Comparison of the antihypertensive effects of the fixed dose combination enalapril 10 mg/nitrendipine 20 mg vs losartan 50 mg/hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg, assessed by 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring, in essential hypertensive patients

Fixed combinations of calcium channel blockers and angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors represent an alternative to diuretic-based combination therapy. The aim of the present study was to compare the antihypertensive efficacy of the combination enalapril 10 mg/nitrendipine 20 mg (E/N) vs losartan 50 mg/hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg (L/H), assessed by 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. This multicentre, double-blind, parallel study included 97 hypertensive patients (office diastolic blood pressure (DBP) 90-109 mmHg and daytime DBP > 85 mmHg). After a 2- to 3-week period of single-blind placebo, they were randomized to receive double-blind treatment with E/N (n = 48) or L/H (n = 49) for a 4-week period. The primary outcome measure was the difference in 24-h DBP reduction between treatments from randomization to the end of the double-blind period. Secondary efficacy variables included differences in 24-h systolic (S) BP reduction, daytime, night-time and office SBP and DBP reduction, proportion of responders and controlled patients, trough-to-peak ratio and smoothness indexes. Safety was assessed by the proportion of patients with adverse events and the detection of laboratory abnormalities. No significant differences were observed in the primary outcome measure. The group receiving E/N tended to show greater reductions in most measures (24 h, daytime and office SBP and DBP) and higher BP control rates, but only the difference in the rate of office SBP control (< 140 mmHg) reached statistical significance (42.2 vs 22.4%; P = 0.048). The trough-to-peak ratios and smoothness indexes were similar in both groups. The incidence of adverse events related to the treatment was 27.1% (95% CI 14.5-39.6%) in E/N-treated patients and 14.3% (95% CI 4.5-45.8%) in the L/H group, but differences were not significant. The kind of event more frequently observed were flushing and headache in E/N, and dizziness and asthenia in L/H; all observed adverse events were mild. We conclude that E/N and L/H have a similar antihypertensive efficacy, assessed by office or ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. E/N achieved a significantly higher office SBP control rate, but this was accompanied by an apparently higher proportion of mild adverse events.

[Theoretical model of a cost-effectiveness analysis of combined enalapril-nitrendipine therapy for treating hypertension]

OBJECTIVE

Cost-effectiveness analysis of combined enalapril-nitrendipine therapy (E/N), as second-line therapy for light or moderate hypertension.

DESIGN

Theoretical model of cost-effectiveness, based on the norms of hypertension treatment in primary care, the considered view of a panel of experts and the direct costs of health resources and purchase of medication.

SETTING

Spanish National Health system.

PARTICIPANTS

Simulation of 1000 patients with hypertension, with a time horizon of one year.

INTERVENTIONS

After a prior failure of the first-line treatment with either enalapril or nitrendipine, an evaluation was made of the possibilities of increasing dosage of the first-line treatment, changing the drug or administering the E/N combination.

MAIN MEASUREMENT

The likelihoods, in the primary care context, of controlling diastolic pressure, of abandonment and of using the two strategies or not were measured, as were the use of health resources in each situation, and costs of resource use and of medication.

RESULTS

The cost-effectiveness quotient of the combined E/N treatment was consistently more efficient than the increase in dose or change to another drug. This was so, whether the treatment was started with enalapril (301.06 euros vs 337.97 euros and 588.42 euros) or with nitrendipine (331.5 euros vs 469.88 euros and 579.76 euros).

CONCLUSIONS

Combined therapy (E/N) is, on the basis of the assumptions made in the model, an efficient therapy option. Therefore, it can be recommended for prescription.

Nitrendipine and enalapril combination therapy in mild to moderate hypertension: assessment of dose-response relationship by a clinical trial of factorial design

Hypertension is an important cardiovascular risk factor and the goal of its pharmacologic treatment is to reduce morbidity and mortality. Treatment is usually initiated with a low dose of a single agent and titrated to a higher dose as required. As many as 50% of patients require the addition of a second agent to achieve satisfactory blood pressure control. The aim of this study was to assess the dose-response relationship of nitrendipine and enalapril alone or in fixed combination in the treatment of mild to moderate hypertension. A total of 496 patients were enrolled in a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, factorial-design, parallel-group clinical trial comparing placebo, nitrendipine (5, 10, and 20 mg) and enalapril (5, 10, and 20 mg) alone or in combination. After a single-blind, 2-week placebo run-in period, 414 patients whose diastolic blood pressure ranged between 90-109 mm Hg were randomly assigned to a treatment group. The combination of nitrendipine and enalapril, particularly regimens including nitrendipine 20 mg and enalapril 5 or 10 mg, were significantly superior to both monotherapies; mean diastolic blood pressure reductions from baseline to last visit were -12.5 and -14.3 mm Hg, respectively. Response surface analysis provided further evidence that these combinations were optimal in terms of anti-hypertensive efficacy. All treatments were well tolerated and the incidence of adverse events did not differ significantly between groups. In summary, the anti-hypertensive efficacy of the combination was found to be superior to both monotherapies at any doses. The dose combination achieving the greatest blood pressure reduction was nitrendipine 20 mg and enalapril 10 mg.

