Comparison of frovatriptan plus dexketoprofen (25 mg or 37.5 mg) with frovatriptan alone in the treatment of migraine attacks with or without aura: a randomized study.

BACKGROUND: Drugs for migraine attacks include triptans and NSAIDs; their combination could provide greater symptom relief. METHODS: A total of 314 subjects with history of migraine, with or without aura, were randomized to frovatriptan 2.5 mg alone (Frova), frovatriptan 2.5 mg + dexketoprofen 25 mg (FroDex25) or frovatriptan 2.5 mg + dexketoprofen 37.5 mg (FroDex37.5) and treated at least one migraine attack. This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study. The primary end point was the proportion of pain free (PF) at two hours. Secondary end points were PF at one and four hours, pain relief (PR) at one, two, four hours, sustained PF (SPF) at 24 and 48 hours, recurrence at 48 hours, resolution of nausea, photophobia and phonophobia at two and four hours, the use of rescue medication and the judgment of the treatment. RESULTS: The results were assessed in the full analysis set (FAS) population, which included all subjects randomized and treated for whom at least one post-dose intensity of headache was recorded. The proportions of subjects PF at two hours (primary end point) were 29% (27/93) with Frova compared with 51% (48/95 FroDex25 and 46/91 FroDex37.5) with each combination therapies ( P < 0.05). Proportions of SPF at 24 hours were 24% (22/93) for Frova, 43% (41/95) for FroDex25 ( P < 0.001) and 42% (38/91) for FroDex37.5 ( P < 0.05). SPF at 48 hours was 23% (21/93) with Frova, 36% (34/95) with FroDex25 and 33% (30/91) with FroDex37.5 ( P = NS). Recurrence was similar for Frova (22%, 6/27), FroDex25 (29%, 14/48) and FroDex37.5 (28%, 13/46) ( P = NS), meaning a lack of improvement with the combination therapy. Statistical adjustment for multiple comparisons was not performed. No statistically significant differences were reported in the occurrence of total and drug-related adverse events. FroDex25 and FroDex37.5 showed a similar efficacy both for primary and secondary end points. There did not seem to be a dose response curve for the addition of dexketoprofen. CONCLUSION: FroDex improved initial efficacy at two hours compared to Frova whilst maintaining efficacy at 48 hours in this study. Tolerability profiles were comparable. Intrinsic pharmacokinetic properties of the two single drugs contribute to this improved efficacy profile.

Efficacy of frovatriptan and other triptans in the treatment of acute migraine of normal weight and obese subjects: a review of randomized studies.

An association between obesity and migraine has been observed in recent studies and it is supported by plausible biological mechanisms. The objective of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of frovatriptan and other triptans in the acute treatment of migraine, in patients enrolled in three randomized, double-blind, crossover, Italian studies and classified according to body mass index (BMI) levels, as normal weight or non-obese (NO, BMI 18.5-24.9 kg/m(2)) and overweight or obese subjects (O, BMI ≥ 25 kg/m(2)). 414 migraineurs with or without aura were randomized to frovatriptan 2.5 mg or rizatriptan 10 mg (study 1), frovatriptan 2.5 mg or zolmitriptan 2.5 mg (study 2), frovatriptan 2.5 mg or almotriptan 12.5 mg (study 3). After treating up to three episodes of migraine in 3 months with the first treatment, patients switched to the alternate treatment for the next 3 months. The present analysis assessed triptan efficacy in 220 N and in 109 O subjects of the 346 individuals of the intention-to-treat population. The proportion of pain free at 2 h did not significantly differ between frovatriptan and the comparators in either NO (30 vs. 34 %) or O (24 vs. 27 %). However, the rate of pain free at 2 h was significantly (p < 0.05) larger in NO than in O, irrespective of the type of triptan. Pain relief at 2 h was also similar between drug treatments for either subgroup. Pain relapse occurred at 48 h in significantly (p < 0.05) fewer episodes treated with frovatriptan in both NO (26 vs. 36 %) and O (27 vs. 49 %). The rate of 48-h relapse was similar in NO and O with frovatriptan, while it was significantly (p < 0.05) higher in O with the comparators. Frovatriptan, in contrast to other triptans, retains a sustained antimigraine effect in NO and even more so in O subjects.

