p = 0.0001); this was also seen for oxycodone use. Fewer patients in the CTC group received ≥3 doses of rescue medication compared with the other groups, irrespective of baseline pain intensity. In patients who did not receive opioid rescue medication, CTC was associated with a lower incidence of nausea and vomiting TEAEs versus tramadol alone. In patients who received rescue oxycodone, the incidence of nausea was similar in the CTC and tramadol groups, and higher versus celecoxib and placebo. CONCLUSION: Celecoxib-tramadol co-crystal was associated with reduced rescue medication use and an acceptable tolerability profile compared with tramadol or celecoxib alone in adults with acute, moderate-to-severe, postoperative pain.

Efficacy of Co-Crystal of Tramadol-Celecoxib (CTC) in Patients with Acute Moderate-to-Severe Pain: A Pooled Analysis of Data from Two Phase 3 Randomized Clinical Trials.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: New acute pain medications are needed that provide effective analgesia while minimizing side effects and opioid exposure. Clinical trials of co-crystal of tramadol-celecoxib (CTC) have demonstrated an improved benefit/risk profile versus tramadol or celecoxib alone. We pooled data from two phase 3 clinical trials to evaluate the efficacy of CTC 200 mg twice daily (BID) in acute moderate-to-severe pain. METHODS: Efficacy data were pooled from STARDOM1 [acute pain following oral surgery (NCT02982161)] and ESTEVE-SUSA-301 [acute pain following bunionectomy (NCT03108482)]. The primary efficacy outcome was sum of pain intensity difference from 0 to 48 h (SPID0-48). RESULTS: A total of 344 patients received CTC 200 mg BID, 342 received tramadol 50 or 100 mg four times a day, 181 received celecoxib 100 mg BID, and 172 received placebo. The least-squares mean difference in SPID0-48 was -21.8 (p = 0.002) for CTC versus tramadol and -72.8 (p < 0.001) for CTC versus placebo. A similar pattern of SPID0-48 was observed with CTC versus comparator whether patients had moderate or severe pain at baseline. Reduction in pain intensity was faster and reached mild intensity earlier with CTC versus comparators. Patients were significantly (p ≤ 0.005) less likely to receive rescue medication within 4 or 48 h with CTC compared with tramadol or placebo. CONCLUSIONS: This pooled analysis reinforces the efficacy profile of CTC versus tramadol and, given that CTC permits lower daily tramadol dosing and thereby reduces unnecessary opioid use, this highlights its improved benefit/risk profile and its potential for the management of moderate-to-severe pain.

Co-crystal of tramadol-celecoxib (CTC) for acute moderate-to-severe pain.

OBJECTIVE: This narrative review aims to provide a clinical perspective on the potential role of co-crystal of tramadol-celecoxib (CTC) in the management of acute moderate-to-severe pain by synthesizing the available preclinical and clinical data, with emphasis on phase 3 trials. METHODS: A non-systematic literature review was performed using a targeted PubMed search for articles published between January 1, 2000, and May 2, 2023; all publication types were permitted, and selected articles were limited to those published in English. Search results were manually reviewed to identify references based on their preclinical and clinical relevance to CTC and management of acute moderate-to-severe pain. RESULTS: The crystalline structure of CTC alters the physicochemical properties of tramadol and celecoxib, modifying their pharmacokinetics. If taken in a free combination, tramadol reduces absorption of celecoxib. Conversely, administration of CTC slows tramadol absorption and lowers its maximum plasma concentration, while increasing celecoxib plasma concentration through its enhanced release. In clinical studies across models of acute moderate-to-severe pain, CTC demonstrated an early onset of analgesia, with improved efficacy and lower rescue medication use, compared with either agent alone. CTC's safety profile was in line with that expected for the individual components; no additive effects were observed. CTC exhibited tramadol-sparing effects, with efficacy seen at lower daily/cumulative opioid doses vs. tramadol alone. CONCLUSIONS: Results from phase 3 trials suggest that the modified physicochemical properties of tramadol and celecoxib in CTC translate into an improved clinical benefit-risk profile, including fewer opioid-related adverse effects due to lower overall opioid dosing.

Co-crystal of Tramadol-Celecoxib Versus Tramadol or Placebo for Acute Moderate-to-Severe Pain After Oral Surgery: Randomized, Double-Blind, Phase 3 Trial (STARDOM1).

