Felodipine-metoprolol combination tablet: a valuable option to initiate antihypertensive therapy?

The aim of the present study was to assess the efficacy and tolerability of a calcium antagonist/beta-blocker fixed combination tablet used as first-line antihypertesnive therapy in comparison with an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor and placebo. Patients with uncomplicated essential hypertension (diastolic blood pressure between 95 and 110 mm Hg at the end of a 4-week run-in period) were randomly allocated to a double-blind, 12-week treatment with either a combination tablet of felodipine and metoprolol (Logimax), 5/50 mg daily (n = 321), enalapril, 10 mg daily (n = 321), or placebo (n = 304), with the possibility of doubling the dose after 4 or 8 weeks of treatment if needed (diastolic blood pressure remaining >90 mm Hg). The combined felodipine-metoprolol treatment controlled blood pressure (diastolic < or =90 mm Hg 24 h after dose) in 72% of patients after 12 weeks, as compared with 49% for enalapril and 30% for placebo. A dose adjustment was required in 38% of patients receiving the combination, in 63% of patients allocated to placebo, and 61% of enalapril-treated patients. The overall incidence of adverse events was 54.5% during felodipine-metoprolol treatment; the corresponding values for enalapril and placebo were 51.7% and 47.4%, respectively. Withdrawal of treatment due to adverse events occurred in 18 patients treated with the combination, in 10 patients on enalapril, and 12 patients on placebo. No significant change in patients' well-being was observed in either of the three study groups. These results show that a fixed combination tablet of felodipine and metoprolol allows to normalize blood pressure in a substantially larger fraction of patients than enalapril given alone. This improved efficacy is obtained without impairing the tolerability. The fixed-dose combination of felodipine and metoprolol, therefore, may become a valuable option to initiate antihypertensive treatment.

Does lipid oxidation differ in gynoid and android obese women?

This study was performed to investigate whether body fat distribution influences resting metabolic rate and lipid oxidation in obese individuals. Eighty-nine obese women were divided in two groups (android obese, n = 36, BMI = 31.1 +/- 4.5 kg/m2 (mean +/- s.d.); gynoid obese, n = 53, BMI = 29.9 +/- 4.5 kg/m2 on the basis of their waist/hip ratio (0.86 +/- 0.05 vs 0.75 +/- 0.04 respectively). Body weight, per cent body fat and fat-free mass were similar in the two groups. Moreover, resting metabolic rate and respiratory quotient were also identical in android and gynoid obese women, indicating that there was no intergroup difference in the absolute level of lipid oxidation. If, like most other android obese women, they had higher rates of lipolysis and plasma FFA concentrations, the failure of android obese individuals to exhibit a higher lipid oxidation than gynoid obese women may partly explain their increased risk to develop metabolic complications.

Different likelihood ratio approaches to evaluate the strength of evidence of MDMA tablet comparisons

Two likelihood ratio (LR) approaches are presented to evaluate the strength of evidence of MDMA tablet comparisons. The first one is based on a more 'traditional' comparison of MDMA tablets by using distance measures (e.g., Pearson correlation distance or a Euclidean distance). In this approach, LRs are calculated using the distribution of distances between tablets of the same-batch and that of different-batches. The second approach is based on methods used in some other fields of forensic comparison. Here LRs are calculated based on the distribution of values of MDMA tablet characteristics within a specific batch and from all batches. The data used in this paper must be seen as examples to illustrate both methods. In future research the methods can be applied to other and more complex data. In this paper, the methods and their results are discussed, considering their performance in evidence evaluation and several practical aspects. With respect to evidence in favor of the correct hypothesis, the second method proved to be better than the first one. It is shown that the LRs in same-batch comparisons are generally higher compared to the first method and the LRs in different-batch comparisons are generally lower. On the other hand, for operational purposes (where quick information is needed), the first method may be preferred, because it is less time consuming. With this method a model has to be estimated only once in a while, which means that only a few measurements have to be done, while with the second method more measurements are needed because each time a new model has to be estimated.