BMC Clinical Pharmacology - Latest articles

Background: Ibuprofen and paracetamol differ in their mode of action and related therapeutic effects, suggesting that combined administration may offer improved analgesia. Reported here are the results of two studies on the pharmacokinetic properties of a novel ibuprofen (200 mg) and paracetamol (500 mg) fixed-dose combination tablet. Methods: Both studies were open-label, randomised studies in healthy volunteers: Study 1 was a four-way crossover, single-dose study; Study 2 was a two-way cross-over, repeat-dose study. Results: Pharmacokinetic parameters for ibuprofen and paracetamol were similar for the combination and monotherapy tablets (values falling within the 80% to 125% acceptable bioequivalence range) except for the rate of absorption of paracetamol from the combination (tmax), which was significantly faster compared with monotherapy (median difference 10 minutes; p < 0.05). Mean plasma concentrations of both drugs were higher, earlier, following administration of the combination tablet compared with monotherapy. Mean plasma levels at 10 and 20 minutes were 6.64 μg.mL-1 and 16.81 μg.mL-1, respectively, for ibuprofen from the combination, compared with 0.58 μg.mL-1 and 9.00 μg.mL-1, respectively, for monotherapy. For paracetamol, mean plasma levels at 10 and 20 minutes were 5.43 μg.mL-1 and 14.54 μg.mL-1, respectively, for the combination compared with 0.33 μg.mL-1 and 9.19 μg.mL-1, respectively, for monotherapy. The rate of absorption of both ibuprofen and paracetamol was significantly delayed when the combination tablet was administered in the fed versus fasted state; median delay was 25 minutes for ibuprofen (p > 0.05) and 55 minutes for paracetamol (p < 0.001). The pharmacokinetic parameters were comparable irrespective of whether the combination tablet was given twice or three times daily; systemic exposure was, however, approximately 1.4 times greater for both drugs when given three times daily. Conclusions: Administration of ibuprofen and paracetamol in a fixed-dose combination tablet does not significantly alter the pharmacokinetic profiles of either drug, except for enhancing the rate of paracetamol absorption, offering potential therapeutic benefits in relation to the onset of analgesia. Concentrations of both drugs reached previously reported therapeutic levels when the combination tablet was administrated in the fed or fasted state. Three times daily dosing may offer enhanced therapeutic effect for longer than twice daily dosing.

Background: In spite of recent advances in post-operative pain relief, pain following orthopedic surgery remains an ongoing challenge for clinicians. We examined whether a well known and frequently prescribed homeopathic preparation could mitigate post-operative pain.MethodWe performed a randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy of the homeopathic preparation Traumeel S® in minimizing post-operative pain and analgesic consumption following surgical correction of hallux valgus. Eighty consecutive patients were randomized to receive either Traumeel tablets or an indistinguishable placebo, and took primary and rescue oral analgesics as needed. Maximum numerical pain scores at rest and consumption of oral analgesics were recorded on day of surgery and for 13 days following surgery. Results: Traumeel was not found superior to placebo in minimizing pain or analgesic consumption over the 14 days of the trial, however a transient reduction in the daily maximum post-operative pain score favoring the Traumeel arm was observed on the day of surgery, a finding supported by a treatment-time interaction test (p = 0.04). Conclusions: Traumeel was not superior to placebo in minimizing pain or analgesic consumption over the 14 days of the trial. A transient reduction in the daily maximum post-operative pain score on the day of surgery is of questionable clinical importance.Trial RegistrationThis study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov. # NCT00279513

