Time-weighted Average Change Research Articles

A randomized placebo-controlled study of intravenous montelukast for the treatment of acute asthma

Current treatments for acute asthma provide inadequate benefit for some patients. Intravenous montelukast may complement existent therapies. To evaluate efficacy of intravenous montelukast as adjunctive therapy for acute asthma. A total of 583 adults with acute asthma were treated with standard care during a < or = 60-minute screening period. Patients with FEV(1) < or =50% predicted were randomly allocated to intravenous montelukast 7 mg (n = 291) or placebo (n = 292) in addition to standard care. This double-blind treatment period lasted until a decision for discharge, hospital admission, or discontinuation from the study. The primary efficacy endpoint was the time-weighted average change in FEV(1) during 60 minutes after drug administration. Secondary endpoints included the time-weighted average change in FEV(1) at various intervals (10-120 minutes) and percentage of patients with treatment failure (defined as hospitalization or lack of decision to discharge by 3 hours postadministration). Montelukast significantly increased FEV(1) at 60 minutes postdose; the difference between change from baseline for placebo (least-squares mean of 0.22 L; 95% CI, 0.17, 0.27) and montelukast (0.32 L; 95% CI, 0.27, 0.37) was 0.10 L (95% CI, 0.04, 0.16). Similar improvements in FEV(1)-related variables were seen at all time points (all P <.05). Although treatment failure did not differ between groups (OR 0.92; 95% CI, 0.63, 1.34), a prespecified subgroup analysis suggests likely benefit for intravenous montelukast at US sites. Intravenous montelukast added to standard care in adults with acute asthma produced significant relief of airway obstruction throughout the 2 hours after administration, with an onset of action as early as 10 minutes.

A randomized, placebo-controlled study of intravenous montelukast in children with acute asthma

Up to 30% of patients require hospitalization for acute asthma despite standard therapy in the emergency department. In adults, intravenous montelukast added to standard therapy significantly improved forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) and reduced hospital admissions compared with standard therapy alone. To evaluate the efficacy of intravenous montelukast added to standard therapy in children with acute asthma. This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter study of children aged 6 to 14 years conducted from August 25, 2005 to March 17, 2008. Patients with an FEV1 of 75% or less of the predicted value after up to 120 minutes of standard therapy (e.g., oxygen, albuterol, inhaled anticholinergics, and systemic oral corticosteroids) were randomized to intravenous montelukast, 5.25 mg (n=145), or placebo (n=131) added to standard therapy. The primary end point was the time-weighted average change in FEV1 during 60 minutes (deltaFEV1[0-60 min]). Secondary end points included the percentage of patients in whom treatment failed (patients who required hospitalization or for whom a decision to discharge was not reached within 2 hours after drug administration) and the change from baseline in modified pulmonary index score after 60 minutes of treatment. Montelukast was not significantly more effective than placebo for deltaFEV1[0-60 min] when added to standard therapy (0.08 vs. 0.07 L; least squares mean, 0.01; 95% confidence interval, -0.06 to 0.08; P = .78). No significant differences were found in the percentages of patients in whom treatment failed or the modified pulmonary index score after 60 minutes. Both treatments were well tolerated. In this study of children with acute asthma, intravenous montelukast was not significantly better than placebo in improving FEV1, symptoms, or overall hospital course.

Responder analysis and correlation of outcome measures: pooled results from two identical studies comparing etoricoxib, celecoxib, and placebo in osteoarthritis

