Ocular adverse events in drug sensitive TB patients on daily fixed dose combination anti-TB drugs: A record review study from Kerala, India

2020 ◽  
Vol 67 (2) ◽  
pp. 216-221 ◽  
Author(s):  
Muraleedharan Sarojini Manu ◽  
Kedar Mehta ◽  
Mrinalini Das ◽  
Shibu Balakrishnan ◽  
Mrithyunjayan Sunil kumar ◽  
...  
AIDS ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 31 (7) ◽  
pp. 905-915 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrzej Bienczak ◽  
Paolo Denti ◽  
Adrian Cook ◽  
Lubbe Wiesner ◽  
Veronica Mulenga ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
pp. 2100972
Author(s):  
Dave Singh ◽  
Jutta Beier ◽  
Carol Astbury ◽  
Maria G. Belvisi ◽  
Carla A. Da Silva ◽  
...  

BackgroundNavafenterol (AZD8871) belongs to a new class of bronchodilator, the single-molecule muscarinic antagonist and beta agonist (MABA), being developed for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy, pharmacokinetics and safety of navafenterol versus placebo and an active comparator treatment for moderate-to-severe COPD.MethodsThis phase 2a, randomised, multicentre (Germany and UK), double-blind, double-dummy, three-way complete crossover study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03645434) compared 2 weeks’ treatment of once-daily navafenterol 600 µg via inhalation with placebo and a fixed-dose combination bronchodilator (umeclidinium/vilanterol [UMEC/VI]; 62.5 µg/25 µg) in participants with moderate-to-severe COPD. The primary outcome was change from baseline in trough FEV1 on day 15. Secondary endpoints included: change from baseline in peak FEV1; change from baseline in breathlessness, cough and sputum scale (BCSS); change from baseline in COPD assessment tool (CAT); adverse events; and pharmacokinetics.ResultsSeventy-three participants were randomised. After 14 days, trough FEV1 was significantly improved with navafenterol compared with placebo (least-squares [LS] mean difference 0.202 L; p<0.0001). There was no significant difference in FEV1 between navafenterol and UMEC/VI (LS mean difference −0.046 L; p=0.075). COPD symptoms (CAT and BCSS) showed significantly greater improvements with both active treatments versus placebo (all p<0.005). Novel objective monitoring (VitaloJAK) showed that cough was reduced with both active treatments compared with placebo. Safety profiles were similar across the treatment groups and no serious adverse events were reported in the navafenterol treatment period.ConclusionOnce-daily navafenterol was well tolerated, improved lung function and reduced COPD-related symptoms, similar to an established once-daily fixed-dose combination bronchodilator.


Pneumologie ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 70 (S 01) ◽  
Author(s):  
T Köhnlein ◽  
R Buhl ◽  
K Tetzlaff ◽  
L Korducki ◽  
C Vogelmeier ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 15 (4) ◽  
pp. 510-517 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. P. Savenkov ◽  
S. N. Ivanov ◽  
M. P. Mikhaylusova ◽  
M. V. Borschevskaya ◽  
A. M. Savenkova ◽  
...  

Аim. To study the efficacy, tolerability and safety of using a fixed dose combination of an ACE inhibitor lisinopril with a prolonged-action diuretic indapamide in patients with degree 1-2 hypertension.Material and methods. Patients (n = 32) with uncontrolled 1-2 degrees hypertension, moderate or high cardiovascular risk, without severe comorbid diseases, who were prescribed a fixed dose combination of lisinopril (5, 10 or 20 mg) and indapamide (1.5 mg) were included in the observational study. All patients had home monitoring of blood pressure and diuresis, as well as assessment of subjective tolerance of treatment and registration of adverse events within 3 months of observation. Assessment of changes in circadian fluctuations in blood pressure and diuresis, the frequency of achieving the target blood pressure at the outpatient stage, as well as the subjective tolerance of treatment and adverse events during a three-month follow-up.Results. Target blood pressure was achieved in 44.5% of patients taking the fixed dose combination of lisinopril 5 mg + prolonged-acting indapamide1.5 mg; 76.9% – in patients taking the combination of lisinopril 10 mg + indapamide 1.5 mg; 78,6% – in patients taking the combination of lisinopril 20 mg + indapamide 1.5 mg. The achieved antihypertensive effect was characterized by daily circadian stability, accompanied by an improvement in the initially impaired day and night diuretic profile (increase in the share of daytime diuresis by 29.6% and 22.3% with a decrease in the share of nighttime diuresis by 35% and 49% when using a combination with lisinopril 5 and 10 mg, respectively). The treatment was well tolerated by patients and did not cause the development of serious adverse events. Reported adverse events (non-intense dry cough, headache, general weakness) were transient and did not require correction or withdrawal of treatment.Conclusion. The fixed dose combination of the ACE inhibitor lisinopril (5, 10 or 20 mg) and the long-acting thiazide-like diuretic indapamide (1.5 mg) had good antihypertensive efficacy with improved circadian blood pressure and diuresis profiles, acceptable tolerance and safety of treatment, as well as a simple choice of doses of the drug components.


