An open-label, comparative study of the efficacy and safety of once-daily dose of enoxaparin versus unfractionated heparin in the treatment of proximal lower limb deep-vein thrombosis

Background: Treatment of deep-vein thrombosis (DVT) with a once-daily regimen of enoxaparin, rather than a continuous infusion of unfractionated heparin (UFH) is more convenient and allows for home care in some patients. This study was designed to compare the efficacy and safety of these two regimens for the treatment of patients with proximal lower limb DVT. Methods: 201 patients with proximal lower limb DVT from 13 centers in Brazil were randomized in an open manner to receive either enoxaparin [1.5 mg/kg subcutaneous (s.c.) OD] or intravenous (i.v.) UFH (adjusted to aPTT 1.5-2.5 times control) for 5-10 days. All patients also received warfarin (INR 2-3) for at least 3 months. The primary efficacy endpoint Was recurrent DVT (confirmed by venography or ultrasonography), and safety endpoints included bleeding and serious adverse events. The rate of pulmonary embolism (PE) was also collected. Hospitalization was at the physician's discretion. Results: Baseline patient characteristics were comparable between groups. The duration of hospital stay was significantly shorter with enoxaparin than with UFH (3 versus 7 days). In addition, 36% of patients receiving enoxaparin did not need to be hospitalized, whereas all of the patients receiving UFH were! hospitalized. The treatment duration was slightly longer with enoxaparin (8 versus 7 days). There was a nonsignificant trend toward a reduction in the rate of recurrent DVT with enoxaparin versus UFH, and similar safety. Conclusions: A once-daily regimen of enoxaparin 1.5 mg/kg subcutaneous is at least as effective and safe as conventional treatment with a continuous intravenous infusion of UFH. However, the once daily enoxaparin regimen is easier to administer (subcutaneous versus intravenous), does not require aPTT monitoring, and leads to both a reduced number of hospital admissions and an average 4-day-shorter hospital stay. (C) 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Reformas económicas en América Latina: una síntesis de la experiencia en once países

Incluye Bibliografía

Importaciones de bienes de capital en once países de América Latina, 1973-1978: elaboración estadística

Incluye Bibliografía

A randomized comparison of the safety and efficacy of once-daily gentamicin or thrice-daily gentamicin in combination with ticarcillin-clavulanate

PURPOSE: The primary purpose of the clinical trial was to assess the safety and efficacy of once-a-day compared with three-times-a-day gentamicin in patients with serious infections who had protocol-determined peak serum aminoglycoside concentrations. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 249 hospitalized patients with suspected or proven serious infections were randomized in a 2:2:1 ratio to gentamicin given three times a day with ticarcillin-clavulanate (TC), gentamicin once a day with TC, or ticarcillin-clavulanate (TC) alone. The gentamicin once-a-day dosage for patients with estimated creatinine clearance values of > or =80 mL/min was 5.1 mg/kg. With lower creatinine clearance estimates, the mg/kg dosage of gentamicin was decreased, and the dosage intervals (once daily or three times a day) were maintained. Evaluability required documentation of achievement of protocol-defined peak serum gentamicin levels. RESULTS: Of the total 175 evaluable patients, there were no significant differences found between treatment regimens with respect to clinical or microbiologic efficacy. Bedside audiometry proved impractical due to the frequency of altered mental state in ill patients. Based on the traditional increase in serum creatinine values from baseline values, no differences in renal toxicity between the treatment groups was identified. When changes in renal function were reanalyzed based on maintaining, as opposed to worsening, of renal function, preservation of renal function was better in the gentamicin once-a-day patients as opposed to the gentamicin three-times-a-day patients, P <0.01. CONCLUSIONS: Gentamicin once a day plus TC, gentamicin three times a day plus TC, and TC alone had similar effects in seriously ill hospitalized patients. The incidence of nephrotoxicity was similar in the three treatment groups. Using a nonvalidated post-hoc analysis, renal function was better preserved in gentamicin once-a-day + TC and TC-only patients as opposed to gentamicin three-times-a-day + TC.