Efficacy of early vs. late use of frovatriptan combined with dexketoprofen vs. frovatriptan alone in the acute treatment of migraine attacks with or without aura.

Early triptan use after headache onset may help improve the efficacy of acute migraine treatment. This may be particularly the case when triptan therapy is combined with a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID). The objective of this is to assess whether the combination of frovatriptan 2.5 mg + dexketoprofen 25 or 37.5 mg (FroDex25 and FroDex37.5) is superior to frovatriptan 2.5 mg alone (Frova) in the acute treatment of migraine attacks in patients who took the drug within 30 min from the onset of pain (early use) or after (late use). A total of 314 subjects with a history of migraine with or without aura were randomized into a double-blind, multicenter, parallel group, pilot study to Frova, FroDex25 or FroDex37.5 and were required to treat at least one migraine attack. In the present post hoc analysis, traditional migraine endpoints were compared across study drugs for subgroups of the 279 patients of the full analysis set according to early (n = 172) or late (n = 107) drug use. The proportion of patients pain free at 2 h in the early drug use subgroup was 33 % with Frova, 50 % with FroDex25 and 51 % with FroDex37.5 mg (p = NS combinations vs. monotherapy), while in the late drug use subgroup was 22, 51 and 50 % (p < 0.05 FroDex25 and FroDex37.5 vs. Frova), respectively. Pain-free episodes at 4 h were 54 % for early and 34 % for late use of Frova, 71 and 57 % with FroDex25 and 74 and 68 % with FroDex37.5 (p < 0.05 for early and p < 0.01 for late use vs. Frova). The proportion of sustained pain free at 24 h was 26 % under Frova, 43 % under FroDex25 mg and 40 % under FroDex37.5 mg (p = NS FroDex25 or 37.5 vs. Frova) in the early drug intake subgroup, while it was 19 % under Frova, 43 % under FroDex25 mg and 45 % under FroDex37.5 mg (p < 0.05 FroDex25 and FroDex37.5 vs. Frova) in the late drug intake subgroup. Risk of relapse at 48 h was similar (p = NS) among study drug groups (Frova: 25 %, FroDex25: 21 %, and FroDex37.5: 37 %) for the early as well as for the late drug use subgroup (14, 42 and 32 %). FroDex was found to be more effective than Frova taken either early or late. The intrinsic pharmacokinetic properties of the two single drug components made FroDex combination particularly effective within the 2-48-h window from the onset of the acute migraine attack. The efficacy does not seem to be influenced by the time of drug use relative to the onset of headache.

Frovatriptan and rizatriptan economic EVAluation: the FREEVA study.

BACKGROUND: The present pharmacoeconomic study compared the direct and indirect costs of using frovatriptan versus rizatriptan in the acute treatment of migraine. METHODS: Data on the cost-efficacy of the two triptans were derived from a recently published Italian, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, cross-over patient preference study, comparing frovatriptan versus rizatriptan. The direct costs were obtained by calculating the drug consumption, both of triptans and rescue medications. Prices of currently marketed drugs were obtained from Italian Drug Agency price list. The indirect costs were those related to absenteeism from the workplace due to migraine. RESULTS: 129 of the 148 patients with a current history of migraine randomized to the two study drugs and completing the study were analyzed. The number of attacks treated with only 1 dose of study drug was higher with frovatriptan (157 vs. 147), whereas the number of attacks treated with ≥2 doses of study medication was higher with rizatriptan (122 vs. 110 and 74 vs. 67, respectively). However, more patients treated with frovatriptan took a rescue medication (71 vs. 59). The total direct cost per attack (including study drug rescue medication) was 9.12 € for frovatriptan and 13.54 € for rizatriptan (p < 0.05 between-treatments). As for indirect costs, in the group of patients treated with frovatriptan the mean number of lost working hours was significantly (p < 0.05) lower (1.5 h) compared to the subjects who used rizatriptan (2.8 h). Based on the earned income per unit of work, indirect costs per attack resulted to be 24.55 € for frovatriptan and 45.84 € for rizatriptan. Overall, the total costs, including direct and indirect costs, were evaluated to be 33.67 € for frovatriptan and 59.38 € for rizatriptan, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of this model analysis, frovatriptan was found to be significantly more cost-effective than rizatriptan. This outcome can be explained by the lower acquisition cost of frovatriptan, the need for fewer doses, and the loss of fewer working hours. This finding could drive selection of the most appropriate oral treatment for acute migraine attacks based on both individual patient's needs and the cost-effectiveness of the available drugs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: 2006-002572-17 (EudraCT).

