Ertapenem versus cefepime for initial empirical treatment of pneumonia acquired in skilled-care facilities or in hospitals outside the intensive care unit.

The study presented here compared the efficacy and safety of ertapenem and cefepime as initial treatment for adults with pneumonia acquired in skilled-care facilities or in hospital environments outside the intensive care unit (ICU). Non-ventilated patients developing pneumonia in hospital environments outside the ICU, in nursing homes, or in other skilled-care facilities were enrolled in this double-blind non-inferiority study, stratified by APACHE II score (15) and randomized (1:1) to receive cefepime (2 g every 12 h with optional metronidazole 500 mg every 12 h) or ertapenem (1 g daily). After 3 days of parenteral therapy, participants demonstrating clinical improvement could be switched to oral ciprofloxacin or another appropriate oral agent. Probable pathogens were identified in 162 (53.5%) of the 303 randomized participants. The most common pathogens were Enterobacteriaceae, Streptococcus pneumoniae, and Staphylococcus aureus, isolated from 59 (19.5%), 39 (12.9%), and 35 (11.6%) participants, respectively. At the test-of-cure assessment 7-14 days after completion of all study therapy, pneumonia had resolved or substantially improved in 89 (87.3%) of 102 clinically evaluable ertapenem recipients and 80 (86%) of 93 clinically evaluable cefepime recipients (95% confidence interval for the difference, -9.4 to 11.8%), fulfilling pre-specified criteria for statistical non-inferiority. The frequency and severity of drug-related adverse events were generally similar in both treatment groups. In this study population, ertapenem was as well-tolerated and efficacious as cefepime for the initial treatment of pneumonia acquired in skilled-care facilities or in hospital environments outside the ICU.

Patient satisfaction with rizatriptan versus other triptans: direct head-to-head comparisons.

This study summarises the impact of treatment with rizatriptan 10 mg versus other 5-HT 1B/1D receptor agonists (triptans) on patient satisfaction with medication. Rizatriptan is a potent, selective 5-HT1B/1D receptor agonist shown to be fast, effective and well tolerated in the acute treatment of migraine. We investigated patients' overall satisfaction with treatment in studies in which direct comparisons with other triptans were made. Data from five double-blind, placebo-controlled trials in which rizatriptan 10 mg was compared with another triptan were included in the analysis. Rizatriptan 10 mg was compared with sumatriptan 100 mg in one parallel study (n = 916), sumatriptan 50 mg in two crossover studies (n = 1599), naratriptan 2.5 mg in one parallel study (n = 502), and zolmitriptan 2.5 mg in one parallel study (n = 701). Satisfaction was reported by patients on a seven-point scale ranging from 'completely satisfied, couldn't be better' to 'completely dissatisfied, couldn't be worse' at 2 hours after dosing. The percent of patients in the top two 'satisfied' categories (completely or very satisfied) were analysed. More patients on rizatriptan 10 mg were completely or very satisfied compared with sumatriptan 100 mg (33% vs 26%, p < 0.05), sumatriptan 50 mg (40% vs 35%, p < 0.05), naratriptan 2.5 mg (33% vs 19%, p < 0.01), and zolmitriptan 2.5 mg (38% vs 30%, p < 0.05). In all five studies more patients treated with rizatriptan 10 mg or other triptans were completely or very satisfied with treatment than patients receiving placebo (p < 0.001, except naratriptan vs placebo p = 0.004). The results, combined with the superior efficacy profile (fast, effective, well tolerated) of rizatriptan 10 mg, should enhance the treatment of migraine headache and lead to improved therapeutic intervention in clinical practice.

