1. The dynamic and kinetic interactions of alcohol and caffeine were studied in a double‐blind, placebo controlled, cross‐over trial. Treatments were administered to eight healthy subjects in four experimental sessions, leaving a 1 week wash‐out period between each, as follows: 1) placebo, 2) alcohol (0.8 g kg‐1), 3) caffeine (400 mg) and 4) alcohol (0.8 g kg‐1) + caffeine (400 mg). 2. Evaluations were performed by means of: 1) objective measures: a) psychomotor performance (critical flicker fusion frequency, simple reaction time and tapping test), b) long latency visual evoked potentials ('pattern reversal'); 2) subjective self‐rated scales (visual analogue scales and profile of mood states); 3) caffeine and alcohol plasma concentration determinations. 3. The battery of pharmacodynamic tests was conducted at baseline and at +0.5 h, +1.5 h, +2.5 h, +4 h and +6 h. An analysis of variance was applied to the results, accepting a P < 0.05 as significant. The plasma‐time curves for caffeine and alcohol were analysed by means of model‐independent methods. 4. Results obtained with caffeine in the objective measures demonstrated a decrease in simple reaction time and an increase in the amplitude of the evoked potentials; the subjects' self‐ratings showed a tendency to be more active. Alcohol increased simple reaction time and decreased amplitude of the evoked potentials, although the subjects rated themselves as being active. The combination of alcohol + caffeine showed no significant difference from placebo in the objective tests; nevertheless, the subjective feeling of drunkenness remained. The area under the curve (AUC) for caffeine was significantly higher when administered with alcohol.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
7‐11 November 2010, Tenth International Congress on Drug Therapy in HIV Infection, Glasgow, UK
1. The main objective of the present study was to compare the bioavailability/bioequivalence of a new prolonged-release (PR) formulation of torasemide with an immediate-release (IR) formulation. In addition, we assessed the pharmacokinetics of both formulations, as well as the urine pharmacodynamics. 2. Two doses (5 and 10 mg) of PR torasemide were compared with the same doses of IR torasemide in a single-blind, single-dose, two-treatment, two-period, cross-over, sequence-randomized clinical trial in 20 healthy volunteers (two groups; n = 10 in each group). Torasemide plasma concentrations were measured by high-pressure liquid chromatography-electrospray ionization mass spectrometry. Torasemide urine concentrations, the diuretic effect of torasemide, urine electrolytes and urine density were also determined. 3. Plasma bioequivalence parameters, based on logged values, were as follows: (i) in the 5 mg group, the area under the plasma drug concentration-time curve from t = 0 to last measurable drug concentration at time t (AUC(0-t)) tablet ratio was 1.03 (90% confidence interval (CI) 0.91-1.17) and C(max) was 0.82 (90% CI: 0.68-0.98); and (ii) in the 10 mg group, the AUC(0-t) was 1.07 (90% CI 0.99-1.14) and C(max) was 0.68 (90% CI 0.60-0.78). The PR formulation showed a significantly prolonged t(max) compared with the IR formulation. The amount of torasemide recovered in the urine 24 h after administration was higher with the PR formulation for both doses. The natriuretic rate versus torasemide excretion rate for the PR and IR formulations were successfully regressed to a sigmoid E(max) model. Pharmacodynamic urine evaluations were similar with both formulations, although urine volume and urine electrolyte excretion were lower for the PR formulation in the first hour after administration. However, the PR formulation showed higher natriuretic efficiency. No significant adverse events were reported. 4. In conclusion, both formulations of torasemide showed similar systemic exposure (AUC). However, the PR formulation had a lower rate of absorption (lower C(max) and prolonged t(max)). The PR formulation had urinary excretion rates that were associated with a higher natriuretic efficiency and more constant diuresis.
Objective: The aim of this double-blind, randomized, crossover, placebo-controlled clinical trial was to compare the inhibition of the histamine-induced skin reaction induced by ebastine 20 mg with respect to that induced by fexofenadine 120 mg or placebo. Methods: Eighteen volunteers (10 males, 8 females) received the three treatments once daily for 5 days, with a mean 7-day washout period between treatments. Intradermal tests, using 0.05 ml from a solution containing 100 µg/ml of histamine, were performed at baseline and at 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 10 and 24 h after a single dose and repeated 5-day dose, and in addition after 34, 48, 58 and 72 h after repeated 5-day dose. Results:After 24 h of acute administration, ebastine 20 mg was significantly more effective than fexofenadine 120 mg in reducing the wheal and flare induced by histamine challenge (p < 0.001). Although fexofenadine 120 mg had the shortest onset of action (1.5 vs. 3 h in ebastine 20 mg), the duration of its antihistamine effect was the shortest (24 vs. 58 h in ebastine 20 mg) and wheal reduction after 24 h was not significantly different from placebo. The overall effect after single and repeated 5-day dose, expressed as the AUC of reduction of wheal and flare area (%/h), showed the following order of magnitude: ebastine 20 mg > fexofenadine 120 mg > placebo. No significant differences in the incidence of adverse events were found between the three treatments. Conclusions: The present results clearly show a superior and long-acting effect of ebastine 20 mg compared with fexofenadine 120 mg on the skin response to histamine 24 h after dosing.
Eberconazole is a topical imidazole derivative, which has shown high potency against dermatophytes and yeasts (several species of Candida, Malassezia) in vitro and in experimental models. Clinical trials have found that the compound has a high degree of efficacy against dermatophytes and good tolerability. Evaluation of its a) topical and general tolerability, b) eventual development of sensitisation, c) local availability, and d) degree of systemic absorption. Two clinical trials with 28 healthy young volunteers of both sexes were performed. In Study I, placebo or eberconazole cream (2%) were applied at increasing doses: day 1 (0.5 g), days 2-3 (1 g), days 4-5 (2 g), days 6-7 (4 g), days 8-9 (8 g), and days 10-11 (12 g). On day 1, each application area was washed with ethanol-soaked gauzes at different times to assess availability of the active compound. In Study II, eberconazole cream (1%) was applied on day 1 and again at least one week later. After the first application, blood and urine samples were obtained at different times to assess systemic absorption. The only change observed was slight redness in a few volunteers after both active and placebo applications. This remitted spontaneously without intervention and we were able to continue with the administration of repeated increasing-doses. A few participants described side effects; these were all of mild intensity, and occurred in areas where placebo or eberconazole were applied, mainly within the first hour postapplication. The most frequent effect after the first application was coldness, and after repeated increasing-doses there was itching. No signs or symptoms of skin reactivity were observed following reexposure to the product. No clinically relevant changes were observed in vital signs (systolic and diastolic blood pressure, heart rate, body temperature), ECG, or analytical parameters (clinical haematology and biochemistry). The quantity of compound collected through washing gauzes decreased progressively over time. Plasma and urine concentrations of eberconazole were below the quantification limit of the analytical method (5 ng/ml) at all times. Eberconazole cream is a topical antimycotic drug that has good local and general tolerability. It has acceptable topical availability, no detectable systemic drug levels, and does not appear to cause skin sensitivity.
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.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.