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.

Celecoxib-tramadol co-crystal in patients with moderate-to-severe pain following bunionectomy with osteotomy: A phase 3, randomized, double-blind, factorial, active- and placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Celecoxib-tramadol co-crystal (CTC) is a first-in-class analgesic co-crystal of celecoxib and racemic tramadol with an improved pharmacologic profile, conferred by the co-crystal structure, compared with its active constituents administered alone/concomitantly. AIM: We evaluated CTC in moderate-to-severe acute postoperative pain. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This randomized, double-blind, factorial, active- and placebo-controlled phase 3 trial (NCT03108482) was conducted at 6 US clinical research centers. Adults with moderate-to-severe acute pain following bunionectomy with osteotomy were randomized to oral CTC (200 mg [112 mg celecoxib/88 mg rac-tramadol hydrochloride] every 12 h), tramadol (50 mg every 6 h), celecoxib (100 mg every 12 h), or placebo for 48 h. Patients, investigators, and personnel were blinded to assignment. The primary endpoint was the 0-48 h sum of pain intensity differences (SPID0-48) in all randomized patients. Pain intensity was assessed on a 0-10 numerical rating scale (NRS). Safety was analyzed in patients who received study medication. Funded by ESTEVE Pharmaceuticals. RESULTS: In 2017 (March to November), 1323 patients were screened and 637 randomized to CTC (n = 184), tramadol (n = 183), celecoxib (n = 181), or placebo (n = 89). Mean baseline NRS was 6.7 in all active groups. CTC had a significantly greater effect on SPID0-48 (least-squares mean: -139.1 [95% confidence interval: -151.8, -126.5]) than tramadol (-109.1 [-121.7, -96.4]; p < 0.001), celecoxib (-103.7 [-116.4, -91.0]; p < 0.001), or placebo (-74.6 [-92.5, -56.6]; p < 0.001). Total treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were 358 for CTC and 394 for tramadol. Drug-related TEAEs occurred in 37.7% patients in the CTC group, compared with 48.6% in the tramadol group. There were no serious TEAEs/deaths. CONCLUSION: CTC provided greater analgesia than comparable daily doses of tramadol and celecoxib, with similar tolerability to tramadol. CTC is approved in the United States.

Efficacy and safety of co-crystal of tramadol-celecoxib (CTC) in acute moderate-to-severe pain after abdominal hysterectomy: A randomized, double-blind, phase 3 trial (STARDOM2).

BACKGROUND: STARDOM2 is a randomized, double-blind, phase 3 trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of co-crystal of tramadol-celecoxib (CTC)-a first-in-class analgesic co-crystal comprising racemic tramadol hydrochloride and celecoxib in a supramolecular network that modifies their pharmacokinetic properties-for the management of acute postoperative pain (NCT03062644; EudraCT:2016-000593-38). METHODS: Patients with moderate-to-severe pain following abdominal hysterectomy were randomized 2:2:2:2:2:1 to oral CTC 100 mg (rac-tramadol hydrochloride 44 mg/celecoxib 56 mg) twice daily (BID); CTC 150 mg (66/84 mg) BID; CTC 200 mg (88/112 mg) BID; immediate-release tramadol 100 mg four times daily (QID); celecoxib 100 mg BID; or placebo, for 5 days. The primary endpoint was the sum of pain intensity differences over 0-4 h (SPID0-4 ). Key secondary endpoints were rescue medication use within 4 h, 50% response rate at 4 h, and safety/tolerability. RESULTS: Of 1355 patients enrolled, 1138 were randomized (full analysis set) and 1136 treated (safety analysis set). In the prespecified gatekeeping analysis of SPID0-4 , CTC 200 mg was not superior to tramadol but showed non-inferior efficacy (p < 0.001) that was sustained throughout the 120-h period, despite a 5-day cumulative tramadol administration of 880 mg with CTC 200 mg BID versus 2000 mg with tramadol 100 mg QID. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and severe TEAEs were less common with CTC 200 mg versus tramadol. Treatment-related TEAEs were 14.4% with CTC 200 mg and 23.6% with tramadol. CONCLUSIONS: Although the study did not meet its primary endpoint, CTC 200 mg showed a clinically relevant improvement in overall benefit/risk profile versus tramadol alone, with considerably lower cumulative opioid exposure. SIGNIFICANCE: In the randomized, double-blind, phase 3 STARDOM2 trial-in acute moderate-to-severe pain after abdominal hysterectomy-the novel co-crystal of tramadol-celecoxib (CTC) 200 mg BID was superior to placebo and non-inferior to tramadol 100 mg QID. Although superiority to tramadol was not reached, CTC 200 mg BID exposed patients to lower cumulative opioid (tramadol) doses than tramadol (100 mg QID) alone, with fewer treatment-emergent adverse events. CTC 200 mg thus has a clinically relevant improved benefit/risk profile compared with tramadol alone.