Background: Safety culture assessment is increasingly recognized as an important component in healthcare quality improvement, also in pharmacies. One of the most commonly used and rigorously validated tools to measure safety culture is the Safety Attitudes Questionnaire; SAQ. This study presents the validation of the SAQ for use in Swedish pharmacies. The psychometric properties of the translated questionnaire are presented Methods: The original English language version of the SAQ was translated and adapted to the Swedish context and distributed by e-mail. The survey was carried out on a national basis, covering all 870 Swedish community pharmacies. In total, 7,244 questionnaires were distributed. Scale psychometrics were analysed using Cronbach alphas and intercorrelations among the scales. Multiple group confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted. Results: SAQ data from 828 community pharmacies in Sweden, including 4,090 (60.22%) pharmacy personnel out of 6,683 eligible respondents, were received. There were 252 (28.97%) pharmacies that met the inclusion criteria of having at least 5 respondents and a minimum response rate of 60% within that pharmacy.The coefficient alpha value for each of the SAQ scales ranged from .72 to .89. The internal consistency results, in conjunction with the confirmatory factor analysis results, demonstrate that the Swedish translation of the SAQ has acceptable to good psychometric properties. Perceptions of the pharmacy (Teamwork Climate, Job Satisfaction, Perceptions of Management, Safety Climate, and Working Conditions) were moderately to highly correlated with one another whereas attitudes about stress (Stress Recognition) had only low correlations with other factors. Perceptions of management showed the most variability across pharmacies (SD = 26.66), whereas Stress Recognition showed the least (SD = 18.58). There was substantial variability ranging from 0% to 100% in the percent of positive scores for each of the factors across the 252 pharmacies. Conclusions: The Swedish translation of the SAQ demonstrates acceptable construct validity, for capturing the frontline perspective of safety culture of community pharmacy staff. The psychometric results reported here met or exceeded standard guidelines, which is consistent with previous studies using the SAQ in other healthcare settings and other languages.

Background: Pentosan polysulfate sodium (pentosan) is a semi-synthetic drug manufactured from beech-wood hemicellulose by sulfate esterification of the xylopyranose hydroxyl groups. From in vitro and animal model studies, pentosan has been proposed as a disease modifying osteoarthritis drug (DMOAD). The objective of this study was to assess the efficacy, safety, and patient satisfaction in patients with mild radiographic knee osteoarthritis (OA) findings and OA-associated symptoms and signs. Methods: Twenty patients were assessed clinically at Nagasaki University Hospital. The radiographic indications of OA were grade 1 to 3 using the Kellgren-Lawrence Grading System (K/L grade). Pentosan used in this study was manufactured and supplied in sterile injectable vials (100 mg/ml) by bene GmbH, Munich, Germany. The study was a single-center, open-label trial. Treatment consisted of 6 weekly subcutaneous injections (sc) of pentosan (2 mg/kg). Patients were clinically assessed at entry and 1 to 8, 11, 15, 24 & 52 weeks post treatment. The results were analyzed using one way ANOVA and Dunnett's method. Results: Hydrarthroses were reduced quickly in all cases. The clinical assessments, i.e., knee flexion, pain while walking, pain after climbing up and down stairs, etc, were improved significantly and these clinical improvements continued for almost one year. The dose used in this study affected the blood coagulation test, but was within safe levels. Slightly abnormal findings were noted in serum triglycerides. Conclusions: Pentosan treatment in twenty patients with mild knee OA seemed to provide improvements in clinical assessments and C2C level of cartilage metabolism.Trial RegistrationUMIN Clinical Trials Registry (UMIN-CTR) UMIN000002790

Background: Distalgesic, the prescription-only analgesic compound of paracetamol (325 mg) and dextropropoxyphene (32.5 mg) known as co-proxamol in the UK, was withdrawn from the Irish market as of January 2006. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of the withdrawal of distalgesic in terms of intentional drug overdose (IDO) presentations to hospital emergency departments (EDs) nationally. Methods: A total of 42,849 IDO presentations to 37 of the 40 hospitals EDs operating in Ireland in 2003-2008 were recorded according to standardised procedures. Data on sales of paracetamol-containing drugs to retail pharmacies for the period 1998-2008 were obtained from IMS Health. Results: The withdrawal of distalgesic from the Irish market resulted in an immediate reduction in sales to retail pharmacies from 40 million tablets in 2005 to 500,000 tablets in 2006 while there was a 48% increase in sales of other prescription compound analgesics. The rate of IDO presentations to hospital involving distalgesic in 2006-2008 was 84% lower than in the three years before it was withdrawn (10.0 per 100,000). There was a 44% increase in the rate of IDO presentations involving other prescription compound analgesics but the magnitude of this rate increase was five times smaller than the magnitude of the decrease in distalgesic-related IDO presentations. There was a decreasing trend in the rate of presentations involving any paracetamol-containing drug that began in the years before the distalgesic withdrawal. Conclusions: The withdrawal of distalgesic has had positive benefits in terms of IDO presentations to hospital in Ireland and provides evidence supporting the restriction of availability of means as a prevention strategy for suicidal behaviour.

