Efficacy and Safety of Terbinafine 500 mg Once Daily in Patients with Dermatophytosis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Babu PR
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5527721 | biostudies-other | 2017 Jul-Aug
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other
Similar Datasets
Project description:We summarize efficacy and safety findings from 4 double-blind, placebo-controlled, 12-week studies and 1 open-label, uncontrolled, 34-week maintenance-of-effect (MOE) study that examine duloxetine 40 and 60 mg once daily (QD) in patients with diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP). In all placebo-controlled studies, duloxetine showed significantly (P ? .01) greater reduction in pain severity (weekly mean of 24-hour average pain severity ratings, primary outcome measure) compared with placebo. In all placebo-controlled studies, duloxetine showed significantly (P ? .05) greater improvement on brief pain inventory-Interference ratings. Patient global impression of improvement ratings were superior to placebo (P ? .01) for duloxetine patients in all placebo-controlled studies. Response rates (based on 30% pain reduction) ranged from 57% to 68% for duloxetine and from 35% to 47% for placebo and were statistically significantly different (P ? .01) between treatment groups in 3 out of 4 studies. The open-label study showed maintenance of analgesic effect of duloxetine in DPNP. In the duloxetine groups, 4.3% to 14.9% of patients discontinued because of adverse events (placebo groups: 2.6% to 7.4%). Most commonly reported treatment-emergent adverse events were nausea, somnolence, and headache. Duloxetine 40 and 60 mg QD was efficacious and well tolerated in the management of DPNP.
| S-EPMC3437646 | biostudies-other
Project description:ObjectiveMajor depressive disorder (MDD) is a significant public health concern and challenges health care providers to intervene with appropriate treatment. This article provides an overview of efficacy and safety information for duloxetine 60 mg/day in the treatment of MDD, including its effect on painful physical symptoms (PPS).DesignA literature search was conducted for articles and pooled analyses reporting information regarding the use of duloxetine 60 mg/day in placebo-controlled trials.SettingPlacebo-controlled, active-comparator, short- and long-term studies were reviewed.ParticipantsAdult (≥18 years) patients with MDD.MeasurementsEffect sizes for continuous outcome (change from baseline to endpoint) and categorical outcome (response and remission rates) were calculated using the primary measures of 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAMD-17) or Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score. The Brief Pain Inventory and Visual Analogue Scales were used to assess improvements in PPS. Glass estimation method was used to calculate effect sizes, and numbers needed to treat (NNT) were calculated based on HAMD-17 and MADRS total scores for remission and response rates. Safety data were examined via the incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events and by mean changes in vital-sign measures.ResultsTreatment with duloxetine was associated with small-to-moderate effect sizes in the range of 0.12 to 0.72 for response rate and 0.07 to 0.65 for remission rate. NNTs were in the range of 3 to 16 for response and 3 to 29 for remission. Statistically significant improvements (p≤0.05) were observed in duloxetine-treated patients compared to placebo-treated patients in PPS and quality of life. The safety profile of the 60-mg dose was consistent with duloxetine labeling, with the most commonly observed significant adverse events being nausea, dry mouth, diarrhea, dizziness, constipation, fatigue, and decreased appetite.ConclusionThese results reinforce the efficacy and tolerability of duloxetine 60 mg/day as an effective short- and long-term treatment for adults with MDD. The evidence of the independent analgesic effect of duloxetine 60 mg/day supports its use as a treatment for patients with PPS associated with depression. This review is limited by the fact that it included randomized clinical trials with different study designs. Furthermore, data from randomized controlled trials may not generalize well to real clinical practice.
| S-EPMC3884746 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The present multicentre, prospective, open-label, single treatment arm study (Val-Perfect) examined the efficacy and tolerability of once-daily valsartan monotherapy (80 mg for two weeks, followed by 160 mg for eight weeks) in 195 Chinese patients with mild to moderate hypertension, using office, home, and ambulatory blood pressure (BP) monitoring. Significant mean reductions (P<0.0001) were observed in office BP from baseline to week 10, with mean sitting systolic BP (MSSBP) and mean sitting diastolic BP (MSDBP) values of 15.6±12.3 and 11.1±8.6 mmHg, respectively. The office BP control rate at week 10 was 56.9% (target MSSBP/MSDBP <130/80 mmHg for patients with type 2 diabetes or chronic kidney disease, <140/90 mmHg for others). Valsartan treatment significantly reduced mean 24-h SBP/DBP (-6.1/-4.4 mmHg; both P<0.0001) and mean home-monitored SBP/DBP (-13.3/-9.1 mmHg; both P<0.0001) at week 10. The incidence of adverse events (AEs) leading to discontinuation (1.5%) or drug-related AEs (3.1%) was low, with no instances of mortality or drug-related serious AEs. These results indicate that 160 mg valsartan is safe and effective at lowering BP in Chinese patients with mild to moderate hypertension. The significant reductions in office-based and out-of-office BP measures support the clinical relevance of moderate-dose valsartan monotherapy for effective 24-h BP control.
