Search

Objective: To compare the subjective effects of oxymorphone extended release (OM-ER ) versus oxycodone controlled release (OC-CR ).Design: Randomized, double-blind, crossover study.Setting: Inpatient unit.Subjects: Healthy, nondependent recreational opioid users.Interventions: Single intact oral tablets that were placebo or contained OM-ER (15 and 30 mg) or OC-CR (30 and 60 mg). Doses were representative of mid-range doses for chronic pain and were calculated using an established opioid conversion table.Main outcome measures: Visual Analog Scales, Subjective Drug Value (SDV), and Addiction Research Center Inventory (ARCI) measured positive, negative, and balance effects and pupillometry. Equianalgesic comparisons were between OM-ER 15 mg versus OC-CR 30 mg (low doses) and OM-ER 30 mg versus OC-CR 60 mg (high doses).Results: Thirty-five subjects received all five treatments. Positive subjective effects were lower for OM-ER 15 mg versus OC-CR 30 mg and for OM-ER 30 mg versus OC-CR 60 mg in ARCI Morphine Benzedrine Group (p ≤ 0.01 for both), Good Effects (p < 0.001 for both), Rush (p < 0.001 for both), and High VAS (p < 0.001 for both). Nausea was higher with OC-CR (p ≤ 0.02), and Bad Effects were higher for OC-CR 60 mg versus OM-ER 30 mg (p < 0.001). Balance effects were lower for OM-ER versus OC-CR (Drug Liking, p < 0.001; Overall Drug Liking, p ≤ 0.006; SDV, p ≤ 0.008), except for Take Drug Again (p < 0.001 for OC-CR 30 mg versus OM-ER 15 mg; p = 0.18 for high-dose group). Euphoric mood, nausea, somnolence, vomiting, and dizziness were more common with OC-CR than OM-ER.Limitations: Single-dose design; use of healthy, recreational opioid users.Conclusions: At equianalgesic doses, single oral intact OM-ER produced lower positive, negative, and balance subjective effects than OC-CR , indicating that analgesic potency may not necessarily be reflected in subjective/objective effects.

UNLABELLED Cocaine dependence presents a major public health issue, and to date, no pharmacotherapies are approved for its treatment. TV-1380 is a novel recombinant albumin-fused mutated butyrylcholinesterase (Albu-BChE) that has increased catalytic efficiency for cocaine compared with wild-type BChE and therefore has the potential to facilitate abstinence in cocaine-dependent subjects by decreasing exposure to cocaine and its reinforcing effects. METHODS This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study in nondependent cocaine users was conducted to evaluate the effect of a single intramuscular dose of Albu-BChE (50, 100, and 300 mg) on the pharmacokinetic and metabolic profile of intravenous cocaine infusions (40 mg) administered at baseline and at 24, 96, and 168 hours after Albu-BChE dosing, to assess safety of coadministering Albu-BChE and cocaine, and to explore the subjective responses to cocaine infusions after Albu-BChE dosing. RESULTS Administration of Albu-BChE resulted in significant dose-dependent reductions in cocaine exposure (maximum concentration, area under the curve) and half-life. Effects were greatest at 24 hours after Albu-BChE dose, but were sustained up to 168 hours. Spearman correlations indicated a significant negative relationship between Albu-BChE concentration and cocaine clearance and exposure. Consistent with its mechanism of action, Albu-BChE also shifted cocaine metabolism toward preferential formation of ecgonine methyl ester. Administration of Albu-BChE was associated with modest decreases in subjective reports of feeling high and willingness to take cocaine again after cocaine infusion. Coadministration of Albu-BChE and cocaine was safe and well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS Administration of Albu-BChE at single doses of 50, 100, and 300 mg safely resulted in long-lasting decreases in cocaine exposure in recreational cocaine users.

BACKGROUND: The cost-effectiveness of initial strategies in managing Canadian patients with uninvestigated upper gastrointestinal symptoms remains controversial.OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of six management approaches to uninvestigated upper gastrointestinal symptoms in the Canadian setting.METHODS: The present study analyzed data from four randomized trials assessing homogeneous and complementary populations of Canadian patients with uninvestigated upper gastrointestinal symptoms with comparable outcomes. Symptom-free months, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and direct costs in Canadian dollars of two management approaches based on the Canadian Dyspepsia Working Group (CanDys) Clinical Management Tool, and four additional strategies (two empirical antisecretory agents, and two prompt endoscopy) were examined and compared. Prevalence data, probabilities, utilities and costs were included in a Markov model, while sensitivity analysis used Monte Carlo simulations. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves were determined.RESULTS: Empirical omeprazole cost $226 per QALY ($49 per symptom-free month) per patient. CanDys omeprazole and endoscopy approaches were more effective than empirical omeprazole, but more costly. Alternatives using H2-receptor antagonists were less effective than those using a proton pump inhibitor. No significant differences were found for most incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. As willingness to pay (WTP) thresholds rose from $226 to $24,000 per QALY, empirical antisecretory approaches were less likely to be the most cost-effective choice, with CanDys omeprazole progressively becoming a more likely option. For WTP values ranging from $24,000 to $70,000 per QALY, the most clinically relevant range, CanDys omeprazole was the most cost-effective strategy (32% to 46% of the time), with prompt endoscopy-proton pump inhibitor favoured at higher WTP values.CONCLUSIONS: Although no strategy was the indisputable cost-effective option, CanDys omeprazole may be the strategy of choice over a clinically relevant range of WTP assumptions in the initial management of Canadian patients with uninvestigated dyspepsia.

