Efficacy of the dorzolamide/timolol fixed combination versus latanoprost in the treatment of ocular hypertension or glaucoma: combined analysis of pooled data from two large randomized observer and patient-masked studies.

In previous analyses of primary efficacy data from two randomized clinical trials, standard dosing regimens of the dorzolamide/timolol fixed combination (COSOPT) and latanoprost (XALATAN) were shown to have equivalent efficacy with regard to reduction in mean daytime diurnal intraocular pressure (IOP). We performed additional post hoc analyses of pooled data from these studies to compare further the efficacy of the two treatments. The studies used identical 3-month, parallel group, randomized, observer-masked and patient-masked, multicenter designs. Patients with a baseline IOP > or = 24 mm Hg were randomized to either the 2% dorzolamide/0.5% timolol combination eye drops twice daily (n = 273) or 0.005% latanoprost eye drops once daily (n = 271). The IOP measurements were made at 8 AM, 10 AM, 2 PM, and 4 PM at the baseline visit and then on each of the 3 monthly assessment days. The following measures were analyzed on a post hoc basis: 1) percentages of patients meeting target levels of IOP reduction; 2) mean IOP reduction in those patients with high IOP (> or =30 mmHg) at baseline; 3) mean IOP at each of the assessment time points during a day. A total of 259 patients in the dorzolamide/timolol group and 268 patients in the latanoprost group were included in the efficacy analysis. At 3 months, both treatments showed similar efficacy with regard to the percentages of patients who achieved target levels of IOP reduction (e.g., 40% IOP reduction in 15% of dorzolamide/timolol combination patients and 13% of latanoprost patients), mean IOP reduction in those patients with high IOP at baseline (dorzolamide/ timolol combination, 12.5 mmHg, latanoprost, 12.6 mmHg), and mean IOP at each time point during the day. By the measures used in this analysis, the dorzolamide/timolol combination and latanoprost were equally effective at lowering IOP in patients with ocular hypertension or glaucoma.

Ertapenem therapy for community-acquired pneumonia in the elderly.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy and safety of ertapenem, 1 g once a day, with ceftriaxone, 1 g once a day, for treatment of the subgroup of patients aged 65 and older with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) requiring parenteral therapy. DESIGN: Combined data from patients aged 65 and older in two randomized, double-blind clinical trials. SETTING: Eighty international centers. PARTICIPANTS: Eight hundred fifty-seven treated patients, of whom 351 were aged 65 and older. INTERVENTIONS: Intravenous or intramuscular ertapenem or ceftriaxone with the option to switch to oral amoxicillin-clavulanate after at least 3 days of parenteral therapy. MEASUREMENTS: Clinical efficacy was assessed at completion of parenteral therapy and 7 to 14 days after all therapy had been completed (test of cure (TOC) assessment). Bacterial eradication was assessed at the TOC visit. Safety was assessed daily during study therapy and for 14 days thereafter. RESULTS: One hundred forty-eight clinically evaluable patients aged 65 and older were treated with ertapenem and 125 with ceftriaxone. Pathogens were identified in 157 (57.5%) patients (the most common being Streptococcus pneumoniae), most of which were penicillin-susceptible. Clinical cure rates were 95.9% for patients in the ertapenem group and 92.7% for patients in the ceftriaxone group at completion of parenteral therapy and 93.9% and 90.4%, respectively, at the TOC assessment. Overall bacterial eradication rates were 92.8% (77 of 83) for patients treated with ertapenem and 93.2% (69 of 74) for those treated with ceftriaxone. The most common drug-related adverse experiences in both treatment groups were diarrhea and mild to moderate elevation of serum aminotransferase levels. CONCLUSION: Ertapenem 1 g once a day was highly effective for treatment of elderly patients with CAP requiring parenteral therapy and was as effective as ceftriaxone. Ertapenem was generally well tolerated, with an overall safety profile similar to ceftriaxone.

Radiologic study of injection drug use complications.

The complications of injection drug use (IDU) can lead to a wide variety of clinical problems that range from complications localized to the injection site to more disseminated disease. The radiologic workup of these problems uses multiple modalities, depending on the location and type of problem to be investigated. This article discusses and illustrates some of the local and disseminated complications that can occur after IDU.

Efficacy of ertapenem against methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus in complicated skin/skin structure infections: results of a double-blind clinical trial versus piperacillin-tazobactam.