A double-blind, randomized comparative trial: flutrimazole 1% solution versus bifonazole 1% solution once daily in dermatomycoses

In a double-blind, randomized study the efficacy and tolerance of flutrimazole 1% solution were compared with bifonazole 1% solution, applied once daily for 4 weeks, in 40 patients with culturally proven dermatophytosis or cutaneous candidosis. Forty patients with mycologically proven pityriasis versicolor were treated with once-daily application for 1 week. The four groups of patients and distribution of target lesions were similar, although in the flutrimazole group more patients had cutaneous candidosis (n = 8 versus n = 1). The distribution of the sum of clinical scores was also similar in both groups. At the end of therapy the proportion of patients with negative microscopy and culture was 85% in the flutrimazole group and 65% in the bifonazole group. There was a significant difference (P = 0.022) in terms of efficacy, since 80% of patients in the flutrimazole group versus 40% in the bifonazole group were judged to have received effective treatment. At the assessment 6 weeks after the end of therapy the percentages of flutrimazole- and bifonazole-treated patients with negative mycology were 75% and 65% respectively. There were two relapses (one in each group), which represents a 5% rate. Fifteen flutrimazole-treated patients (75%) compared with 12-bifonazole-treated patients (60%) had overall effective therapy. Two patients treated with bifonazole (10%) and one treated with flutrimazole (5%) had a premature termination due to adverse events attributable to the medication. On assessment 3 weeks after the end of treatment, the patients with pityriasis versicolor were all clinically and mycologically healed with negative fluorescence, including the patients who withdrew from the full course of treatment (one in each group). Nine weeks after the end of therapy all the patients remained cured, with no relapses. The overall incidence of adverse events (mild local reactions such as irritation, burning and itching) was one and seven cases for bifonazole and flutrimazole respectively. One patient in each group had to abandon treatment owing to severe intolerance.

Flutrimazole 1% dermal cream in the treatment of dermatomycoses: a multicentre, double-blind, randomized, comparative clinical trial with bifonazole 1% cream. Efficacy of flutrimazole 1% dermal cream in dermatomycoses. Catalan Flutrimazole Study Group

BACKGROUND

Flutrimazole is a new imidazole derivate. Its antifungal activity has been demonstrated in in vivo and in vitro studies to be comparable to that of clotrimazole and higher than bifonazole.

AIM

To compare the efficacy and tolerability of flutrimazole cream 1% with a reference drug, bifonazole, in the treatment of dermatomycoses, eligible for topical treatment exclusively.

METHODS

A multicentre, double-blind, randomized, parallel-group clinical trial was conducted. Patients with clinically and mycologically (KHO and/or culture) diagnosed fungal infection of the skin were included in this study and were randomized into two treatment groups: 1% flutrimazole or 1% bifonazole, applied to the affected area (target lesion) once a day. The principal criterion of efficacy, 'cure', was based on clinical and mycological assessment.

RESULTS

Four hundred and forty-nine patients were included in the study (228 flutrimazole, 221 bifonazole). 'Intention-to-treat' analysis of the data showed a difference between the treatments in terms of the rate of cure (clinical and mycological) after 4 weeks: 73% in the flutrimazole group and 65% in the bifonazole group (p = 0.05). From a safety point of view, flutrimazole and bifonazole were well tolerated, and the overall incidence of adverse effects (mainly mild local effects like irritation or burning sensation) was 5%.

CONCLUSIONS

One percent flutrimazole applied topically once a day in the treatment of fungal infections of the skin presents a better efficacy than bifonazole and a good tolerability.

Flutrimazole 1% dermal cream in the treatment of dermatomycoses: a randomized, multicentre, double-blind, comparative clinical trial with 1% clotrimazole cream. Flutrimazole Study Group

In a multicentre, double-blind, randomized, parallel group clinical trial, the efficacy and tolerability of flutrimazole 1% dermal cream were compared with those of a reference compound, clotrimazole 1% dermal cream, applied topically twice daily for 4 weeks in patients with clinically and mycologically diagnosed fungal infection of the skin. A total of 484 patients were included in the study (244 patients received flutrimazole cream and 240 clotrimazole cream). According to an intention to treat analysis of the data, there was no difference between the treatments in terms of the rate of mycological cure after 4 weeks: 79% of patients in the clotrimazole group and 80% of patients in the flutrimazole group were mycologically cured (P = 0.83). From a safety point of view, flutrimazole and clotrimazole were well tolerated and the overall incidence of adverse reactions (mainly mild local reactions such as irritation or burning sensation) was 7%. This study shows that, in the treatment of fungal infections of the skin, topically applied flutrimazole has good efficacy, similar to that of clotrimazole, and is well tolerated.

[The use of antibiotics in surgical prophylaxis. The characteristics and consequences]

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of antibiotic prophylaxis in certain surgical procedures has been demonstrated in clinical trials. The present study aimed at getting knowledge on the way how it is used in a certain hospital.

METHODS

In a certain day, all patients receiving antibiotics to prevent a postoperative infection were identified in a medical school hospital. Information on the operative procedure, prescribed antibiotics and clinical course of the patients was recorded.

RESULTS

Out of 714 patients admitted, 255 (36%) were treated with antibiotics and, of these, 85 were given them to prevent a postoperative infection. In 52% of patients, two or more antibiotics were given. The mean (SD) duration of prophylaxis was 8.4 (8.6) days. It was judged as really indicated in 34 cases (40%). Only in 17 (20%) the first choice antibiotic was selected; in 11 (13%) a preoperative dose of the right antibiotic was administered and only in 3 (3.5%) a preoperative dose of the first choice antibiotic was administered and prophylaxis lasted up to 48 hours.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of antibiotics in surgical prophylaxis in a medical school hospital is inappropriate in more than 95% of cases. The situation in other centres should be quantified and the universally accepted norms of prophylaxis should be implemented.