Celecoxib-tramadol co-crystal: A Randomized 4-Way Crossover Comparative Bioavailability Study.

PURPOSE: Celecoxib-tramadol co-crystal (CTC) is a first-in-class co-crystal of celecoxib and racemic tramadol. This Phase 1 bioavailability study compared single-dose pharmacokinetic (PK) parameters of CTC with those of the individual reference products from the United States, immediate-release celecoxib and tramadol, taken alone and simultaneously to determine their systemic exposure. METHODS: This was a single-center, randomized, single-dose, open-label, 4-period, 4-sequence, crossover study conducted in healthy subjects between October and December 2016. Study treatments included 200-mg CTC (equivalent to 112-mg celecoxib and 88-mg tramadol; Treatment-1); 100-mg tramadol (Treatment-2); 100-mg celecoxib (Treatment-3); and 100-mg celecoxib plus 100-mg tramadol (Treatment-4). The PK parameters of interest were Cmax, AUC0-T, and AUC0-∞, which were also calculated normalized to the dose. Tmax was only considered as supportive. The statistical analysis was based on a parametric analysis of variance model of the PK parameters; the two-sided 90% CI of the ratio of geometric mean values for the Cmax, AUC0-T, and AUC0-∞ was based on ln-transformed data, and Tmax was rank-transformed. FINDINGS: Thirty-six subjects aged 18 to 55 years (21 male subjects, 15 female subjects; mean age, 35 years) participated in the study. Celecoxib from CTC presented a lower Cmax, reduced AUCs, and a faster Tmax. The interference in celecoxib absorption when celecoxib and tramadol are administered together was minimized with the CTC. For Treatment-1, -3, and -4, celecoxib PK parameters were 259, 318, and 165 ng/mL (Cmax), respectively; 1930, 2348, and 1929 ng • h/mL (AUC0-T); and 1.5, 3.0, and 2.5 hours (Tmax). Tramadol and its active metabolite O-desmethyl tramadol from CTC presented lower Cmax and AUCs as well as a longer Tmax. Tramadol/O-desmethyl tramadol PK parameters for Treatment-1, -2, and -4 were 214/55, 305/78, and 312/78 ng/mL for Cmax; 2507/846, 2709/965, and 2888/1010 ng • h/mL for AUC0-T; and 3.0/4.0, 2.0/2.5, and 1.9/2.5 hours for Tmax. Reported adverse events (none unexpected) occurred more frequently with Treatment-2 and Treatment-4. IMPLICATIONS: The aim of this study was to compare the PK profile of the US-marketed tramadol and celecoxib products with CTC to determine their systemic exposure and to validate the dosing regimen for a subsequent pivotal factorial Phase 3study. PK parameters of each active component in CTC were favorably modified by co-crystallization and did not result in higher systemic exposure compared with US-marketed celecoxib, tramadol, and their concomitant administration. © 2021 Elsevier HS Journals, Inc.

Co-crystal of Tramadol-Celecoxib in Patients with Moderate to Severe Acute Post-surgical Oral Pain: A Dose-Finding, Randomised, Double-Blind, Placebo- and Active-Controlled, Multicentre, Phase II Trial.