| S-EPMC5403463 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceMetabolic surgery leads to weight loss and improved health, but these outcomes are highly variable. Poor weight loss is associated with lower circulating levels of glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1).ObjectiveTo assess the efficacy and safety of the GLP-1 receptor agonist, liraglutide, 3.0 mg, on percentage body weight reduction in patients with poor weight loss and suboptimal GLP-1 response after metabolic surgery.Design, setting, and participantsThe Evaluation of Liraglutide 3.0 mg in Patients With Poor Weight Loss and a Suboptimal Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Response (BARI-OPTIMISE) randomized placebo-controlled trial recruited adult patients at least 1 year after metabolic surgery who had experienced 20% or less body weight loss from the day of surgery and a suboptimal nutrient-stimulated GLP-1 response from 2 hospitals in London, United Kingdom, between October 2018 and November 2019. Key exclusion criteria were type 1 diabetes; severe concomitant psychiatric, gastrointestinal, cardiac, kidney or metabolic disease; and use of insulin, GLP-1 receptor analogues, and medication that can affect weight. The study period was 24 weeks followed by a 4-week follow-up period. Last participant follow-up was completed in June 2020. All participants and clinical study personnel were blinded to treatment allocation. Of 154 assessed for eligibility, 70 met trial criteria and were included in the study, and 57 completed follow-up.InterventionsLiraglutide, 3.0 mg, once daily or placebo as an adjunct to lifestyle intervention with a 500-kcal daily energy deficit for 24 weeks, on a 1:1 allocation by computer-generated randomization sequence, stratified by surgery type (Roux-en-Y gastric bypass [RYGB] or sleeve gastrectomy [SG]) and type 2 diabetes status.Main outcome and measuresThe primary outcome was change in percentage body weight from baseline to the end of the 24-week study period based on an intention-to-treat analysis. Participant safety was assessed through monitoring of biochemical parameters, including kidney and liver function, physical examination, and assessment for adverse events.ResultsA total of 70 participants (mean [SD] age, 47.6 [10.7] years; 52 [74%] female) with a poor weight loss response following RYGB or SG were randomized to receive 3.0-mg liraglutide (n = 35) or placebo (n = 35). All participants received at least 1 dose of the trial drug. Eight participants discontinued treatment (4 per group), and 2 in the 3.0-mg liraglutide group and 1 in the placebo group were lost to follow-up. Due to COVID-19 restrictions, 3 participants in the 3.0-mg liraglutide group and 7 in the placebo group were unable to attend their final in-person assessment. Estimated change in mean (SD) percentage body weight from baseline to week 24 was -8.82 (4.94) with liraglutide, 3.0 mg (n = 31), vs -0.54 (3.32) with placebo (n = 26). The mean difference in percentage body weight change for liraglutide, 3.0 mg, vs placebo was -8.03 (95% CI, -10.39 to -5.66; P < .001). Adverse events, predominantly gastrointestinal, were more frequent with liraglutide, 3.0 mg (28 events [80%]), than placebo (20 events [57%]). There were no serious adverse events and no treatment-related deaths.Conclusion and relevanceThese findings support the use of adjuvant liraglutide, 3.0 mg, for weight management in patients with poor weight loss and suboptimal GLP-1 response after metabolic surgery.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03341429.
| S-EPMC10372755 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionOral minoxidil is an antihypertensive vasodilator known to stimulate hair growth. The use of low-dose oral minoxidil for the treatment of male androgenetic alopecia (AGA) is receiving increasing attention. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of oral minoxidil for the treatment of male AGA.MethodsThis was an open-label, prospective, single-arm study. Thirty men aged 24-59 years with AGA types III vertex to V were treated with oral minoxidil 5 mg once daily for 24 weeks. Efficacy was evaluated by hair counts, hair diameter measurements, photographic assessment, and self-administered questionnaire. The safety of the treatment was closely monitored by means of physical examinations and laboratory investigations.ResultsThere was a significant increase in total hair counts from baseline at weeks 12 (mean change + 26, range 182.5-208.5 hairs/cm2) and 24 (mean change + 35.1, range 182.5-217.6 hairs/cm2) (both p = 0.007). Photographic assessment of the vertex area by an expert panel revealed 100% improvement (score > + 1), with 43% of patients showing excellent improvement (score + 3, 71-100% increase). The frontal area also showed a significant response but less than that of the vertex area. Common side effects were hypertrichosis (93% of patients) and pedal edema (10%). No serious cardiovascular adverse events and abnormal laboratory findings were observed.ConclusionOral minoxidil 5 mg once daily effectively increased hair growth in our male patients with AGA and had a good safety profile in healthy subjects. However, oral minoxidil should be used carefully with men who have severe hypertension and increased risk for cardiovascular events.