2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. LBA9514-LBA9514 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matti S. Aapro ◽  
Giorgia Rossi ◽  
Giada Rizzi ◽  
Marco Palmas ◽  
Steven Grunberg

LBA9514 Background: Management of CINV has been refined over the past several decades and CINV can now be managed with targeted prophylactic medications aimed at inhibiting several molecular pathways involved in emesis. NEPA, a fixed-dose combination of netupitant (NETU), a new NK1 receptor antagonist (RA) and palonosetron (PALO), a pharmacologically distinct 5-HT3RA, targets these dual antiemetic pathways and has been shown to uniquely work synergistically in vitro. Methods: This was a multinational, randomized, double-blind, parallel group study assessing the efficacy and safety of a single oral dose of NEPA (NETU 300mg + PALO 0.50 mg) versus a single oral 0.50 mg dose of PALO in 1,455 chemotherapy-naive patients (pts) receiving anthracycline-based chemotherapy (all pts received oral dexamethasone (DEX) 12 mg (NEPA) or 20 mg (PALO) on Day 1). The primary efficacy endpoint was complete response (CR: no emesis, no rescue medication) during the delayed (25-120h) phase. Results: Treatment groups had comparable demographic characteristics with the majority of the population being female (98%) and white (80%), with a mean age of 54 yrs; 97% pts had breast cancer. NEPA showed superior CR rates compared to PALO during the delayed, acute, and overall phases. NEPA was also superior to PALO during the delayed/overall phases for complete protection, no emesis, and no significant nausea. Most frequently reported study drug-related adverse events (AEs) for NEPA included headache (3.3%) and constipation (2.1%). The majority of adverse events for NEPA-treated pts were mild/moderate and there were very few (0.7%) severe drug-related AEs. The type and frequency of AEs were comparable between NEPA and PALO. There was no evidence of any cardiac safety concerns for NEPA or PALO. Conclusions: NEPA, a novel single-day fixed-dose combination targeting dual antiemetic pathways, is superior to PALO (both associated with DEX) in preventing CINV in pts receiving MEC. Clinical trial information: NCT01339260. [Table: see text]


Author(s):  
Mayuresh D. Kiran ◽  
Monali P. Vakharia ◽  
Lalit J. Pawaskar ◽  
Shaheen N. Sheikh

Background: Acute coryza or common cold affects the upper airways, sometimes in association with low-grade fever and systemic symptoms, and usually presents with at least two of the following symptoms: cough, dysphonia, throat discomfort, sore throat, nasal congestion, rhinorrhoea, sneezing, headaches, myalgia and fever. A triple combination of analgesics, decongestants and antihistamines provides better relief for multiple symptoms in common cold and allergic rhinitis according to various studies. A combination of Paracetamol as an analgesic, anti-inflammatory and antipyretic, Chlorpheniramine maleate, an anti-histaminic and Phenylephrine as a nasal decongestant is popular in the treatment of common cold. Hence the present study was planned to evaluate efficacy and safety of this combination in treatment of common cold.Methods: This was a phase IV, open-labelled, multicentric study in 159 patients. Efficacy assessment was done by analyzing the reduction in mean TSS at each follow-up visit and safety assessment was done by analyzing the adverse events during the study.Results: There was reduction in mean TSS from 6.62 (day 1) to 3.56 (day 3) and 0.69 (day 5). Most of the patients had >50% reduction in total symptom score at visit 3 and 58.49% patients had complete relief from the symptoms at the end of study. Out of 159 patients, 26 i.e. 16.36% experienced adverse events. Sedation and drowsiness (6.29%) were the most common adverse event seen in patients.Conclusions: A fixed dose combination of Chlorpheniramine maleate, Paracetamol, and Phenylephrine is safe and effective in the treatment of common cold.