The etiologies of functional dyspepsia (FD) are unclear, but in some studies, treatment with a proton pump inhibitor has been beneficial. The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of esomeprazole 40 mg once a day compared to placebo in achieving symptom relief in primary care patients with FD.This was a randomized, placebo-controlled trial in adult FD patients, who had at least moderate severity of symptoms, defined as a score ofor =4 on a 7-point Global Overall Symptom (GOS) scale. Patients were excluded if they had predominant symptoms of heartburn or regurgitation; after a normal baseline endoscopy, patients were randomized to esomeprazole 40 mg once daily or placebo for 8 wk. The primary outcome measure was symptom relief (GOSor =2) at 8 wk.Of the 502 enrolled patients, 224 were randomized. The main reasons for exclusion were abnormal endoscopic findings, especially esophagitis. A significantly greater proportion of patients in the esomeprazole group achieved symptom relief at 4 but not at 8 wk compared to placebo: 4 wk esomeprazole 50.5% versus placebo 32.2%, p= 0.009; 8 wk esomeprazole 55.1% versus placebo 46.1%, p= 0.16. A similar relationship at 4 and 8 wk was seen for symptom resolution (GOS = 1) and improvement (DeltaGOSor =2).For the primary outcome measure of symptom relief at 8 wk, there was no statistically significant difference between esomeprazole 40 mg once a day and placebo. However, at 4 wk, esomeprazole was significantly more effective than placebo for symptom relief. The difference in therapeutic gain between 4 and 8 wk was largely due to a higher placebo response rate at 8 wk.

BACKGROUND: The management of persistent symptoms during acid suppression therapy in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease or dyspepsia might be improved if patient-physician communication regarding the presence and character of these persistent symptoms were facilitated.AIM: To validate a short, simple questionnaire (the Proton pump inhibitor [PPI] Acid Suppression Symptom [PASS] test), in English and French, to identify patients with persistent acid-related symptoms during PPI therapy and document their response to a change in therapy.METHODS: Patients with persistent acid-related symptoms on PPI therapy were interviewed to produce a draft, five-item questionnaire; content validity was evaluated by focus groups comprising English- and French-speaking patients. Psychometric validity was subsequently evaluated in a multicentre, family practice-based study of English- and French-speaking patients with persistent acid-related upper gastrointestinal symptoms despite PPI therapy. The PASS test, Global Overall Symptom scale, Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale (GSRS), Quality of Life in Reflux and Dyspepsia questionnaire and Reflux Disease Questionnaire were completed at baseline and repeated after one week while patients continued their original PPI therapy. All patients then received esomeprazole 40 mg once daily for four weeks, after which all questionnaires and an evaluation of overall treatment effect were completed.RESULTS: Content validity was established in 20 English- and 16 French-speaking patients. Psychometric validation in 158 English- and 113 French-speaking patients revealed good-to-excellent test-retest reliability coefficients: 0.76 for English; 0.68 for French. For construct validity, the PASS test showed moderate-to-high correlation with the GSRS scale (0.51 for English; 0.43 for French). After four weeks of therapy, the PASS test score fell to zero in 30% of English- and 33% of French-speaking patients, while the Global Overall Symptom score fell to one (no symptoms) in 32% of patients (English- and French-speaking); the PASS test demonstrated good responsiveness in comparison with the GSRS, Reflux Disease Questionnaire and Quality of Life in Reflux and Dyspepsia questionnaire.CONCLUSION: The five-item PASS test is a valid tool for the evaluation of persistent acid-related symptoms in patients receiving PPI therapy. It demonstrates good content validity, test-retest reliability, responsiveness and construct validity in both English and French forms. The PASS test is a simple, clinically applicable tool for the identification of patients with persistent acid-related symptoms during therapy and the assessment of their responses to a change in therapy.