Staphylococcus aureus is the predominant pathogen in complicated skin/skin structure infections. In this analysis of a subgroup of data from a randomised, double-blind trial, the efficacy of ertapenem 1 g daily was compared with piperacillin-tazobactam 3.375 g Q6H for treatment of complicated skin/skin structure infections caused by methicillin-susceptible S. aureus (MSSA). Of the 529 treated patients in this trial, 185 (35.0%) had MSSA as a baseline pathogen. At the test of cure assessment 10-21 days post-therapy, 54 of 67 (80.6%) protocol evaluable patients in the ertapenem group and 55 of 68 (80.9%) in the piperacillin-tazobactam group were cured (odds ratio: 1.0 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.4-2.4), P = 0.99). In both treatment groups, cure rates were higher in patients with monomicrobial than polymicrobial infections, but the difference was not significant. In this subgroup analysis of patients with MSSA complicated skin/skin structure infections, therapy with ertapenem 1 g daily was as effective as piperacillin-tazobactam 13.5 g divided in four daily doses.

Evaluation of outpatient treatment with ertapenem in a double blind controlled clinical trial of complicated skin/skin structure infections.

OBJECTIVES: The patient characteristics and the efficacy and safety of ertapenem 1 g once daily vs. piperacillin-tazobactam 13.5 g divided Q6H were examined in patients who received outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) during a clinical trial of complicated skin/skin structure infections. METHODS: The population analyzed included 363 patients treated at US sites in a large randomized double-blind study. RESULTS: In this analysis, 146 (40%) patients at 19 (66%) sites were managed by OPAT. A lower proportion of treated patients who received OPAT had severe infection (12% vs. 20%, P=0.03). In evaluable patients managed by OPAT, 45 (83.3%) of 54 treated with ertapenem and 41 (82.0%) of 50 treated with piperacillin-tazobactam were cured at the test of cure assessment 10-21 days post-therapy (OR 1.2 (95% CI, 0.4-3.2), P=0.78). The safety profile of both drugs was generally similar; diarrhoea was the most common adverse event in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this trial of complicated skin/skin structure infection, OPAT was commonly used by US investigators. Among patients who received OPAT, ertapenem 1 g daily was as effective as piperacillin-tazobactam 3.375 g Q6H.

Ertapenem as initial antimicrobial monotherapy for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease hospitalized with typical community-acquired pneumonia.

This report describes a post-hoc analysis of two large studies of typical community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) in hospitalized patients, focusing on demographics, disease characteristics, and outcome in patients with and without chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). In both studies, ertapenem 1 g IV daily was compared with ceftriaxone 1 g IV daily as initial antimicrobial therapy. Clinically improving patients could be switched to oral antibiotic therapy after 3 days. Of the 857 patients treated in both studies, 264 (31%) had COPD. The proportions of patients who were male, were >/=65 years of age, had a Pneumonia Severity Index of IV/V, or had Haemophilus influenzae isolated in a baseline culture were higher in patients with COPD. Streptococcus pneumoniae was the most common pathogen both in patients with and without COPD. Clinical response rates in assessable patients 7-14 days after completion of therapy for the combined treatment groups were 90% (187/208) for patients with COPD and 93% (424/456) for those without COPD (odds ratio 0.7 [95% CI, 0.4-1.2], P = 0.17). Of assessable COPD patients, 109/121 (90%) treated with ertapenem and 78/87 (90%) treated with ceftriaxone achieved a favorable clinical response (odds ratio 1.0 [95% CI, 0.6-1.8], P = 0.94). The outcome in patients with or without COPD was similar regardless of therapy. In patients with COPD as well as in the overall study population, the efficacy of ertapenem as initial antimicrobial monotherapy for patients with serious typical community-acquired pneumonia was comparable to that of ceftriaxone.

Restoring migraine sufferers' ability to function normally: a comparison of rizatriptan and other triptans in randomized trials.