BACKGROUND: Co-crystal of tramadol-celecoxib (CTC), containing equimolar quantities of the active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) tramadol and celecoxib (100 mg CTC = 44 mg rac-tramadol hydrochloride and 56 mg celecoxib), is a novel API-API co-crystal for the treatment of pain. We aimed to establish the effective dose of CTC for treating acute pain following oral surgery. METHODS: A dose-finding, double-blind, randomised, placebo- and active-controlled, multicentre (nine Spanish hospitals), phase II study (EudraCT number: 2011-002778-21) was performed in male and female patients aged ≥ 18 years experiencing moderate to severe pain following extraction of two or more impacted third molars requiring bone removal. Eligible patients were randomised via a computer-generated list to receive one of six single-dose treatments (CTC 50, 100, 150, 200 mg; tramadol 100 mg; and placebo). The primary efficacy endpoint was the sum of pain intensity difference (SPID) over 8 h assessed in the per-protocol population. RESULTS: Between 10 February 2012 and 13 February 2013, 334 patients were randomised and received study treatment: 50 mg (n = 55), 100 mg (n = 53), 150 mg (n = 57), or 200 mg (n = 57) of CTC, 100 mg tramadol (n = 58), or placebo (n = 54). CTC 100, 150, and 200 mg showed significantly higher efficacy compared with placebo and/or tramadol in all measures: SPID (0-8 h) (mean [standard deviation]): - 90 (234), - 139 (227), - 173 (224), 71 (213), and 22 (228), respectively. The proportion of patients experiencing treatment-emergent adverse events was lower in the 50 (12.7% [n = 7]), 100 (11.3% [n = 6]), and 150 (15.8% [n = 9]) mg CTC groups, and similar in the 200 mg (29.8% [n = 17]) CTC group, compared with the tramadol group (29.3% [n = 17]), with nausea, dizziness, and vomiting the most frequent events. CONCLUSION: Significant improvement in the benefit-risk ratio was observed for CTC (doses ≥ 100 mg) over tramadol and placebo in the treatment of acute pain following oral surgery. FUNDING: Laboratorios del Dr. Esteve, S.A.U.

Efficacy of a Novel Sigma-1 Receptor Antagonist for Oxaliplatin-Induced Neuropathy: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Phase IIa Clinical Trial.

This trial assessed the efficacy of MR309 (a novel selective sigma-1 receptor ligand previously developed as E-52862) in ameliorating oxaliplatin-induced peripheral neuropathy (oxaipn). A discontinuous regimen of MR309 (400 mg/day, 5 days per cycle) was tested in patients with colorectal cancer receiving FOLFOX in a phase II, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter clinical trial. Outcome measures included changes in 24-week quantitative measures of thermal sensitivity and total neuropathy score. In total, 124 patients were randomized (1:1) to MR309 or placebo. Sixty-three (50.8%) patients withdrew prematurely before completing 12 planned oxaliplatin cycles. Premature withdrawal because of cancer progression was less frequent in the MR309 group (7.4% vs 25.0% with placebo; p = 0.054). MR309 significantly reduced cold pain threshold temperature [mean treatment effect difference (SE) vs placebo: 5.29 (1.60)°C; p = 0.001] and suprathreshold cold stimulus-evoked pain intensity [mean treatment effect difference: 1.24 (0.57) points; p = 0.032]. Total neuropathy score, health-related quality-of-life measures, and nerve-conduction parameters changed similarly in both arms, whereas the proportion of patients with severe chronic neuropathy (National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events ≥ 3) was significantly lower in the MR309 group (3.0% vs 18.2% with placebo; p = 0.046). The total amount of oxaliplatin delivered was greater in the active arm (1618.9 mg vs 1453.8 mg with placebo; p = 0.049). Overall, 19.0% of patients experienced at least 1 treatment-related adverse event (25.8% and 11.9% with MR309 and placebo, respectively). Intermittent treatment with MR309 was associated with reduced acute oxaipn and higher oxaliplatin exposure, and showed a potential neuroprotective role for chronic cumulative oxaipn. Furthermore, MR309 showed an acceptable safety profile.

Pharmacokinetics of multiple doses of co-crystal of tramadol-celecoxib: findings from a four-way randomized open-label phase I clinical trial.

