Efficacy and Safety of Naftifine Hydrochloride 2% Gel in Interdigital Tinea Pedis: A Phase III Randomised, Double-Blind, Parallel-Group, Active-Controlled Study in Indian Adult Patients.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Naftifine, an allylamine, is highly effective against tinea pedis and exhibits relatively greater affinity to skin and nail beds, possibly due to its high lipophilicity. To study the efficacy and safety of naftifine 2% gel in an Indian population, a phase III multicentre double-blind, comparative, parallel-group study was conducted in comparison with miconazole 2% gel in patients with interdigital tinea pedis, with mild to moderate symptoms. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients presenting with mild to moderate signs and symptoms of interdigital tinea pedis and mycologically confirmed tinea infection were randomised to either naftifine hydrochloride 2% gel (n = 112) or miconazole 2% gel (n = 112) in 1:1 ratio. All patients were treated for 2 weeks with a follow-up of up to 12 weeks. Study evaluations were done at the end of 2, 6, and 12 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving clinical cure at week 6 (± 4 days) and secondary endpoints were the mycological cure at week 6 and week 12 and complete cure at week 12. RESULTS: At the end of week 6, clinical cure was 54.55% and 50.00% in the naftifine and miconazole groups (p = 0.4960), respectively, and it was increased to 78.18% and 76.36% in the naftifine and miconazole group (p = 0.7455) at the end of week 12. Mycological and clinical cure were similar in the naftifine and miconazole groups at week 6 and week 12. The safety and tolerability profiles of both treatments were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Naftifine 2% gel was efficacious and safe for the treatment of mild to moderate interdigital tinea pedis. Its clinical effectiveness was comparable to that of miconazole 2% gel. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials Registry of India: CTRI/2021/01/030753.

Efficacy and safety of fixed-dose combination of Bilastine-Montelukast in adult patients with allergic rhinitis: a phase III, randomized, multi-center, double-blind, active controlled clinical study.

BACKGROUND: Histamine and cysteinyl leukotrienes (CysLTs) are potent inflammatory mediators in allergic rhinitis (AR). Studies involving other combinations of antihistaminics (Levocetirizine) and highly selective leukotriene receptor antagonist (LTA) (Montelukast) combination have shown additive benefits and are widely prescribed for AR. OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the efficacy and safety of Bilastine 20 mg and Montelukast 10 mg fixed-dose combination (FDC) therapy in patients with AR. METHODS: A randomized, double-blind, comparative, parallel, phase III study was conducted to evaluate efficacy and safety of Bilastine 20 mg and Montelukast 10 mg FDC at 16 tertiary care otolaryngology centres in India. Adult patients with AR for one year with IgE antibody positive and 12-h NSS score >36 in 3 days were randomized to receive either Bilastine 20 mg and Montelukast 10 mg or Montelukast 10 mg & Levocetirizine 5 mg tablets for 4 weeks. The change in total symptom score (nasal symptom scores (NSS) & non-nasal symptom scores (NNSS)) from baseline to week 4 was assessed as primary endpoint. Secondary endpoints included changes in TSS, NSS, NNSS, individual symptom scores (ISS), Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life (RQLQ), discomfort due to rhinitis (VAS), and clinical global impression (CGI) scores. RESULTS: The change in mean TSS from baseline to week 4 in Test group (16.6 units) was comparable to reference group (17 units) (p= 0.8876). The difference in change in mean NSS, NNSS and ISS from baseline to day 7, 14, 28 were comparable. RQLQ improved from baseline to Day 28. Significant improvements were observed in discomfort due to AR measured by VAS and CGI scores from baseline to day 14 and 28. The safety and tolerability of patients were comparable between the groups. All adverse events (AEs) were mild to moderate in severity. No patient discontinued due to AEs. CONCLUSIONS: The FDC of Bilastine 20 mg and Montelukast 10 mg was efficacious and well tolerated in Indian patients with AR.

Efficacy and Safety of Molnupiravir in Mild COVID-19 Patients in India.

Background At the peak of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the need for an orally administered agent to prevent the progression of acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection became increasingly evident, which was the impetus behind our investigations with molnupiravir. Molnupiravir has been shown to be effective in preventing hospitalizations and/or clinical complications in patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19. In this study, we evaluate the efficacy and safety of molnupiravir in Indian patients with mild SARS-CoV-2 infection and at least one risk factor for disease progression (CTRI/2021/05/033739). Methodology This was a phase III, multicenter, randomized, open-label, controlled study conducted in Indian adults aged 18-60 years with mild SARS-CoV-2, reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR)-positive within 48 hours of enrollment in the study, and within five days of first symptom onset. Enrolled patients were randomized to treatment arms in a 1:1 ratio to receive molnupiravir or placebo in addition to the standard of care (SoC) for SARS-CoV-2 infection. The SoC was in compliance with Government of India guidelines that were in force at the time. The primary endpoint was the rate of hospitalization up to day 14. Safety endpoints included incidence of adverse events (AEs). Results Eligible patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive molnupiravir in addition to SoC treatment (n = 608) or SoC alone (n = 610). In the molnupiravir group, nine (1.48%) patients required hospitalization versus 26 (4.26%) patients in the control group (risk difference = -2.78%; 95% CI = -4.65, -0.90; p = 0.0053). Overall, 45 (3.70%) patients reported 47 AEs during the study, most of which were mild and resolved completely. The molnupiravir group reported 30 AEs compared to 17 AEs in the control group. Headache and nausea were the two most commonly reported AEs. Conclusions The molnupiravir arm showed a lower rate of hospitalization and a shorter time for the improvement of clinical symptoms coupled with early RT-PCR negativity. Molnupiravir was well tolerated, and AEs were mild and rare. The addition of molnupiravir to standard therapy has the potential to prevent the progression of mild COVID-19 disease to the severe form.