Frovatriptan versus zolmitriptan for the acute treatment of migraine with aura: a subgroup analysis of a double-blind, randomized, multicenter, Italian study.

Migraine with aura affects ~20-30 % of migraineurs and it is much less common than migraine without aura. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of frovatriptan 2.5 mg and zolmitriptan 2.5 mg in the treatment of migraine with aura. Analysis was carried out in a subset of 18 subjects with migraine with aura (HIS criteria) out of the 107 enrolled in a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, cross-over study. According to the study design, each patient had to treat three episodes of migraine in no more than 3 months with one drug, before switching to the other treatment. The rate of pain-free episodes at 2 h was significantly (p < 0.05) larger under frovatriptan (45.8 %) than under zolmitriptan (16.7 %). Pain free at 4 h, pain relief at 2 and 4 h and recurrent episodes were similar between the two treatments, while sustained pain-free episode was significantly (p < 0.05) more frequent during frovatriptan treatment (33.3 vs. 8.3 % zolmitriptan). Our study suggests that frovatriptan is superior to zolmitriptan in the immediate treatment of patients with migraine with aura, and it is capable of maintaining its acute analgesic effect over 48 h.

Efficacy of frovatriptan versus other triptans in the acute treatment of menstrual migraine: pooled analysis of three double-blind, randomized, crossover, multicenter studies.

The objective of this study was to review the efficacy and safety of frovatriptan (F) versus rizatriptan (R), zolmitriptan (Z) and almotriptan (A), in women with menstrually related migraine (IHS criteria) through a pooled analysis of three individual studies. Subjects with a history of migraine with or without aura were randomized to F 2.5 mg or R 10 mg (study 1), F or Z 2.5 mg (study 2), and F or A 12.5 mg (study 3). The studies had an identical multicenter, randomized, double-blind, crossover design. After treating three episodes of migraine in no more than 3 months with the first treatment, patients had to switch to the next treatment for other 3 months. 346 subjects formed intention-to-treat population of the main study; 280 of them were of a female gender, 256 had regular menses and 187 were included in the menstrual migraine subgroup analysis. Rate of pain free at 2, 4 and 24 h was 23, 52 and 67 % with F and 30, 61 and 66 % with comparators (P = NS). Pain relief episodes at 2, 4 and 24 h were 37, 60 and 66 % for F and 43, 55 and 61 % for comparators (P = NS). Rate of recurrence was significantly (P < 0.05) lower under F either at 24 h (11 vs. 24 % comparators) or at 48 h (15 vs. 26 % comparators). Number of menstrual migraine attacks associated with drug-related adverse events was equally low (P = NS) between F (5 %) and comparators (4 %).

Frovatriptan versus other triptans in the acute treatment of migraine: pooled analysis of three double-blind, randomized, cross-over, multicenter, Italian studies.