Summary Background: Uninvestigated dyspepsia is common in family practice. The prevalence of clinically significant upper gastrointestinal findings (CSFs) in adult uninvestigated dyspepsia patients, and their predictability based on history, is unknown. Methods: Prompt endoscopy was performed within 10 days of referral, in 1040 adult patients presenting with uninvestigated dyspepsia at 49 Canadian family practitioner centres. Subsequent management strategies during a 6-month follow-up period were determined by the individual family practitioners. Results: CSFs were identified in 58% (603/1040) of patients. Erosive oesophagitis was most common (43%; N = 451); peptic ulcer was uncommon (5.3%; N = 55). Alarm symptoms were uncommon (2.8%; N = 29). Most patients had at least three dyspepsia symptoms, more than 80% had at least six, and approximately half had eight or more. Based on the dominant symptom, 463 (45%) patients had ulcer-like, 393 (38%) had reflux-like and 184 (18%) had dysmotility-like dyspepsia. The patients' dominant symptom was not predictive of endoscopic findings. Oesophagitis was more common in those with dominant reflux-like symptoms and was the most common finding in all subgroups. The prevalence of gastroduodenal findings was similar in all symptom subgroups. Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) infection (30%; 301/1013) was associated with gastroduodenal findings. Conclusions: Dyspepsia subclassifications, based on dominant symptom, are of limited value in predicting the presence and nature of CSFs. Oesophagitis was by far the most common diagnosis (43% of patients). CSFs were common in uninvestigated dyspepsia patients and their nature suggests patients could be initially treated effectively, without endoscopy, using empirical acid suppressive therapy.

Tesofensine is a (triple) reuptake inhibitor of noradrenaline, dopamine, and serotonin that is in development for the treatment of obesity. The abuse potential of triple reuptake inhibitors is not yet known, and so this study was undertaken to evaluate the potential abuse-related effects of tesofensine in humans. It was designed as a single-dose, randomized, double-blind, crossover study involving tesofensine vs. placebo, D-amphetamine (positive control for dopaminergic/stimulant effects), bupropion, and atomoxetine (negative/unscheduled controls) in recreational stimulant users (N = 52). Subjective and objective measures were assessed for 48 h after drug administration. The study results show that the effects of D-amphetamine were significantly greater than those of placebo on all primary and secondary subjective measures. The effects of tesofensine were not significantly different from those of placebo and were lower than those of D-amphetamine 30 mg on all primary and most secondary measures. The effects of tesofensine were either lower than or not different from those of bupropion or atomoxetine. These results demonstrate that the abuse potential for tesofensine is no greater than that of bupropion or atomoxetine, and tesofensine is therefore unlikely to be recreationally abused.

Summary Background Currently there is no consensus on the optimal method to measure the severity of dyspepsia symptoms in clinical trials. Aim To validate the 7-point Global Overall Symptom scale. Methods The Global Overall Symptom scale uses a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = no problem to 7 = a very severe problem. Validation was performed in two randomized-controlled trials (n = 1121 and 512). Construct validity: Global Overall Symptom was compared with the Quality of Life in Reflux And Dyspepsia, Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale, Reflux Disease Questionnaire and 10 specific symptoms using Spearman correlation coefficients. Test–retest reliability: The Intraclass Correlation Coefficient was calculated for patients with stable dyspepsia defined by no change in Overall Treatment Effect score over two visits. Responsiveness: effect size and standardized response mean were also calculated. Results Construct validity: Change in Global Overall Symptom score correlated significantly with Quality of Life for Reflux And Dyspepsia, Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale, Reflux Disease Questionnaire and specific symptoms (all P

Summary Background : There are few data on empiric, stepped therapy for heartburn relief or subsequent relapse in primary care. Aims : To compare heartburn relief produced by a proton pump inhibitor-start or an H2-receptor antagonist-start with step-up therapy, as needed, followed by a treatment-free period to assess relapse. Methods : Heartburn-dominant uninvestigated dyspepsia patients from 46 primary care centres were randomized to one of two active treatment strategies: omeprazole 20 mg daily (proton pump inhibitor-start) or ranitidine 150 mg bid (H2-receptor antagonist-start) for the first 4–8 weeks, stepping up to omeprazole 40 or 20 mg daily, respectively, for 4–8 weeks for persistent symptoms. Daily diaries documented heartburn relief (score ≤3/7 on ≤1 of 7 prior days) and relapse (score ≥4 on ≥2 of 7 prior days). Results : For ‘proton pump inhibitor-start’ (n = 196) vs. ‘H2-receptor antagonist-start’ (n = 194), respectively, heartburn relief occurred in 55.1% vs. 27.3% (P

Symptom response at 1-week predicts responders at 4-weeks with esomeprazole (40 mg bid and od) in patients with uninvestigated dyspepsia