Efficacy and safety of non-hormonal remedies for vaginal dryness: open, prospective, randomized trial

OBJECTIVES To prove non-inferiority of the first non-hormonal vaginal cream in Germany, Vagisan(®) Moisturising Cream (CREAM), compared to a non-hormonal vaginal gel (GEL) for vulvovaginal atrophy (VVA) symptom relief. METHOD This was a 12-week multicenter, open-label, prospective, randomized, two-period, cross-over phase-III trial. The primary endpoint was the cumulative VVA subjective symptom score of the respective treatment period. Secondary endpoints were assessment of single VVA subjective and objective symptoms, VVA objective symptom score, vaginal pH, safety parameters, overall assessment of efficacy, tolerability and evaluation of product properties. In total, 117 women were randomly allocated to either one of the two treatments, each administered for 4 weeks; 92 women were included in the per-protocol analysis (primary analysis). The main outcome measure was cumulative VVA subjective symptom score. RESULTS Regarding VVA symptom relief, results confirmed non-inferiority of CREAM compared to GEL and even indicated superiority of CREAM. Frequency and intensity of subjective symptoms and objective findings were clearly reduced, with CREAM showing better results compared to GEL. Mean VVA objective symptom score significantly decreased; improvement was significantly greater with CREAM. Vaginal pH decreased only following CREAM treatment. Tolerability was superior for CREAM: burning and itching, mostly rated as mild, occurred markedly less often with CREAM than with GEL. Overall satisfaction with treatment efficacy, tolerability and most product properties were rated significantly superior for CREAM. CONCLUSIONS Subjective and objective VVA symptoms were reliably and safely reduced by both non-hormonal topical products. However, efficacy and tolerability of CREAM were shown to be superior to GEL.

A double-blind randomised study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of bindarit in preventing coronary stent restenosis.

AIMS Bindarit (BND) is a selective inhibitor of monocyte chemotactic protein-1 (MCP-1/CCL2), which plays an important role in generating intimal hyperplasia. Our aim was to explore the efficacy and safety of bindarit in preventing restenosis following percutaneous coronary intervention. METHODS AND RESULTS A phase II, double-blind, multicentre randomised trial included 148 patients randomised into three arms (BND 600 mg, n=48; BND 1,200 mg, n=49; PLB, n=51). Bindarit was given following PCI and continued for 180 days. Monthly clinical follow-up and six-month coronary angiography were conducted. The primary endpoint was in-segment late loss; the main secondary endpoints were in-stent late loss and major adverse cardiovascular events. Efficacy analysis was carried out on two populations, ITT and PP. There were no significant differences in the baseline characteristics among the three treatment groups. In-segment and in-stent late loss at six months in BND 600, BND 1,200 and PLB were: (ITT 0.54 vs. 0.52 vs. 0.72; p=0.21), (PP 0.46 vs. 0.53 vs. 0.72; p=0.12) and (ITT 0.74 vs. 0.74 vs. 1.05; p=0.01), (PP 0.66 vs. 0.73 vs. 1.06; p=0.003), respectively. The MACE rates at nine months among treatment groups were 20.8% vs. 28.6% vs. 25.5% (p=0.54), respectively. CONCLUSIONS This was a negative study with the primary endpoint not being met. However, significant reduction in the in-stent late loss suggests that bindarit probably exerts a favourable action on the vessel wall following angioplasty. Bindarit was well tolerated with a compliance rate of over 90%. A larger study utilising a loading dose and targeting a specific patient cohort may demonstrate more significant results.

Three-year efficacy and safety of new- versus early-generation drug-eluting stents for unprotected left main coronary artery disease insights from the ISAR-LEFT MAIN and ISAR-LEFT MAIN 2 trials.

BACKGROUND In percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) patients new-generation drug-eluting stent (DES) has reduced adverse events in comparison to early-generation DES. The aim of the current study was to investigate the long-term clinical efficacy and safety of new-generation DES versus early-generation DES for PCI of unprotected left main coronary artery (uLMCA) disease. METHODS The patient-level data from the ISAR-LEFT MAIN and ISAR-LEFT MAIN 2 randomized trials were pooled. The clinical outcomes of PCI patients assigned to new-generation DES (everolimus- or zotarolimus-eluting stent) versus early-generation DES (paclitaxel- or sirolimus-eluting stent) were studied. The primary endpoint was the composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI), target lesion revascularization and stroke (MACCE, major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event). RESULTS In total, 1257 patients were available. At 3 years, the risk of MACCE was comparable between patients assigned to new-generation DES or early-generation DES (28.2 versus 27.5 %, hazard ratio-HR 1.03, 95 % confidence intervals-CI 0.83-1.26; P = 0.86). Definite/probable stent thrombosis was low and comparable between new-generation DES and early-generation DES (0.8 versus 1.6 %, HR 0.52, 95 % CI 0.18-1.57; P = 0.25); in patients treated with new-generation DES no cases occurred beyond 30 days. Diabetes increased the risk of MACCE in patients treated with new-generation DES but not with early-generation DES (P interaction = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS At 3-year follow-up, a PCI with new-generation DES for uLMCA disease shows comparable efficacy to early-generation DES. Rates of stent thrombosis were low in both groups. Diabetes significantly impacts the risk of MACCE at 3 years in patients treated with new-generation DES for uLMCA disease. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT00133237; NCT00598637.