Comparison of rizatriptan and other triptans on stringent measures of efficacy.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of oral rizatriptan 10 mg with oral doses of sumatriptan, naratriptan, and zolmitriptan on stringent outcome measures. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of data from five randomized, placebo-controlled, double-masked clinical trials in which oral rizatriptan was directly compared with oral sumatriptan 100 mg (n = 772), 50 mg (n = 1116), 25 mg (n = 1183), naratriptan 2.5 mg (n = 413), and zolmitriptan 2.5 mg (n = 580) for the acute treatment of a moderate or severe migraine attack. OUTCOME MEASURES: Percentage of patients pain-free at 2 hours, symptom-free at 2 hours (no pain, nausea, photophobia, phonophobia, vomiting, or functional disability), 24-hour sustained pain-free (no headache at 2 hours, no recurrence, and no additional antimigraine medications for 24 hours). RESULTS: More patients taking rizatriptan 10 mg were pain-free at 2 hours than were patients taking sumatriptan 100 mg (40% vs 33%, p = 0.019), sumatriptan 50 mg (40% vs 35%, p = 0.009), sumatriptan 25 mg (38% vs 27%, p < 0.001), naratriptan 2.5 mg (45% vs 21%, p < 0.001), and zolmitriptan 2.5 mg (43% vs 36%, p = 0.041). More patients taking rizatriptan 10 mg were symptom-free at 2 hours than were patients taking sumatriptan 100 mg (31% vs 22%, p = 0.002), sumatriptan 50 mg (33% vs 28%, p = 0.003), sumatriptan 25 mg (33% vs 24%, p < 0.001), naratriptan 2.5 mg (30% vs 11%, p < 0.001), and zolmitriptan 2.5 mg (31% vs 24%, p = 0.042). More patients taking rizatriptan 10 mg had a 24-hour sustained pain-free response than did patients taking sumatriptan 100 mg (27% vs 23%, p = 0.112), sumatriptan 50 mg (30% vs 26%, p = 0.015), sumatriptan 25 mg (27% vs 20%, p = 0.005), naratriptan 2.5 mg (29% vs 17%, p = 0.004), and zolmitriptan 2.5 mg (32% vs 24%, p = 0.013). CONCLUSION: Oral rizatriptan 10 mg was more effective than oral sumatriptan, naratriptan, and zolmitriptan on stringent outcome measures of pain-free response at 2 hours, symptom-free response at 2 hours, and 24-hour sustained pain-free response.

Effect of rizatriptan and other triptans on the nausea symptom of migraine: a post hoc analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of oral rizatriptan, sumatriptan, naratriptan, and zolmitriptan on the relief and emergence of nausea during a migraine attack. METHODS: Data from five randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trials in which oral rizatriptan 10 mg was directly compared with oral sumatriptan 100 mg (N = 772), 50 mg (N = 1168), 25 mg (N = 1180), naratriptan 2.5 mg (N = 406), or zolmitriptan 2.5 mg (N = 571) for the acute treatment of a migraine attack were retrospectively analyzed. Migraine was diagnosed according to International Headache Society criteria. Presence or absence of nausea was recorded at baseline and at 0.5, 1, 1.5, and 2 hours after dosing. The end points analyzed were relief of nausea in those who had it at baseline and emergence of nausea in those who were free of it at baseline. Treatments were compared using odds ratios estimated from logistic regression models at 2 hours, and averaged odds ratios for the first 2 hours posttreatment. RESULTS: Approximately 60% of patients in each treatment group had nausea at baseline. In those patients with nausea at baseline, significantly more patients treated with rizatriptan 10 mg were free of nausea at 2 hours compared with sumatriptan 100 mg (66% versus 58%, P =.043), sumatriptan 50 mg (68% versus 57%, P =.010), sumatriptan 25 mg (68% versus 59%, P =.017), and naratriptan 2.5 mg (59% versus 45%, P =.014). Averaging over the four posttreatment time points in the first 2 hours, significantly more patients treated with rizatriptan 10 mg were free of nausea compared with sumatriptan 100 mg (P =.004), sumatriptan 50 mg (P =.001), and naratriptan 2.5 mg (P =.015). No significant differences in nausea relief were seen between rizatriptan 10 mg and zolmitriptan 2.5 mg, either at 2 hours (65% versus 61%, P =.210) or over the first 2 hours (P =.781). Rates of treatment-emergent nausea at 2 hours ranged from 11% to 18% with placebo, from 5% to 13% with rizatriptan 10 mg, and from 10% to 20% with other comparator triptans. CONCLUSIONS: Oral rizatriptan 10 mg was more effective than oral sumatriptan and naratriptan at eliminating nausea within 2 hours in patients who had it at baseline. Rates of emergent nausea in patients who were free of it at baseline were low, and no consistent differences were observed between active treatments.

Meta-analysis of rizatriptan efficacy in randomized controlled clinical trials.

Data from seven randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind phase III clinical trials were analysed to further evaluate the efficacy of rizatriptan 10 mg (n = 2068) in comparison with placebo (n = 1260) and rizatriptan 5 mg (n = 1486) for the acute treatment of a migraine attack. Migraine was diagnosed according to International Headache Society criteria. Headache severity, associated migraine symptoms and functional disability were measured immediately before dosing and at 0.5, 1, 1.5 and 2 h. Headache recurrence (return of moderate or severe headache after an initial response) was also recorded. In addition to conventional pain relief (reduction of moderate or severe headache to mild or none) and pain free measures, the analysis looked at the elimination of associated migraine symptoms and disability in patients who had symptoms or disability at baseline. Maintenance of pain relief or pain-free status over 24 h was also analysed. At 2 h, rizatriptan 10 mg was significantly more effective than placebo for pain relief (71% vs. 38%, P < 0.001), and for elimination of pain, nausea, photophobia, phonophobia and functional disability. The benefit was maintained over 24 h; 37% of patients on rizatriptan 10 mg had sustained pain relief vs. 18% for placebo (P < 0.001). Rizatriptan 10 mg was also more effective than rizatriptan 5 mg, with a significant superiority at 2 h on all measures except for elimination of nausea. The benefit was maintained over 24 h; 38% of patients on rizatriptan 10 mg had sustained pain relief vs. 32% for rizatriptan 5 mg (P = 0.001).

