SummaryBackgroundResults of small trials indicate that fluoxetine might improve functional outcomes after stroke. The FOCUS trial aimed to provide a precise estimate of these effects.MethodsFOCUS was a pragmatic, multicentre, parallel group, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial done at 103 hospitals in the UK. Patients were eligible if they were aged 18 years or older, had a clinical stroke diagnosis, were enrolled and randomly assigned between 2 days and 15 days after onset, and had focal neurological deficits. Patients were randomly allocated fluoxetine 20 mg or matching placebo orally once daily for 6 months via a web-based system by use of a minimisation algorithm. The primary outcome was functional status, measured with the modified Rankin Scale (mRS), at 6 months. Patients, carers, health-care staff, and the trial team were masked to treatment allocation. Functional status was assessed at 6 months and 12 months after randomisation. Patients were analysed according to their treatment allocation. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN83290762.FindingsBetween Sept 10, 2012, and March 31, 2017, 3127 patients were recruited. 1564 patients were allocated fluoxetine and 1563 allocated placebo. mRS data at 6 months were available for 1553 (99·3%) patients in each treatment group. The distribution across mRS categories at 6 months was similar in the fluoxetine and placebo groups (common odds ratio adjusted for minimisation variables 0·951 [95% CI 0·839–1·079]; p=0·439). Patients allocated fluoxetine were less likely than those allocated placebo to develop new depression by 6 months (210 [13·43%] patients vs 269 [17·21%]; difference 3·78% [95% CI 1·26–6·30]; p=0·0033), but they had more bone fractures (45 [2·88%] vs 23 [1·47%]; difference 1·41% [95% CI 0·38–2·43]; p=0·0070). There were no significant differences in any other event at 6 or 12 months.InterpretationFluoxetine 20 mg given daily for 6 months after acute stroke does not seem to improve functional outcomes. Although the treatment reduced the occurrence of depression, it increased the frequency of bone fractures. These results do not support the routine use of fluoxetine either for the prevention of post-stroke depression or to promote recovery of function.FundingUK Stroke Association and NIHR Health Technology Assessment Programme.
We assessed efficacy, safety and tolerability of vibegron, a novel, potent, highly selective b 3 -adrenoceptor agonist, administered 12 weeks at 75 mg once daily to patients with overactive bladder in an international phase III trial with placebo and active control. Materials and Methods: Adult patients with overactive bladder with 8.0 or more micturitions per day were randomized 5:5:4 to 75 mg vibegron, placebo or extended-release 4 mg extended-release tolterodine. Up to 25% of patients could have dry overactive bladder (less than 1.0 urge incontinence episode per day). Patients completed 7-day voiding diaries at baseline and weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12. Results: Of 1,518 randomized patients 90.4% completed the trial. At 12 weeks micturitions decreased by an adjusted mean of 1.8 episodes per day for vibegron vs 1.3 for placebo (p <0.001, co-primary end point) and 1.6 for tolterodine. Among incontinent patients urge incontinence episodes decreased by an adjusted mean 2.0 episodes per day for vibegron vs 1.4 for placebo (p <0.0001, co-primary end point) and 1.8 for tolterodine. Moreover, vibegron was statistically significantly superior to placebo for key secondary measures of number of urgency episodes, volume per micturition and proportion of incontinent patients with a 75% or greater reduction in urge incontinence episodes (all p <0.01). Among vibegron treated patients 1.7% discontinued treatment because of adverse events vs 1.1% for placebo and 3.3% for tolterodine. Incidence of hypertension was 1.7% for vibegron and for placebo. Conclusions: Once daily 75 mg vibegron provided statistically significant reductions in micturitions, urgency episodes and urge incontinence, and increased the volume per micturition. Treatment was well tolerated with a favorable safety profile.
