Search

Out of thirty-six patients with mild to moderate hypertension twenty-six patients completed a double-blind comparison of slow-release frusemide at two dose levels, and placebo. The two groups differed in their age pattern, baseline level of blood pressure and response to a low-salt diet during the wash-out/run-in period. Despite the lack of comparability of the two groups, firm clinical inferences could be drawn from the study. Seven of the eighteen placebo patients had to be withdrawn from further participation because of deterioration in their hypertension: in contrast, fifteen of the eighteen frusemide patients showed an anti-hypertensive response and none was withdrawn because of lack of effect. Twice-daily administration of the slow-release formulation, however, produced an unacceptable level of such side-effects as nocturia, nausea and vomiting. Once-daily administration of the preparation is therefore preferred.

We recruited 71 previously untreated patients with metastatic prostatic carcinoma to 2 separate consecutive prospective phase 2 studies done by the same group of investigators according to the same protocols in which only the treatment regimens differed. Of the patients 58 were treated with the luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone analogue buserelin alone (0.4mg. 3 times daily intranasally) and 13 were treated with buserelin combined with cyproterone acetate, a potent antiandrogen (50mg. 3 times daily orally). The objective of the study was to investigate the efficacy, safety and tolerability of the medication used during at least 12 months by studying adequate endocrine parameters, the rate and duration of response, as well as the rate of progression and possible side effects. All endocrine parameters were studied in 1 laboratory. Modified response criteria of the National Prostatic Cancer Project were used.

Fifty-one women with pelvic endometriosis were treated with the gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRHa) Buserelin (Hoechst Holland N.V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands) 300 μg three times a day intranasally for 6 months. Forty-nine women completed treatment; 42 were available for 6 months of follow-up following treatment. Symptoms showed prompt and significant improvement. Follow-up after treatment revealed persistent relief from dysmenorrhea and dyspareunia in, respectively, 58.6% and 88.2% of the women, whereas pelvic pain returned to pretreatment scores. Serum estradiol (E2) was suppressed to predominantly early follicular phase concentrations. Laparoscopy at the end of therapy showed significant reduction of scores for implants only. There was no relation between the degree of E2suppression during therapy and the improvement of symptoms or the reduction of endometriosis. Statistical analysis in 22 infertile patients, of whom 7 conceived during follow-up, revealed no differences in E2levels during therapy, improvement of symptoms, or reduction of endometriosis. Buserelin appears to be safe, well tolerated, and effective in the management of endometriosis and associated complaints.

Antihypertensive therapy was stopped in twenty-one patients with moderate hypertension. Almost all of them had been on combination therapy, usually propranolol or metoprolol with chlorthalidone, for more than a year. After a placebo ‘wash-out’ period of 4 weeks patients were randomly allocated in a controlled trial to a fixed daily dose of either 100 mg atenolol or 40 mg penbutolol for 6 weeks. Single-agent therapy at these doses successfully controlled the blood pressure in nineteen of the twenty-one patients, including six previously inadequately controlled on a combination. Although no conclusions can be drawn about the long-term benefits, in the patient population under study either penbutolol or atenolol given at a standard dose should provide good initial blood pressure control in most patients with mild to moderate hypertension.