Effect of once-yearly zoledronic acid 5 mg on fracture risk and change in femoral neck bone mineral density

Context: In the Health Outcomes and Reduced Incidence with Zoledronic Acid Once Yearly - Pivotal Fracture Trial (HORIZON-PFT), zoledronic acid (ZOL) 5 mg significantly reduced fracture risk. Objective: To identify factors associated with greater efficacy during ZOL 5 mg treatment. Design, Setting and Patients: Subgroup analysis (preplanned and post hoc) of a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 36-month trial in 7765 women with postmenopausal osteoporosis. Intervention: Single infusion of ZOL 5 mg or placebo at baseline, 12 and 24 months. Main Outcome Measures: Primary endpoints: new vertebral fracture and hip fracture. Secondary endpoints: non-vertebral fracture, change in femoral neck bone mineral density (BMD). Baseline risk factor subgroups: age, BMD T-score and vertebral fracture status, total hip BMD, race, weight, geographical region, smoking, height loss, history of falls, physical activity, prior bisphosphonates, creatinine clearance, body mass index (BMI), concomitant osteoporosis medications. Results: Greater ZOL induced effects on vertebral fracture risk with younger age (treatment-by-subgroup interaction P=0.05), normal creatinine clearance (P=0.04), and BMI >/=25 kg/m(2) (P=0.02). There were no significant treatment-factor interactions for hip or non-vertebral fracture or for change in BMD. Conclusions: ZOL appeared more effective in preventing vertebral fracture in younger women, overweight/obese women and women with normal renal function. ZOL had similar effects irrespective of fracture risk factors or femoral neck BMD.

Once daily dosing of netilmicin in neonatal and pediatric intensive care

OBJECTIVE: To examine a once daily dosing regimen of netilmicin in critically ill neonates and children. DESIGN AND SETTING: Open, prospective study on 81 antibiotic courses in 77 critically ill neonates and children, hospitalized in a multidisciplinary pediatric/neonatal intensive care unit. For combined empiric therapy (aminoglycoside and beta-lactam), netilmicin was given intravenously over 5 min once every 24 h. The dose ranged from 3.5-6 mg/kg, mainly depending upon gestational and postnatal age. Peak levels were determined by immunoassay 30 min after the second dose and trough levels 1 h before the third and fifth dose or after adaptation of dosing. RESULTS: All peak levels (n = 28) were clearly above 12 mumol/l (mean 22, range 13-41 mumol/l). Eighty-nine trough levels were within desired limits (< 4 mumol/l) and 11 (11%) above 4 mumol/l, mostly in conjunction with impaired renal function. CONCLUSIONS: Optimal peak and trough levels of netilmicin can be achieved by once daily dosing, adapted to gestational/postnatal age and renal function.

Liraglutide once a day versus exenatide twice a day for type 2 diabetes: a 26-week randomised, parallel-group, multinational, open-label trial (LEAD-6)

BACKGROUND: Unlike most antihyperglycaemic drugs, glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists have a glucose-dependent action and promote weight loss. We compared the efficacy and safety of liraglutide, a human GLP-1 analogue, with exenatide, an exendin-based GLP-1 receptor agonist. METHODS: Adults with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes on maximally tolerated doses of metformin, sulphonylurea, or both, were stratified by previous oral antidiabetic therapy and randomly assigned to receive additional liraglutide 1.8 mg once a day (n=233) or exenatide 10 microg twice a day (n=231) in a 26-week open-label, parallel-group, multinational (15 countries) study. The primary outcome was change in glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA(1c)). Efficacy analyses were by intention to treat. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00518882. FINDINGS: Mean baseline HbA(1c) for the study population was 8.2%. Liraglutide reduced mean HbA(1c) significantly more than did exenatide (-1.12% [SE 0.08] vs -0.79% [0.08]; estimated treatment difference -0.33; 95% CI -0.47 to -0.18; p<0.0001) and more patients achieved a HbA(1c) value of less than 7% (54%vs 43%, respectively; odds ratio 2.02; 95% CI 1.31 to 3.11; p=0.0015). Liraglutide reduced mean fasting plasma glucose more than did exenatide (-1.61 mmol/L [SE 0.20] vs -0.60 mmol/L [0.20]; estimated treatment difference -1.01 mmol/L; 95% CI -1.37 to -0.65; p<0.0001) but postprandial glucose control was less effective after breakfast and dinner. Both drugs promoted similar weight losses (liraglutide -3.24 kg vs exenatide -2.87 kg). Both drugs were well tolerated, but nausea was less persistent (estimated treatment rate ratio 0.448, p<0.0001) and minor hypoglycaemia less frequent with liraglutide than with exenatide (1.93 vs 2.60 events per patient per year; rate ratio 0.55; 95% CI 0.34 to 0.88; p=0.0131; 25.5%vs 33.6% had minor hypoglycaemia). Two patients taking both exenatide and a sulphonylurea had a major hypoglycaemic episode. INTERPRETATION: Liraglutide once a day provided significantly greater improvements in glycaemic control than did exenatide twice a day, and was generally better tolerated. The results suggest that liraglutide might be a treatment option for type 2 diabetes, especially when weight loss and risk of hypoglycaemia are major considerations.