Search

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to carry out a head-to-head comparison of topical sucralfate combined with mupirocin versus mupirocin alone in the treatment of chronic skin ulcers with respect to both effectiveness and safety. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A parallel-group, open-label, randomized, controlled trial (CTRI/2015/12/006443) was carried out with patients suffering from skin ulcers of Wagner grading 1 or 2 persisting for over 4 weeks. Ninety-six patients were recruited in total, and the modified intention-to-treat analysis dataset included 44 participants treated with mupirocin 2% and 46 treated with combined mupirocin 2% and sucralfate 7% ointment. Both medications were applied topically thrice daily for 6 weeks. Ulcer area assessed using millimeter graph paper and wound infection score assessed on a three-point scale were effectiveness measures. Treatment-emergent adverse reactions that were reported by patients or observed by the investigators were recorded. RESULTS: The median ulcer area was significantly reduced in the combined treatment group at the end of treatment. Clinically, 41.3% of the participants in the combined group showed complete ulcer healing at 6 weeks compared to 18.18% in the mupirocin alone group (P = 0.022). The wound infection score declined significantly from baseline by the end of 3 weeks of treatment in both the groups. The frequency of qualitative wound attributes, namely pain, discharge, and erythema, remained comparable between the groups except for discharge which disappeared completely from all remaining ulcers in the combined group but was still present in 11.36% of the participants treated with mupirocin alone (P = 0.025) at 6 weeks. Adverse events were few, all local, mild, and tolerable. CONCLUSIONS: The wound healing effect of topical sucralfate adds to the antimicrobial effect of mupirocin toward the overall improvement of chronic skin ulcers. The effect of combined topical treatment needs comparison with other topical medications and wound healing strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Uncomplicated skin and skin structure infections (uSSSIs) are a common clinical problem. Majority are caused by staphylococci and streptococci. Different oral antibiotics are used for uSSSI, with comparable efficacy but varying treatment duration, cost, and adverse event profile. Azithromycin is used in uSSSI in adults conventionally in a dose of 500 mg once for 5 days. The extensive tissue distribution of the drug and its long elimination half-life prompted us to explore whether a single 2 g dose of the drug would produce a response in uSSSI comparable to conventional dosing. Materials and Methods: We conducted a parallel group, open-label, randomized, controlled trial (CTRI/2015/07/005969) with subjects of either sex, ≥12 years of age, presenting with uSSSI to the dermatology outpatient department. One group (n = 146) received 2 g single supervised dose while the other (n = 146) received conventional dose of 500 mg once daily for 5 days. Subjects were followed up on day 4 and day 8. Complete clinical cure implied complete healing of lesions, without residual signs or symptoms, within 7 days. Results: High cure rate was observed in both arms (97.97% and 98.63%, respectively) along with noticeable improvement in symptom profile from baseline but without statistically significant difference between groups. However, excellent adherence (defined as no tablets missed) was better in single dosing arm (98.65% vs. 86.30%). Tolerability was also comparable between groups with the majority of adverse events encountered being gastrointestinal in nature and mild. Conclusions: Single 2 g azithromycin dose achieved the same result as conventional azithromycin dosing in uSSSI with comparable tolerability but with the advantage of assured adherence. This dose can, therefore, be recommended as an alternative and administration supervised if feasible. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is the most common cause of lower urinary tract symptoms in elderly men. Selective alfa1-adrenergic antagonists are now first-line drugs in the medical management of BPH. We conducted a single-blind, parallel group, randomized, controlled trial to compare the effectiveness and safety of the new alfa1-blocker silodosin versus the established drug tamsulosin in symptomatic BPH. Materials and Methods: Ambulatory male BPH patients, aged above 50 years, were recruited on the basis of International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS). Subjects were randomized in 1:1 ratio to receive either tamsulosin 0.4 mg controlled release or silodosin 8 mg once daily after dinner for 12 weeks. Primary outcome measure was reduction in IPSS. Proportion of subjects who achieved IPSS <8, change in prostate size as assessed by ultrasonography and changes in peak urine flow rate and allied uroflowmetry parameters, were secondary effectiveness variables. Treatment emergent adverse events were recorded. Results: Data of 53 subjects - 26 on silodosin and 27 on tamsulosin were analyzed. Final IPSS at 12-week was significantly less than baseline for both groups. However, groups remained comparable in terms of IPSS at all visits. There was a significant impact on sexual function (assessed by IPSS sexual function score) in silodosin arm compared with tamsulosin. Prostate size and uroflowmetry parameters did not change. Both treatments were well-tolerated. Retrograde ejaculation was encountered only with silodosin and postural hypotension only with tamsulosin. Conclusions: Silodosin is comparable to tamsulosin in the treatment of BPH in Indian men. However, retrograde ejaculation may be troublesome for sexually active patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Lafutidine is a new H2-blocker in India claimed to be more potent and effective than existing H2-blockers. Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), by virtue of their mechanism of action, have greater efficacy than H2-blockers in gastric acid suppression. However, clinical trials comparing H2-blockers directly with PPIs are limited. We carried out a head-to-head comparison of the effectiveness of lafutidine versus the PPI pantoprazole in uninvestigated dyspepsia [CTRI/2013/12/004261]. Materials and Methods: A prospective, open label, randomized, controlled trial was conducted in a tertiary care hospital. Ambulatory adult patients with dyspepsia, not yet subjected to endoscopy, were recruited if they had at least moderately severe symptoms, defined as a score of ≥ 4 on a 7-point Global Overall Symptom (GOS) Scale. Those with alarm features or significant comorbidity were excluded. Subjects received either once daily lafutidine 10 mg or pantoprazole 40 mg, orally, for 8 weeks. Reflux, dysmotility and pain scores were assessed by Modified Frequency Scale for the Symptoms of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease (mFSSGERD), and quality of life (QoL) by SF-8 scale. The latter had physical and mental components summarized by physical component summary score (PCS) and a mental component summary score (MCS). Results: Of 122 patients enrolled, data of 57 on lafutidine and 60 on pantoprazole were analyzed. At 4 weeks, proportion of subjects responding (GOS score ≥ 2) in the two arms (lafutidine 45.61% vs. pantoprazole 48.33%, P = 0.854) or showing symptom resolution (GOS score ≤ 1) (lafutidine 12.28% vs. pantoprazole 5.00%; P = 0.197) were comparable. Similarly at 8 weeks, both responder (lafutidine 52.63% vs. pantoprazole 56.67%; P = 0.712) and symptom resolution proportions (lafutidine 33.33% vs. pantoprazole 30%; P = 0.843) were comparable. Total score on mFSSGERD scale, as well as all its three component scores, and PCS and MCS scores on QoL SF-8 scale showed improvement but no statistically significant difference between the two arms. Tolerability of both drugs was excellent. Conclusions: Lafutidine is well-tolerated and there is no clinically worthwhile difference between the two drugs in the empirical treatment of uninvestigated dyspepsia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), without active intervention, following laparoscopic cholecystectomy is unacceptably high. We evaluated the effectiveness of intravenous (IV) palonosetron in counteracting PONV during the first 24hrs following laparoscopic cholecystectomy, using ondansetron as the comparator drug. Materials and Methods: In a randomized, controlled, single blind, parallel group trial, single pre-induction IV doses of palonosetron (75mcg) or ondansetron (4mg) were administered to adult patients of either sex undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. There were 49 subjects per group. The pre-anesthetic regimen, anesthesia procedure and laparoscopic technique were uniform. The primary effectiveness measure was total number of PONV episodes in the 24 hrs period following end of surgery. The frequencies of individual nausea, retching and vomiting episodes, visual analog scale (VAS) score for nausea at 2, 6 and 24hrs, use of rescue antiemetic (metoclopramide), number of complete responders (no PONV or use of rescue in 24 hrs) and adverse events were secondary measures. Results: There was no statistically significant difference between the groups in primary outcome. Similarly, the frequencies of nausea, retching and vomiting episodes, when considered individually, did not show significant difference. Nausea score was comparable at all time points. With palonosetron, 14 subjects (28.6%) required rescue medication while 13 (26.5%) did so with ondansetron. The number of complete responders was 14 (28.6%) and 16 (32.7%), respectively. Adverse events were few and mild. QTc prolongation was not encountered. Conclusion: Palonosetron is comparable to ondansetron for PONV prophylaxis in elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy when administered as single pre-induction dose. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Topical therapy with comedolytics and antibiotics are often advocated for mild and moderate severity acne vulgaris. Nadifloxacin, a new fluoroquinolone with anti-Propionibacterium acnes activity and additional anti-inflammatory activity, is approved for use in acne. This randomized controlled assessor blind trial compared the clinical effectiveness and safety of eight weeks therapy of nadifloxacin 1% versus clindamycin 1% as add-on therapy to benzoyl peroxide (2.5%) in mild to moderate grade acne. Materials and Methods: The efficacy parameters were changes in the total, inflammatory and non-inflammatory lesion counts, Investigator Global Assessment (IGA), and Cardiff Acne Disability Index (CADI) scales from baseline to study end (eight weeks). All treatment emergent dermatological adverse events were evaluated for safety assessment. Results: Out of 84 randomized subjects (43-nadifloxacin arm) and (41-clindamycin) 42 in nadifloxacin group, 37 in clindamycin group completed the study. Reduction from baseline of total, inflammatory and non-inflammatory lesion counts were highly significant in both the groups (P<0.0001), but between group differences were not significant. Significant improvement in CADI and IGA scales were noted in both groups. Between-group comparison showed no significant differences. The safety and tolerability profile of both regimens were good and statistically comparable. Conclusions: Topical nadifloxacin, a new fluoroquinolone is effective, tolerable, and safe for mild o moderate facial acne. Its clinical effectiveness is comparable to clindamycin when used as add-on therapy to benzoyl peroxide. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Clonidine has been used as adjuvant to local anesthetics in order to extend the duration of analgesia in various regional and central neuraxial blocks. It is previously reported that clonidine added to bupivacaine increases analgesia duration in brachial plexus block. We evaluated the effect of this combination in supraclavicular brachial plexus block for upper limb orthopedic procedures. Materials and Methods: A randomized double-blind placebo controlled trial was done with 70 patients of American Society of Anesthesiologists Grade I or II status undergoing upper limb orthopedic procedures. Group A (n = 35) patients received 25 ml of 0.5% bupivacaine and 0.2 ml (30 mcg) clonidine, whereas group B (n = 35) received 25 ml of 0.5% bupivacaine and 0.2 ml normal saline through a supraclavicular approach for brachial plexus block. Vital parameters were recorded 10 min prior to block placement and every 3 min thereafter till the end of the procedure. Onset and duration of both sensory and motor blocks and sedation score were recorded. All patients were observed in postanesthesia care unit and received tramadol injection as soon as they complained of pain as rescue analgesic. Duration of analgesia was taken as the time from placement of block till injection of rescue analgesic. Results: Analgesia duration was 415.4 ± 38.18 min (mean ± standard deviation) in Group A (clonidine) compared to 194.2 ± 28.74 min in Group B (control). No clinically significant difference was observed in heart rate, blood pressure, and oxygen saturation. Sedation score was higher in the clonidine group. Conclusion: Addition of a small dose of clonidine to 0.5% bupivacaine significantly prolonged the duration of analgesia without producing any clinically important adverse reactions other than sedation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]