AIM: We compared the pharmacokinetic (PK) profiles of co-crystal of tramadol-celecoxib (CTC) vs. each reference product (alone and in open combination) after single (first dose) and multiple dosing. METHODS: Healthy adults aged 18-50 years received, under fasted conditions, 15 twice-daily doses of the following treatments (separated by ≥14-day washout): 200 mg immediate-release (IR) CTC (equivalent to 88 mg tramadol and 112 mg celecoxib; treatment 1); 100 mg IR tramadol (treatment 2), 100 mg celecoxib (treatment 3); and 100 mg IR tramadol and 100 mg celecoxib (treatment 4). The treatment sequence was assigned by computer-generated randomization. PK parameters were calculated using non-compartmental analysis. Parameters for CTC were adjusted according to reference product dose. RESULTS: A total of 30 subjects (20 males, mean age 35 years) were included. Multiple-dose tramadol PK parameters for treatments 1, 2 and 4, respectively, were 551, 632 and 661 ng ml-1 [mean maximum plasma concentration (Cmax )]; 4796, 4990 and 5284 ng h ml-1 (area under the plasma concentration-time curve over the dosing interval at steady state); and 3.0, 2.0 and 2.0 h (median time to Cmax at steady state). For treatments 1, 3 and 4, multiple-dose celecoxib PK parameters were 445, 536 and 396 ng ml-1 ; 2803, 3366 and 2897 ng h ml-1 ; and 2.0, 2.0 and 3.0 h. Single-dose findings were consistent with multiple-dose data. Types of adverse events were consistent with known reference product safety profiles. CONCLUSION: After single (first dose) and multiple dosing, PK parameters for each active pharmaceutical ingredient in CTC were modified by co-crystallization compared with reference products alone or in open combination.

Single-dose pharmacokinetics of co-crystal of tramadol-celecoxib: Results of a four-way randomized open-label phase I clinical trial in healthy subjects.

AIMS: Co-crystal of tramadol-celecoxib (CTC) is a novel co-crystal molecule containing two active pharmaceutical ingredients under development by Esteve (E-58425) and Mundipharma Research (MR308). This Phase I study compared single-dose pharmacokinetics (PK) of CTC with those of the individual reference products [immediate-release (IR) tramadol and celecoxib] alone and in open combination. METHODS: Healthy adults aged 18-55 years were orally administered four treatments under fasted conditions (separated by 7-day wash-out period): 200 mg IR CTC (equivalent to 88 mg tramadol and 112 mg celecoxib; Treatment 1); 100 mg IR tramadol (Treatment 2); 100 mg celecoxib (Treatment 3); and 100 mg IR tramadol and 100 mg celecoxib (Treatment 4). Treatment sequence was assigned using computer-generated randomization. PK parameters were calculated using noncompartmental analysis with parameters for CTC adjusted according to reference product dose (100 mg). RESULTS: Thirty-six subjects (28 male, mean age 36 years) participated. Tramadol PK parameters for Treatments-1, -2 and -4, respectively, were 263, 346 and 349 ng ml-1 (mean maximum plasma concentration); 3039, 2979 and 3119 ng h ml-1 (mean cumulative area under the plasma concentration-time curve); and 2.7, 1.8 and 1.8 h (median time to maximum plasma concentration). For Treatments 1, 3 and 4, the respective celecoxib PK parameters were 313, 449 and 284 ng ml-1 ; 2183, 3093 and 2856 ng h ml-1 ; and 1.5, 2.3 and 3.0 h. No unexpected adverse events were reported. CONCLUSION: PK parameters of each API in CTC were modified by co-crystallization compared with marketed formulations of tramadol, celecoxib, and their open combination.

Single Doses up to 800 mg of E-52862 Do Not Prolong the QTc Interval--A Retrospective Validation by Pharmacokinetic-Pharmacodynamic Modelling of Electrocardiography Data Utilising the Effects of a Meal on QTc to Demonstrate ECG Assay Sensitivity.