The objective of the study is to systematically review the efficacy and safety of frovatriptan (F) versus rizatriptan (R), zolmitriptan (Z) and almotriptan (A), through a pooled analysis of three individual studies. 414 subjects with a history of migraine with or without aura (IHS criteria) were randomized to F 2.5 mg or R 10 mg (study 1), F 2.5 mg or Z 2.5 mg (study 2), and F 2.5 mg or A 12.5 mg (study 3). The studies had an identical multicenter, randomized, double blind, cross-over design, with each of the two treatment periods lasting not more than 3 months. The number of pain free (PF) and pain relief (PR) episodes at 2 h, and the number of sustained pain free (SPF) and recurrent episodes within the 48 h were the efficacy endpoints. 346 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. Rate of PF episodes at 2 h was 30% with F and 34% with comparators (p = NS). PR episodes at 2 h were 55% for F and 59% for comparators (p = NS). SPF episodes at 48 h were also similar between the two groups (22% F vs. 21% comparators). Rate of recurrence was significantly (p < 0.001) lower under F (27 vs. 40% comparators). Drug-related adverse events were significantly (p < 0.05) less under F, particularly cardiovascular symptoms. Our systematic analysis of individual studies suggests that F has a similar immediate efficacy, but a more sustained effect and a better tolerability than R, Z and A.

Efficacy of frovatriptan in the acute treatment of menstrually related migraine: analysis of a double-blind, randomized, multicenter, Italian, comparative study versus zolmitriptan.

Menstrually related migraine (MRM) is a particularly difficult-to-treat pain condition, associated with substantial disability. Aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of frovatriptan and zolmitriptan in the treatment of MRM attacks, analyzing data from a multicenter, randomized, double blind, cross-over study. We analyzed the subset of 76 regularly menstruating women who participated in one head-to-head multicenter, randomized, double blind, cross-over clinical trial and who took the study drugs to treat MRM attacks. In a randomized sequence, each patient received frovatriptan 2.5 mg or zolmitriptan 2.5 mg: after treating three episodes of migraine in no more than 3 months with the first treatment, the patient had to switch to the other treatment. MRM was defined according to the criteria listed in the Appendix of the last Classification of Headache disorders of the International Headache Society. A total of 73 attacks, classified as MRM, were treated with frovatriptan and 65 with zolmitriptan. Rate of pain relief at 2 h was 52% for frovatriptan and 53% for zolmitriptan (p = NS), while rate of pain free at 2 h was 22 and 26% (p = NS), respectively. At 24 h, 74 and 83% of frovatriptan-treated and 69 and 82% of zolmitriptan-treated patients were pain free and had pain relief, respectively (p = NS). Recurrence at 24 h was significantly (p < 0.05) lower with frovatriptan (15 vs. 22% zolmitriptan). Frovatriptan proved to be effective in the immediate treatment of MRM attacks, similarly to zolmitriptan, but showed lower recurrence rates, and thus a better sustained relief.

Efficacy of frovatriptan in the acute treatment of menstrually related migraine: analysis of a double-blind, randomized, cross-over, multicenter, Italian, comparative study versus rizatriptan.

The objectives of this study are to assess the efficacy and safety of frovatriptan, and rizatriptan in the subgroup of women with menstrually related migraine of a multicenter, randomized, double blind, cross-over study. Each patient received frovatriptan 2.5 mg or rizatriptan 10 mg in a randomized sequence: after treating 3 episodes of migraine in not more than 3 months with the first treatment, the patient had to switch to the other treatment. Menstrually related migraine was defined according to the criteria listed in the Appendix of the last IHS Classification of Headache disorders. 99 out of the 125 patients included in the intention-to-treat analysis of the main study were of a female gender: 93 had regular menstrual cycles and were, thus, included in this analysis. A total of 49 attacks classified as menstrually related migraine were treated with frovatriptan and 59 with rizatriptan. Rate of pain relief at 2 h was 58% for frovatriptan and 64% for rizatriptan (p = NS), while rate of pain free at 2 h was 31 and 34% (p = NS), respectively. At 24 h, 67 and 81% of frovatriptan-treated, and 61 and 74% of rizatriptan-treated patients were pain free and had pain relief, respectively (p = NS). Recurrence at 24 h was significantly (p < 0.01) lower with frovatriptan (10 vs. 32% rizatriptan). Frovatriptan was as effective as rizatriptan in the immediate treatment of menstrually related migraine attacks while showing a favorable sustained effect with a lower rate of migraine recurrence. These results need to be confirmed by randomized, double-blind, prospective, large clinical trials.