To determine the proportion of responders in two identical osteoarthritis (OA) trials using Outcome Measures in Arthritis Clinical Trials-Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OMERACT-OARSI) criteria and to assess the comparability and correlation of individual component measurements. Data were pooled from two identical 26-week, double-blind, randomized, parallel, multicenter trials comparing once daily etoricoxib 30 mg (N=475), celecoxib 200 mg (N=488), and placebo (N=244) in patients with OA of the knee or hip. OMERACT-OARSI criteria were (1) improvement in pain or physical function > or =50% and an absolute change > or =20 mm on a 100-mm visual analog scale (VAS); or (2) improvement of > or =20% and with an absolute change > or =10 mm in at least two of the following three categories: pain, physical function, and patient's global assessment. Correlations were assessed between endpoints measured as time-weighted average change from baseline over 12 weeks using Pearson's correlation coefficient (r). There were significantly greater proportions of responders in the etoricoxib (66.2%) and celecoxib (63.5%) groups compared with the placebo group (43.0%; P<0.001). There was no difference between the two active treatment groups. There was high correlation between pain and physical function (r=0.903), pain and global assessment (r=0.778), and physical function and global assessment (r=0.820). There was high sensitivity (75-87%) and specificity (80-96%) for changes in individual component measurements to predict OMERACT-OARSI responders. Significantly more patients receiving etoricoxib or celecoxib than placebo were OMERACT-OARSI responders. The high correlation between individual scales composing this composite response measurement suggests some redundancies between individual components, particularly between pain and physical function.

Correlation of Measures of Pain, Function, and Overall Response

Assessment of correlation of measures of low back pain (LBP) using data pooled from 2 identical studies. To assess the relative responsiveness of and correlation between various measures of LBP, including the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), the LBP intensity (LBPI) visual analog scale (VAS), and patient's global assessment of response to therapy (PGART). Several tools are available to measure pain, functional limitation, and response to therapy for LBP. Studies have shown varying degrees of responsiveness and correlation. This was a pooled subgroup analysis of patients with chronic LBP from 2 identical studies comparing etoricoxib 60 mg, 90 mg, and placebo. LBP was assessed by the time-weighted average change from baseline over 12 weeks as measured by RMDQ, LBPI VAS, and PGART. Correlation was calculated using Pearson's correlation coefficient. The correlation (r) between LBPI and RMDQ changes ranged from 0.657 and 0.703; correlations between LBPI and PGART changes ranged from 0.677 and 0.738. Cutpoints separating responders from nonresponders for all 3 measures fell near the 66.7th percentile of response and were consistent with minimal clinically significant changes identified in the literature. In this study, the RMDQ, LBPI VAS, and PGART showed a high degree of correlation in measuring response to therapy in LBP, suggesting clinicians may be able to simplify assessments.

Efficacy and safety of etoricoxib 30 mg and celecoxib 200 mg in the treatment of osteoarthritis in two identically designed, randomized, placebo-controlled, non-inferiority studies

To compare the efficacy of etoricoxib 30 mg with the generally maximum recommended dose of celecoxib, 200 mg, in the treatment of osteoarthritis (OA) in two identically designed studies. Two multi-centre, 26-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled, non-inferiority studies were conducted, enrolling patients who were prior non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) or acetaminophen users. There were 599 patients in study 1 and 608 patients in study 2 randomized 4:4:1:1 to etoricoxib 30 mg qd, celecoxib 200 mg qd or one of two placebo groups for 12 weeks. After 12 weeks, placebo patients were evenly distributed to etoricoxib or celecoxib based on their initial enrollment randomization schedule. The primary hypothesis was that etoricoxib 30 mg would be at least as effective as celecoxib 200 mg for the time-weighted average change from baseline over 12 weeks for Western Ontario and McMaster (WOMAC) Pain Subscale, WOMAC Physical Function Subscale and Patient Global Assessment of Disease Status. Active treatments were also assessed over the full 26 weeks. Adverse experiences were collected for safety assessment. In both studies, etoricoxib was non-inferior to celecoxib for all three efficacy outcomes over 12 and 26 weeks; both were superior to placebo (P < 0.001) for all three outcomes in each study over 12 weeks. The safety and tolerability of etoricoxib 30 mg qd and celecoxib 200 mg qd were similar over 12 and 26 weeks. Etoricoxib 30 mg qd was at least as effective as celecoxib 200 mg qd and had similar safety in the treatment of knee and hip OA; both were superior to placebo. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT00092768; NCT00092791.

