The trial was conducted prior to registration being introduced.

BackgroundMelatonin is extensively used in the USA in a non-regulated manner for sleep disorders. Prolonged release melatonin (PRM) is licensed in Europe and other countries for the short term treatment of primary insomnia in patients aged 55 years and over. However, a clear definition of the target patient population and well-controlled studies of long-term efficacy and safety are lacking. It is known that melatonin production declines with age. Some young insomnia patients also may have low melatonin levels. The study investigated whether older age or low melatonin excretion is a better predictor of response to PRM, whether the efficacy observed in short-term studies is sustained during continued treatment and the long term safety of such treatment.MethodsAdult outpatients (791, aged 18-80 years) with primary insomnia, were treated with placebo (2 weeks) and then randomized, double-blind to 3 weeks with PRM or placebo nightly. PRM patients continued whereas placebo completers were re-randomized 1:1 to PRM or placebo for 26 weeks with 2 weeks of single-blind placebo run-out. Main outcome measures were sleep latency derived from a sleep diary, Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), Quality of Life (World Health Organzaton-5) Clinical Global Impression of Improvement (CGI-I) and adverse effects and vital signs recorded at each visit.ResultsOn the primary efficacy variable, sleep latency, the effects of PRM (3 weeks) in patients with low endogenous melatonin (6-sulphatoxymelatonin [6-SMT] ≤8 μg/night) regardless of age did not differ from the placebo, whereas PRM significantly reduced sleep latency compared to the placebo in elderly patients regardless of melatonin levels (-19.1 versus -1.7 min; P = 0.002). The effects on sleep latency and additional sleep and daytime parameters that improved with PRM were maintained or enhanced over the 6-month period with no signs of tolerance. Most adverse events were mild in severity with no clinically relevant differences between PRM and placebo for any safety outcome.ConclusionsThe results demonstrate short- and long-term efficacy and safety of PRM in elderly insomnia patients. Low melatonin production regardless of age is not useful in predicting responses to melatonin therapy in insomnia. The age cut-off for response warrants further investigation.

The results demonstrate short- and long-term efficacy of PRM in insomnia patients aged 18-80 years, particularly those aged 55 and over. PRM was well-tolerated over the entire 6-month period with no rebound or withdrawal symptoms following discontinuation. Study Registry No: ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT00397189.

SUMMARY BackgroundThe alginate-antacid, Gaviscon Double Action (Gaviscon DA; Reckitt Benckiser, Slough, UK) suppresses reflux after meals by creating a gel-like barrier that caps and displaces the acid pocket distal to the oesophago-gastric junction. The effect of Gaviscon DA on reflux and dyspepsia symptoms has not yet been demonstrated with a modern trial design. AimA pilot study to assess the efficacy and safety of Gaviscon DA compared with matched placebo for decreasing upper gastrointestinal symptoms in symptomatic gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GERD) patients. MethodsA randomised, double-blind, parallel group study was performed in 110 patients with symptoms of GERD. Patients received Gaviscon DA or placebo tablets for 7 consecutive days. The primary endpoint compared the change in overall Reflux Disease Questionnaire (RDQ) symptom score (combined heartburn/regurgitation/ dyspepsia). Secondary endpoints assessed individual dimensions, GERD dimension (heartburn and regurgitation) and overall treatment evaluation (OTE). ResultsThere was a greater decrease in overall RDQ symptom score in the Gaviscon DA group compared with the placebo group (Least Squares Mean difference À0.55; P = 0.0033), and for each of the dimensions independently. Patients in the Gaviscon DA group evaluated their overall treatment response higher than patients in the placebo group [mean (standard deviation) OTE 4.1 (2.44) vs. 1.9 (3.34); P = 0.0005]. No differences in the incidence of adverse events were observed between treatment groups. ConclusionsGaviscon DA decreases reflux and dyspeptic symptoms in GERD patients compared with matched placebo and has a favourable benefit-risk balance. Larger scale clinical investigations of medications targeting the acid pocket are warranted.

BackgroundClinically proven over-the-counter (OTC) treatment options are becoming increasingly important in the self-management of acute sore throat. The aim of this study was to determine the analgesic and sensorial benefits of two different amylmetacresol/2,4-dichlorobenzyl alcohol (AMC/DCBA) throat lozenge formulation variants, AMC/DCBA Warm lozenge and AMC/DCBA Cool lozenge, compared with an unflavoured, non-medicated placebo lozenge in the relief of acute sore throat due to upper respiratory tract infections.MethodsIn this multicentre, randomised, double-blind, single-dose study, 225 adult patients with acute sore throat were randomly assigned to receive either one AMC/DCBA Warm lozenge (n = 77), one AMC/DCBA Cool lozenge (n = 74) or one unflavoured, non-medicated lozenge (matched for size, shape and demulcency; n = 74). After baseline assessments, patients received their assigned lozenge and completed four rating assessments at 11 timepoints from 1 to 120 minutes post dose. Analgesic properties were assessed by comparing severity of throat soreness and sore throat relief ratings. Difficulty in swallowing, throat numbness, functional, sensorial and emotional benefits were also assessed.ResultsBoth the AMC/DCBA Warm and AMC/DCBA Cool lozenge induced significant analgesic, functional, sensorial and emotional effects compared with the unflavoured, non-medicated lozenge. Sore throat relief, improvements in throat soreness and difficulty in swallowing, and throat numbness were observed as early as 1-5 minutes, and lasted up to 2 hours post dose. Sensorial benefits of warming and cooling associated with the AMC/DCBA Warm and AMC/DCBA Cool lozenge, respectively, were experienced soon after first dose, and in the case of the latter, it lasted long after the lozenge had dissolved. Emotional benefits of feeling better, happier, less distracted and less frustrated were reported in those taking either of the AMC/DCBA throat lozenge variants, with no differences in adverse events compared with the unflavoured, non-medicated lozenge.ConclusionsAMC/DCBA Warm and AMC/DCBA Cool lozenges are well-tolerated and effective OTC treatment options, offering functional, sensorial and emotional benefits to patients with acute sore throat, over and above that of the rapid efficacy effects provided.Trial registrationISRCTN: ISRCTN00003567