Summary Background Antiplatelet therapy reduces the risk of major vascular events for people with occlusive vascular disease, although it might increase the risk of intracranial haemorrhage. Patients surviving the commonest subtype of intracranial haemorrhage, intracerebral haemorrhage, are at risk of both haemorrhagic and occlusive vascular events, but whether antiplatelet therapy can be used safely is unclear. We aimed to estimate the relative and absolute effects of antiplatelet therapy on recurrent intracerebral haemorrhage and whether this risk might exceed any reduction of occlusive vascular events. Methods The REstart or STop Antithrombotics Randomised Trial (RESTART) was a prospective, randomised, open-label, blinded endpoint, parallel-group trial at 122 hospitals in the UK. We recruited adults (≥18 years) who were taking antithrombotic (antiplatelet or anticoagulant) therapy for the prevention of occlusive vascular disease when they developed intracerebral haemorrhage, discontinued antithrombotic therapy, and survived for 24 h. Computerised randomisation incorporating minimisation allocated participants (1:1) to start or avoid antiplatelet therapy. We followed participants for the primary outcome (recurrent symptomatic intracerebral haemorrhage) for up to 5 years. We analysed data from all randomised participants using Cox proportional hazards regression, adjusted for minimisation covariates. This trial is registered with ISRCTN (number ISRCTN71907627). Findings Between May 22, 2013, and May 31, 2018, 537 participants were recruited a median of 76 days (IQR 29–146) after intracerebral haemorrhage onset: 268 were assigned to start and 269 (one withdrew) to avoid antiplatelet therapy. Participants were followed for a median of 2·0 years (IQR [1·0– 3·0]; completeness 99·3%). 12 (4%) of 268 participants allocated to antiplatelet therapy had recurrence of intracerebral haemorrhage compared with 23 (9%) of 268 participants allocated to avoid antiplatelet therapy (adjusted hazard ratio 0·51 [95% CI 0·25–1·03]; p=0·060). 18 (7%) participants allocated to antiplatelet therapy experienced major haemorrhagic events compared with 25 (9%) participants allocated to avoid antiplatelet therapy (0·71 [0·39–1·30]; p=0·27), and 39 [15%] participants allocated to antiplatelet therapy had major occlusive vascular events compared with 38 [14%] allocated to avoid antiplatelet therapy (1·02 [0·65–1·60]; p=0·92). Interpretation These results exclude all but a very modest increase in the risk of recurrent intracerebral haemorrhage with antiplatelet therapy for patients on antithrombotic therapy for the prevention of occlusive vascular disease when they developed intracerebral haemorrhage. The risk of recurrent intracerebral haemorrhage is probably too small to exceed the established benefits of antiplatelet therapy for secondary prevention. Funding British Heart Foundation.
Background/rationale: Long-term treatment with anticholinergic agents may increase the risk of cognitive impairment or dementia. This systematic literature review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the impact of ≥3 months of exposure to anticholinergics as a class on the risk of dementia, mild cognitive impairment, and change in cognitive function. The impact of anticholinergic agents specifically used to treat overactive bladder was also evaluated. Materials and Methods: A systematic literature review was conducted to identify English language articles evaluating the impact of anticholinergic use for ≥3 months on dementia or cognitive function in adult patients. Databases searched included PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. Meta-analyses were conducted using random-effects models; 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and 95% prediction intervals (PIs) were reported. Results: A total of 2122 records were identified. Out of those, 21 studies underwent qualitative synthesis and 6 reported endpoints relevant for
There is little primate risk factor data in the literature evaluating the relationship between proposed mechanisms of PPAR agonist-induced hepatocarcinogenesis at clinically relevant therapeutic exposures. These studies were conducted to characterize the hepatic effects of fenofibrate and ciprofibrate in the cynomolgus monkey. Male cynomolgus monkeys were given fenofibrate (250, 1250 or 2500 mg/kg/day) or ciprofibrate (3, 30, 150 or 400 mg/kg/day) for up to 15 days. The highest doses used were approximately 4 times (fenofibrate) and 9.4 times (ciprofibrate) the human therapeutic exposure for these agents based on AUC (area under the curve). For both compounds, there was a treatment-related increase in liver weight and periportal hepatocellular hypertrophy, which was related to increases in peroxisomes (up to 2.8 times controls) and mitochondria (up to 2.5 times controls). An increase in smooth endoplasmic reticulum probably contributed to the hypertrophy. There was no indication of cell proliferation as determined by the number of mitotic figures and this was confirmed by evaluating cell proliferation by immunohistochemical staining for the Ki-67 antigen. Consistent with the findings by light microscopy, there was no treatment-related effect on the level of mRNA for proteins known to be involved in the control of hepatocyte cell division or apoptosis (e.g. P21, Cyclin D1, PCNA, CDKN1A). Furthermore, there was minimal indication of oxidative stress. Thus, there was no evidence of lipofuscin accumulation, and there was no remarkable increase in the mRNA levels for most proteins known to respond to oxidative stress (e.g. catalase, glutathione peroxidase). A mild induction in the mRNA levels of cellular beta-oxidation and detoxification enzymes (e.g. acyl CoA oxidase, thioredoxin reductase) was observed. Collectively, the data from these studies suggest that the primate responds to PPARalpha agonists in a manner that is different from the rodent suggesting that the primate may be refractory to PPAR-induced hepatocarcinogenesis.
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.