BACKGROUND: E-52862 is a Sigma-1 receptor antagonist (S1RA) currently under investigation as a potential analgesic medicine. We successfully applied a concentration-effect model retrospectively to a four-way crossover Phase I single ascending dose study and utilized the QTc shortening effects of a meal to demonstrate assay sensitivity by establishing the time course effects from baseline in all four periods, independently from any potential drug effects. METHODS: Thirty two healthy male and female subjects were included in four treatment periods to receive single ascending doses of 500 mg, 600 mg or 800 mg of E-52862 or placebo. PK was linear over the dose range investigated and doses up to 600 mg were well tolerated. The baseline electrocardiography (ECG) measurements on Day-1 were time-matched with ECG and pharmacokinetic (PK) samples on Day 1 (dosing day). RESULTS: In this conventional mean change to time-matched placebo analysis, the largest time-matched difference to placebo QTcI was 1.44 ms (90% CI: -4.04, 6.93 ms) for 500 mg; -0.39 ms (90% CI: -3.91, 3.13 ms) for 600 mg and 1.32 ms (90% CI: -1.89, 4.53 ms) for 800 mg of E-52862, thereby showing the absence of any QTc prolonging effect at the doses tested. In addition concentration-effect models, one based on the placebo corrected change from baseline and one for the change of QTcI from average baseline with time as fixed effect were fitted to the data confirming the results of the time course analysis. CONCLUSION: The sensitivity of this study to detect small changes in the QTc interval was confirmed by demonstrating a shortening of QTcF of -8.1 (90% CI: -10.4, -5.9) one hour and -7.2 (90% CI: -9.4, -5.0) three hours after a standardised meal. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EU Clinical Trials Register EudraCT 2010 020343 13.

Effect of ketoprofen on pre-weaning piglet mortality on commercial farms.

The effect of ketoprofen on pre-weaning piglet mortality was evaluated in a large-scale study on commercial farms. Sows (n= 1486) from 15 farms were included. Half of the sows received 3 mg/kg ketoprofen in a single intramuscular administration within 12 h after farrowing. The other half remained untreated. Pre-weaning mortality was lower in the ketoprofen-treated group than in the control group (8.43% vs. 10.24%, respectively; P= 0.010). The major impact of ketoprofen on mortality was seen between days 2 and 7 postpartum (mortality rates of 2.75% vs. 4.02% for treated and control groups, respectively; P= 0.001). In addition, ketoprofen treatment was associated with a higher number of piglets weaned per litter than when no treatment was given (10.0 vs. 9.84, respectively; P= 0.012).

A single-centre, open-label, controlled, randomized clinical trial to assess the preventive efficacy of a domperidone-based treatment programme against clinical canine leishmaniasis in a high prevalence area.

The innate immune response acting immediately after initial infection with Leishmania parasites is known to play a relevant role in prevention against clinical progression of the disease. Domperidone is a dopamine D2 receptor antagonist that has shown to enhance the innate cell-mediated immune response. The aim of this study was to assess the preventive efficacy of a domperidone-based treatment programme against clinical canine leishmaniasis (CanL) in a high prevalence area. The study was performed with 90 healthy, seronegative dogs of different sex, age, weight and breed from a single veterinary clinic located in Valencia (Spain). Dogs were randomly allocated into two groups. Dogs in one group (domperidone-treated group; n=44) were administered an oral suspension of domperidone at 0.5 mg/kg bw/day during 30 consecutive days, every 4 months. Dogs in the other group (negative control group; n=46) were left untreated. A 21-month follow-up period was implemented covering two seasonal phases of the sand fly vector. During this period all animals underwent periodic clinical examinations and blood samplings for anti-Leishmania serological testing. Dogs seropositive for Leishmania (IFAT antibody titre≥1:80) plus at least one clinical sign consistent with CanL (indicative of active infection and incipient disease progression) were categorized as a 'prevention failure'. These dogs were withdrawn from the study after confirming the infection by direct observation of the parasite in smears of lymph nodes and/or bone marrow aspirates. The cumulative percentage of 'prevention failure' after 12 months was significantly lower in the domperidone-treated group than in the negative control group (7% versus 35%, p=0.003). Differences between groups persisted after 21 months (11% versus 48%, p<0.001). The prevention rate provided by domperidone was 80% during the first 12 months and 77% throughout the complete 21-month follow-up period, with odds ratios of 7.3 (p=0.001) and 7.15 (p<0.001), respectively, this indicating that the risk for domperidone-treated dogs to develop the clinical disease is quite 7 times lower than for dogs left untreated. The results of this study demonstrate that the implementation of a strategic domperidone-based treatment programme consisting in quarterly repeated 30-day treatments with domperidone effectively reduces the risk to develop clinical CanL in areas with high prevalence of the disease.

Safety, tolerability and pharmacokinetics of single and multiple doses of a novel sigma-1 receptor antagonist in three randomized phase I studies.