Rizatriptan: pharmacological differences from sumatriptan and clinical results.

Rizatriptan and sumatriptan are selective 5-HT(1B/1D) receptor agonists for theacute treatment of migraine. For oral formulations, the time to maximum plasma concentration is reached earlier with rizatriptan than with sumatriptan (1 h versus 2-2.5 h) and rizatriptan has greater bioavailability than sumatriptan (45% versus 15%). These pharmacological advantages appear to translate into a faster onset of action and a better overall response for oral rizatriptan versus oral sumatriptan. The two drugs have been directly compared in randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials of patients with moderate or severe migraine attacks. Rizatriptan 10 mg was generally superior to sumatriptan on a measure of time-to-pain-relief within 2 h, where pain relief was defined as a reduction of pain to mild or none (odds ratio for rizatriptan versus sumatriptan 100 mg = 1.21; odds ratios for rizatriptan 10 mg versus sumatriptan 50 mg = 1.14 and 1.10 in two studies). Rizatriptan 10 mg was also superior to sumatriptan on the International Headache Society recommended endpoint of the percentage of patients pain free at 2 h (40% for rizatriptan 10 mg, 33% for sumatriptan 100 mg, and 35% for sumatriptan 50 mg). Further advantages for rizatriptan were seen on stringent outcome measures of the percentage of patients who were completely free of all symptoms at 2 h, patient satisfaction with medication at 2 h, and 24-h sustained pain-free response. 5-HT(1B/1D) receptor agonists are contraindicated in patients with coronary artery disease because of their potential to cause vasoconstriction. In clinical trials which excluded such patients, rizatriptan and sumatriptan were both well-tolerated. The most common side-effects on both drugs occurred in <10% of patients and consisted of dizziness, drowsiness, and asthenia/fatigue. The adverse events were usually mild or moderate in severity and short-lasting.

Within-patient consistency of response of rizatriptan for treating migraine.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the within-patient consistency of response for rizatriptan, a 5-HT(1B/1D) receptor agonist for the acute treatment of migraine. METHODS: Post hoc analysis was performed on data from a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial. Four hundred seventy-three patients with migraine diagnosed according to the criteria of the International Headache Society were randomly assigned to one of five sequence groups in which each patient was scheduled to treat four separate moderate or severe migraine attacks. Patients in four groups received 10 mg of rizatriptan for three of four attacks and placebo for the remaining attack; patients in the fifth group received 10 mg of rizatriptan for all four attacks. Headache severity, functional disability, and associated migraine symptoms were measured immediately before dosing and at regular intervals up to 4 hours after the dose. The analysis was based on efficacy at 2 hours after dosing, the last time point before escape medications were allowed. The percentages of patients who responded in a specified number of attacks after treatment with rizatriptan were calculated. The analysis was descriptive, and no formal statistical testing was performed. RESULTS: Of the evaluable patients who treated three migraine attacks with 10 mg of rizatriptan (with an additional interspersed placebo-treated attack in most patients), 216 of 252 (86%) had pain relief (reduction of pain to mild or none), 122 of 252 (48%) were pain free, 211 of 250 (84%) had no nausea, 163 of 251 (65%) had no photophobia, 182 of 252 (72%) had no phonophobia, 136 of 249 (55%) had no functional disability, and 233 of 252 (92%) had no need for escape medications at 2 hours after dosing in at least two of three attacks. CONCLUSION: The response to 10 mg of oral rizatriptan within individual patients was consistent over three attacks on a range of measures.

