Charles Liss

Addition of alendronate to ongoing hormone replacement therapy in the treatment of osteoporosis: a randomized, controlled clinical trial

Alendronate and estrogen are effective therapies for postmenopausal osteoporosis, but their efficacy and safety as combined therapy are unknown. The objective of this study was to evaluate the addition of alendronate to ongoing hormone replacement therapy (HRT) in the treatment of postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. A total of 428 postmenopausal women with osteoporosis, who had been receiving HRT for at least 1 yr, were randomized to receive either alendronate (10 mg/day) or placebo. HRT was continued in both groups. Changes in bone mineral density (BMD) and biochemical markers of bone turnover were assessed. Compared with HRT alone, at 12 months, alendronate plus HRT produced significantly greater increases in BMD of the lumbar spine (3.6% vs. 1.0%, P < 0.001) and hip trochanter (2.7% vs. 0.5%, P < 0.001); however, the between-group difference in BMD at the femoral neck was not significant (1.7% vs. 0.8%, P = 0.072). Biochemical markers of bone turnover (serum bone-specific alkaline phosphatase and urine N-telopeptide) decreased significantly at 6 and 12 months with alendronate plus HRT, and they remained within premenopausal levels. Addition of alendronate to ongoing HRT was generally well tolerated, with no significant between-group differences in upper gastrointestinal adverse events or fractures. This study demonstrated that, in postmenopausal women with low bone density despite ongoing treatment with estrogen, alendronate added to HRT significantly increased bone mass at both spine and hip trochanter and was generally well tolerated.

Neurohormonal and clinical responses to high- versus low-dose enalapril therapy in chronic heart failure ☆

OBJECTIVES We sought to compare the neurohormonal responses and clinical effects of long-term, high-dose versus low-dose enalapril in patients with chronic heart failure (CHF). BACKGROUND Examination of neurohormonal and clinical responses in patients receiving different doses of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors may provide insight into the potential for additional suppression with angiotensin II (AT-II) or aldosterone antagonists. METHODS Seventy-five patients with CHF were randomized to receive either high-dose (40 mg/day, n = 37) or low-dose (5 mg/day, n = 38) enalapril over six months. The results from exercise testing, echocardiography, tissue-specific ACE activity and monthly pre- and post-enalapril neurohormonal levels were compared. RESULTS Despite greater intra-group improvements in plasma renin activity and serum aldosterone levels in the high-dose group, no statistically significant differences were observed between the two groups in all variables, except for serum ACE activity at the end of study. Elevated serum aldosterone and plasma AT-II levels were observed in 35% and 85% of patients, respectively, at 34 weeks, an inter-group difference that was not statistically significant. A trend toward higher levels of tissue-specific ACE activity in the high-dose group compared with the low-dose group at the end of study was observed (p = 0.054). A predefined composite end point of clinical events had a trend toward better improvement in the high-dose group. CONCLUSIONS This study could not demonstrate a difference between high- and low-dose enalapril in terms of serum aldosterone and plasma AT-II suppression, despite a dose-dependent reduction in serum ACE activity. Even at maximal doses of enalapril, elevated serum aldosterone and plasma AT-II levels were frequently observed.

Efficacy, tolerability, and effects on quality of life of losartan, alone or with hydrochlorothiazide, versus amlodipine, alone or with hydrochlorothiazide, in patients with essential hypertension

