Analysis of decelerator, accelerator and shock cord propelled rebound sleds for evaluating air bag restraints. Final report.

Mode of access: Internet.

A comparison of the efficacy and safety of olanzapine versus haloperidol during transition from intramuscular to oral therapy

Background: Acutely agitated patients with schizophrenia who receive intramuscular (IM) medications typically are switched to oral (PO) antipsychotic maintenance therapy Objective: The goal of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of olanzapine versus those of haloperidol during transition from IM to PO therapy We used additional data from a previously reported trial to test the hypothesis that the reduction in agitation achieved by IM olanzapine 10 mg or IM haloperidol 7.5 mg would be maintained following transition to 4 days of PO olanzapine or PO haloperidol (5-20 mg/d for both). We also hypothesized that olanzapine would maintain its more favorable extrapyramidal symptom (EPS) safety profile. Methods: This was a multinational (hospitals in 13 countries), double-blind, randomized, controlled trial. Acutely agitated inpatients with schizophrenia were treated with 1 to 3 IM injections of olanzapine 10 mg or haloperidol 7.5 mg over 24 hours and were entered into a 4-day PO treatment period with the same medication (5-20 mg/d for both). The primary efficacy measurement was reduction in agitation, as measured by the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale-Excited Component (PANSS-EC) score. Adverse events and scores on EPS rating scales were assessed. Results: A total of 311 patients (204 men, 107 women; mean [SD] age, 38.2 [11.6] years) were enrolled (131, 126, and 54 patients in the olanzapine, haloperidol, and placebo groups, respectively). In all, 93.1% (122/131) of olanzapine-treated patients and 92.1% (116/126) of haloperidol-treated patients completed the IM period and entered the PO period; 85.5% (112/131) of olanzapine-treated patients and 84.1% (106/126) of haloperidol-treated patients completed the PO period. IM olanzapine and IM haloperidol effectively reduced agitation over 24 hours (mean [SD] PANSS-EC change, -7.1 [4.8] vs -6.7 [4.3], respectively). Reductions in agitation were sustained throughout the PO period with both study drugs (mean [SD] change from PO period baseline, -0.6 [4.8] vs -1.3 [4.4], respectively). During PO treatment, haloperidol-treated patients spontaneously reported significantly more acute dystonia than olanzapine-treated patients (4.3% [5/116] vs 0% [0/122], respectively; P = 0.026) and akathisia (5.2% [6/116] vs 0% [0/122], respectively; P = 0.013). Significantly more haloperidol-treated patients than olanzapine-treated patients met categorical criteria for treatment-emergent akathisia (18.5% [17/92] vs 6.5% [7/107], respectively; P = 0.015). Conclusions: In the acutely agitated patients with schizophrenia in this study, both IM olanzapine 10 mg and IM haloperidol 7.5 mg effectively reduced agitation over 24 hours. This alleviation of agitation was sustained following transition from IM therapy to 4 days of PO treatment (5-20 mg/d for both). During the 4 days of PO treatment, olanzapine-treated patients did not spontaneously report any incidences of acute dystonia, and olanzapine had a superior EPS safety profile to that of haloperidol. The combination of IM and PO olanzapine may help improve the treatment of acutely agitated patients with schizophrenia. Copyright (C) 2003 Excerpta Medica, Inc.

Safety of neuraminidase inhibitors for influenza

Neuraminidase inhibitors, oseltamivir and zanamivir, are used for the treatment of, and protection from, influenza. The safety of these compounds has been assessed in systematic reviews. However, the data presented are somewhat limited by the paucity of good quality adverse event data available. The majority of safety outcomes are based on evidence from just one or two randomised controlled trials. The results of the systematic reviews suggest that neuraminidase inhibitors have a reasonable side effect and adverse effect profile if they are to be used to treat or protect patients against a life-threatening disease. However, if these compounds are to be prescribed in situations in which avoidance of inconvenience or minor discomfort is hoped for, then the balance of harms to benefits will be more difficult to judge.

