Relation between obesity and the attainment of optimal blood pressure and lipid targets in high vascular risk outpatients.

Obesity is associated with hypertension, dyslipidemia, and diabetes, but it is also an independent cardiovascular risk factor. We sought to evaluate the differences in treatment patterns and attainment of guideline-recommended targets among high-risk vascular outpatients in relation to their body mass index (BMI). The prospective Vascular Protection and Guideline Orientated Approach to Lipid Lowering Registries recruited 7,357 high-risk vascular outpatients in Canada from 2001 to 2004. We stratified the patient population into 3 groups according to their BMI: normal weight (BMI <24.9 kg/m²), overweight (BMI 25 to 29.9 kg/m²), and obese (BMI >30 kg/m²). We evaluated the rates of attainment for contemporary guideline targets of blood pressure (<140/90 or <130/80 mm Hg in the presence of diabetes) and lipids (low-density lipoprotein [LDL] <2.5 mmol/L [96.7 mg/dl] and total cholesterol [TC]/high-density lipoprotein [HDL] ratio <4.0). Of the 7,357 patients, 1,305 (17.7%) were normal weight, 2,791 (37.9%) overweight, and 3,261 (44.4%) obese, as determined by the BMI. Obese patients were younger and more likely to have hypertension and diabetes (all p <0.001 for trend). Obese patients had higher baseline blood pressure, TC, LDL cholesterol, triglyceride levels and TC/HDL ratio, and lower HDL cholesterol. Obese patients were more likely to be treated with antihypertensive agents (p = 0.002), angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (p = 0.024), angiotensin receptor blockers (p <0.001), and high-dose statin therapy (p = 0.001). On multivariable analyses, obese patients were less likely to attain the blood pressure (odds ratio 0.77, 95% confidence interval 0.66 to 0.90, p = 0.001) and TC/HDL ratio (odds ratio 0.48, 95% confidence interval 0.42 to 0.55, p <0.001) targets but not the LDL targets (odds ratio 0.89, 95% confidence interval 0.78 to 1.03, p = 0.11). In conclusion, only a minority ambulatory patients at high cardiovascular risk achieved both guideline-recommended blood pressure and lipid targets, and this significant treatment gap was more pronounced among obese patients. Our findings underscore the opportunity to optimize the treatment of these high-risk patients.

North American efficacy and safety of a novel pediculicide rinse, isopropyl myristate 50% (Resultz).

BACKGROUND: Head lice infestations are a major nuisance in school-aged children and are a worldwide public health problem. There are growing concerns about the effectiveness of current treatments owing to increasing resistance, safety, and patient noncompliance. A safe, easy to use, effective alternative is needed. OBJECTIVE: A pediculicide rinse, 50% isopropyl myristate (IPM), was assessed in two phase 2 trials conducted in North America. The first trial was a nonrandomized (proof of concept) trial without a comparator conducted in Winnipeg, Canada. The second trial, conducted in the United States, was an evaluator-blinded, randomized superiority trial comparing 50% IPM rinse with a positive control (RID; pyrethrin 0.33%, piperonyl butoxide 4%). The primary end points were to determine the safety and efficacy of 50% IPM as a pediculicide rinse. METHODS: Subjects meeting inclusion criteria were enrolled in the above-mentioned trials with efficacy end points 7 and 14 days post-treatment. Subjects were also evaluated on days 0, 7, 14, and 21 for the presence of erythema and edema using the Modified Draize Scale. Other comments associated with the safety evaluation (ie, pruritus) were collected. RESULTS: IPM was found to be effective in the proof of concept study and comparator trial using a positive control. IPM was also well tolerated, with minimal adverse events. All adverse events were mild, resolving by completion of the study. CONCLUSION: Data suggest that IPM is a safe and effective therapy for the treatment of head lice in children and adults. IPM's mechanical mechanism of action makes development of lice resistance unlikely.

Evaluation of irritation and sensitisation of two 50 microg/day oestrogen patches.

OBJECTIVES: To comparatively assess the irritation and sensitisation of the Estradot transdermal oestrogen patch, in healthy postmenopausal women, using the Menorest transdermal oestrogen patch, as a comparator. METHODS: In an open-label, single-centre, randomised, active-treatment, within-patient controlled study, 208 healthy postmenopausal women, age range 40-70 years, received and completed simultaneous treatment with a 5 cm(2) (50 microg/day) oestradiol patch (Estradot) and a 14.5 cm(2) (50 microg/day) oestradiol patch (Menorest). The treatment was given for 72 h, then 96 h, for eight successive applications during an induction phase, and for 72 h during a challenge phase. There was a 14-day resting period between phases. Skin irritation (measured by erythema on a scale of 0-4), topical sensitisation, patch adherence and local skin reaction, were assessed and recorded immediately before or after removal of each patch, as appropriate. RESULTS: Most patients experienced a significant difference in irritation with Menorest than with Estradot (P < 0.0001) at the end of the induction phase. Patch loss was also significantly higher for Menorest as compared to Estradot (P = 0.0253) at the end of the induction phase. Most incidences of erythema were classified as slight (score of 1), and there was no significant difference in the percentage of topical sensitisation, or in the incidence of local skin reactions between Estradot and Menorest. Patch loss was low for both systems. CONCLUSIONS: Estradot demonstrates reduced skin irritation, superior adhesion and a lower rate of patch loss compared to Menorest.