Enhanced low-density lipoprotein cholesterol reduction and cost-effectiveness by low-dose colestipol plus lovastatin combination therapy.

A total of 96 patients with moderate elevations of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol were randomly assigned to 4 different double-blind treatment regimens: placebo; colestipol 5 g and lovastatin 20 mg/day (C5 + L20); colestipol 10 g and lovastatin 20 mg/day (C10 + L20); and lovastatin 40 mg/day (L40). During 12 weeks of therapy, C10 + L20 achieved the greatest reduction in total cholesterol (-32%) and LDL cholesterol (-48%) levels from baseline. This combination also exhibited significantly greater reductions in LDL cholesterol levels than the C5 + L20 and L40 groups (p < 0.01). The differences in total and LDL cholesterol reduction between the C5 + L20 and L40 groups were not significant. Similar changes and differences between treatments were seen in apolipoprotein B levels. Whereas mean total apolipoprotein A-I levels increased with all treatments (p < 0.05), lipoprotein particles A-I were significantly increased in the C10 + L20 group (p < 0.01) only. Results demonstrate that the combination of low-dose lovastatin (20 mg/day) with low-dose colestipol (5 or 10 g/day) produces LDL cholesterol reductions equal to or greater than higher doses of lovastatin (40 mg/day). In addition, low-dose combinations are > 25% more cost-effective than high-dose monotherapy.

Molar and nonmolar teeth compared over 6 1/2 years following two methods of periodontal therapy.

Limited information is available comparing the relative longitudinal effectiveness with respect to tooth type of scaling and root planing alone and scaling and root planing followed by flap procedures. The purpose of this study was to investigate these treatment methods as applied to molar and nonmolar teeth on a longitudinal basis in humans. Seventeen subjects with chronic periodontitis received thorough scaling and root planning as well as oral hygiene instruction. A modified Widman flap was then randomly performed for one-half of each subject's dentition. Routine recall prophylaxis and oral hygiene reinforcement were administered postsurgically every 3 to 4 months. Pocket depth and clinical attachment levels were recorded by a single calibrated examiner before therapy and at intervals up to 61/2 years following active treatment. Ten subjects remained as participants after 61/2 years. A paired t test was used to test for the mean difference in pocket depth and clinical attachment level between molar and nonmolar teeth for each treatment method. For pockets initially 4 to 6 mm, the results indicated greater pocket depth and more apical clinical attachment level on molars than nonmolars treated by either method of therapy. For pockets initially greater than or equal to 7 mm there was no difference between pocket depth on molar and nonmolar teeth following scaling and root planing alone. However, there was less overall pocket depth on nonmolars than molars following the flap procedure, indicating a greater effect of pocket reduction on nonmolar than molar teeth with the flap procedure. No difference between tooth types was found for clinical attachment level in pockets initially greater than or equal to 7 mm with either treatment method. Both treatment methods resulted in at least maintenance of pretreatment attachment levels adjacent to molar and nonmolar teeth.

Comparison of surgical and nonsurgical treatment of periodontal disease. A review of current studies and additional results after 61/2 years.

Many well designed clinical studies have established the effectiveness of periodontal therapy. Surgical procedures have been shown to be effective in treating periodontitis when followed by appropriate maintenance care. Scaling and root planing alone have recently been compared to scaling and root planing plus soft tissue surgery in several longitudinal trials. A review of the literature indicates several important findings including a loss of clinical attachment following flap procedures for shallow (1-3 mm) pockets and no clinically significant loss after scaling and root planing. These studies also generally report either a gain or maintenance of attachment level for both procedures in deeper pockets (greater than or equal to 4 mm). For these pockets, neither procedure has been shown to be uniformly superior with respect to attachment gain. All reports indicate that both treatment methods result in pocket reduction. However, the literature also indicates that scaling and root planing combined with a flap procedure results in greater initial pocket reduction than does scaling and root planing alone. This difference in degree of pocket reduction between procedures tends to decrease beyond 1-2 years. It has been shown that both treatment methods result in sustained decreases in gingivitis, plaque and calculus and neither procedure appears to be superior with respect to these parameters. Additional data from the study at the University of Minnesota indicate that similar results are maintained up to 61/2 years following active therapy. Pocket depth did not change for shallow (1-3 mm) pockets treated by either scaling and root planing alone or scaling and root planing followed by a modified Widman flap. For pockets 4-6 mm, both treatment procedures resulted in equally effective sustained pocket reduction. Deep pockets (greater than or equal to 7 mm) were initially reduced more by the flap procedure. After 2 years, no consistent difference between treatment methods was found in degree of pocket reduction. However, as compared to baseline, pocket reduction was sustained to 61/2 years with the flap and only 3 years with scaling and root planing alone. After 61/2 years, sustained attachment loss in shallow (1-3 mm) pockets was found after the modified Widman flap. Scaling and root planing alone in these shallow pockets did not result in sustained attachment loss. For pockets initially 4-6 mm in depth, attachment level was maintained by both procedures but scaling and root planing resulted in greater gain in attachment as compared to the flap at all time intervals.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)

Blind comparison of patient preference for Flavored Colestid Granules and Questran Light.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the sensory and mixability characteristics of Flavored Colestid Granules (a new colestipol formulation) with Questran Light (the most recent cholestyramine formulation). METHODOLOGY: Seventy-two nonsmoking adults between the ages of 25 and 64 years were enrolled in the study. Subjects assessed the sensory and mixability characteristics of each product in chilled bottled water and orange juice after at least a one-hour fast. Products were administered in a double-blind, randomized fashion. The sensory characteristics that were rated included overall rating, aftertaste, appearance, aroma, color, consistency, flavor, sweetness, mouthfeel, and thickness. Each characteristic was rated with a nine-point hedonic scale. Mixability of the products was assessed on a five-point scale. Subjects also were asked to choose which product they preferred as to sensory and mixability characteristics in each vehicle. RESULTS: Fifty-three of the 72 subjects preferred the sensory characteristics of Flavored Colestid Granules in water (p < 0.001). Questran Light was preferred by 61 subjects when mixed in orange juice (p < 0.001). The sensory characteristic rating scores also supported subject preferences for Flavored Colestid Granules in water and Questran Light in orange juice. Mixability of Flavored Colestid Granules was rated significantly better (p < 0.001) than Questran Light in water. There was no significant difference for mixability between the products in orange juice. CONCLUSIONS: Questran Light was significantly preferred on a sensory basis when mixed in orange juice. Flavored Colestid Granules was significantly preferred over Questran Light for both sensory and mixability characteristics with water as the vehicle.