A double-blind, randomized, multicenter, Italian study of frovatriptan versus rizatriptan for the acute treatment of migraine.

The objective of this study was to assess patient satisfaction with acute treatment of migraine with frovatriptan or rizatriptan by preference questionnaire. 148 subjects with a history of migraine with or without aura (IHS 2004 criteria), with at least one migraine attack per month in the preceding 6 months, were enrolled and randomized to frovatriptan 2.5 mg or rizatriptan 10 mg treating 1-3 attacks. The study had a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, cross-over design, with treatment periods lasting <3 months. At the end of the study, patients assigned preference to one of the treatments using a questionnaire with a score from 0 to 5 (primary endpoint). Secondary endpoints were pain-free and pain relief episodes at 2 h, and recurrent and sustained pain-free episodes within 48 h. 104 of the 125 patients (83%, intention-to-treat population) expressed a preference for a triptan. The average preference score was not significantly different between frovatriptan (2.9±1.3) and rizatriptan (3.2±1.1). The rates of pain-free (33% frovatriptan vs. 39% rizatriptan) and pain relief (55 vs. 62%) episodes at 2 h were not significantly different between the two treatments. The rate of recurrent episodes was significantly (p<0.001) lower under frovatriptan (21 vs. 43% rizatriptan). No significant differences were observed in sustained pain-free episodes (26% frovatriptan vs. 22% rizatriptan). The number of patients with adverse events was not significantly different between rizatriptan (34) and frovatriptan (25, p=NS). The results suggest that frovatriptan has a similar efficacy to rizatriptan, but a more prolonged duration of action.

Frovatriptan versus zolmitriptan for the acute treatment of migraine: a double-blind, randomized, multicenter, Italian study.

The objective of this study is to assess patients' satisfaction with migraine treatment with frovatriptan (F) or zolmitriptan (Z), by preference questionnaire. 133 subjects with a history of migraine with or without aura (IHS criteria) were randomized to F 2.5 mg or Z 2.5 mg. The study had a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, cross-over design, with each of the two treatment periods lasting no more than 3 months. At the end of the study, patients were asked to assign preference to one of the treatments (primary endpoint). The number of pain-free (PF) and pain-relief (PR) episodes at 2 h, and number of recurrent and sustained pain-free (SPF) episodes within 48 h were the secondary study endpoints. Seventy-seven percent of patients expressed a preference. Average score of preference was 2.9 +/- 1.3 (F) versus 3.0 +/- 1.3 (Z; p = NS). Rate of PF episodes at 2 h was 26% with F and 31% with Z (p = NS). PR episodes at 2 h were 57% for F and 58% for Z (p = NS). Rate of recurrence was 21 (F) and 24% (Z; p = NS). Time to recurrence within 48 h was better for F especially between 4 and 16 h (p < 0.05). SPF episodes were 18 (F) versus 22% (Z; p = NS). Drug-related adverse events were significantly (p < 0.05) less under F (3 vs. 10). In conclusion, our study suggests that F has a similar efficacy of Z, with some advantage as regards tolerability and recurrence.

Rationale for the clinical use of a ribosome-component immune modulator.

Vaccines have long been used to boost the immune system and to confer protection against microbial infections. In contrast, immunotherapy based on ribosomal preparations has been proposed to enhance both specific and nonspecific immune responses (in particular, the mucosal immune defense system) against common respiratory tract pathogens. The aim of this review is to summarize current knowledge on the ability of a combination of four immunogenic ribosomal fractions from different bacteria species and of the extracted fraction from the membrane of Klebsiella pneumoniae to modulate several immune functions. The immunomodulatory activity of the ribosome component is attributed to the presence of highly purified epitopes from cellular fractions obtained by bacterial lysis. The ribosomal preparation is hypothesized to induce a T-dependent immune response consequent network with proliferation of B lymphocytes and production of secretory high-affinity antibodies (in particular, IgA), as well as the creation of a specific immune memory. Indeed, this agent stimulates the activity of macrophages, polymorphonuclear cells, and natural killer cells. The "ideal" vaccine is a highly purified protein bound to a carrier and an adjuvant that enhances the vaccination effect.

