Dataset Information

Comparison of efficacy and safety between two different irbesartan, generic vs branded, in the treatment of Korean patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension: an 8-week, multicenter, randomized, open-label, Phase IV clinical study.

ABSTRACT: Purpose:This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of generic and branded irbesartan for 8 weeks in patients with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension. Patients and methods:We screened 221 patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension. After exclusion per study criteria, 177 subjects were randomized to receive 150 mg generic irbesartan (n=91) or branded irbesartan (n=86) as the intention to treat set. The primary efficacy endpoint of this study was the change in mean sitting diastolic blood pressure (SiDBP) from baseline to 8 weeks between the generic and branded irbesartan groups. The secondary efficacy endpoints were the change in mean SiDBP at Week 4 from baseline and the change in mean sitting systolic blood pressure (SiSBP) at Weeks 4 and 8 from baseline in both groups. All safety issues were evaluated. Results:At Week 8, the generic and branded irbesartan groups showed significantly reduced SiDBP (-10.3±8.0, -10.7±7.7 mmHg, all P<0.0001) compared with baseline values, and the mean between-group difference in SiDBP change after 8 weeks of treatment was -0.4±1.2 mmHg, showing the non-inferiority of generic irbesartan vs branded irbesartan. Furthermore, secondary efficacy, which was the mean change of SiDBP from baseline at 4 weeks, was comparable between the two groups (-9.4±8.1 vs -9.9±7.4 mmHg, P=0.69). There were no between-group differences in mean changes of SiSBP after 4 or 8 weeks of treatment (P=0.78, P=0.97, respectively), or in the incidence of adverse effects (16.7 vs 24.4%, P=0.20). Conclusion:Generic irbesartan treatment in patients with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension has shown effective antihypertensive effects comparable with the branded irbesartan treatment, with similar incidence of adverse effects.

SUBMITTER: Han SH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6304086 | biostudies-other | 2018

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparison of efficacy and safety between two different irbesartan, generic vs branded, in the treatment of Korean patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension: an 8-week, multicenter, randomized, open-label, Phase IV clinical study.

Han Seung Hwan SH Oh Gyu Chul GC Kwon Hyuck Moon HM Park Chang Gyu CG Kim In Jai IJ Hwang Gyo-Seung GS Yoo Byung Su BS Park Seong Hoon SH Lee Kwang Je KJ Kim Hyo-Soo HS

Drug design, development and therapy 20181219

<h4>Purpose</h4>This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of generic and branded irbesartan for 8 weeks in patients with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension.<h4>Patients and methods</h4>We screened 221 patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension. After exclusion per study criteria, 177 subjects were randomized to receive 150 mg generic irbesartan (n=91) or branded irbesartan (n=86) as the intention to treat set. The primary efficacy endpoint of this study was the change in mean sit ...[more]