AIM: To assess the safety, tolerability, pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics in healthy subjects of a novel, highly selective, sigma-1 receptor antagonist (S1RA). METHODS: Three randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials evaluated single oral doses (5-500 mg, study 101; 500-800 mg, study 106) and multiple doses (50-400 mg once daily for 8 days, study 102) of S1RA. Safety and tolerability were assessed by adverse event reporting, clinical laboratory, physical examinations, vital signs and electrocardiography, including Holter monitoring. Pharmacodynamic assessments included computerized cognitive testing. Plasma samples were analyzed using validated HPLC-MS/MS methods. RESULTS: One hundred and seventy-five subjects were enrolled. Single and multiple doses were safe and well tolerated, with no serious adverse events. The most common side effects were headache and dizziness. The highest single doses were associated with some mild to moderate transient CNS effects. The maximum tolerated dose was not reached. There were no clinically significant changes in the electrocardiogram (ECG), 24 h Holter monitoring, or in vital signs and laboratory assessments. Subjective CNS pharmacodynamics evaluations showed no relevant differences vs. placebo. Cognitive testing showed no effects on visual memory, executive function, attention or somnolence, while revealing some transient slowing of response for simple reaction time and choice reaction time at 2 h following the administration of higher doses. A fast absorption, rapid distribution and slow elimination were observed (t(max) 0.75-2.0 h, t(1/2) compatible with once a day administration) and steady-state was reached. No gender differences were observed. CONCLUSIONS: S1RA exhibited an acceptable safety, tolerability, pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic profile in healthy subjects over the dose range studied.

Cizolirtine citrate, an effective treatment for symptomatic patients with urinary incontinence secondary to overactive bladder: a pilot dose-finding study.

BACKGROUND: A dose-finding study was performed as the first step in the clinical development of the new drug, cizolirtine citrate. OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and safety of cizolirtine citrate in overactive bladder with urinary incontinence. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Seventy-nine outpatients with clinical overactive bladder and/or urodynamic diagnosis of detrusor overactivity were randomized in a multicentre, 12-wk, double-blind, pilot trial. INTERVENTIONS: Patients received cizolirtine citrate 400 mg bid (C400), cizolirtine citrate 200 mg bid (C200), or placebo. MEASUREMENTS: Patients recorded efficacy variables in 7- and 14-d bladder diaries: urinary incontinence episodes, voluntary micturitions, and urgency episodes. The primary efficacy endpoints were changes from baseline to week 12 in average 24-h frequencies of the efficacy variables. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Average 24-h frequency of urinary incontinence episodes decreased by a median of 1.14 in C400 versus 0.21 in placebo (p=0.08). Urgency episodes decreased by a median of 3.00 in C400, by 1.29 in C200 and by 0.43 in placebo (p=0.004; C400 vs placebo). Cizolirtine showed a clear improvement regarding the percentage of patients free from urinary incontinence episodes at the end of the study, being 68.75% in C400, 45% in C200, and 30% in placebo (p=0.04; C400 vs placebo). The global efficacy assessment reported by patients showed a clearly favourable opinion ("excellent" or "good") given by 80% of the patients in C400 and 60% in C200 versus 39% in placebo. Patients reporting adverse events (AEs) were 37% in placebo, 68% in C200, and 81% in C400. The majority of AEs had mild to moderate severity and none was serious. CONCLUSIONS: The therapeutic potential of cizolirtine citrate 400mg bid in overactive bladder has been evidenced.

Calcium dobesilate for the treatment of erectile dysfunction in men with diabetes mellitus.

Calcium dobesilate has shown to improve endothelial function. This proof-of-concept clinical trial was done to check whether it may improve erectile dysfunction in diabetic men. Male diabetic patients with a diagnosis of erectile dysfunction were randomized to receive either calcium dobesilate 1 g twice per day or placebo for 6 weeks. The International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) was chosen as the primary efficacy measurement. Statistical procedures included a pre-scheduled adaptive interim analysis to recalculate sample size. Relevant, but not significant differences in the mean change from baseline in the primary end-point (IIEF questions 3, 4 and 7) favouring dobesilate with respect to placebo were observed. Such differences reached statistical significance in some secondary end-points, including IIEF global as well as the erectile function and intercourse satisfaction domains' scores. Some patients experienced an important placebo effect. Results suggest that dobesilate may be of help to treat diabetic erectile dysfunction. Co-administration with phosphodiesterase inhibitors warrants further investigation.