A randomized, double-masked, parallel-group, multicenter clinical trial was conducted to compare the efficacy, tolerability, and effects on quality of life associated with treatment regimens including the angiotensin II receptor antagonist losartan, with hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) added as needed, with regimens including the dihydropyridine calcium channel blocker amlodipine with HCTZ added as needed. The trial included patients whose sitting diastolic blood pressure (SiDBP) measurements were between 95 and 114 mm Hg, inclusive, at placebo baseline. Patients were randomized to receive either losartan or amlodipine in a double-masked, double-dummy fashion. A 4-week placebo washout period was followed by a 12-week active treatment period. Patients in the losartan arm (n = 97) were initially given 50 mg of oral (PO) losartan once a day (QD); the medication could be titrated to 50-mg losartan/ 12.5-mg HCTZ PO QD after 4 weeks, followed by 50-mg losartan plus 25-mg HCTZ PO QD after 8 weeks as necessary. Patients in the amlodipine group (n = 93) received 5-mg amlodipine PO QD, which could be titrated to 10 mg PO QD after 4 weeks, followed by 10 mg plus 25-mg HCTZ PO QD after 8 weeks. Medication was titrated upward as necessary to achieve trough SiDBP < 90 mm Hg. Efficacy, tolerability, and quality-of-life scores were assessed after 12 weeks of therapy with each regimen. Trough SiDBP reductions after 4, 8, and 12 weeks of therapy were clinically comparable (losartan group: 7.3, 10.4, and 11.1 mm Hg, respectively; amlodipine group: 7.9, 11.2, and 11.8 mm Hg, respectively). Similar reductions in systolic blood pressure were also seen for both treatment groups. The percentage of patients reaching goal SiDBP (defined as trough SiDBP < 90 mm Hg or SiDBP > or = 90 mm Hg with a > or = 10 mm Hg drop from placebo baseline) was comparable for the two groups, with 68% of patients in the losartan group and 71% of patients in the amlodipine group reaching goal. Significantly more patients in the amlodipine group had drug-related adverse experiences (27% vs 13%). In particular, drug-related edema was more common in patients receiving the amlodipine regimen than in those receiving the losartan regimen (11% vs 1%). Patients in the amlodipine arm reported significantly more bother due to edema, regardless of whether edema was present at baseline, than did patients in the losartan arm (12% vs 2%), although overall quality of life was not different in the two treatment groups. This study demonstrates that a regimen of losartan with HCTZ added as needed, when compared with a regimen of amlodipine with HCTZ added as needed, provides comparable efficacy and superior tolerability and less bother to patients with respect to edema.

Revaccination with a 23-Valent Pneumococcal Polysaccharide Vaccine Induces Elevated and Persistent Functional Antibody Responses in Adults Aged ⩾65 Years

BACKGROUND Older adults are at high risk of developing invasive pneumococcal disease, but the optimal timing and number of vaccine doses needed to prevent disease among this group are unknown. We compared revaccination with 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PN23) with primary vaccination for eliciting initial and persistent functional antibody responses. METHODS Subjects aged > or = 65 years were enrolled. Functional (opsonic) and total immunoglobulin (Ig) G antibody levels were measured following either PN23 primary vaccination (n = 60) or revaccination 3-5 years after receiving a first PN23 vaccination (n = 60). Antibody against vaccine serotypes 4, 14, and 23F was measured at prevaccination (day 0), 30 days after vaccination, and 5 years after vaccination. RESULTS By day 30, both primary vaccination and revaccination induced significant increases in opsonic and IgG antibody levels. Day 30 levels following revaccination were slightly lower but not significantly different than those after primary vaccination. Year 5 levels were similar in both groups and remained significantly higher than prevaccination levels for primary vaccination subjects. There was good agreement between postvaccination opsonic and IgG antibody levels. CONCLUSIONS Revaccination of older adults with PN23 was comparable to primary vaccination for inducing elevated and persistent functional and IgG antibody responses.

Antibody persistence ten years after first and second doses of 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine, and immunogenicity and safety of second and third doses in older adults.

In a study of older adults, first and second doses of 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PN23) induced IgG increases for all 8 vaccine serotypes tested. Participants (N=143, mean age 76 years) were re-enrolled to study antibody levels after ten years, and safety and immunogenicity of another PN23 dose. Ten years after first or second doses, mean IgG concentrations exceeded vaccine-naïve levels for 7 of 8 serotypes tested. Second and third doses administered at this time were generally well tolerated and were immunogenic, inducing similar postvaccination levels. Immunogenicity is preserved after multiple PN23 doses without evidence of a lower than expected immune response (i.e., without hyporesponsiveness).