PMID: 30587918

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIt has been shown that administration of lacidipine markedly reduces systolic blood pressure in elderly patients with hypertension without increasing the incidence of cardiovascular events and total mortality. But in Korea, there were no available data about the effectiveness and safety of lacidipine.ObjectivesThe goal of our study was to compare the effect of lacidipine and amlodipine besylate on sitting systolic blood pressure (SBP) and edema regression time as primary parameters, and sitting diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and tolerability as a secondary parameter in patients with hypertension.MethodThis was a prospective, randomized, open-label, noninferiority study in which patients received 14 weeks of treatment with either lacidipine or amlodipine besylate. Patients aged 55 to 80 years having uncomplicated, mild-to-moderate essential hypertension (SBP 140 to <180 mm Hg or DBP ≥90 mm Hg) and receiving no antihypertensive medications during the 2 weeks before randomization were randomly assigned to receive lacidipine or amlodipine. The incidence of adverse events was also assessed.ResultsIn total, 315 patients (154 men, mean age 67.6 years) were included in the intent-to-treat analysis and randomly assigned to receive lacidipine (n = 162) or amlodipine besylate (n = 153); 286 patients were included in the per-protocol analysis (n = 150 for lacidipine, n = 136 for amlodipine) (12 in the lacidipine group and 17 in the amlodipine group were excluded from the per-protocol analysis due to consent withdrawal or protocol violation). There were no differences in demographic profiles between the 2 groups. Mean (SD) SBP changes at 14 weeks were -18.9 (12.7) mm Hg in the lacidipine group and -20.6 (12.4) mm Hg in the amlodipine group (P >0.05). Because the 1-sided 95% CI for the difference in mean SBP changes between groups (-4.18 to 0.72) was within the pre-specified lower limit (-5 mm Hg), lacidipine was considered noninferior to amlodipine. There were no differences in mean edema regression time and in mean DBP changes. These results were consistent in the isolated systolic hypertension subgroup analysis. The overall incidence of clinical adverse events was comparable between the 2 groups (ie, 7.4% in the lacidipine group and 11.1% in the amlodipine group [P >0.05]). The most common adverse events were headache and facial flushing (5 out of 162 patients [3.1%] in the lacidipine group and 11 out of 153 patients [7.2%] in the amlodipine group].ConclusionsFourteen weeks of lacidipine treatment significantly reduced blood pressure in older Korean patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension. The efficacy of lacidipine was not inferior to that of amlodipine besylate and tolerability was comparable between the 2 treatment groups. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00460915.

Project description:IntroductionAlthough dimethyl fumarate (DMF) has been approved since 2017 for treatment of moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis, limited data on its safety and efficacy are available in clinical practice. The objective was to assess the efficacy and safety of DMF in patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis through 52 weeks in conditions close to real clinical practice.MethodsDIMESKIN 1 was a 52-week, open-label, phase IV clinical trial conducted at 36 Spanish sites. Adults with diagnosis of moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis, treated with DMF as per its summary of product characteristics and with ≥ 1 post-baseline Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) value were included [intention-to-treat (ITT) population]. Efficacy analyses were performed for ITT population and are based on multiple imputation.ResultsOverall, 282 and 274 patients were included in the safety and ITT populations, respectively. At week 24, 46.0%/24.8%/10.9% of patients achieved PASI 75/90/100 response, respectively. At week 52, these percentages were 46.0%/21.9%/10.9%, respectively. Mean body surface area affected decreased from 17.4% to 6.9%/7.3% after 24/52 weeks (p < 0.001, both). A total of 42.9%/49.4% of patients had a Physician's Global Assessment 0-1 at week 24/52, respectively. Mean pruritus visual analogue scale (VAS) significantly decreased after 24 and 52 weeks (p < 0.001, both), with 56.5% and 67.6% of patients, respectively, rating a pruritus VAS < 3. At week 24/52, 61.3%/73.4% patients had a Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) ≤ 5 and 34.7%/32.1% had a DLQI 0-1. The most frequent adverse events were gastrointestinal disorders (mainly diarrhea/abdominal pain in 50.0%/35.1% of patients, respectively), flushing (28.0%), and lymphopenia (31.2%), mostly mild/moderate.ConclusionsDMF significantly improves main severity and extension indexes and rates, as well as patient-reported outcomes such as pruritus and quality of life in patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis after 24 weeks of treatment. These improvements are sustained through 52 weeks. The safety profile of DMF is similar to that previously described for fumarates.Eudract number2017-00136840.

Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the efficacy and safety of hydroxychloroquine plus standard of care compared with standard of care alone in adults with coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19).DesignMulticentre, open label, randomised controlled trial.Setting16 government designated covid-19 treatment centres in China, 11 to 29 February 2020.Participants150 patients admitted to hospital with laboratory confirmed covid-19 were included in the intention to treat analysis (75 patients assigned to hydroxychloroquine plus standard of care, 75 to standard of care alone).InterventionsHydroxychloroquine administrated at a loading dose of 1200 mg daily for three days followed by a maintenance dose of 800 mg daily (total treatment duration: two or three weeks for patients with mild to moderate or severe disease, respectively).Main outcome measureNegative conversion of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 by 28 days, analysed according to the intention to treat principle. Adverse events were analysed in the safety population in which hydroxychloroquine recipients were participants who received at least one dose of hydroxychloroquine and hydroxychloroquine non-recipients were those managed with standard of care alone.ResultsOf 150 patients, 148 had mild to moderate disease and two had severe disease. The mean duration from symptom onset to randomisation was 16.6 (SD 10.5; range 3-41) days. A total of 109 (73%) patients (56 standard of care; 53 standard of care plus hydroxychloroquine) had negative conversion well before 28 days, and the remaining 41 (27%) patients (19 standard of care; 22 standard of care plus hydroxychloroquine) were censored as they did not reach negative conversion of virus. The probability of negative conversion by 28 days in the standard of care plus hydroxychloroquine group was 85.4% (95% confidence interval 73.8% to 93.8%), similar to that in the standard of care group (81.3%, 71.2% to 89.6%). The difference between groups was 4.1% (95% confidence interval -10.3% to 18.5%). In the safety population, adverse events were recorded in 7/80 (9%) hydroxychloroquine non-recipients and in 21/70 (30%) hydroxychloroquine recipients. The most common adverse event in the hydroxychloroquine recipients was diarrhoea, reported in 7/70 (10%) patients. Two hydroxychloroquine recipients reported serious adverse events.ConclusionsAdministration of hydroxychloroquine did not result in a significantly higher probability of negative conversion than standard of care alone in patients admitted to hospital with mainly persistent mild to moderate covid-19. Adverse events were higher in hydroxychloroquine recipients than in non-recipients.Trial registrationChiCTR2000029868.

Project description:Indomethacin, a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID), has been presented as a broad-spectrum antiviral agent. This randomised clinical trial in a hospital setting evaluated the efficacy and safety of this drug in RT-PCR-positive coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. A total of 210 RT-PCR-positive COVID-19 patients who provided consent were allotted to the control or case arm, based on block randomisation. The control arm received standard of care comprising paracetamol, ivermectin, and other adjuvant therapies. The patients in the case arm received indomethacin instead of paracetamol, with other medications retained. The primary endpoint was the development of hypoxia/desaturation with SpO2 ≤ 93, while time to become afebrile and time for cough and myalgia resolution were the secondary endpoints. The results of 210 patients were available, with 103 and 107 patients in the indomethacin and paracetamol arms, respectively. We monitored patient profiles along with everyday clinical parameters. In addition, blood chemistry at the time of admission and discharge was assessed. As no one in either of the arms required high-flow oxygen, desaturation with a SpO2 level of 93 and below was the vital goal. In the indomethacin group, none of the 103 patients developed desaturation. On the other hand, 20 of the 107 patients in the paracetamol arm developed desaturation. Patients who received indomethacin also experienced more rapid symptomatic relief than those in the paracetamol arm, with most symptoms disappearing in half the time. In addition, 56 out of 107 in the paracetamol arm had fever on the seventh day, while no patient in the indomethacin group had fever. Neither arm reported any adverse event. The fourteenth-day follow-up revealed that the paracetamol arm patients had faced several discomforts; indomethacin arm patients mostly complained only of tiredness. Indomethacin is a safe and effective drug for treating patients with mild and moderate covid-19.

Dataset Information

Comparison of efficacy and safety between two different irbesartan, generic vs branded, in the treatment of Korean patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension: an 8-week, multicenter, randomized, open-label, Phase IV clinical study.

Publications

Comparison of efficacy and safety between two different irbesartan, generic vs branded, in the treatment of Korean patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension: an 8-week, multicenter, randomized, open-label, Phase IV clinical study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets