Displaying all 5 publications

Abstract:
Sort:
  1. D'ABRERA VS
    Med J Malaya, 1957 Dec;12(2):427-34.
    PMID: 13515874
    Matched MeSH terms: Sulfonamides/adverse effects*
  2. Nagreh DS
    Int J Dermatol, 1976 1 1;15(1):34-5.
    PMID: 1352
    Matched MeSH terms: Sulfonamides/adverse effects*
  3. Xiao Y, Zhang S, Dai N, Fei G, Goh KL, Chun HJ, et al.
    Gut, 2020 02;69(2):224-230.
    PMID: 31409606 DOI: 10.1136/gutjnl-2019-318365
    OBJECTIVE: To establish the non-inferior efficacy of vonoprazan versus lansoprazole in the treatment of Asian patients with erosive oesophagitis (EO).

    DESIGN: In this phase III, double-blind, multicentre study, patients with endoscopically confirmed EO were randomised 1:1 to receive vonoprazan 20 mg or lansoprazole 30 mg, once daily for up to 8 weeks. The primary endpoint was EO healing rate at 8 weeks. The secondary endpoints were EO healing rates at 2 and 4 weeks. Safety endpoints included treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs).

    RESULTS: In the vonoprazan (n=238) and lansoprazole (n=230) arms, 8-week EO healing rates were 92.4% and 91.3%, respectively (difference 1.1% (95% CI -3.822% to 6.087%)). The respective 2-week EO healing rates were 75.0% and 67.8% (difference 7.2% (95% CI -1.054% to 15.371%)), and the respective 4-week EO healing rates were 85.3% and 83.5% (difference 1.8% (95% CI -4.763% to 8.395%)). In patients with baseline Los Angeles classification grade C/D, 2-week, 4-week and 8-week EO healing rates were higher with vonoprazan versus lansoprazole (2 weeks: 62.2% vs 51.5%, difference 10.6% (95% CI -5.708% to 27.002%); 4 weeks: 73.3% vs 67.2%, difference 6.2% (95% CI -8.884 to 21.223); and 8 weeks: 84.0% vs 80.6%, difference 3.4% (95% CI -9.187% to 15.993%)). Overall, EO healing rates appeared higher with vonoprazan versus lansoprazole. TEAE rates were 38.1% and 36.6% in the vonoprazan and lansoprazole group, respectively.

    CONCLUSION: Our findings demonstrate the non-inferior efficacy of vonoprazan versus lansoprazole in terms of EO healing rate at 8 weeks in this population. Safety outcomes were similar in the two treatment arms.

    TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02388724.

    Matched MeSH terms: Sulfonamides/adverse effects
  4. Zhu JR, Tomlinson B, Ro YM, Sim KH, Lee YT, Sriratanasathavorn C
    Curr Med Res Opin, 2007 Dec;23(12):3055-68.
    PMID: 18196620
    BACKGROUND: Most studies investigating the benefits of statins have focused on North American and European populations. This study focuses on evaluating the lipid-lowering effects of rosuvastatin and atorvastatin in Asian patients.

    OBJECTIVES: The DIrect Statin COmparison of LDL-C Values: an Evaluation of Rosuvastatin therapY (DISCOVERY)-Asia study is one of nine independently powered studies assessing the efficacy of starting doses of statins in achieving target lipid levels in different countries worldwide. DISCOVERY-Asia was a 12-week, randomised, open-label, parallel-group study conducted in China, Hong Kong, Korea, Malaysia, Taiwan, and Thailand.

    RESULTS: A total of 1482 adults with primary hypercholesterolaemia and high cardiovascular risk (> 20%/10 years, type 2 diabetes, or a history of coronary heart disease) were randomised in a 2 : 1 ratio to receive rosuvastatin 10 mg once daily (o.d.) or atorvastatin 10 mg o.d. The percentage of patients achieving the 1998 European Joint Task Force low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goal of < 3.0 mmol/L at 12 weeks was significantly higher in the rosuvastatin group (n = 950) compared with the atorvastatin group (n = 471) (79.5 vs. 69.4%, respectively; p < 0.0001). Similar results were observed for 1998 European goals for total cholesterol (TC), and the 2003 European goals for LDL-C and TC. LDL-C and TC levels were reduced significantly more with rosuvastatin compared with atorvastatin. Both drugs were well-tolerated and the incidence and type of adverse events were similar in each group.

    TRIALS REGISTRATION: The trial registry summary is available at http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/; ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00241488

    CONCLUSIONS: This 12-week study showed that the starting dose of rosuvastatin 10 mg o.d. was significantly more effective than the starting dose of natorvastatin 10 mg o.d. at enabling patients with primary hypercholesterolaemia to achieve European goals for LDL-C and TC in a largely Asian population in real-life clinical practice. The safety profile of rosuvastatin 10 mg is similar to that of atorvastatin 10 mg in the Asian population studied here, and is consistent with the known safety profile of rosuvastatin in the white population.

    Matched MeSH terms: Sulfonamides/adverse effects
  5. Nadarajah A, Abrahan L, Lau FL, Hwang LJ, Fakir-Bolte C
    Singapore Med J, 2006 Jun;47(6):534-42.
    PMID: 16752024
    INTRODUCTION: Cyclooxygenase (COX)-2 selective inhibitors are attractive candidates for treatment of ankle sprain because of their efficacy as anti-inflammatory and analgesic agents and their overall safety, including lack of effect on platelet aggregation. The objective of this study was to assess the efficacy and tolerability of celecoxib compared with diclofenac slow release (SR) in the treatment of acute ankle sprain in an Asian population.
    METHODS: In this seven-day, multicentre, double-blind, randomised, parallel-group trial, 370 patients with first- or second-degree ankle sprain occurring at or less than 48 hours prior to the first dose of study medication were randomised to receive celecoxib 200 mg bid (189 patients) after a 400 mg loading dose or diclofenac SR 75 mg bid (181 patients). Patients were required to demonstrate moderate to severe ankle pain on weight bearing (45 mm or greater on a 100 mm visual analogue scale [VAS]) at baseline. The primary efficacy end point was the patient's assessment of ankle pain (VAS on full weight bearing) on day 4.
    RESULTS: Celecoxib was as effective as diclofenac SR in improving the signs and symptoms of ankle sprain. At day 4, mean VAS scores for celecoxib and diclofenac SR had decreased to 28 mm and 30 mm, respectively. Treatment differences were not statistically significant. Incidence of upper gastrointestinal adverse events was low in both treatment groups (0.5 percent versus 2.2 percent for celecoxib and diclofenac SR, respectively).
    CONCLUSION: Celecoxib, a COX-2 selective inhibitor, is as effective as diclofenac SR in treating ankle sprains. With its platelet-sparing properties, celecoxib may offer an advantage over diclofenac SR in managing musculoskeletal injuries.
    Matched MeSH terms: Sulfonamides/adverse effects
Filters
Contact Us

Please provide feedback to Administrator (tengcl@gmail.com)

External Links