Background: New drugs are generally claimed to represent a therapeutic innovation. However, scientific evidence of a substantial clinical advantage is often lacking. This may be the result of using inadequate control groups or surrogate outcomes only in the clinical trials. In view of this, EVITA was developed as a user-friendly transparent tool for the early evaluation of the additional therapeutic value of a new drug. Methods: EVITA does not evaluate a new compound per se but in an approved indication in comparison with existing therapeutic strategies. Placebo as a comparator is accepted only in the absence of an established therapy or if employed in an add-on strategy on top. The evaluation attributes rating points to the drug in question, taking into consideration both therapeutic benefit and risk profile. The compound scores positive points for superiority in efficiency and/or adverse effects as demonstrated in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), whilst negative points are awarded for inferiority and/or an unfavorable risk profile. The evaluation follows an algorithm considering the clinical relevance of the outcomes, the strength of the therapeutic effect and the number of RCTs performed. Categories for therapeutic aim and disease severity, although essential parts of the EVITA assessment, are attributed but do not influence the EVITA score which is presented as a color-coded bar graph. In case the available data were unsuitable for an EVITA calculation, a traffic-type yield sign is assigned instead to criticize such practice. The results are presented online http://www.evita-report.de together with all RCTs considered as well as the reasons for excluding a given RCT from the evaluation. This allows for immediate revision in response to justified criticism and simplifies the inclusion of new data. Results: As examples, four compounds which received approval within the last years were evaluated for one of their clinical indications: lenalidomide, pioglitazone, bupropion and zoledronic acid. Only the first achieved an EVITA score above zero indicating therapeutic advantage. Conclusions: The strength of EVITA appears to lie in its speedy assessment of the potential therapeutic advantage of a new drug for a given indication. At the same time, this approach draws attention to the typical deficits of data used for drug approval. EVITA is not intended to replace classical health technology assessment reports but rather serves as a screening tool in the sense of horizon scanning.

Background: Adherence to prescribing guidelines varies between primary health care units. The aim of the present study was to investigate correlations between characteristics of primary health care units and adherence to prescribing objectives for rational drug use with focus on drug information from the pharmaceutical industry. Methods: A cross-sectional study was performed in all 25 primary health care units in Göteborg, Sweden. A questionnaire on characteristics of practice settings [(i) size of unit, (ii) profession of head, (iii) use of temporary physicians, (iv) drug information from the pharmaceutical industry, (v) producer-independent drug information, and (vi) education on prescribing for newly employed physicians] was sent to the heads of the units. A national sales register for prescribed drugs (Xplain) was used for evaluation of adherence to the six regional prescribing objectives concerning proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs), statins and antidepressants. Results: Twenty-two out of 25 primary health care units responded to the questionnaire (response rate 88%). A physician as head and presence of producer-independent drug information was positively correlated with adherence to the prescribing objectives (median number of prescribing objectives adhered to (25th - 75th percentile): 2.5 (1-3.25) vs 1 (0-2), P = 0.013; 2 (1-3) vs 0, P = 0.043, respectively. Presence of drug information from the pharmaceutical industry and education on prescribing for newly employed physicians was negatively associated with adherence to the prescribing objectives: 1 (0-2) vs 3.5 (2.25-4.75), P = 0.005; 1 (0-2) vs 3 (1.5-4), P = 0.034, respectively. Conclusion: Several characteristics of the primary health care units correlated with adherence to prescribing objectives for rational drug use. Further research on this topic is needed and would constitute valuable information for health care decision makers.

