Steven R. Bird

Rofecoxib versus codeine/acetaminophen in postoperative dental pain: a double-blind, randomized, placebo- and active comparator—controlled clinical trial

BACKGROUND In recent studies of acute pain and primary dysmenorrhea, rofecoxib, a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug that selectively targets the cyclooxygenase-2 enzyme, was found to be similar in efficacy to ibuprofen and naproxen sodium. OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study was to determine the analgesic efficacy of a single oral dose of rofecoxib 50 mg compared with the combination of codeine 60 mg/acetaminophen 600 mg in a model of postsurgical dental pain. METHODS In this double-blind, placebo- and active comparator-controlled, parallel-group study, patients experiencing moderate or severe pain after the surgical extraction of > or = 2 third molars, at least 1 of which was a mandibular impaction, were randomized to receive placebo, rofecoxib 50 mg, or codeine 60 mg/acetaminophen 600 mg. Patient evaluations of pain intensity, pain relief, and global assessments were recorded throughout the 24-hour period after dosing. The 2-stopwatch method was used to determine time to confirmed perceptible pain relief. The primary end point assessing overall analgesic effect was total pain relief over 6 hours (TOPAR6). Secondary end points were patient global assessment of response to therapy (PGART) at 6 hours, onset of analgesia, peak analgesic effect, and duration of analgesia. RESULTS A total of 393 patients were enrolled; 182 received rofecoxib, 180 received codeine/acetaminophen, and 31 received placebo. The overall analgesic effect of rofecoxib 50 mg was greater than that of codeine 60 mg/acetaminophen 600 mg for TOPAR6 (12.4 vs 7.0; P < 0.001) and PGART at 6 hours (P < 0.001). The onset of analgesic effect was similar for rofecoxib and codeine/acetaminophen. Peak analgesic effect as measured by peak pain relief scores during the first 6 hours was significantly greater in the rofecoxib group compared with the codeine/acetaminophen group (P < 0.001), as was the duration of analgesic effect measured by the time to rescue analgesia (9.6 hours vs 2.3 hours, P < 0.001). Adverse events were reported in 33.0%, 46.1%, and 32.3% of patients treated with rofecoxib, codeine/acetaminophen, and placebo, respectively. The most common adverse events were nausea (6.0%, 25.0%, and 9.7%, respectively) and vomiting (3.8%, 18.3%, and 6.5%, respectively). Significantly more patients in the codeine/acetaminophen group than in the rofecoxib group experienced adverse events overall (P < 0.050) and nausea in particular (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION In this study of moderate to severe postoperative dental pain, the analgesic efficacy of rofecoxib 50 mg was greater than that of codeine/acetaminophen, with a lower incidence of adverse events and nausea.

Efficacy and safety of ezetimibe added on to atorvastatin (40 mg) compared with uptitration of atorvastatin (to 80 mg) in hypercholesterolemic patients at high risk of coronary heart disease.

The percentage of change from baseline in low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol after the addition of ezetimibe 10 mg to atorvastatin 40 mg was compared with uptitration to atorvastatin 80 mg. In this multicenter, double-blind, parallel-group study, adult hypercholesterolemic patients using atorvastatin 40 mg/day were randomly assigned to atorvastatin 40 mg plus ezetimibe 10 mg or uptitration to atorvastatin 80 mg. After 6 weeks of treatment, compared with atorvastatin 80 mg, atorvastatin 40 mg plus ezetimibe significantly reduced the primary end point of LDL cholesterol by -27% versus atorvastatin 80 mg by -11% (p <0.001), as well as significantly reduced non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, apolipoprotein B, total cholesterol, and triglycerides significantly more than atorvastatin 80 mg (all p <0.001). Percentages of change in high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and apolipoprotein A-I were similar between groups. Significantly more patients treated with atorvastatin 40 mg plus ezetimibe reached LDL cholesterol <70 mg/dl versus patients treated with atorvastatin 80 mg (74% vs 32%; p <0.001). Safety and tolerability profiles and incidence of liver and muscle adverse experiences were generally similar between groups. In conclusion, these results showed that adding ezetimibe to atorvastatin 40 mg was significantly more effective than uptitrating to atorvastatin 80 mg at lowering LDL cholesterol and other lipid parameters. Both treatments were generally well tolerated (clinical trial no. NCT00276484).