Rizatriptan in the treatment of menstrual migraine.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy of oral rizatriptan 10 mg and 5 mg for treating menstrually associated migraine attacks. METHODS: Data from two large clinical trials with identical designs were included in a retrospective analysis. The studies were randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled, incomplete block, two-period, crossover designs. Women with migraines were randomly assigned to one of five treatment sequences for the treatment of two migraine attacks. Only data from the first attack in women with migraines who were treated with rizatriptan or placebo were included in the analysis. A menstrually associated attack was defined as one that occurred within 3 days before or after the onset of the last menstrual period. RESULTS: In the subgroup of 335 women with menstrually associated migraine, rizatriptan was effective compared with placebo. At 2 hours after dosing, 68% of 139 women taking rizatriptan 10 mg and 70% of 115 women taking rizatriptan 5 mg with a menstrually associated migraine had pain relief compared with 44% of 81 patients taking placebo (P <.05). In all women, rizatriptan was as effective in treating menstrual as well as nonmenstrual migraine: 68% of 139 patients taking rizatriptan 10 mg with a menstrually associated migraine had pain relief at 2 hours after dosing compared with 69% of 393 patients with nonmenstrually associated attacks (test of menstrual association = nonsignificant; the analysis had 80% power to detect a difference of six percentage points between groups). Similar results were found for rizatriptan 5 mg (menstrual = 70%, nonmenstrual = 66%; not statistically significant). CONCLUSION: Rizatriptan is effective in the treatment of menstrually associated migraine attacks.

Resident interpretation of emergency computed tomographic scans.

Our busy, urban emergency room is staffed by radiology residents after working hours. To determine the accuracy of our residents' interpretations of emergency cranial computed tomographic (CT) scans, the authors reviewed the preliminary reports of our residents for a two-month period. A total of 289 cranial CT scans were retrospectively reviewed and the resident interpretation judged acceptable, minor error, moderate error, or major error. Six of 289 neurologic examinations (2%) had moderate (4) or major (2) errors. The mistakes all involved misinterpretation of cerebral hemorrhage. The 98% accuracy in interpretation of cranial CT is higher than the accuracy reported with emergency plain film (PF) interpretation.

Lung disorders due to drug abuse.

Drug-related diseases of the lungs have been noted with increasing frequency in urban patients. These entities are also being seen in smaller urban and suburban settings, however. The spectrum of pathology is also changing coincident with the marked increase in crack cocaine use. The incidence of abnormal chest radiographs in cocaine users admitted with pulmonary complaints has ranged from 12% to 55%. Findings have included focal air space disease, atelectasis, pneumothorax, pneumomediastinum, and pulmonary edema. Pulmonary complications related to injections of illicit drugs have included pulmonary infection, pulmonary edema, particulate embolism, and talcosis. The "pocket shot" places the patient at risk for a unique set of complications. Radiologists should be aware of this wide spectrum of pulmonary disease that may be related to this increasingly frequent social problem.

The traumatic air myelogram.

A case of a pneumomyelogram of the cervical spine resulting from blunt trauma to the head is presented. The patient had pneumocephalus and skull fractures. On presentation the patient had no neurological deficits and remained neurologically stable throughout the hospital course. This is the first report of a traumatic pneumomyelogram and pneumocephalus with multiple skull fractures where the patient sustained no neurological sequelae.

Vocal cord paralysis resulting from neck injections in the intravenous drug use population.

Intravenous drug use patients present to the head and neck surgeon when injections are directed "in the pocket," or more appropriately, toward the internal jugular vein in the neck. The more common complications of this practice include the development of cellulitis, abscess, and venous thrombophlebitis and, potentially, pulmonary embolism and pseudoaneurysm of the carotid and subclavian arteries. Vocal cord paralysis as a result of neck injection in the intravenous drug-using population is rarely described, and a review of the literature has yielded only two reports addressing this uncommon phenomenon. During a 7 1/2-year period between October 1981 and June 1989, nine patients presented to Detroit Medical Center with hoarseness, upper-airway obstruction, or both following the injection of heroin or related substances into the neck. Otolaryngologic evaluation demonstrated unilateral or bilateral vocal cord paralysis coincident with recent neck injections. The clinical signs and symptoms, location of the injections, acute management, and subsequent complications are catalogued. Acute management of these patients consisted of airway assurance via tracheotomies when indicated and observation for the development of cellulitis, abscess, or more life-threatening neurovascular complications. Follow-up laryngeal examinations ranged from 4 months to 4 1/2 years and found no demonstrable return of vocal cord function in any of the nine patients.

The groin hit: complications of intravenous drug abuse.

We are seeing an increased number of complications in intravenous drug abusers who resort to injecting the groin for vascular access (the "groin hit"). Vascular complications include venous thrombosis, arteriovenous fistula, mycotic aneurysm, ruptured pseudoaneurysm, and dissecting hematoma. Soft tissue complications include cellulitis and abscess. The latter may dissect into the extraperitoneal space. Skeletal complications include osteomyelitis and septic arthritis. This paper illustrates the radiographic spectrum of these complications. An algorithm will illustrate the radiographic evaluation of a groin mass in a drug addict.