Live Attenuated Chimeric Yellow Fever Dengue Type 2 (Chimeri Vax -DEN2) Vaccine: Phase 1 clinical trial for safety and immunogenicity

A randomized double-blind Phase I Trial was conducted to evaluate safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity of a yellow fever (YF)-dengue 2 (DEN2) chimera (ChimeriVax™-DEN2) in comparison to that of YF vaccine (YF-VAX®). Forty-two healthy YF naïve adults randomly received a single dose of either ChimeriVax™-DEN2 (high dose, 5 log plaque forming units [PFU] or low dose, 3 log PFU) or YF-VAXâ by the subcutaneous route (SC). To determine the effect of YF pre-immunity on the ChimeriVaxTM-DEN2 vaccine, 14 subjects previously vaccinated against YF received a high dose of ChimeriVax™-DEN2 as an open-label vaccine. Most adverse events were similar to YF-VAX® and of mild to moderate intensity, with no serious side-effects. One hundred percent and 92.3% of YF naïve subjects inoculated with 5.0 and 3.0 log10 PFU of ChimeriVaxTM-DEN2, respectively, seroconverted to wt DEN2 (strain 16681); 92% of subjects inoculated with YF-VAX® seroconverted to YF 17D virus but none of YF naïve subjects inoculated with ChimeriVax-DEN2 seroconverted to YF 17D virus. Low seroconversion rates to heterologous DEN serotypes 1, 3, and 4 were observed in YF naïve subjects inoculated with either ChimeriVax™-DEN2 or YF-VAX®. In contrast, 100% of YF immune subjects inoculated with ChimeriVax™-DEN2 seroconverted to all 4 DEN serotypes. Surprisingly, levels of neutralizing antibodies to DEN 1, 2, and 3 viruses in YF immune subjects persisted after 1 year. These data demonstrated that 1) the safety and immunogenicity profile of the ChimeriVax™-DEN2 vaccine is consistent with that of YF-VAX®, and 2) pre-immunity to YF virus does not interfere with ChimeriVaxTM-DEN2 immunization, but induces a long lasting and cross neutralizing antibody response to all 4 DEN serotypes. The latter observation can have practical implications toward development of a dengue vaccine.

Effect of dapagliflozin in patients with type 2 diabetes who have inadequate glycaemic control with metformin:a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

Correction of hyperglycaemia and prevention of glucotoxicity are important objectives in the management of type 2 diabetes. Dapagliflozin, a selective sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor, reduces renal glucose reabsorption in an insulin-independent manner. We assessed the efficacy and safety of dapagliflozin in patients who have inadequate glycaemic control with metformin.

A double-blind randomized study comparing the effects of continuing or not continuing rosiglitazone + metformin therapy when starting insulin therapy in people with type 2 diabetes

Aims: To compare the efficacy and safety of either continuing or discontinuing rosiglitazone + metformin fixed-dose combination when starting insulin therapy in people with Type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on oral therapy. Methods: In this 24-week double-blind study, 324 individuals with Type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on maximum dose rosiglitazone + metformin therapy were randomly assigned to twice-daily premix insulin therapy (target pre-breakfast and pre-evening meal glucose ≤ 6.5 mmol/l) in addition to either rosiglitazone + metformin (8/2000 mg) or placebo. Results: Insulin dose at week 24 was significantly lower with rosiglitazone + metformin (33.5 ± 1.5 U/day, mean ± se) compared with placebo [59.0 ± 3.0 U/day; model-adjusted difference -26.6 (95% CI -37.7, -15,5) U/day, P < 0.001]. Despite this, there was greater improvement in glycaemic control [HbA 1c rosiglitazone + metformin vs. placebo 6.8 ± 0.1 vs. 7.5 ± 0.1%; difference -0.7 (-0.8, -0.5)%, P < 0.001] and more individuals achieved glycaemic targets (HbA1c < 7.0% 70 vs. 34%, P < 0.001). The proportion of individuals reporting at least one hypoglycaemic event during the last 12 weeks of treatment was similar in the two groups (rosiglitazone + metformin vs. placebo 25 vs. 27%). People receiving rosiglitazone + metformin in addition to insulin reported greater treatment satisfaction than those receiving insulin alone. Both treatment regimens were well tolerated but more participants had oedema [12 (7%) vs. 4 (3%)] and there was more weight gain [3.7 vs. 2.6 kg; difference 1.1 (0.2, 2.1) kg, P = 0.02] with rosiglitazone + metformin. Conclusions: Addition of insulin to rosiglitazone + metformin enabled more people to reach glycaemic targets with less insulin, and was generally well tolerated. © 2007 The Authors.

