MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified RCTs for SUI interventions published between January 2015 and July 2017. We listed the objective and subjective outcome measures used in eligible trials in the literature search. Using data from our RCT conducted from 2013 to 2016 evaluating pulsed magnetic stimulation for SUI, we analysed the correlation between all measures.
RESULTS: A total of 45 RCTs were included; 28 (62%) involved surgical interventions. The most frequently used objective and subjective measures were the cough stress test and International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-Urinary Incontinence Short Form (ICIQ-UI SF), respectively. In all, 24 different validated questionnaires were administered in the 42 studies that used subjective outcome measure. Analyses of measures used in our trial showed that all measures were significantly correlated with each other except for pelvic floor muscle function. The ICIQ-UI SF showed the highest correlation coefficients (0.587-0.733) with all outcome measures.
CONCLUSION: The outcome measures used in recent trials were inconsistent. The ICIQ-UI SF had the highest correlation with all measures in our trial; however, further studies evaluating correlation of measures in other patient cohorts are needed to corroborate our present results. We propose the use of ICIQ-UI SF, as the most relevant outcome measure, in future trials evaluating efficacy of SUI interventions.
METHOD: This is a single-center, single-dose, open-label, randomized, 2-treatment, 2-sequence and 2-period crossover study with a washout period of 7 days. Paracetamol/Orphenadrine tablets were administered after a 10-h fast. Blood samples for pharmacokinetic analysis were collected at scheduled time intervals prior to and up to 72 h after dosing. Blood samples were centrifuged, and separated plasma were kept frozen (- 15 °C to - 25 °C) until analysis. Plasma concentrations of orphenadrine and paracetamol were quantified using liquid-chromatography-tandem mass spectrometer using diphenhydramine as internal standard. The pharmacokinetic parameters AUC0-∞, AUC0-t and Cmax were determined using plasma concentration time profile for both preparations. Bioequivalence was assessed according to the ASEAN guideline acceptance criteria for bioequivalence which is the 90% confidence intervals of AUC0-∞, AUC0-t and Cmax ratio must be within the range of 80.00-125.00%.
RESULTS: There were 28 healthy subjects enrolled, and 27 subjects completed this trial. There were no significant differences observed between the AUC0-∞, AUC0-t and Cmax of both test and reference preparations in fasted condition. The 90% confidence intervals for the ratio of AUC0-t (100.92-111.27%), AUC0-∞ (96.94-108.08%) and Cmax (100.11-112.50%) for orphenadrine (n = 25); and AUC0-t (94.29-101.83%), AUC0-∞ (94.77-101.68%) and Cmax (87.12-101.20%) for paracetamol (n = 27) for test preparation over reference preparation were all within acceptable bioequivalence range of 80.00-125.00%.
CONCLUSION: The test preparation is bioequivalent to the reference preparation and can be used interchangeably.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: NMRR- 17-1266-36,001; registered and approved on 12 September 2017.
METHOD: Compartmental models were fitted. The final model was determined based on the objective function value and inspection of goodness-of-fit plots. The bias and precision of parameter estimates were compared between SAEM and FOCEi using stochastic simulations and estimations. For robustness, parameters were re-estimated as the initial estimates were perturbed 100 times and resultant changes evaluated.
RESULTS: The absorption kinetics of metformin depend significantly on food status. Under the fasted state, the first-order absorption into the central compartment was preceded by zero-order infusion into the depot compartment, whereas for the fed state, the absorption into the depot was instantaneous followed by first-order absorption from depot into the central compartment. The means of relative mean estimation error (rMEE) ( ME E SAEM ME E FOCEi ) and rRMSE ( RMS E SAEM RMS E FOCEi ) were 0.48 and 0.35, respectively. All parameter estimates given by SAEM appeared to be narrowly distributed and were close to the true value used for simulation. In contrast, the distribution of estimates from FOCEi were skewed and more biased. When initial estimates were perturbed, FOCEi estimates were more biased and imprecise.
DISCUSSION: nlmixr is reliable for NLMEM. SAEM was superior to FOCEi in terms of bias and precision, and more robust against initial estimate perturbations.