Addition of montelukast or salmeterol to fluticasone for protection against asthma attacks: a randomized, double-blind, multicenter study.

BACKGROUND For patients whose asthma is uncontrolled with low-dose inhaled corticosteroids, addition of alternative therapy instead of increasing the steroid dose is recommended by current treatment guidelines. OBJECTIVE To compare montelukast, a once-daily leukotriene receptor antagonist, and salmeterol, a twice-daily, long-acting beta-agonist, concomitantly administered with inhaled fluticasone, according to the percentage of patients without an asthma attack for 1 year. METHODS A randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, multicenter study was conducted. Adult patients with moderate-to-severe persistent asthma (ages 14-73 years) receiving inhaled fluticasone (220 microg/d) who remained symptomatic during a 4-week run-in period were randomized to the addition of salmeterol (84 microg/d) or montelukast (10 mg/d) for 48 weeks. RESULTS Of the 1,473 randomized patients, 743 were randomized to montelukast and 730 to salmeterol; 1,059 patients completed the study. Eighty percent of patients in the montelukast group and 83.3% of patients in the salmeterol group remained attack free during the 48 weeks of treatment (relative risk, 1.20; 95% confidence interval, 0.96-1.49). Montelukast significantly reduced blood eosinophil counts compared with salmeterol, whereas salmeterol significantly increased prealbuterol forced expiratory volume in 1 second, asthma-specific quality of life, morning peak expiratory flow rate, and decreased nocturnal awakenings compared with montelukast. Differences between treatments were small, and both treatments were generally well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS Addition of montelukast or salmeterol to an inhaled corticosteroid similarly protected most patients from experiencing an asthma attack during a 1-year period, but, based on noninferiority limits, the study was inconclusive with regard to a difference between treatment groups.

Efficacy and safety of ezetimibe added on to atorvastatin (20 mg) versus uptitration of atorvastatin (to 40 mg) in hypercholesterolemic patients at moderately high risk for coronary heart disease.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ezetimibe 10 mg added to atorvastatin 20 mg compared with doubling atorvastatin to 40 mg in patients with hypercholesterolemia at moderately high risk for coronary heart disease who did not reach low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels <100 mg/dl with atorvastatin 20 mg. In this 6-week, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, parallel-group study, 196 patients treated with atorvastatin 20 mg received atorvastatin 20 mg plus ezetimibe 10 mg or atorvastatin 40 mg for 6 weeks. Adding ezetimibe 10 mg to atorvastatin 20 mg produced significantly greater reductions in LDL cholesterol than increasing atorvastatin to 40 mg (-31% vs -11%, p <0.001). Significantly greater reductions were also seen in non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, total cholesterol, and apolipoprotein B (p <0.001). Significantly more patients reached LDL cholesterol levels <100 mg/dl with atorvastatin 20 mg plus ezetimibe compared with atorvastatin 40 mg (84% vs 49%, p <0.001). The 2 treatment groups had comparable results for high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, triglycerides, apolipoprotein A-I, and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein. The incidences of clinical and laboratory adverse experiences were generally similar between groups. In conclusion, the addition of ezetimibe 10 mg to atorvastatin 20 mg was generally well tolerated and resulted in significantly greater lipid-lowering efficacy compared with doubling atorvastatin to 40 mg in patients with hypercholesterolemia at moderately high risk for coronary heart disease.