The efficacy and safety of imeglimin as add-on therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with sitagliptin monotherapy

OBJECTIVE: This 12-week study assessed the efficacy and tolerability of imeglimin as add-on therapy to the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor sitagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with sitagliptin monotherapy. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study, imeglimin (1,500 mg b.i.d.) or placebo was added to sitagliptin (100 mg q.d.) over 12weeks in 170 patientswith type 2 diabetes (mean age 56.8 years; BMI 32.2 kg/m2) that was inadequately controlled with sitagliptin alone (A1C ≥7.5%) during a 12-week run-in period. The primary ef ficacy end point was the change in A1C from baseline versus placebo; secondary end points included corresponding changes in fasting plasma glucose (FPG) levels, strati fication by baseline A1C, and percentage of A1C responders. RESULTS: Imeglimin reduced A1C levels (least-squares mean difference) from baseline (8.5%) by 0.60% compared with an increase of 0.12% with placebo (between-group difference 0.72%, P < 0.001). The corresponding changes in FPG were -0.93 mmol/L with imeglimin vs. -0.11 mmol/L with placebo (P = 0.014). With imeglimin, the A1C level decreased by ≥0.5% in 54.3% of subjects vs. 21.6% with placebo (P < 0.001), and 19.8%of subjects receiving imeglimin achieved a decrease in A1C level of ≤7% compared with subjects receiving placebo (1.1%) (P = 0.004). Imeglimin was generally well tolerated, with a safety pro file comparable to placebo and no related treatment-emergent adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Imeglimin demonstrated incremental efficacy benefits as add-on therapy to sitagliptin, with comparable tolerability to placebo, highlighting the potential for imeglimin to complement other oral antihyperglycemic therapies. © 2014 by the American Diabetes Association.

Efficacy and safety of lumacaftor/ivacaftor combination therapy in patients with cystic fibrosis homozygous for Phe508del CFTR by pulmonary function subgroup

Background Lumacaftor/ivacaftor combination therapy demonstrated clinical benefits inpatients with cystic fibrosis homozygous for the Phe508del CFTR mutation.Pretreatment lung function is a confounding factor that potentially impacts the efficacyand safety of lumacaftor/ivacaftor therapy. Methods Two multinational, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallelgroupPhase 3 studies randomised patients to receive placebo or lumacaftor (600 mgonce daily [qd] or 400 mg every 12 hours [q12h]) in combination with ivacaftor (250 mgq12h) for 24 weeks. Prespecified analyses of pooled efficacy and safety data by lungfunction, as measured by percent predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second(ppFEV1), were performed for patients with baseline ppFEV1 <40 (n=81) and ≥40(n=1016) and screening ppFEV1 <70 (n=730) and ≥70 (n=342). These studies wereregistered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01807923 and NCT01807949). Findings The studies were conducted from April 2013 through April 2014.Improvements in the primary endpoint, absolute change from baseline at week 24 inppFEV1, were observed with both lumacaftor/ivacaftor doses in the subgroup withbaseline ppFEV1 <40 (least-squares mean difference versus placebo was 3∙7 and 3.3percentage points for lumacaftor 600 mg qd/ivacaftor 250 mg q12h and lumacaftor 400mg q12h/ivacaftor 250 mg q12h, respectively [p<0∙05] and in the subgroup with baselineppFEV1 ≥40 (3∙3 and 2∙8 percentage points, respectively [p<0∙001]). Similar absoluteimprovements versus placebo in ppFEV1 were observed in subgroups with screening 4ppFEV1 <70 (3∙3 and 3∙3 percentage points for lumacaftor 600 mg qd/ivacaftor 250 mgq12h and lumacaftor 400 mg q12h/ivacaftor 250 mg q12h, respectively [p<0∙001]) and≥70 (3∙3 and 1∙9 percentage points, respectively [p=0.002] and [p=0∙079]). Increases inBMI and reduction in number of pulmonary exacerbation events were observed in bothLUM/IVA dose groups vs placebo across all lung function subgroups. Treatment wasgenerally well tolerated, although the incidence of some respiratory adverse events washigher with active treatment than with placebo. Interpretation Lumacaftor/ivacaftor combination therapy benefits patients homozygousfor Phe508del CFTR who have varying degrees of lung function impairment. Funding Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated.

