Home About us Contact
|
Home About us Contact | ||
|
|
||
Study Discontinuation (study + discontinuation)
Selected AbstractsA Short-Term, Randomized, Double-Blind, Parallel-Group Study to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of Dronedarone versus Amiodarone in Patients with Persistent Atrial Fibrillation: The DIONYSOS StudyJOURNAL OF CARDIOVASCULAR ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY, Issue 6 2010JEAN-YVES LE HEUZEY M.D. Dronedarone versus Amiodarone in Patients with AF.,,Introduction: We compared the efficacy and safety of amiodarone and dronedarone in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation (AF). Methods: Five hundred and four amiodarone-naïve patients were randomized to receive dronedarone 400 mg bid (n = 249) or amiodarone 600 mg qd for 28 days then 200 mg qd (n = 255) for at least 6 months. Primary composite endpoint was recurrence of AF (including unsuccessful electrical cardioversion, no spontaneous conversion and no electrical cardioversion) or premature study discontinuation. Main safety endpoint (MSE) was occurrence of thyroid-, hepatic-, pulmonary-, neurologic-, skin-, eye-, or gastrointestinal-specific events, or premature study drug discontinuation following an adverse event. Results: Median treatment duration was 7 months. The primary composite endpoint was 75.1 and 58.8% with dronedarone and amiodarone, respectively, at 12 months (hazard ratio [HR] 1.59; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.28,1.98; P < 0.0001), mainly driven by AF recurrence with dronedarone compared with amiodarone (63.5 vs 42.0%). AF recurrence after successful cardioversion was 36.5 and 24.3% with dronedarone and amiodarone, respectively. Premature drug discontinuation tended to be less frequent with dronedarone (10.4 vs 13.3%). MSE was 39.3 and 44.5% with dronedarone and amiodarone, respectively, at 12 months (HR = 0.80; 95% CI 0.60,1.07; P = 0.129), and mainly driven by fewer thyroid, neurologic, skin, and ocular events in the dronedarone group. Conclusion: In this short-term study, dronedarone was less effective than amiodarone in decreasing AF recurrence, but had a better safety profile, specifically with regard to thyroid and neurologic events and a lack of interaction with oral anticoagulants. (J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol, Vol. 21, pp. 597-605, June 2010) [source] Sotrastaurin, a Novel Small Molecule Inhibiting Protein Kinase C: First Clinical Results in Renal-Transplant RecipientsAMERICAN JOURNAL OF TRANSPLANTATION, Issue 3 2010K. Budde Sotrastaurin, a novel protein-kinase-C inhibitor, blocks early T-cell activation. In this 12-month, Phase II study, de novo renal-transplant patients were randomized to sotrastaurin (200 mg b.i.d.) + standard-exposure tacrolimus (SET) or reduced-exposure tacrolimus (RET) (SET: n = 76; RET: n = 66), or control (SET + mycophenolic acid [MPA, 720 mg b.i.d.]; n = 74). In both sotrastaurin groups, patients were converted from tacrolimus to MPA after Month 3, achieving calcineurin inhibitor-free immunosuppression. The primary endpoint was composite efficacy failure (treated biopsy-proven acute rejection, graft loss, death or loss to follow-up). The key secondary endpoint was glomerular filtration rate (GFR). Composite efficacy failure rates were: 4.1%, 5.4% and 1.5% at Month 3 (preconversion) and 7.8%, 44.8% and 34.1% at study end in the control, sotrastaurin + SET and sotrastaurin + RET groups, respectively; these results led to premature study discontinuation. Median GFR at Month 6 was: 57.0, 53.0 and 60.0 mL/min/1.73 m2, respectively. Study-drug discontinuations due to adverse events occurred in 16.2%, 18.4% and 12.1%, respectively. Leukopenia and neutropenia occurred more frequently preconversion in control versus sotrastaurin groups: 13.7%, 5.6%, and 4.6%; and 11.1%, 4.3% and 3.1%, respectively. The initial sotrastaurin + tacrolimus regimen was efficacious and well tolerated but the postconversion sotrastaurin + MPA regimen showed inadequate efficacy. Longer-term evaluation of sotrastaurin + tacrolimus is warranted. [source] Critical review of oral drug treatments for diabetic neuropathic pain,clinical outcomes based on efficacy and safety data from placebo-controlled and direct comparative studiesDIABETES/METABOLISM: RESEARCH AND REVIEWS, Issue 3 2005Hugo Adriaensen Abstract The present review aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a selection of oral treatments for the management of painful diabetic neuropathy. A literature review was conducted retrieving placebo-controlled and direct comparative studies with a selection of oral treatments for painful diabetic neuropathy. All studies were analyzed with regard to efficacy and tolerability. Efficacy was evaluated as the percentage improvement in pain intensity between baseline and endpoint. Tolerability was evaluated by means of study discontinuations due to adverse events and by incidence of drug-related adverse events. The analyzed trials enrolled different patient populations with mostly small numbers of patients. The great variability in dosages and dose titration schemes, cross-over designs with variable wash-out periods, and other design schemes made comparison between the different studies difficult. Gabapentin, lamotrigine, tramadol, oxycodone, mexiletine, and acetyl-L-carnitine were the only treatments studied in large (at least 100 patients), placebo-controlled parallel group trials. It is concluded that standardization in design and reporting for comparison of treatments is needed. Validated questionnaires for evaluation of the efficacy and safety should be further developed. Based on the reviewed randomised controlled trials, gabapentin shows good efficacy, a favourable side-effect profile with lack of drug interactions and therefore it may be a first choice treatment in painful diabetic neuropathy, especially in the elderly. However, head to head trials of current treatments are lacking and therefore randomized controlled trials are required to address this issue. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [source] Defining success in clinical trials , profiling pregabalin, the newest AEDEUROPEAN JOURNAL OF NEUROLOGY, Issue 2005P. Ryvlin The efficacy and safety of pregabalin as adjunctive therapy for patients with partial epilepsy with or without secondary generalization has been established by four randomized, 12-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials (n = 1396) and four long-term open-label studies (n = 1480). Patients in the three fixed-dose trials were ,12 years of age, had ,6 partial seizures and no 4-week seizure-free period during the 8-week baseline period. Seventy-three per cent of patients were taking ,2 concomitant antiepileptic drugs. Responder rates across the effective doses (150,600 mg/day) ranged from 14% to 51% and demonstrated a significant dose,response relationship. The most common adverse events were central nervous system related, generally mild or moderate, transient, and tended to be dose related. The fourth placebo-controlled trial compared a fixed dose of pregabalin 600 mg/day with a flexible-dose regimen (150,600 mg/day). Responder rates were greater for both the fixed dose (45.3%, P < 0.001) and flexible dose (31.3%, P < 0.001) when compared with placebo (11.0%). Compared with the fixed-dose group, the flexible-dose patients had a lower incidence of adverse events and study discontinuations. In long-term open-label trials, the efficacy of pregabalin was maintained with respect to 50% responder rates suggesting no obvious tolerance developing over 2 years. Seizure-free rates were 8.9% and 5.8% for the last 6 months and 1 year of pregabalin treatment, respectively. Long-term open-label pregabalin treatment was well tolerated. [source] | ||||||||||