Efficacy and tolerability of sustained-release tramadol in the treatment of symptomatic osteoarthritis of the hip or knee: a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Opioid analgesics may be a useful alternative in patients with osteoarthritis who have not responded to first-line treatment with acetaminophen and in whom nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are contraindicated, ineffective, or poorly tolerated. OBJECTIVE: This study compared the efficacy and tolerability of tramadol LP 200 mg, a new once-daily,sustained-release formulation, with those of placebo in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. METHODS: In this multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study, patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee (European League Against Rheumatism criteria) were randomized to receive either tramadol LP 200 mg once daily or placebo for 14 days. The primary efficacy end point was the change from baseline to the end of the study in scores on the Huskisson visual analog scale for pain. Secondary end points were change in the Lequesne functional discomfort index, global efficacy assessed by the patient and the investigator, time to improvement, and use of acetaminophen as rescue analgesic medication. Global tolerability was assessed by both patients and investigators at the end of the study The number and severity of adverse events occurring during the study and for 2 weeks thereafter were also recorded. RESULTS: Two hundred thirty patients (167 women, 63 men) were evaluable for efficacy and safety Demographic data for the tramadol and placebo groups were as follows: mean (SD) age, 67.1 (7.1) and 66.4 (92) years, respectively; female sex, 72.1% and 73.1%; and mean body weight, 74.7 (13.6) and 74.6 (14.8) kg. All patients were white. The completer analysis included 197 patients (85 tramadol, 112 placebo). Pain was significantly reduced in the tramadol LP group compared with the placebo group on day 7 (P = 0.002) and day 14 (P = 0.010). In the patient's assessment of global efficacy, 77.6% (66) of the tramadol LP group reported improvement by day 14, compared with 59.8% (67) of the placebo group; in the investigator's assessment, the efficacy of tramadol LP was rated very good or good for 612% (52) of patients, compared with 30.4% (34) for placebo. Improvement was reported before day 7 in 882% (75) of patients in the tramadol LP group, compared with 65.2% (73) in the placebo group (P = 0.021); the mean time from the initiation of treatment to reported improvement was 3 days for tramadol LP and 6 days for placebo (P < 0.001). Rates of response (defined as > or =30% pain reduction between days 0 and 14) were 64.7% (55) for tramadol LP and 50.0% (56) for placebo (P = 0.039); no rescue medication was used by 60.0% (51) of the tramadol LP group and 36.6% (41) of the placebo group (P - 0.001). One or more adverse event was reported by 45.0% (50) of the tramadol LP group, compared with 193% (23) of the placebo group (P < 0.001). As would be expected with an opiate agonist such as tramadol, the most common adverse events with this agent involved the gastrointestinal system (nausea, 22.5% [25] of patients; vomiting, 17.1% [19]) and the central nervous system (somnolence, 11.7% [13]). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, tramadol LP 200 mg was significantly more effective than placebo in alleviating pain in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. It appeared to be relatively well tolerated for an opioid compound.

Deposition and pharmacokinetics of budesonide from the Miat Monodose inhaler, a simple dry powder device.

Dry powder inhalers (DPIs) are used to deliver asthma drugs to patients, but lung deposition may depend upon the degree of inspiratory effort. The pulmonary deposition of the glucocorticosteroid budesonide (SMB-Galephar) has been assessed in 12 asthmatic patients when delivered by the Monodose inhaler (Miat, Milan, Italy); the Pulmicort Turbuhaler DPI (AstraZeneca, Lund, Sweden) was used as a comparator product. Patients inhaled from each device with maximal or sub-maximal inspiratory effort: Monodose inhaler 90 vs 45 l/min; Turbuhaler DPI 60 vs 30 l/min. The formulations were radiolabelled with (99m)Tc, and deposition of budesonide was quantified by gamma scintigraphy. Mean (SD) whole lung deposition for the Monodose inhaler (% capsule dose), was independent of inspiratory effort (maximal: 21.4 (4.3)%; sub-maximal: 21.4 (7.5)%), while lung deposition for the Turbuhaler DPI (% metered dose) fell significantly with decreasing inspiratory effort (maximal: 25.1 (6.1)%; sub-maximal: 18.5 (6.5)%; P<0.05). The plasma concentrations of budesonide showed the same trends as the whole lung deposition data. The Monodose inhaler showed inspiratory effort-independent drug delivery characteristics, and could prove be a valuable low-cost alternative to more complex devices such as the Turbuhaler DPI. The Monodose inhaler may be especially useful in groups of patients unable to inhale maximally through DPIs, including young children and adult patients with severe respiratory impairment.

Randomised crossover studies of the bioequivalence of two fenofibrate formulations after administration of a single oral dose in healthy volunteers.

Bioequivalence of a newly developed semi-solid formulation (Lidose) of fenofibrate (CAS 49562-28-9), and a reference, micronized formulation of fenofibrate was investigated in two randomised, open-label clinical studies with a crossover design. Both studies involved two distinct groups of 24 healthy volunteers. Doses of 67 mg and 200 mg, respectively, were used in study 1 and study 2. On day 1, a single oral dose was administered to all subjects, using one of the two formulations to be compared. Single oral dosing with the other formulation occurred after a washout period of at least 8 days. Blood samples were taken after each dosing for measurement of plasma fenofibric acid concentrations by high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) combined with fluorescence detection, and plasma pharmacokinetic parameters were determined. No statistically significant differences were noted for Cmax, Tmax, AUC0-t and AUC0-variation of between subjects treated with the new formulation and those receiving the reference formulation. Side effects were mild and not significantly different between the two fenofibrate preparations. These two studies based on validated methods demonstrate that the new and the reference fenofibrate formulations are bioequivalent when administered at the two doses studied.