Systemic bioavailability and pharmacodynamics of topical diclofenac sodium gel 1% were compared with those of oral diclofenac sodium 50-mg tablets. In a randomized, 3-way crossover study, healthy volunteers (n = 40) received three 7-day diclofenac regimens: (A) 16 g gel applied as 4 g to 1 knee 4 times daily (4 g on surface area 400 cm(2)), (B) 48 g gel applied as 4 g per knee 4 times daily to 2 knees plus 2 g gel per hand applied 4 times daily to 2 hands (12 g on 1200 cm(2)), and (C) 150 mg oral diclofenac applied as 50-mg tablets 3 times daily. Thirty-nine participants completed all 3 regimens. Systemic exposure was greater with oral diclofenac (AUC(0-24), 3890 +/- 1710 ng x h/mL) than with topical treatments A (AUC(0-24), 233 +/- 128 ng x h/mL) and B (AUC(0-24), 807 +/- 478 ng x h/mL). Oral diclofenac inhibited platelet aggregation, cyclooxygenase-1 (COX-1), and COX-2. Topical diclofenac did not inhibit platelet aggregation and inhibited COX-1 and COX-2 less than oral diclofenac. Treatment-related adverse events were mild and limited to application site reactions with diclofenac sodium gel 1% (n = 4) and gastrointestinal reactions with oral diclofenac (n = 3). Systemic exposure with diclofenac sodium gel 1% was 5- to 17-fold lower than with oral diclofenac. Systemic effects with topical diclofenac were less pronounced.
These pharmacokinetic data show that with a BDP dose from Foster that is 2.5 times less than a BDP dose from Becotide Forte, pulmonary absorption is 86% higher; however, systemic exposure is 35% lower, resulting in less cortisol suppression for a similar BDP dosage.
ObjectiveTo evaluate a new levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) called Levosert® for the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) in comparison to the reference product Mirena®.MethodsA multicentre, randomised, controlled trial, in non-menopausal women diagnosed with functional HMB (defined as menstrual blood loss [MBL] ≥ 80 mL) randomised to either Levosert® or Mirena® and followed for up to one year. MBL was evaluated using a validated modified version of the Wyatt pictogram.ResultsA total of 280 women were randomised (141 to Levosert® and 139 to Mirena®). During the one-year treatment period, both Levosert® and Mirena® dramatically decreased MBL and increased haemoglobin and ferritin levels. There were no statistically significant differences between Levosert® and Mirena® regarding any of the parameters evaluated during the study. Similar bleeding patterns were observed in both groups. Levosert® was inserted with the same ease as Mirena®. Both treatments were associated with identical expulsion rates and no perforations occurred in either treatment group.ConclusionLevosert®, a new LNG-IUS designed to release the same daily amount of LNG as Mirena®, is highly effective in the treatment of HMB. No differences were observed between Levosert® and Mirena® regarding all evaluated outcomes, including safety profile.
As the temporal, financial, and ethical cost of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) continues to rise, researchers and regulators in drug discovery and development face increasing pressure to make better use of existing data sources. This pressure is especially high in rare disease, where traditionally designed RCTs are often infeasible due to the inability to recruit enough patients or the unwillingness of patients or trial leaders to randomly assign anyone to placebo. Bayesian statistical methods have recently been recommended in such settings for their ability to combine disparate data sources, increasing overall study power. The use of these methods has received a boost in the United States thanks to a new willingness by regulators at the Food and Drug Administration to consider complex innovative trial designs. These designs allow trialists to change the nature of the trial (eg, stop early for success or futility, drop an underperforming trial arm, incorporate data on historical controls, etc) while it is still running. In this article, we review a broad collection of Bayesian techniques useful in rare disease research, indicating the benefits and risks associated with each. We begin with relatively innocuous methods for combining information from RCTs and proceed on through increasingly innovative approaches that borrow strength from increasingly heterogeneous and less carefully curated data sources. We also offer 2 examples from the very recent literature illustrating how clinical pharmacology principles can make important contributions to such designs, confirming the interdisciplinary nature of this work.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.