Efficacy and tolerability of finasteride in symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia: a primary care study

Abstract Because increasing numbers of men are seeking treatment for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) from primary care physicians, we sought to assess the efficacy and tolerability of finasteride in a primary care setting. In this randomized, double-masked study, 2112 men with symptomatic BPH received either finasteride (n = 1589) or placebo (n = 523) for 1 year. At 3, 6, 9, and 12 months, urinary symptoms were measured using the American Urological Association Symptom Index (AUASI). Quality of life was assessed using the BPH Impact Index (BII), which assessed bother, worry, physical discomfort, and restriction in activities. Both patients and investigators assessed overall urologic status. Investigators assessed the effect of the drug on plasma lipids in a subset of patients. Patients treated with finasteride had a statistically significant mean decrease in AUASI scores compared with patients treated with placebo beginning at month 6 and continuing throughout the study. At month 12, adjusted mean decreases in AUASI scores were −4.96 for finasteride versus −3.71 for placebo. Statistically significant differences in favor of finasteride were also noted on BII at months 9 and 12. Patient and investigator overall assessments showed greater improvement in the finasteride group beginning at month 6. The incidence of drug-related sexual adverse experiences was significantly greater in finasteride-treated patients but led to withdrawal in only 2.2% of these patients. Overall lipid profile was not significantly altered in either group. Based on improvement in symptoms and quality of life, and on its favorable tolerability profile, finasteride should be considered by primary care physicians for management of symptomatic BPH.

Efficacy and tolerability of losartan versus enalapril alone or in combination with hydrochlorothiazide in patients with essential hypertension

The antihypertensive effects and the tolerability of losartan and enalapril given alone or in combination with hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) were compared in a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, parallel-group, 16-week clinical trial. The study consisted of a 4-week placebo washout phase and a 12-week active treatment phase. Patients with mild-to-moderate, uncomplicated essential hypertension were considered for participation in the study. To enter the treatment phase of the study, a mean sitting diastolic blood pressure (SiDBP) > or = 95 and < or = 115 mm Hg was required. Patients received either 50-mg losartan once daily or 5-mg enalapril once daily at randomization. The dose of enalapril could be titrated to 10 mg after 4 weeks and 25 mg of HCTZ could be added after 8 weeks, based on measurements of SiDBP at clinic visits. The dose of losartan remained at 50 mg; 12.5 mg of HCTZ could be added after 8 weeks. Changes in the treatment regimen at each step were required if SiDBP remained > or = mm Hg. Doses of the diuretic were chosen based on commercially available forms of the test agents in combination with HCTZ. Trough blood pressure, heart rate, and safety parameters were measured at 4-week intervals during the treatment phase of the study. Significant reductions in mean SiDBP and mean sitting systolic blood pressure (SiSBP) were achieved at all time points (4, 8, and 12 weeks) with both treatments. No significant differences between treatment groups for mean changes in SiDBP or SiSBP were observed overall. At study end, patients receiving the losartan regimen had a mean reduction in SiDBP of 10.3 mm Hg, whereas patients in the enalapril regimen had a mean reduction of 9.8 mm Hg. Likewise, the percentage of patients reaching goal blood pressure reduction was not significantly different between groups. The mean reduction in SiDBP-- but not SiSBP--in black patients was slightly greater in the losartan group than in the enalapril group (SiDBP, 10.0 mm Hg losartan vs 8.0 mm Hg enalapril; P = 0.02). Similarly, losartan patients aged 65 years and older had a slightly greater decrease in SiDBP than comparable enalapril patients (12.7 mm Hg vs 8.7 mm Hg; P = 0.03). The importance of these differences between subgroups must be clarified by additional studies. Overall, both treatments were well tolerated. A regimen of losartan alone or in combination with HCTZ was effective in treating patients with essential hypertension and was comparable to a regimen of enalapril alone or in combination with HCTZ. However, treatment with losartan was associated with a lower incidence of cough.

Patient preference, efficacy, and compliance with timolol maleate ophthalmic gel-forming solution versus timolol maleate ophthalmic solution in patients with ocular hypertension or open-angle glaucoma

This study was designed to compare timolol maleate ophthalmic gel-forming solution 0.5% (timolol gel) once daily with timolol maleate ophthalmic solution 0.5% (timolol solution) twice daily with respect to patient preference, intraocular pressure (IOP)-lowering effect, and tolerability. A total of 202 patients with ocular hypertension or open-angle glaucoma and an IOP > or = 22 mm Hg were enrolled in this 12-week, randomized, observer-masked, two-period crossover study. Significantly more patients preferred timolol gel to timolol solution (P < 0.001). Ninety-two percent of patients preferring timolol gel strongly agreed or agreed that once-daily dosing was a reason for their preference. Those who preferred timolol solution did so because of fewer side effects. The mean IOP-lowering effects of the 2 treatments were similar at both morning trough and peak time points. The incidence of drug-related adverse experiences was similar (timolol gel 11.4% vs timolol solution 10.9%). Because both treatments were well tolerated and effective in lowering IOP, timolol gel, with its once-daily dosing regimen, should be considered in patients who are candidates for therapy with an ophthalmic beta-blocking agent.