Dexketoprofen trometamol in the acute treatment of migraine attack: a phase II, randomized, double-blind, crossover, placebo-controlled, dose optimization study.

UNLABELLED: Migraine is a disabling disease that can significantly affect a person's quality of life. This study assessed the efficacy and tolerability of the 2 doses of dexketoprofen trometamol (DKP) compared to placebo for migraine treatment. Ninety-three patients with at least 1 migraine attack per month in the preceding 6 months were enrolled and randomized to 25 mg DKP, 50 mg DKP, and placebo in a randomized, double-blind, single-center, crossover, placebo-controlled study. Primary endpoint was pain-free episodes 2 hours after drug intake. The presence of accompanying symptoms and adverse effects was also recorded. Seventy-six patients (mean age 40.5 ± 10.9 and 61% female) completed the study. At baseline, mean number of attacks/month was 3.7 ± 1.3, with a mean duration of 15.4 ± 13.5 hours. Prevalence of pain-free episodes after drug intake was significantly reduced by 50 mg DKP vs placebo (33.8 vs 14.7%, P = .0065) whereas the dose of DKP 25 mg was better than placebo but did not reach statistical significance (23 vs 14.7%, P = .1182). Both 25 mg DKP (56.8 vs 25.3%, P = .0002) and 50 mg DKP improved headache relief compared to placebo. Furthermore, both doses of DKP increased the absence of functional disability (25 mg DKP, 39.7 vs 24%, P = .045; and 50 mg DKP, 45.9 vs 24%, P < .0004). Both doses of DKP were effective and well tolerated for acute migraine treatment. PERSPECTIVE: This article demonstrates the efficacy and tolerability of DKP in the treatment of migraine without and with aura attacks. Its rapid absorption rate with higher maximum plasma concentrations and shorter time to maximum values suggest that this drug is a good option for acute migraine treatment.

Zofenopril plus hydrochlorothiazide and irbesartan plus hydrochlorothiazide in previously treated and uncontrolled diabetic and non-diabetic essential hypertensive patients.

INTRODUCTION: In most treated patients with hypertension, a two or more drug combination is required to achieve adequate blood pressure (BP) control. In our study we assessed whether the combination of zofenopril + hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) was at least as effective as irbesartan + HCTZ in essential hypertensives with at least one additional cardiovascular risk factor, uncontrolled by a previous monotherapy. METHODS: After a 2-week placebo washout, 361 treated hypertensive patients [office sitting diastolic BP (DBP), ≥90 mmHg], aged 18-75 years, were randomized double blind to 18-week treatment with zofenopril 30 mg plus HCTZ 12.5 mg or irbesartan 150 mg plus HCTZ 12.5 mg once daily, in an international, multicenter study. After the first 6 and 12 weeks, zofenopril and irbesartan doses could be doubled in non-normalized subjects. The primary study end point was the office sitting DBP reduction after 18 weeks of treatment. Secondary end points included office systolic BP (SBP), ambulatory BP and high sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP). RESULTS: The between-treatment difference for office DBP averaged to +1.0 (95% CI -0.4, +0.8) mmHg (P = 0.150), the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval being inferior to the protocol-defined non-inferiority limit (3 mmHg). In the subset of patients with valid ambulatory BP, no difference in 24-h average DBP [n = 181; 6.7 (8.7, 4.6) zofenopril + HCTZ vs. 6.3 (8.8, 3.7) mmHg irbesartan + HCTZ, P = 0.810] and SBP reductions [11.7 (15.4, 8.0) vs. 12.6 (17.2, 8.0) mmHg, P = 0.758] were observed between the two treatment groups. hs-CRP was reduced by zofenopril + HCTZ [-0.52 (-1.05, 0.01) mg/L], while it was increased by irbesartan plus HCTZ [0.97 (0.29, 1.65) mg/L, P = 0.001 between treatments]. CONCLUSION: In previously monotherapy-treated, uncontrolled patients with hypertension, zofenopril 30-60 mg + HCTZ 12.5 mg is as effective as irbesartan 150-300 mg plus HCTZ 12.5 mg, with the added value of a potential protective effect against vascular inflammation.