BACKGROUND: Many migraine patients are unable to function normally during a migraine attack. Assessments of treatment efficacy have tended to focus on migraine symptoms, rather than looking at functional impact. This study compared the efficacy of different oral triptans for restoring normal function in migraine sufferers. METHODS: Retrospective subgroup analysis of data from five randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trials in which oral rizatriptan was directly compared with oral sumatriptan 100 mg (772 attacks), 50 mg (2,227 attacks), and 25 mg (1,182 attacks), naratriptan 2.5 mg (413 attacks), and zolmitriptan 2.5 mg (578 attacks) for the acute treatment of a moderate or severe migraine attack. Functional disability was evaluated by patients on a 4-grade scale ('normal', 'mild impairment', 'severe impairment', 'requires bedrest') at baseline and at 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 3 and 4 h after dosing. This analysis looked at the percentage of patients who had normal functional ability at 2 h, the last time point before escape medications were allowed, in the subgroup of patients who had some level of disability at baseline. RESULTS: Most patients in each trial and treatment group had some level of disability at baseline (range = 94-100%). At 2 h, more patients on rizatriptan 10 mg were able to function normally compared with sumatriptan 100 mg (39 vs. 32%, odds ratio = 1.4, p = 0.021), sumatriptan 50 mg (47 vs. 42%, odds ratio = 1.2, p = 0.033), sumatriptan 25 mg (48 vs. 36%, odds ratio = 1.7, p < 0.001), naratriptan 2.5 mg (39 vs. 22%, odds ratio = 2.5, p < 0.001), and zolmitriptan 2.5 mg (45 vs. 36%, odds ratio = 1.6, p = 0.008). CONCLUSION: In direct head-to-head comparative clinical trials, oral rizatriptan 10 mg enabled more migraine sufferers to function normally at 2 h after dosing than oral sumatriptan, naratriptan, and zolmitriptan.

Further evaluation of rizatriptan in menstrual migraine: retrospective analysis of long-term data.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the long-term efficacy of oral rizatriptan 10-mg wafers in the treatment of menstrual migraine attacks. METHODS: Data from an extension study where patients with migraine used rizatriptan 10 mg to treat moderate or severe migraine attacks occurring over periods of up to 6 months were included in a retrospective analysis. Patients used a diary card to record details of each migraine attack and onset of menstruation. Attacks in women were classified as menstrual or nonmenstrual according to 3 time windows relative to onset of menstruation (day 0): -3 to +3 days (7-day window), -2 to + 2 days (5-day window), and 0 to +1 days (2-day window). The analysis looked at the efficacy of rizatriptan 10 mg by menstrual category of attack for each definition on three measures: pain relief at 2 hours (reduction of pain to mild or none), pain free at 2 hours, 24-hours sustained pain free (pain free at 2 hours with no headache recurrence and no use of additional medications from 2 to 24 hours). RESULTS: Ninety-five women used rizatriptan 10 mg to treat a total of 1,839 attacks. The percentage of menstrual attacks was 30% for the -3 to +3 days definition, 23% for the -2 to +2 days definition, and 11% for the 0 to +1 days definition. Rizatriptan 10 mg was equally effective in menstrual and nonmenstrual migraine attacks regardless of the definition used. For example, using the -3 to +3 days definition, 78% of menstrual migraine attacks were relieved at 2 hours after dosing compared with 78% of nonmenstrual attacks. Pain relief rates for the other definitions were as follows: -2 to +2 days, menstrual = 78%, nonmenstrual = 78%; 0 to +1 days, menstrual = 79%, and nonmenstrual = 78%. No differences between menstrual and nonmenstrual attacks were found for the 2-hour pain free and 24-hour sustained pain free measures for any of the three definitions. CONCLUSIONS: Rizatriptan 10-mg wafers were equally effective in the treatment of menstrual and nonmenstrual migraine attacks occurring over 6 months, regardless of the precise definition of menstrual association used and even when the outcome criteria were very stringent. These data provide further evidence that triptans are effective treatments for menstrual migraine.

Telephone screening for amnestic mild cognitive impairment.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the utility of telephone screening for identifying subjects with amnestic mild cognitive impairment (aMCI) for enrollment in a clinical trial and to identify which elements of the modified Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status (TICS-m) best predicted the in-clinic determination of aMCI. METHODS: Subjects aged >/=65 years with memory complaints responded to an advertisement for a clinical trial by calling a central telephone recruiting agency. To determine eligibility, subjects went through a stepwise selection procedure involving a review of major protocol inclusion and exclusion criteria, followed by administration of the Category Fluency Test (CFT) and then the TICS-m. Subjects meeting entry criteria, who obtained a score of /=24 on the Mini-Mental State Examination and a score of