Pooled Analyses of Effects on C-Reactive Protein and Low Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol in Placebo-Controlled Trials of Ezetimibe Monotherapy or Ezetimibe Added to Baseline Statin Therapy

Inflammation is associated with coronary artery disease (CAD), and statins reduce the inflammatory marker C-reactive protein (CRP). The effects of ezetimibe, alone or in combination with statins, on CRP and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol were examined in 2 pooled analyses of randomized, placebo-controlled trials of ezetimibe 10 mg/day in patients with hypercholesterolemia: 6 12-week trials as monotherapy (n = 1,372) and 7 6- to 8-week trials as add-on to baseline statin therapy (n = 3,899). Mean percentage changes from baseline in CRP and LDL cholesterol were examined using analysis of variance in patients with CRP < or =10 mg/L. Effects within subgroups (age, gender, race, body mass index, diabetes mellitus, metabolic syndrome, CAD, baseline CRP or lipids, and statin potency) and correlations between CRP and LDL cholesterol were also examined. Reduction in CRP by ezetimibe monotherapy was numerically greater than with placebo (treatment difference 6%, p = 0.09). Added to statin therapy, ezetimibe was associated with a significant additional reduction in CRP (treatment difference 10%, p <0.001). Treatment effects were generally consistent across subgroups for the 2 analyses. With monotherapy and add-on to statin therapy, LDL cholesterol reduction with ezetimibe was significantly greater than with placebo (treatment differences -19% and -23%, respectively, p <0.001). Spearmans correlation coefficients among baseline values and percentage changes from baseline in CRP and LDL cholesterol ranged from -0.007% to 0.13%. In conclusion, the addition of ezetimibe to statin treatment provides significantly enhanced CRP reductions over and above those achieved with statin monotherapy. Correlations between changes in CRP and changes in LDL cholesterol were weakly positive and significant only when ezetimibe was added to statin treatment. The effects of ezetimibe monotherapy are not well defined. The effects of ezetimibe on CRP were consistent across patient subgroups.

Safety and Efficacy of Ezetimibe Added to Atorvastatin Versus Up Titration of Atorvastatin to 40 mg in Patients ≥65 Years of Age (from the ZETia in the ELDerly [ZETELD] Study)

Few clinical studies have focused on the efficacy of lipid-lowering therapies in patients > or = 65 years of age. The percentage of change from baseline in low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol and the percentage of patients achieving prespecified LDL cholesterol levels after 12 weeks of ezetimibe 10 mg plus atorvastatin versus up titration of atorvastatin were assessed in subjects > or = 65 years old with hyperlipidemia and at high risk of coronary heart disease. After stabilization of atorvastatin 10-mg therapy, 1,053 patients, > or = 65 years old, at high risk of coronary heart disease, with and without atherosclerotic vascular disease and a LDL cholesterol level that was not <70 or <100 mg/dl, respectively, were randomized to receive ezetimibe added to atorvastatin 10 mg for 12 weeks versus up titration to atorvastatin 20 mg for 6 weeks followed by up titration to atorvastatin 40 mg for an additional 6 weeks. Ezetimibe added to atorvastatin 10 mg resulted in significantly greater changes at week 6 in LDL cholesterol (p <0.001), significantly more patients with atherosclerotic vascular disease achieving a LDL cholesterol level of <70 mg/dl (p <0.001), and significantly more patients without atherosclerotic vascular disease achieving a LDL cholesterol level of <100 mg/dl (p <0.001) at weeks 6 and 12 compared to atorvastatin 20 mg or atorvastatin 40 mg. In addition, ezetimibe plus atorvastatin 10 mg resulted in significantly greater changes at week 6 in total cholesterol, triglycerides, non-high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, apolipoprotein B (all p <0.001), and HDL cholesterol (p = 0.021) compared with atorvastatin 20 mg and significantly greater changes at week 12 in LDL cholesterol, non-HDL cholesterol, apolipoprotein A-I (p = 0.001), total cholesterol, apolipoprotein B (p <0.030), and HDL cholesterol (p <0.001) compared with atorvastatin 40 mg. Both treatments were generally well tolerated, with comparable safety profiles. In conclusion, adding ezetimibe to atorvastatin 10 mg produced significantly greater favorable changes in most lipids at 6 and 12 weeks and significantly greater attainment of prespecified LDL cholesterol levels than doubling or quadrupling the atorvastatin dose in patients > or =65 years old at high risk for coronary heart disease.

