Search

ABSTRACTLinezolid, an oxazolidinone antibiotic, has 100% oral bioavailability and favorable activities against gram-positive pathogens including multidrug-resistant staphylococci, enterococci, and pneumococci. Safety assessments were conducted for 2,046 linezolid-treated patients and 2,001 comparator drug-treated patients from seven controlled clinical trials comparing the activities of linezolid and comparator drugs against nosocomial and community-acquired pneumonia, skin and skin structure infections, and methicillin-resistant staphylococcal infections. Drug-related adverse events were primarily transient. The most frequent (≥2%) adverse events caused by linezolid and the comparator drugs were diarrhea (4.3 and 3.2%, respectively; P= 0.074), nausea (3.4 and 2.3%, respectively; P= 0.036), and headache (2.2 and 1.3%, respectively; P= 0.047). Treatment discontinuations due to drug-related events (2.4 and 1.9%, respectively), serious adverse events (11.4 and 10.6%, respectively), and deaths (4.8 and 4.9%, respectively) were similar. No clinically significant drug-related hematologic events were reported, and laboratory safety data were comparable. In the first 6 months of postmarketing surveillance, hematologic abnormalities were reported in 0.1% of linezolid-treated patients, but no irreversible blood dyscrasias were documented. The risk for transient, reversible hematologic effects from treatment with linezolid should be considered together with the clinical benefits associated with its use.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the sensory and mixability characteristics of Flavored Colestid Granules (a new colestipol formulation) with Questran Light (the most recent cholestyramine formulation).METHODOLOGY: Seventy-two nonsmoking adults between the ages of 25 and 64 years were enrolled in the study. Subjects assessed the sensory and mixability characteristics of each product in chilled bottled water and orange juice after at least a one-hour fast. Products were administered in a double-blind, randomized fashion. The sensory characteristics that were rated included overall rating, aftertaste, appearance, aroma, color, consistency, flavor, sweetness, mouthfeel, and thickness. Each characteristic was rated with a nine-point hedonic scale. Mixability of the products was assessed on a five-point scale. Subjects also were asked to choose which product they preferred as to sensory and mixability characteristics in each vehicle.RESULTS: Fifty-three of the 72 subjects preferred the sensory characteristics of Flavored Colestid Granules in water (p<0.001). Questran Light was preferred by 61 subjects when mixed in orange juice (p<0.001). The sensory characteristic rating scores also supported subject preferences for Flavored Colestid Granules in water and Questran Light in orange juice. Mixability of Flavored Colestid Granules was rated significantly better (p<0.001) than Questran Light in water. There was no significant difference for mixability between the products in orange juice.CONCLUSIONS: Questran Light was significantly preferred on a sensory basis when mixed in orange juice. Flavored Colestid Granules was significantly preferred over Questran Light for both sensory and mixability characteristics with water as the vehicle.

A total of 96 patients with moderate elevations of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol were randomly assigned to 4 different double-blind treatment regimens: placebo; colestipol 5 g and lovastatin 20 mg/day (C5 + L20); colestipol 10 g and lovastatin 20 mg/day (C10 + L20); and lovastatin 40 mg/day (L40). During 12 weeks of therapy, C10 + L20 achieved the greatest reduction in total cholesterol (−32%) and LDL cholesterol (−48%) levels from baseline. This combination also exhibited significantly greater reductions in LDL cholesterol levels than the C5 + L20 and L40 groups (p <0.01). The differences in total and LDL cholesterol reduction between the C5 + L20 and L40 groups were not significant. Similar changes and differences between treatments were seen in apolipoprotein B levels. Whereas mean total opolipoprotein A-I levels increased with all treatments (p <0.05), lipoprotein particles A-I were significantly increased in the C10 + L20 group (p <0.01) only. Results demonstrate that the combination of low-dose lovastatin (20 mg/day) with low-dose colestipol (5 or 10 g/day) produces LDL cholesterol reductions equal to or greater than higher doses of lovastatin (40 mg/day). In addition, low-dose combinations are >25% more cost-effective than high-dose monotherapy.

Limited information is availablecomparing the relative longitudinal effectiveness with respect to tooth type of scaling and root planing alone and scaling and root planing followed by flap procedures. The purpose of this study was to investigate these treatment methods as applied to molar and nonmolar teeth on a longitudinal basis in humans. Seventeen subjects with chronic periodontitis received thorough scaling and root planing as well as oral hygiene instruction. A modified Widman flap was then randomly performed for one‐half of each subject's dentition. Routine recall prophylaxis and oral hygiene reinforcement were administered postsurgically every 3 to 4 months. Pocket depth and clinical attachment levels were recorded by a single calibrated examiner before therapy and at intervals up to 6[h years following active treatment. Ten subjects remained as participants after 6½ years. A paired ttest was used to test for the mean difference in pocket depth and clinical attachment level between molar and nonmolar teeth for each treatment method. For pockets initially 4 to 6 mm, the results indicated greater pocket depth and more apical clinical attachment level on molars than nonmolars treated by either method of therapy. For pockets initially ≥7 mm there was no difference between pocket depth on molar and nonmolar teeth following scaling and root planing alone. However, there was less overall pocket depth on nonmolars than molars following the flap procedure, indicating a greater effect of pocket reduction on nonmolar than molar teeth with the flap procedure. No difference between tooth types was found for clinical attachment level in pockets initially >7 mm with either treatment method. Both treatment methods resulted in at least maintenance of pretreatment attachment levels adjacent to molar and nonmolar teeth.