Search

Background : Compared with currently available NSAIDs (which inhibit COX-1 and COX-2 isoforms of cyclooxy- genase), MK-0966 (a specific COX-2 inhibitor) is expected to cause less gastrointestinal toxicity. Aim : To compare the effect on the upper gastrointestinal mucosae of a high dose of MK-0966 with that of conventional doses of ibuprofen and aspirin. Methods Healthy subjects (n = 170; age range 18–54 years) with endoscopically normal gastric and duodenal mucosa were randomized to either MK-0966 250 mg q.d. (n = 51), ibuprofen 800 mg t.d.s. (n = 51), aspirin 650 mg q.d.s. (n = 17), or placebo (n = 51) in this 7-day, double-blind, parallel-group study. The mucosae were evaluated by endoscopy using a predefined scale; scores could range from 0 to 4. The primary end-point was the percentage of subjects who developed a mucosal score ≥ 2 (i.e. the development of one or more erosions). To evaluate COX-1 activity, serum thromboxane B2 levels were determined in a subset of the population. Results The percentage of subjects who developed a mucosal score ≥ 2 in the MK-0966 group (12%) was significantly lower (P

To assess the effects of prolonged administration of a novel analog of GH-releasing peptide (MK-677), nine healthy young men participated in a randomized, double blind, three-period cross-over comparison of orally administered placebo and 5- and 25-mg doses of MK-677. Each period involved bedtime administration of the drug for 7 consecutive days. At the end of each period, plasma levels of insulin-like growth factor I (IGF-I) and IGF-binding protein-3 (IGFBP-3) were measured at 0745 h, and 24-h profiles of plasma GH and cortisol were obtained at 15-min intervals together with the 24-h urinary excretion of free cortisol. Profiles of plasma free cortisol were calculated at hourly intervals. The amounts of GH secreted were similar in all three conditions, but GH pulse frequency was increased with both dosages of the drug, primarily because of an increase in the number of low amplitude pulses. Plasma IGF-I levels were increased in a dose-dependent manner, whereas IGFBP-3 levels were increased only with the highest dosage. There was a positive relationship between GH pulse frequency and IGF-I increase. Except for an advance in the nocturnal nadir and in the morning elevation, MK-677 had no effect on cortisol profiles. In particular, 24-h mean levels of plasma total and free cortisol and urinary excretion of free cortisol were similar under all conditions. The present data suggest that the use of MK-677 for the treatment of relative somatotropic deficiency, particularly in older adults compromised by such deficiency, deserves further investigation.

Bodily pain and physical disability can negatively impact health-related quality of life (HRQL) in patients with osteoarthritis (OA).To assess the effects of treatment with a new agent, rofecoxib, on HRQL in patients with OA.Randomized, double-blind, 6-week clinical trial comparing treatment with rofecoxib, 5 to 50 mg, with placebo in 672 patients with OA of the hip or knee.Patient HRQL was assessed at baseline and at the end of treatment using the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36).At 6 weeks, mean change from baseline in all SF-36 mental and physical health domain scores demonstrated significant improvement with rofecoxib use (P.05 for all doses for all SF-36 domains), with evidence of a dose-response relation. Improvements in mental and physical HRQL domains with rofecoxib treatment were significantly greater than those with placebo treatment (P.05 for each dose of rofecoxib vs placebo for all domains except general health) and highly correlated with improvements observed using disease-specific OA outcome measures such as the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index-visual Analog 3.0 OA index pain and physical function subscales. The effect of rofecoxib vs placebo treatment on mental health largely disappeared after adjustment for improvement in OA disease-specific measures.Rofecoxib treatment increased physical and mental HRQL domain scores on the SF-36. Improvements in mental health with rofecoxib use primarily resulted from effective treatment of OA (i.e., reduction in pain and improvement in physical function).

Compared with currently available NSAIDs (which inhibit COX-1 and COX-2 isoforms of cyclooxygenase), MK-0966 (a specific COX-2 inhibitor) is expected to cause less gastrointestinal toxicity.To compare the effect on the upper gastrointestinal mucosae of a high dose of MK-0966 with that of conventional doses of ibuprofen and aspirin.Healthy subjects (n = 170; age range 18-54 years) with endoscopically normal gastric and duodenal mucosa were randomized to either MK-0966 250 mg q.d. (n = 51), ibuprofen 800 mg t.d.s. (n = 51), aspirin 650 mg q.d.s. (n = 17), or placebo (n = 51) in this 7-day, double-blind, parallel-group study. The mucosae were evaluated by endoscopy using a predefined scale; scores could range from 0 to 4. The primary end-point was the percentage of subjects who developed a mucosal score/= 2 (i.e. the development of one or more erosions). To evaluate COX-1 activity, serum thromboxane B2 levels were determined in a subset of the population.The percentage of subjects who developed a mucosal score/= 2 in the MK-0966 group (12%) was significantly lower (P0.001) than that in the ibuprofen (71%) and aspirin (94%) groups, and was similar to that in the placebo group (8%). Only ibuprofen and aspirin significantly (P0.0001) reduced baseline thromboxane B2 levels. All treatments were generally well tolerated.In this acute short-term endoscopic study, MK-0966 250 mg q.d. (a dose at least 10 times higher than that demonstrated to reduce the signs and symptoms of osteoarthritis) produced significantly less gastrointestinal mucosal damage than either ibuprofen 800 mg t.d.s. or aspirin 650 mg q.d.s. and was comparable to placebo in this regard.

In a pharmacokinetic drug interaction study, the purpose is to determine whether the coadministration of a drug A with a second drug B alters the absorption/distribution/metabolism/elimination profile of either drug. While the usual design for such studies is a three-period crossover, it cannot be analyzed as such, because the plasma-level data of drug B will be 0 when drug A is given alone, and vice versa. The easiest way to proceed is to do two sets of paired analyses, one on the absorption profile of A (A vs AB), and the other on the absorption profile of B (B vs AB). A complete separation of the total sources of variation and degrees of freedom is presented along with a numerical example.

Mevinolin reduces cholesterol synthesis by inhibiting 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl-coenzyme A reductase. The safety and effectiveness of this agent was evaluated in a double-blind, placebo-controlled study in 59 healthy men (serum cholesterol 3.88--7.76 mmol/liter) in five centers. Subjects maintained their usual diet and activities. Doses of 6.25, 12.5, 25, or 50 mg twice daily for 4 wk produced mean reductions of total serum cholesterol fo 23--27% [vs. placebo (4%), P less than 0.01]. Mean low density lipoprotein cholesterol fell 35--45%, while high density lipoprotein and very low density lipoprotein cholesterol, and triglycerides were not significantly affected. Mean apolipoprotein B fell 27--34%. 50 mg was not significantly more effective than 6.25 mg. Mevinolin was generally well tolerated, and no serious clinical or laboratory abnormalities occurred. One subject (12.5 mg) was withdrawn because of abdominal pain and diarrhea. These results suggest that if long-term safety can be demonstrated, inhibitors of 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl-coenzyme A reductase are likely to prove useful in the treatment of hypercholesterolemia.

In a pharmacokinetic drug interaction study, the purpose is to determine whether the coadministration of a drug A with a second drug B alters the absorption/distribution/metabolism/elimination profile of either drug. While the usual design for such studies is a three-period crossover, it cannot be analyzed as such, because the plasma-level data of drug B will be 0 when drug A is given alone, and vice versa. The easiest way to proceed is to do two sets of paired analyses, one on the absorption profile of A (A vs AB), and the other on the absorption profile of B (B vs AB). A complete separation of the total sources of variation and degrees of freedom is presented along with a numerical example.