Comparison of cizolirtine citrate and metamizol sodium in the treatment of adult acute renal colic: a randomized, double-blind, clinical pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Renal colic causes excruciating pain that provides a good clinical model of acute pain for the development of new analgesics. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the study was to compare the analgesic efficacy and tolerability of cizolirtine citrate and metamizol sodium in adult acute renal colic. METHODS: This Phase II, randomized, double-blind, clinical pilot study was conducted in the emergency departments of 6 general hospitals in the Czech Republic between October 2000 and February 2001. Male and female patients aged 18 to 65 years and presenting with hematuria and moderate to severe pain due to suspected renal colic starting within the 24 hours before presentation were eligible. Patients were randomized to receive a single IV dose of cizolirtine 350 mg or metamizol 2,500 mg, administered by slow infusion over 15 minutes. Both doses were maximal for the respective drugs to attain adequate analgesia. Use of rescue medication with butorphanol was allowed 30 minutes after study drug administration. Pain intensity was assessed at various time points during the following 360 minutes using a 100-mm visual analog scale (VAS) and a verbal categoric scale. In addition, a specific verbal categoric scale was used to rank pain relief. Physical examinations, laboratory tests, and questioning for adverse events addressed drug tolerability. RESULTS: Sixty-four patients (50 men, 14 women; mean [SD] age, 44.21 [12.29] years; mean [SD] body mass index, 25.97 [3.38] kg/m(2)) were enrolled. Physical examination findings and mean VAS pain intensity scores at baseline (mean [SD], 79.42 [7.89] mm and 82.59 [10.50] mm in the cizolirtine and metamizol groups, respectively) were similar in both groups. After 30 minutes, the mean (SD) scores were 33.84 (25.15) mm and 25.41 (24.51) mm, respectively. This difference was not statistically significant, and the noninferiority of cizolirtine with respect to the comparator could not be established. However, the proportion of patients that showed satisfactory pain relief (ie, decrease of > or = 50% in VAS pain intensity score compared with baseline) at 30 minutes in the cizolirtine group was fairly high (64.5%), which means relevant analgesic activity. Both treatments were well tolerated; 6 adverse events were reported in 5 patients (7.8%), and all were considered as not treatment related. CONCLUSIONS: Although this limited pilot study did not include an internal measure of sensitivity, relevant pain reduction was shown in the population of patients with suspected renal colic undergoing treatment with cizolirtine, suggesting the presence of analgesic activity. However, the efficacy of cizolirtine was found to be similar to that of metamizol. Treatments were well tolerated.

Treatment of type IIb familial combined hyperlipidemia with the combination pravastatin-piperazine sultosilate.

The risk of coronary heart disease is increased for any given low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol level in patients with high levels of triglycerides because some triglyceride-rich lipoproteins are atherogenic. This paper reports the results of a pilot clinical trial aimed to evaluate a novel triglyceride-lowering drug in combination with pravastatin to treat combined hyperlipidemia. Twenty-six patients with type 2b hyperlipoproteinemia were randomized to receive pravastatin 40 mg/day or pravastatin 40 mg/day plus piperazine-sultosilate 1000 mg/day for 12 weeks if their cholesterol levels, but not triglyceride levels, had responded to therapeutic lifestyle changes and treatment with 40 mg/day of pravastatin. Concentrations of triglycerides, cholesterol and apolipoproteins A and B were measured in duplicate before and after the intervention. There were no significant differences between groups in the change from baseline in the concentration of serum triglycerides. Conversely, significant differences were found for LDL cholesterol, which increased slightly with pravastatin alone but decreased with the combination (12.605+/-22.777% vs. -6.396+/-13.157%, respectively; p=0.022). Apolipoprotein-B levels increased with pravastatin alone but remained stable with the combined treatment (10.464+/-8.446% vs. 0.767+/-12.335%; P=0.028). The increase in the pravastatin group was significant. Although sultosilate was not efficacious in reducing triglycerides, it helped to decrease the concentration of small, dense, atherogenic LDL particles that are less receptor-sensitive and which could accumulate during long-term statin therapy in patients with high levels of triglycerides.