Search

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the 24-hour efficacy and tolerability of 2% dorzolamide/0.5% timolol fixed combination (DTFC) solution in open-angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Randomized, parallel, double-masked, multicenter study. Patients with insufficiently controlled intraocular pressure (IOP > or = 22 mmHg) were randomized to DTFC (N = 117) or timolol (N = 115). IOP was measured at baseline, 6 weeks, and 8 weeks, with measurements taken at 6 p.m., 8 p.m., 10 p.m., 2 a.m., 6 a.m., 8 a.m., 10 a.m., and 2 p.m. ClinicalTrials. gov identifier: NCT00108017 Main outcome measures: Statistically significant change in IOP from untreated baseline for DTFC at all hours at week 8. Secondary outcome measures included: IOP-lowering at week 6 at all individual time points, change from baseline to 8 weeks in mean daytime IOP (average of 8 a.m., 10 a.m., 2 p.m., 6 p.m., and 8 p.m. IOPs) and night-time IOP (10 p.m., 2 a.m., 6 a.m.), and comparison of DTFC with timolol after 8 weeks. RESULTS: Patients receiving DTFC had a statistically significant and clinically relevant reduction in IOP at week 8 compared with baseline at all eight time points (p < 0.001). Significant IOP reductions were also seen at all time points at week 6 (p < 0.001). DTFC significantly lowered mean daytime IOP and night-time IOP ( p < 0.001 for both). Timolol alone also significantly reduced IOP from baseline at 8 weeks for all diurnal time points, and mean daytime and night-time IOP ( p < 0.001 for all). Compared with timolol alone, there were significantly greater reductions with DTFC at 10 a. m. (p = 0.003) and 2 p. m. (p = 0.016), and for mean daytime IOP (p = 0.025) at 8 weeks. Significant between-treatment differences were not observed at other time points. Both treatments were well-tolerated, with no differences observed in the safety profiles between the treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: Both DTFC and timolol provided significant IOP reduction over the entire 24-hour measurement period. Although this study was not designed or powered to compare DTFC and timolol, DTFC exhibited greater IOP-lowering than timolol during the daytime, but not at night. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Objective: Disease history and clinical features can influence treatment response in patients with acute gout. The purpose of this pooled subgroup analysis was to assess the association of baseline disease and patient characteristics with response to treatment in acute gout using data from two identical studies.Methods: Patients > or = 18 years of age with onset of acute gout within 48 h associated with moderate, severe, or extreme pain involving less than four joints were eligible for inclusion in the primary studies, and were randomized to etoricoxib 120 mg once daily (N = 178) or indomethacin 50 mg three times daily (N = 161). The primary and secondary efficacy endpoints were analyzed using an analysis of covariance model to detect potential differential treatment responses across several subgroups: joint involvement (mono-articular vs. oligo-articular), baseline pain severity (moderate vs. severe), concomitant allopurinol and/or colchicine use (users vs. nonusers), age (< 45, 45-55, and > 55 years), gender, and race (white or other).Results: Overall, etoricoxib and indomethacin demonstrated comparable efficacy across all subgroups. Compared with patients with oligo-articular disease, those with mono-articular disease had significantly greater improvements in patient assessment of pain, patient global assessment of response to therapy (PGART), investigator global assessment of response to therapy (IGART), and study joint tenderness (p < 0.001 for all). Greater improvements were seen in patient assessment of pain (p < 0.001) and study joint tenderness (p < 0.05) for severe/extreme baseline pain compared with moderate baseline pain. Concomitant use of colchicine and/or allopurinol was associated with significantly worse IGART (p < 0.05).Conclusions: This pooled subgroup analysis demonstrated significantly greater response of acute gout to either etoricoxib or indomethacin among those with monoarticular disease, severe/extreme baseline pain, and non-use of colchicine and/or allopurinol. These results should be interpreted in the context of a pooled subgroup analysis with a limited sample size, and with the understanding that associations identified in such analyses do not define causation. Despite limitations, the results provide insights into the types of patients more likely to respond better to anti-inflammatory medication, and reiterate the importance of earlier effective control of the disease. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and tolerability of rofecoxib, hydrocodone/acetaminophen 7.5 mg/750 mg (H/A) and placebo in treating pain after arthroscopy of the knee. METHODS: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, single dose study enrolling patients experiencing moderate or severe pain after knee arthroscopy. Patients with moderate-to-severe postoperative pain received either rofecoxib 50 mg (n = 151), H/A (n = 145), or placebo (n = 147). Pain was measured over 24 h. The primary endpoint was total pain relief at 6 h for rofecoxib 50 mg compared with placebo. RESULTS: H/A (p = 0.003), but not rofecoxib (p = 0.256) was significantly more effective than placebo for total pain relief at 6 h (TOPAR6). Although analgesic onset and peak were significantly better for H/A than for both rofecoxib (p < 0.01, p < 0.05, respectively) and placebo (p < 0.05, p < 0.001, respectively), rofecoxib patients used significantly less rescue analgesia (p < 0.001) over 24 h. Rofecoxib also provided better Brief Pain Inventory Severity (p = 0.008) and Interference Domain (p = 0.045) scores at 24 h compared to placebo and had lower 24-h Pain Severity scores than H/A (p < 0.05). Treatments were generally well tolerated, with no significant difference in the frequency of patient-reported adverse events between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Rofecoxib 50 mg did not provide significantly different pain relief than placebo at 6 h, and the primary endpoint TOPAR was not attained, although it did show several efficacy benefits at 24 h, including a significant opioid-sparing effect. All treatments were well tolerated, with no significant differences observed. The limited efficacy of rofecoxib in this study contrasts to the results of previous surgical studies evaluating rofecoxib, and may be partially explained by the postoperative dosing in this arthroscopic surgical model. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]