Background: The antimicrobial resistance is a global problem, probably due to the indiscriminate and irrational use of antibiotics, prescriptions for incorrect medicines or incorrect determinations of dose, route and/or duration. Another consideration is the uncertainty of patients receiving antibiotics about whether the quality of a generic medicine is equal to, greater than or less than its equivalent brand-name drug. The antibiotics behaviors must be evaluated in vitro and in vivo in order to confirm their suitability for therapeutic use. Methods: The antimicrobial activities of Meropenem and Piperacillin/Tazobactam were studied by microbiological assays to determine their potencies (content), minimal inhibitory concentrations (MICs), critical concentrations and capacity to produce spontaneous drug-resistant mutants. Results: With respect to potency (content) all the products fulfill USP requirements, so they should all be considered pharmaceutical equivalents. The MIC values of the samples evaluated (trade marks and generics) were the same for each strain tested, indicating that all products behaved similarly. The critical concentration values were very similar for all samples, and the ratios between the critical concentration of the standard and those of each sample were similar to the ratios of their specific antibiotic contents. Overall, therefore, the results showed no significant differences among samples. Finally, the production of spontaneous mutants did not differ significantly among the samples evaluated. Conclusions: All the samples are pharmaceutical equivalents and the products can be used in antimicrobial therapy.

Background: Several randomised clinical trials (RCTs) of analgesics in postoperative pain after traumatic or orthopaedic surgery (TOS) have been published, but no studies have assessed the quality of these reports. We aimed to examine the quality of reporting RCTs on analgesics for postoperative pain after TOS. Methods: Reports of RCTs assessing analgesics in postoperative pain after TOS were systematically searched from electronic databases. The quality of reports was assessed using the CONSORT checklist (scoring range from 0 to 22). The quality was considered poor when scoring was 12 or lesser. The publication year and the impact factor of journals were recorded. Results: A total of 92 reports of RCTs were identified and 69 (75%) scored 12 or lesser in CONSORT checklist (range 5-17). The mean (SD) CONSORT score of all reports was 10.6 (2.7). Missing CONSORT items included primary and secondary outcome measures (11%), the specific objectives and hypothesis definition (12%), the sample size calculation (12%), the dates defining the periods of recruitment (12%), the discussion of external validity of findings (14%), the allocation sequence generation (24%), and the interpretation of potential bias or imprecision of results (25%). There was a little improvement in CONSORT scores over time (r = 0.62; p < 0.001) and with impact factor of journals (r = 0.30; p < 0.001). Conclusion: Quality of reporting RCTs on analgesics after TOS is poor. Reporting of those RCTs should be improved according to methodological standard checklists in the next years.

Background: The goal of physiologically based pharmacokinetics (PBPK) is to predict drug kinetics from an understanding of the organ/blood exchange. The standard approach is to assume that the organ is "flow limited" which means that the venous blood leaving the organ equilibrates with the well-stirred tissue compartment. Although this assumption is valid for most solutes, it has been shown to be incorrect for several very highly fat soluble compounds which appear to be "diffusion limited". This paper describes the physical basis of this adipose diffusion limitation and its quantitative dependence on the blood/water (Kbld-wat) and octanol/water (Kow) partition coefficient. Methods: Experimental measurements of the time dependent rat blood and adipose concentration following either intravenous or oral input were used to estimate the "apparent" adipose perfusion rate (FA) assuming that the tissue is flow limited. It is shown that the ratio of FA to the anatomic perfusion rate (F) provides a measure of the diffusion limitation. A quantitative relationship between this diffusion limitation and Kbld-wat and Kow is derived. This analysis was applied to previously published data, including the Oberg et. al. measurements of the rat plasma and adipose tissue concentration following an oral dose of a mixture of 13 different polychlorinated biphenyls. Results: Solutes become diffusion limited at values of log Kow greater than about 5.6, with the adipose-blood exchange rate reduced by a factor of about 30 for a solute with a log Kow of 7.36. Quantitatively, a plot of FA/F versus Kow is well described assuming an adipose permeability-surface area product (PS) of 750/min. This PS corresponds to a 0.14 micron aqueous layer separating the well-stirred blood from the adipose lipid. This is approximately equal to the thickness of the rat adipose capillary endothelium. Conclusions: These results can be used to quantitate the adipose-blood diffusion limitation as a function of Kow. This is especially important for the highly fat soluble persistent organic chemicals (e.g. polychlorinated biphenyls, dioxins) whose pharmacokinetics are primarily determined by the adipose-blood exchange kinetics.