| S-EPMC7649170 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe efficacy, safety and tolerability of lumiracoxib, a novel selective cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitor, has been demonstrated in previous studies of patients with osteoarthritis (OA). As it is important to establish the long-term safety and efficacy of treatments for a chronic disease such as OA, the present study compared the effects of lumiracoxib at doses of 100 mg once daily (o.d.) and 100 mg twice daily (b.i.d.) with those of celecoxib 200 mg o.d. on retention on treatment over 1 year.MethodsIn this 52-week, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, parallel-group study, male and female patients (aged at least 40 years) with symptomatic primary OA of the hip, knee, hand or spine were randomised (1:2:1) to lumiracoxib 100 mg o.d. (n = 755), lumiracoxib 100 mg b.i.d. (n = 1,519) or celecoxib 200 mg o.d. (n = 758). The primary objective of the study was to demonstrate non-inferiority of lumiracoxib at either dose compared with celecoxib 200 mg o.d. with respect to the 1-year retention on treatment rate. Secondary outcome variables included OA pain in the target joint, patient's and physician's global assessments of disease activity, Short Arthritis assessment Scale (SAS) total score, rescue medication use, and safety and tolerability.ResultsRetention rates at 1 year were similar for the lumiracoxib 100 mg o.d., lumiracoxib 100 mg b.i.d. and celecoxib 200 mg o.d. groups (46.9% vs 47.5% vs 45.3%, respectively). It was demonstrated that retention on treatment with lumiracoxib at either dose was non-inferior to celecoxib 200 mg o.d. Similarly, Kaplan-Meier curves for the probability of premature discontinuation from the study for any reason were similar across the treatment groups. All three treatments generally yielded comparable results for the secondary efficacy variables and all treatments were well tolerated.ConclusionLong-term treatment with lumiracoxib 100 mg o.d., the recommended dose for OA, was as effective and well tolerated as celecoxib 200 mg o.d. in patients with OA.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov NCT00145301.
| S-EPMC2322990 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe long-term efficacy and safety of aclidinium bromide, a novel, long-acting muscarinic antagonist, were investigated in patients with moderate to severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).MethodsIn two double-blind, 52-week studies, ACCLAIM/COPD I (n=843) and II (n=804), patients were randomised to inhaled aclidinium 200 μg or placebo once-daily. Patients were required to have a post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1)/forced vital capacity ratio of ≤70% and FEV1<80% of the predicted value. The primary endpoint was trough FEV1 at 12 and 28 weeks. Secondary endpoints were health status measured by St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) and time to first moderate or severe COPD exacerbation.ResultsAt 12 and 28 weeks, aclidinium improved trough FEV1 versus placebo in ACCLAIM/COPD I (by 61 and 67 mL; both p<0.001) and ACCLAIM/COPD II (by 63 and 59 mL; both p<0.001). More patients had a SGRQ improvement≥4 units at 52 weeks with aclidinium versus placebo in ACCLAIM/COPD I (48.1% versus 39.5%; p=0.025) and ACCLAIM/COPD II (39.0% versus 32.8%; p=0.074). The time to first exacerbation was significantly delayed by aclidinium in ACCLAIM/COPD II (hazard ratio [HR] 0.7; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.55 to 0.92; p=0.01), but not ACCLAIM/COPD I (HR 1.0; 95% CI 0.72 to 1.33; p=0.9). Adverse events were minor in both studies.ConclusionAclidinium is effective and well tolerated in patients with moderate to severe COPD.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00363896 (ACCLAIM/COPD I) and NCT00358436 (ACCLAIM/COPD II).