Boosted versus Unboosted Indinavir with Zidovudine and Lamivudine in Nucleoside Pre-Treated Patients: A Randomized, Open-Label Trial with 112 Weeks of Follow-Up (HIV-Nat 005)

The use of HIV protease inhibitors (PIs) in a ritonavir (RTV)-boosted form is now common. However, randomized data comparing boosted with unboosted PI strategies are scarce. This randomized, open-label trial compared indinavir (IDV) 800 mg three times daily with IDV/RTV 800/100 mg twice daily, both given with zidovudine (AZT)/lamivudine (3TC) twice daily in individuals with at least 3 months previous AZT experience. The primary endpoint was the time-weighted average change in HIV RNA from baseline. Designed as a 48-week study, follow-up continued until week 112. Primary analysis is by intention to treat. One hundred and three patients commenced therapy and are included in the analysis. Patients had a median of 29 months past nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) exposure. Baseline median (interquartile range) log10 HIV RNA was 4.0 (3.3-4.5) and CD4+ T-cell count 166 (40-323) cells/microl. After 112-weeks of study there was no significant difference observed between arms in the mean (SD) change in time-weighted average HIV RNA from baseline (-1.6 [1.1] HIV RNA copies/week/ml three times daily arm; -1.4 [1.1] HIV RNA copies/week/ml twice daily arm; P = 0.3). Both arms were associated with substantial toxicity expressed as serious adverse events and study drug interruptions. The twice daily arm experienced greater dyslipidaemia. Mean (SD) changes in time-weighted CD4+ T-cell count from baseline were similar [88 (84) cells/week/microl three times daily arm; 70 [109] cells/week/microl twice daily arm; P = 0.3). RTV-boosted IDV 800/100 mg twice daily demonstrated comparable efficacy to unboosted IDV 800 mg three times daily dosing. Both regimens were associated with substantial toxicity. Use of lower doses of RTV-boosted IDV may result in better tolerability without loss of efficacy and warrant further research.

Randomized controlled study of tenofovir and adefovir in chronic hepatitis B virus and HIV infection: ACTG A5127

Chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection is an important cause of morbidity and mortality in subjects coinfected with HIV. Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) and adefovir dipivoxil (ADV) are licensed for the treatment of HIV-1 and HBV infection, respectively, but both have in vivo and in vitro activity against HBV. This study evaluated the anti-HBV activity of TDF compared to ADV in HIV/HBV-coinfected subjects. ACTG A5127 was a prospective randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of daily 10 mg of ADV versus 300 mg of TDF in subjects with HBV and HIV coinfection on stable ART, with serum HBV DNA >/= 100,000 copies/mL, and plasma HIV-1 RNA </= 10,000 copies/mL. This study closed early based on results of a prespecified interim review, as the primary noninferiority end point had been met without safety issues. Fifty-two subjects were randomized. At baseline, 73% of subjects had a plasma HIV-1 RNA < 50 copies/mL, 86% were HBeAg positive, 94% were 3TC resistant, median serum ALT was 52 IU/L, and 98% had compensated liver disease. The mean time-weighted average change in serum HBV DNA from baseline to week 48 (DAVG(48)) was -4.44 log(10) copies/mL for TDF and -3.21 log(10) copies/mL for ADV. There was no difference in toxicity between the 2 treatment arms, with 11 subjects (5 ADV and 6 TDF) experiencing elevations of serum ALT on treatment. In conclusion, over 48 weeks, treatment with either ADV or TDF resulted in clinically important suppression of serum HBV DNA. Both drugs are safe and efficacious for patients coinfected with HBV and HIV.