Efficacy of montelukast during the allergy season in patients with chronic asthma and seasonal aeroallergen sensitivity

Background Montelukast has proven efficacy in the treatment of chronic asthma and seasonal allergic rhinitis, but it has not been evaluated in the subpopulation of asthmatic patients with seasonal asthma symptoms. Objective To determine the effectiveness of montelukast treatment in improving the control of asthma symptoms during the allergy season in patients with active asthma and seasonal aeroallergen sensitivity. Methods Adults with a history of chronic asthma who are also symptomatic during the allergy season and with skin test sensitivity to seasonal aeroallergens were enrolled in a randomized, parallel-group, multicenter study with a 1-week, single-blind, placebo run-in period followed by 3 weeks of doubleblind treatment during the spring of 2004. After the run-in period, eligible patients were randomly assigned to receive either oral montelukast (10 mg) or placebo. Daytime and nighttime asthma symptom scores, β-agonist use, and morning and evening peak expiratory flow rates were recorded daily using an electronic diary. The primary end point was mean change from baseline to week 3 in the daytime asthma symptom score. Results Of 455 randomized patients, 433 completed the study. Compared with placebo, treatment with montelukast resulted in a significant improvement from baseline in the daytime asthma symptom score (−0.54 vs −0.34; P = .002) and in β-agonist use, nighttime symptoms, and peak expiratory flow rates. Few patients in the montelukast and placebo groups discontinued study participation because of asthma (1.3% and 3.0%, respectively). Conclusion In patients with chronic asthma and seasonal aeroallergen sensitivity, montelukast treatment provided significant asthma control during the allergy season compared with placebo.

A randomized controlled study comparing rofecoxib, diclofenac sodium, and placebo in post-bunionectomy pain.

SUMMARY Objective: The relative efficacy of rofecoxib, diclofenac sodium, and placebo were compared in the treatment of acute pain after bunionectomy surgery. Research design and methods: This was a double-blind, randomized, two-part study of 252 patients with moderate-to-severe pain the day after first metatarsal bunionectomy. Patients were treated with a single dose of rofecoxib 50 mg (N = 85), enteric-coated diclofenac sodium 100 mg (N = 85), or placebo (N = 82) on study Day 1 (Part I), and subsequently with daily rofecoxib 50 mg or placebo (diclofenac patients switched to placebo) over study Days 2–5 (Part II). Patients rated their pain at 16 time points over the first 24 h. Primary endpoint was total pain relief over 8 h (TOPAR8). Pre-specified secondary endpoints on Day 1 included onset of analgesia, peak pain relief, and duration of response. For Part II, supplemental analgesia use with rofecoxib compared to placebo was pre-specified for analysis over Days 2–5, with the focus on Days 2–3. Adverse experiences were recorded over Days 1–5. Results: For TOPAR8 scores, rofecoxib 50 mg was significantly more effective than placebo (9.5 vs. 3.7, p < 0.001) and diclofenac (9.5 vs. 5.0, p < 0.001). Onset of analgesia was more rapid with rofecoxib than placebo ( p = 0.003) and diclofenac ( p = 0.019); proportion of patients achieving onset within 4 h with rofecoxib, diclofenac, and placebo was 46%, 27%, and 23%, respectively. Peak pain relief was greater with rofecoxib (1.8) than diclofenac (1.2, p = 0.004) and placebo (1.0, p < 0.001). Diclofenac and placebo patients required supplemental analgesia sooner than rofecoxib patients (2:03 h vs. 4:02 h, p < 0.001 and 1:41 h vs. 4:02 h, p < 0.001). Rofecoxib patients used significantly less ( p < 0.001) supplemental analgesia than placebo patients over Days 2–3 (1.1 tablets/day vs. 2.1 tablets/day) and Days 2–5 (0.9 tablets/day vs. 1.8 tablets/day). No significant differences in adverse experiences between treatments were seen. Conclusion: Rofecoxib 50 mg was significantly more effective than placebo on all measures of treatment of post-bunionectomy pain. Rofecoxib 50 mg was significantly more effective than diclofenac sodium 100 mg based on Day 1 endpoints of total pain relief, onset time, and duration of response. All study medications were generally well tolerated.

Safety and immunogenicity of a bivalent Haemophilus influenzae type b/hepatitis B vaccine in healthy infants

OBJECTIVE To assess the safety, tolerability and immunogenicity of COMVAX, a liquid, bivalent Haemophilus influenzae type b-hepatitis B vaccine, containing the polyribosylribitol phosphate (PRP)-Neisseria meningitidis outer membrane protein complex conjugate used in the Hib vaccine, PedvaxHIB, and the yeast-derived hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) used in the HB vaccine, RECOMBIVAX HB. DESIGN Eight hundred eighty-two healthy infants, approximately 2 months of age, were enrolled in an open, multicenter (n = 11) clinical trial and randomized to receive either COMVAX (7.5 micrograms of PRP/5 micrograms of HBsAg in 0.5 ml) or concurrent injections of the liquid formulation of PedvaxHIB (P) (7.5 micrograms of PRP in 0.5 ml) and RECOMBIVAX HB (R) (5 micrograms of HBsAg in 0.5 ml) at 2, 4 and 12 or 15 months of age. Safety and tolerability were monitored after each injection. The serum concentrations of anti-PRP and anti-HBs were determined at the time of each vaccination, 2 months after the second vaccination and 1 month after the third vaccination. RESULTS COMVAX was well-tolerated and proved to be immunologically comparable with a series of concomitant P+R injections. There were no serious adverse experiences attributable to the study vaccines. The most commonly reported nonserious adverse experiences were all events prelisted on diary cards given to parents. These included generally mild and transient signs of inflammation at the injection site (pain/ soreness, erythema, swelling/induration), somnolence and irritability. Because children are at peak risk of invasive Hib disease during the first year of life, 6 months of age (2 months after the second dose of vaccine) was designated the time of primary interest with regard to the development of anti-PRP. At that time 94.8% of the infants given COMVAX had > 0.15 microgram/ml of anti-PRP and 72.4% had > 1.0 microgram/ ml, with a geometric mean concentration (GMC) of 2.5 micrograms/ml, compared with 95.2%, 76.3% and 2.8 micrograms/ml, respectively, in recipients of P+R. The third injection given at 12 or 15 months of age induced a secondary rise in antibody. The proportions with > 0.15 microgram/ml and > 1.0 microgram/ml of anti-PRP increased to 99.3 and 92.6%, respectively, and the GMC rose to 9.5 micrograms/ml among COMVAX recipients, compared with 98.9%, 92.3% and 10.2 micrograms/ml in children given concurrent injections of P+R. In contrast to Hib few infants in countries with low endemicity of HBV infection are at near term risk of exposure to virus. Consequently the anti-HBs response after the last dose of vaccine was designated the outcome of primary interest. At 13 to 16 months of age (1 month after the third dose of vaccine) 98.4% of children given COMVAX had a protective anti-HBs concentration of > or = 10 mIU/ml with a GMC of 4468 mIU/ml, compared with 100% and a GMC of 6944 mIU/ml among children given P+R. CONCLUSIONS COMVAX is well-tolerated by healthy infants and can induce immunity against invasive Hib disease and HBV infection using only three injections compared with six injections if separate courses of monovalent PedvaxHIB and RECOMBIVAX HB are given.

Ezetimibe added to atorvastatin compared with doubling the atorvastatin dose in patients at high risk for coronary heart disease with diabetes mellitus, metabolic syndrome or neither

Aim: Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and metabolic syndrome (MetS) are both associated with increased risk for atherosclerotic coronary heart disease (CHD). Thus, it is useful to know the relative efficacy of lipid‐altering drugs in these patient populations.