Zofenopril and ramipril and acetylsalicylic acid in postmyocardial infarction patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction: a retrospective analysis in hypertensive patients of the SMILE-4 study.

BACKGROUND: Antecedent hypertension represents a risk factor for adverse outcomes in survivors of acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Prognosis of such patients might be greatly improved by drugs enhancing blood pressure control. In the present retrospective analysis of the randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, SMILE-4 study we compared the efficacy of zofenopril 60 mg and acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) 100 mg versus ramipril 10 mg and ASA in patients with AMI complicated by left ventricular dysfunction, classified according to a history of hypertension. METHODS: The primary study end-point was 1-year combined occurrence of death or hospitalization for cardiovascular causes. Hypertension was defined according to medical history and current blood pressure values at entry and could be determined in 682 of 716 patients of the intention-to-treat analysis. RESULTS: One hundred and fifty-seven patients (23%) were normotensives and 525 (77%) hypertensives. In the normotensive population the primary end-point occurred in 19 of 76 zofenopril-treated patients (25%) and in 23 of 81 ramipril-treated patients (28%) [odds ratio (95% confidence interval): 0.84 (0.41-1.71), P = 0.631]. In the hypertensive population, major cardiovascular outcomes were reported in 84 of 273 zofenopril-treated patients (31%) and in 99 of 252 ramipril-treated patients (39%), with a 31% significantly (P = 0.041) lower risk with zofenopril [0.69 (0.48-0.99)]. The superiority of zofenopril versus ramipril was particularly evident in patients with isolated systolic hypertension [n = 131, 0.48 (0.23-0.99), P = 0.045]. CONCLUSION: This retrospective analysis of the SMILE-4 study confirmed the good efficacy of zofenopril and ASA in the prevention of long-term cardiovascular outcomes also in the subgroup of patients with hypertension.

Cost-effectiveness of zofenopril in patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction after acute myocardial infarction: a post hoc analysis of SMILE-4.

BACKGROUND: In SMILE-4 (the Survival of Myocardial Infarction Long-term Evaluation 4 study), zofenopril + acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) was superior to ramipril + ASA in reducing the occurrence of major cardiovascular events in patients with left ventricular dysfunction following acute myocardial infarction. The present post hoc analysis was performed to compare the cost-effectiveness of zofenopril and ramipril. METHODS: In total, 771 patients with left ventricular dysfunction and acute myocardial infarction were randomized in a double-blind manner to receive zofenopril 60 mg/day (n = 389) or ramipril 10 mg/day (n = 382) + ASA 100 mg/day and were followed up for one year. The primary study endpoint was the one-year combined occurrence of death or hospitalization for cardiovascular causes. The economic analysis was based on evaluation of cost of medications and hospitalizations and was applied to the intention-to-treat population (n = 716). Cost data were drawn from the National Health Service databases of the European countries participating in the study. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was used to quantify the cost per event prevented with zofenopril versus ramipril. RESULTS: Zofenopril significantly (P = 0.028) reduced the risk of the primary study endpoint by 30% as compared with ramipril (95% confidence interval, 4%-49%). The number needed to treat to prevent a major cardiovascular event with zofenopril was 13 less than with ramipril. The cost of drug therapies was higher with zofenopril (328.78 Euros per patient per year, n = 365) than with ramipril (165.12 Euros per patient per year, n = 351). The cost related to the occurrence of major cardiovascular events requiring hospitalization averaged 4983.64 Euros for zofenopril and 4850.01 Euros for ramipril. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for zofenopril versus ramipril was 2125.45 Euros per event prevented (worst and best case scenario in the sensitivity analysis was 3590.09 and 3243.96 Euros, respectively). CONCLUSION: Zofenopril is a viable and cost-effective treatment for managing patients with left ventricular dysfunction after acute myocardial infarction.

Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of ritodrine hydrochloride administered orally and intramuscularly to female healthy volunteers.

Ritodrine hydrochloride ((R,S)-4-hydroxy-alpha-[1-[2-((4-hydroxyphenyl)ethyl]amino)ethyl]benzenemethanol, CAS 26652-09-5) is a direct-acting sympathomimetic agent with a predominant beta-adrenergic activity and a selective action on beta2-receptors. A clinical trial was carried out to investigate the pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics and safety of ritodrine hydrochloride administered at the doses of 10, 20 and 30 mg p.o. and 10 mg by i. m. route. A four-way randomised crossover design was adopted on 12 healthy female volunteers with a wash-out of at least 14 days. Concentrations of ritodrine and of the pool of ritodrine in plasma and concentrations of the pool of ritodrine in urine of volunteers were bioassayed with tandem mass spectrometry. The following pharmacokinetic parameters were calculated, using the non-compartmental model: Cmax, AUC0-t, AUC0-INF, t1/2, Vd/f, and Aet after each administration. The distribution volume of ritodrine proved to be about 3 times higher than that of the pool of ritodrine after i. m. injection, confirming the good permeability of ritodrine that massively enters tissue compartments. Statistical analyses of pharmacokinetic parameters ascertained that the p. o. absorption of ritodrine hydrochloride was linearly related with the doses administered in the 10-30 mg range. The pharmacodynamic parameters evaluated complied with the mechanism of action of this drug.

Pharmacokinetics of isoxsuprine hydrochloride administered orally and intramuscularly to female healthy volunteers.

Isoxsuprine (1-(4-hydroxyphenyl)-2-(1-methyl-2-phenoxyethylamino)-1-propanol, CAS 395-28-8) is a peripheral vasodilator that also stimulates beta-adrenergic receptors. It causes a direct relaxation of vascular and uterine smooth muscles and produces positive inotropic and chronotropic effects. It is widely used to arrest premature labour and miscarriage. The aim of this trial was to investigate the pharmacokinetics of isoxsuprine hydrochloride administered orally to healthy young female volunteers as an extended-release formulation at the doses of 30, 60 and 90 mg compared to 10 mg by i.m. route. A randomised, crossover, four-period, multisequence, single-dose design was adopted. Plasma and urine concentrations of free and total isoxsuprine were evaluated by tandem mass spectrometry that reached a low quantification limit of 1 ng/ml. From plasma concentrations Cmax, tmax, AUC(0-t), AUC(0-infinity), t1/2 and Vd and from urine concentration CUE(0-24h) were evaluated by the non-compartmental model. The free drug was present only in plasma after i.m. route, whereas total isoxsuprine, namely the drug after an enzymatic hydrolysis of the conjugate form, was detected in all plasma and urine samples. The distribution volume of the free drug proved to be 2.5 times higher than that of total isoxsuprine, which indicates a good penetration of the free drug into tissue compartments. Oral absorption was evaluated from the p.o./i.m. percentualized ratio of AUC and CUE and proved to be on average around 51%, being linearly correlated with the three doses administered. The oral absorption proved to be sustained as expected from the zero-order kinetics of the drug release from the core of the extended-release formulation. This has justified different values of half-life that was on average 2.2 h after the i.m. route and around 10 h after the three oral doses. After isoxsuprine administration, both oral and i.m. routes, the heart rate increased from baseline during the 9 h monitoring period. This was an expected finding attributable to the stimulating activity of beta-adrenergic receptors. The tolerability of isoxsuprine proved to be very good with all the four administrations performed.