Evaluation of the Comparative Efficacy of Etoricoxib and Ibuprofen for Treatment of Patients With Osteoarthritis: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial

To directly compare the efficacy and safety of etoricoxib, 30 mg once daily, ibuprofen, 800 mg 3 times daily, and placebo for treatment of osteoarthritis (OA) of the hip and knee. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of patients with OA of the knee or hip was performed between February 2003 and November 2003 in 61 medical centers in the United States. Qualified patients aged 40 to 89 years were randomized to receive placebo, etoricoxib, 30 mg once daily, or ibuprofen, 800 mg 3 times daily, for 12 weeks. Primary efficacy end points Included the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index pain and physical function subscales and Patient Global Assessment of Disease Status. Response to treatment was assessed by the time-weighted average change from baseline over 12 weeks. In 528 patients, baseline values for the 3 primary end points ranged from 67.78 to 72.60 mm (0-100 mm visual analog scale). Near-maximal efficacy was achieved by week 2 with both active treatments and sustained over the course of the trial. During the 12-week period, least squares mean changes in the primary end points (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index and Patient Global Assessment of Disease Status subscales) ranged from -16.53 to -13.55 mm, -27.89 to -23.68 mm, and -26.53 to -22.97 mm in the placebo, etoricoxib, and Ibuprofen groups, respectively. Both etoricoxib and ibuprofen were more effective (P<.001) than placebo for all primary end points. Etoricoxib and ibuprofen treatment responses for the primary end points were determined to be comparable with use of prespecified comparability criteria. Results for all other efficacy end points were consistent with responses observed for the primary end points. Etoricoxib and ibuprofen generally were well tolerated. For patients with OA, treatment with etoricoxib, 30 mg/d, is well tolerated and provides sustained clinical effectiveness that is superior to placebo and comparable to ibuprofen, 2400 mg/d.

Adefovir Dipivoxil Therapy in Liver Transplant Recipients With Lamivudine-Resistant Hepatitis B Virus

Hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection is the leading cause of cirrhosis worldwide. One effective strategy to prevent recurrence or transmission of HBV infection after liver transplantation exists is prescription of Lamivudine, although it is associated with high resistance rates. Adefovir dipivoxil (AD) is a nucleotide analogue of adenosine that has achieved significant results in virologic, biochemical, and clinical parameters in lamivudine-resistant HBV-infected patients. Between 1990 and 2003 7 adult recipients of ortothopic liver transplants who experienced lamivudine-resistant HBV infection (pretransplantation or posttransplantation) were enrolled in a prospective study to administer AD for 48 weeks. At baseline they showed serum HBV DNA between 2.2 × 10 6 and 1.1 × 10 8 copies/mL. After 48 weeks of AD treatment, the median time-weighted average change in serum HBV DNA (log 10 copies/mL) was −3.19 (SD, 1.65). In 3 patients with HBV, DNA was undetectable (<400 copies/mL) at the end of the follow-up. HBe antigen seroconversion was observed in 1 patient. No significant adverse effects were recorded, except for renal functional impairment in 1 patient who had previous renal insufficiency. In our study, adefovir was an effective drug to suppression HBV replication in liver transplant recipients with lamivudine-resistant HBV. Excluding renal function abnormalities, tolerance of the drug was excellent. None of the patients developed resistance to adefovir. Therapy with AD in liver transplant recipients is effective and safe, although renal function should be monitored closely.

Pharmacokinetic and Pharmacodynamic Analysis of Amprenavir‐Containing Combination Therapy in HIV‐1—Infected Children

Several factors influence the antiviral response to antiretroviral therapy. In this pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic analysis, the relationship of drug exposure, demographics, and cotherapy measures to antiviral response in a cohort of largely treatment-experienced children treated with amprenavir and nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors was examined. Multiple pharmacodynamic and demographic factors were examined, but only the minimum plasma concentration (C(min))/protein-binding-adjusted 50% inhibitory drug concentration (IC(50)) ratio and whether individuals received 2 versus fewer than 2 nucleosides to which their viral isolates were susceptible were associated with the magnitude of the time-weighted average change in HIV-1 RNA log(10) copies/mL from baseline (AAUCMB). In multivariate logistic regression analysis, only the C(min)/IC(50) ratio was independently associated with having a >or=1 log(10) AAUCMB decline. The probability in the study population of having a >or=1log(10) AAUCMB was 50% and 85% at C(min)/IC(50) ratios of approximately 1 and 4, respectively. Of the multiple factors examined, only the C(min)/IC(50) ratio was a significant predictor of antiviral response in the first 8 weeks on amprenavir-containing combination antiretroviral therapy.