2021 ◽  
pp. bmjebm-2021-111764
Author(s):  
Iain Crossingham ◽  
Sally Turner ◽  
Sanjay Ramakrishnan ◽  
Anastasia Fries ◽  
Matthew Gowell ◽  
...  

BackgroundIn people with mild asthma poor adherence to regular therapy is common and increases the risk of exacerbations, morbidity and mortality. The use of fixed-dose combination inhalers containing an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) and a fast-acting β2-agonist (FABA) is established in moderate asthma, but they may also have potential utility in mild asthma.ObjectivesTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of single combined FABA/ICS inhaler only used as needed in people with mild asthma.Design and settingCochrane meta-analysis of available trial data.ParticipantsChildren aged 12+ and adults with mild asthma.Search methodsWe searched the Cochrane Airways Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE and Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO trials portal on 19 March 2021.InterventionsA single fixed-dose FABA/ICS inhaler used as required compared with no treatment, placebo, short-acting beta agonist (SABA) as required, regular ICS with SABA as required, regular fixed-dose combination ICS/long-acting beta agonist (LABA), or regular fixed-dose combination ICS/FABA with as required ICS/FABA.We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cross-over trial. We excluded trials shorter than 12 weeks. We included full texts, abstracts and unpublished data.Data collection and analysisWe used Cochrane’s standard methodological procedures and applied the GRADE approach to assess the evidence.Main outcome measuresWe included six studies from which 9657 participants contributed to the meta-analyses. All used dry powder budesonide and formoterol as the combination inhaler. Two studies included children aged 12+ years and two studies were open-label.FABA/ICS as-required versus FABA as-requiredCompared with as-required FABA alone, as-required FABA/ICS reduced exacerbations requiring systemic steroids (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.60, 2 RCTs, 2997 participants, high-certainty evidence), equivalent to 109 people out of 1000 in the FABA alone group experiencing an exacerbation requiring systemic steroids, compared with 52 (95% CI 40 to 68) out of 1000 in the FABA/ICS as-required group. FABA/ICS as required may also reduce the odds of an asthma-related hospital admission or emergency department or urgent care visit (OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.60, 2 RCTs, 2997 participants, low-certainty evidence). Changes in asthma control were small and less than the minimal clinically important difference (MCID). FABA/ICS as required was associated with reductions in fractional exhaled nitric oxide, probably reducing the odds of an adverse event (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.95) and may reduce total systemic steroid dose (mean difference (MD) −9.90, 95% CI −19.38 to −0.42).FABA/ICS as required versus regular ICS plus FABA as requiredThere may be little or no difference in the number of people with asthma exacerbations requiring systemic steroids with FABA/ICS as required compared with regular ICS (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.07, 4 RCTs, 8065 participants, low-certainty evidence), equivalent to 81 people out of 1000 in the regular ICS plus FABA group experiencing an exacerbation requiring systemic steroids, compared with 65 (95% CI 49 to 86) out of 1000 in the FABA/ICS as-required group. The odds of an asthma-related hospital admission or emergency department or urgent care visit may be reduced in those taking FABA/ICS as required (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.91, 4 RCTs, 8065 participants, low-certainty evidence). Changes in asthma control were small and less than MCID. Adverse events and total systemic corticosteroid doses were similar between groups. FABA/ICS as required was likely associated with less average daily exposure to ICS than those on regular ICS (MD −154.51 mcg/day, 95% CI −207.94 to −101.09).ConclusionsFABA/ICS as required is clinically effective in adults and adolescents with mild asthma and reduced exacerbations, hospital admissions or unscheduled healthcare visits and exposure to systemic corticosteroids and probably reduces adverse events compared with FABA as required alone. FABA/ICS as required is as effective as regular ICS and reduced asthma-related hospital admissions or unscheduled healthcare visits, and average exposure to ICS, and is unlikely associated with increased adverse events.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document