| S-EPMC3098801 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundOnce-daily tacrolimus reduces non-compliance relative to twice-daily tacrolimus. However, little is known about the safety and efficacy of conversion from twice-daily tacrolimus to generic once-daily tacrolimus in liver transplantation (LT). Herein, we investigated the efficacy and safety of a switch from twice-daily tacrolimus to generic once-daily tacrolimus in patients with stable liver graft function.MethodsThis prospective, multicenter, open-label, single-arm study was conducted in 17 medical centers for 1 year from July 2019 to July 2020 (NCT04069065). Primary endpoint was the incidence of biopsy-proven acute rejection (BPAR) for 24 weeks after conversion. Secondary endpoints were graft failure, patient death, and adverse events (AEs).ResultsOf 151 screened LT patients, 144 patients were enrolled. BPAR, graft failure, and patient death did not occur in this patient population. There were no statistical differences in blood tests, liver function tests, or biochemical tests between visits in any of the patients. Median tacrolimus trough level decreased abruptly from 4.7 ng/mL to 3.2 ng/mL after generic once-daily tacrolimus conversion, but median tacrolimus dose increased due to low tacrolimus trough level. Ninety-two adverse events occurred in 54 patients. Liver enzyme levels increased in seven patients (4.9%) after the switch to generic once-daily tacrolimus, but the liver function tests of these patients normalized thereafter. There were three cases of severe AEs not related to investigational drug.ConclusionsPresent study suggests that conversion from twice-daily tacrolimus to generic once-daily tacrolimus is effective and safe in stable LT patients.
| S-EPMC9235448 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundNVA237 is a once-daily dry-powder formulation of the long-acting muscarinic antagonist glycopyrronium bromide in development for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The glycopyrronium bromide in COPD airways clinical study 1 (GLOW1) evaluated the efficacy, safety and tolerability of NVA237 in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD.MethodsPatients with COPD with a smoking history of ≥ 10 pack-years, post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) < 80% and ≥ 30% predicted normal and FEV1/forced vital capacity < 0.70 were enrolled. Patients were randomized to double-blind treatment with NVA237 50 μg once daily or placebo for 26 weeks with inhaled/intranasal corticosteroids or H1 antagonists permitted in patients stabilized on them prior to study entry. The primary outcome measure was trough FEV1 at Week 12.ResultsA total of 822 patients were randomized to NVA237 (n = 552) or placebo (n = 270). Least squares mean (± standard error) trough FEV1 at Week 12 was significantly higher in patients receiving NVA237 (1.408 ± 0.0105 L), versus placebo (1.301 ± 0.0137 L; treatment difference 108 ± 14.8 mL, p < 0.001). Significant improvements in trough FEV1 were apparent at the end of Day 1 and sustained through Week 26. FEV1 was significantly improved in the NVA237 group versus placebo throughout the 24-hour periods on Day 1 and at Weeks 12 and 26, and at all other visits and timepoints. Transition dyspnoea index focal scores and St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire scores were significantly improved with NVA237 versus placebo at Week 26, with treatment differences of 1.04 (p < 0.001) and -2.81 (p = 0.004), respectively. NVA237 significantly reduced the risk of first moderate/severe COPD exacerbation by 31% (p = 0.023) and use of rescue medication by 0.46 puffs per day (p = 0.005), versus placebo. NVA237 was well tolerated and had an acceptable safety profile, with a low frequency of cardiac and typical antimuscarinic adverse effects.ConclusionsOnce-daily NVA237 was safe and well tolerated and provided rapid, sustained improvements in lung function, improvements in dyspnoea, and health-related quality of life, and reduced the risk of exacerbations and the use of rescue medication.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01005901.
| S-EPMC3266210 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Aims/introductionThe present trial compared the efficacy and safety of once-daily liraglutide 1.8 mg with liraglutide 0.9 mg in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes to assess the incremental effects of liraglutide 1.8 mg in those who exhibited an inadequate response to 0.9 mg.Materials and methodsThis 26-week randomized trial (NCT02505334) enrolled Japanese adults with type 2 diabetes across 47 sites in Japan. Participants with glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c ) 7.5-10.0% were included and those on insulin treatment were excluded. Participants discontinued pre-trial oral antidiabetic drug and initiated liraglutide 0.9 mg for a 12-week run-in period, after which those with HbA1c ≥7.0% (466) were randomized (1:1) to two treatment arms: continuing liraglutide 0.9 mg or dose escalation to 1.8 mg. The change from baseline in HbA1c (primary endpoint) and treatment-emergent adverse events (secondary endpoint) were measured at the end of 26 weeks.ResultsAfter 26 weeks of treatment, liraglutide 1.8 mg was more effective compared with 0.9 mg in lowering HbA1c levels, with an estimated treatment difference of -0.40% (95% confidence interval [CI] -0.55, -0.24; P < 0.0001). Liraglutide 1.8 mg was associated with significantly greater odds of participants reaching HbA1c <7.0% (estimated odds ratio [EOR] 3.87; 95% CI 2.12, 7.08; P < 0.0001) and ≤6.5% (EOR 3.78; 95% CI 1.36, 10.54; P = 0.0109) compared with 0.9 mg. Both doses were well tolerated.ConclusionsLiraglutide 1.8 mg had better efficacy in improving HbA1c levels after 26 weeks treatment vs 0.9 mg in Japanese patients, with both doses well tolerated.
| S-EPMC9340870 | biostudies-literature