Adefovir dipivoxil alone or in combination with lamivudine in patients with lamivudine-resistant chronic hepatitis B

Background & Aims: Adefovir dipivoxil possesses potent in vitro and in vivo antiviral activity in wild-type hepatitis B. This study assessed the safety and efficacy of adefovir dipivoxil alone and in combination with lamivudine compared with ongoing lamivudine therapy in patients with chronic hepatitis B with compensated liver disease and lamivudine-resistant hepatitis B virus (HBV). Methods: Fifty-nine hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg)-positive patients with genotypic evidence of lamivudine-resistant HBV, serum alanine aminotransferase (ALT) level ≥1.2 times the upper limit of normal, and serum HBV DNA level ≥6 log10 copies/mL despite ongoing treatment with lamivudine were randomized to adefovir dipivoxil 10 mg, lamivudine 100 mg, or addition of adefovir dipivoxil to ongoing lamivudine daily. The primary end point was the time-weighted average change from baseline in serum HBV DNA level (DAVG) up to week 16. Results: Rapid reductions in serum HBV DNA level were seen by 4 weeks in all recipients of adefovir dipivoxil; DAVG16 was −0.07 in the lamivudine group compared with −2.45 and −2.46 log10 copies/mL in the adefovir dipivoxil/lamivudine and adefovir dipivoxil monotherapy groups, respectively (P < 0.001). Median change from baseline in serum HBV DNA level at week 48 was 0.0, −3.59, and −4.04 log10 copies/mL in the lamivudine, adefovir dipivoxil/lamivudine, and adefovir dipivoxil groups, respectively. ALT level normalized in 10 of 19 (53%) and 9 of 18 (47%) recipients of adefovir dipivoxil/lamivudine and adefovir dipivoxil, respectively, compared with 1 of 19 (5%) recipients of lamivudine. Three patients receiving adefovir dipivoxil or adefovir dipivoxil/lamivudine and none receiving lamivudine monotherapy were HBeAg negative at week 48 and one became hepatitis B surface antigen negative. Conclusions: These data, limited to patients with compensated liver disease, indicate that adefovir dipivoxil alone or in combination with ongoing lamivudine therapy provides effective antiviral therapy in patients with lamivudine-resistant HBV.

Treatment of chronic low back pain with etoricoxib, a new cyclo-oxygenase-2 selective inhibitor: improvement in pain and disability—a randomized, placebo-controlled, 3-month trial

We evaluated etoricoxib, a novel COX-2–specific inhibitor, in 319 patients with chronic low back pain (LBP) in this double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Patients were randomized to a 60 mg dose (n = 103) or 90 mg dose (n = 107) of etoricoxib, or placebo (n = 109), daily for 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was low back pain intensity scale (Visual Analog Scale of 0- to 100-mm) time-weighted average change from baseline over 4 weeks. Other endpoints included evaluation over 3 months of low back pain intensity scale, Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), low back pain bothersomeness scale, patient- and investigator-global assessments, Patient Health Survey (MOS SF-12), rescue acetaminophen use, and discontinuation due to lack of efficacy. Etoricoxib provided significant improvement from baseline versus placebo in pain intensity (4 weeks: 12.9 mm and 10.3 mm for 60-mg and 90-mg doses, P < .001 for each; 12 weeks: 10.5 mm and 7.5 mm for 60-mg and 90-mg doses, P = .001 and .018, respectively). Etoricoxib at either dose led to significant improvement in other endpoints, including RMDQ scores, bothersomeness scores and global assessments. Etoricoxib given once daily provided significant relief of symptoms, and disability associated with chronic LBP that was observed 1 week after initiating therapy, was maximal at 4 weeks, and was maintained over 3 months.