Safety and Efficacy of Oral Fexofenadine in Children with Seasonal Allergic Rhinitis - a Pooled Analysis of Three Studies

Allergic rhinitis is one of the most common clinical conditions in children; however, data regarding the safety of antihistamines in children with seasonal allergic rhinitis are limiting. To evaluate the safety and efficacy of fexofenadine in children with seasonal allergic rhinitis, data were pooled from three, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, 2-week trials in children (6-11 year) with seasonal allergic rhinitis. All studies assessed fexofenadine HCl 30 mg b.i.d.; two studies included fexofenadine HCl at 15 and 60 mg b.i.d. Patients (and investigators) reported any adverse events during the trial. Physical examinations, including measurements of vital signs and laboratory tests, were performed. Efficacy assessments (total symptom score and individual symptom scores) were evaluated. Exposure to fexofenadine HCl 30 mg b.i.d. and to any fexofenadine dose exceeded 10,000 and 17,000 patient days, respectively. Incidences of adverse events, and discontinuations because of adverse events, were low and similar across treatment groups. In the placebo group, 24.4% of subjects reported adverse events compared with 24.1% for fexofenadine HCl 30 mg b.i.d., and 28.4% for all fexofenadine-treated groups. The most common adverse event overall was headache (4.3% placebo; 5.8% fexofenadine HCl 30 mg b.i.d.; and 7.2% any fexofenadine doses). Treatment-related adverse events were similar across treatment groups with no sedative effects. Fexofenadine HCl 30 mg b.i.d. was significantly superior to placebo in reducing the total symptom score and all individual seasonal allergic rhinitis symptoms, including nasal congestion (p < 0.05). Fexofenadine, at doses of up to 60 mg b.i.d., is safe and non-sedating, and fexofenadine HCl 30 mg b.i.d. effectively reduces all seasonal allergic rhinitis symptoms in children aged 6-11 years.

Efficacy and Safety of Orally Administered Intravenous Midazolam Versus a Commercially Prepared Syrup

Background: Among different categories of sedative agents, benzodiazepines have been prescribed for more than three decades to patients of all ages. The effective and predictable sedative and amnestic effects of benzodiazepines support their use in pediatric patients. Midazolam is one of the most extensively used benzodiazepines in this age group. Oral form of drug is the best accepted route of administration in children. Objectives: The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of a commercially midazolam syrup versus orally administered IV midazolam in uncooperative dental patients. Second objective was to determine whether differences concerning sedation success can be explained by child‘s behavioral problems and dental fear. Patients and Methods: Eighty eight uncooperative dental patients (Frankl Scales 1,2) aged 3 to 6 years, and ASA I participated in this double blind, parallel randomized, controlled clinical trial. Midazolam was administered in a dose of 0.5 mg/kg for children under the age 5 and 0.2 mg/kg in patients over 5 years of age. Physiologic parameters including heart rate, respiratory rate, oxygen saturation and blood pressure were recorded. Behavior assessment was conducted throughout the course of treatment using Houpt Sedation Rating Scale and at critical moments of treatment (injection and cavity preparation) by North Carolina Scale. Dental fear and behavioral problems were evaluated using Child Fear Schedule Survey-Dental Subscale (CFSS-DS), and Strength and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ). Independent t-test, Chi-Square, and Pearson correlation were used for statistical analysis. Results: Acceptable overall sedation ratings were observed in 90% and 86% of syrup and IV/Oral group respectively; Chi-Square P = 0.5. Other domains of Houpt Scale including: sleep, crying and movement were also not significantly different between groups. Physiological parameters remained in normal limits during study without significant difference between groups. Conclusions: “Orally administered IV midazolam” preparation can be used as an alternative for commercially midazolam syrup.