Safety, tolerability and immunogenicity of a recombinant hepatitis B vaccine manufactured by a modified process in healthy young adults.

Background: Merck has developed a manufacturing process modification for RECOMBIVAX HB™. Three lots of modified process hepatitis B vaccine (mpHBV) were studied in a randomized, blinded trial to demonstrate similarity of the 3 lots of mpHBV and noninferiority to RECOMBIVAX HB™ (control vaccine) with regard to immunogenicity. Methods: Healthy 20- to 35-year-old subjects (N=860) received a 1-mL intramuscular dose (10 mcg hepatitis B surface antigen [HBsAg]) of mpHBV from 1 of 3 lots or control at Day 1, and Months 1 and 6. Serum antibody to HBsAg (anti-HBs) was assayed Predose 1 and 1 month Postdose 3 (Month 7) using a quantitative hepatitis B antibody assay (Ortho VITROS ECi assay). Anti-HBs geometric mean titers (GMTs) and seroprotection rates (SPRs) (% of subjects with an anti-HBs titer ≥10 mIU/mL) were compared at Month 7. After each dose, injection-site adverse experiences (AEs) and oral temperature were recorded for 5 days; systemic AEs were recorded for 15 days. Results: Month 7 SPRs for the mpHBV groups ranged from 97.8 to 98.9% (98.2% for the mpHBV groups combined). The SPR for the control group was 98.5%. The estimated GMT was 1761 mIU/mL for the mpHBV groups combined and 1108 mIU/mL for the control group. The GMT ratio (mpHBV/control) was 1.6 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.2 to 2.1), indicating superiority of mpHBV compared with control. The percentages of subjects reporting any AE, injection-site AEs, or systemic AEs were similar across the 4 vaccination groups. There were no serious AEs. Conclusions: The SPRs for the mpHBV groups and the control group were high; responses were consistent across the mpHBV groups. The mpHBV and control vaccines were generally well tolerated.

A multicenter, randomized, double-blind clinical trial comparing the low-density lipoprotein cholesterol-lowering ability of lovastatin 10, 20, and 40 mg/d with fluvastatin 20 and 40 mg/d.

BACKGROUND The available statin drugs have similar pharmacodynamic properties but are not equal in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C)-lowering efficacy. OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to compare the effects of lovastatin and fluvastatin in lowering LDL-C. METHODS This was a prospective, randomized, double-blind study of patients aged >20 years with primary hypercholesterolemia conducted at 44 clinical sites across the United States. After a 6-week National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Step I diet lead-in period in patients taking lipid-lowering drugs at screening, patients were randomized to receive lovastatin 10, 20, or 40 mg/d or fluvastatin 20 or 40 mg/d (the doses available at the time the study was conducted) for 6 weeks. Patients not taking lipid-lowering drugs at screening and who had been following the Step I diet for at least 6 weeks proceeded to the treatment phase. All patients received instruction for a Step I diet, which they followed throughout the treatment phase. After the treatment period, total cholesterol (TC), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), LDL-C, and triglycerides were measured, and TC:HDL-C and LDL-C:HDL-C ratios were calculated. RESULTS A total of 838 patients (476 men, 362 women; mean [SD] age, 59 [12] years) were included in the study. Lovastatin 20 and 40 mg/d significantly reduced mean LDL-C compared with the same dosages of fluvastatin. TC and the LDL-C:HDL-C ratio decreased more with lovastatin than with fluvastatin at a given dose level. Approximately 50% of patients treated with lovastatin 20 and 40 mg/d compared with approximately 25% treated with fluvastatin 20 and 40 mg/d reached NCEP Adult Treatment Panel II LDL-C goals. CONCLUSION In this small study population of patients with primary hypercholesterolemia taking lipid-lowering drugs, short-term (6-week) treatment with lovastatin was more efficacious than fluvastatin in lowering cholesterol levels and reaching LDL-C treatment goals.