Each one of the three scales provided reproducible psoriasis severity assessments. In terms of both intrarater and inter-rater reliability values, the three scales can be ranked from highest to lowest as follows: PASI, LS-PGA and PGA.

No abstract

While these large-scale, robust studies demonstrated that rosiglitazone is not active in psoriasis, they also showed that for a large proportion of subjects receiving placebo, the expectation of a successful treatment, the favorable adverse effect profile of the drug, and the supportive environment of a clinical study conferred beneficial effects. These results may have implications for the design of future placebo-controlled studies in patients with psoriasis.

This double-blind, parallel-group, multicenter study compared the efficacy and safety of intravenous (i.v.) ondansetron with oral syrup ondansetron plus oral dexamethasone in the prevention of nausea and emesis in pediatric patients receiving moderately/highly emetogenic chemotherapy. On each day of chemotherapy, patients were administered ondansetron 5 mg/m2 i.v. and placebo syrup orally (n = 215) or ondansetron 8 mg syrup orally and placebo i.v. (n = 223) plus dexamethasone 2-4 mg p.o. Ondansetron 4 mg syrup p.o. was administered twice daily for 2 days following the cessation of chemotherapy. Complete or major control of emesis was obtained in 89% patients in the i.v. group and 88% patients in the oral syrup group during the worst day of chemotherapy treatment (90% CI: -6, 4) and in 85% and 82% patients, respectively, during the worst day of the study period (90% CI: -8, 3). Intravenous or oral syrup ondansetron plus dexamethasone was well tolerated and effective in preventing chemotherapy-induced emesis in pediatric patients.

Nausea and emesis are common side effects of opioid drugs administered for pain relief in cancer patients. The aim of this study was to compare the anti-emetic efficacy and safety of ondansetron, placebo and metoclopramide in the treatment of opioid-induced nausea and emesis (OIE) in cancer patients. This was a multinational, multicentre, double-blind, parallel group study in which cancer patients who were receiving a full opioid agonist for cancer pain were randomised to receive one of oral ondansetron 24 mg once daily, metoclopramide 10 mg three times daily, or placebo. Study medication was started only if the patient experienced nausea and/or emesis following opioid administration. Efficacy and safety assessments were made over a study period of 24 h from the time of the first dose of anti-emetics/placebo. The study was terminated prematurely because of the difficulties in recruiting patients satisfying the stringent entry criteria. Ninety-two patients were included in the intent-to-treat population: 30 patients received placebo, 29 patients ondansetron and 33 patients metoclopramide. There was no statistically significant difference between the groups in the proportion achieving complete control of emesis (33% of patients on placebo, 48% on ondansetron and 52% on metoclopramide) or complete control of nausea (23% of patients on placebo, 17% on ondansetron and 36% on metoclopramide). Rescue anti-emetics were required in 8 of 33 patients on metoclopramide, 4 of 29 on ondansetron, and 3 of 30 on placebo. The incidence of adverse events was very low and similar in all treatment groups. Neither ondansetron 24 mg once daily nor metoclopromide 10 mg t.d.s. given orally was significantly more effective than placebo in the control of OIE in cancer patients.

Eighteen patients with perennial rhinitis were evaluated in this double-blind cross-over trial comparing beclomethasone dipropionate (BDP) aqueous nasal spray with terfenadine tablets. Both treatments were effective in reducing symptom scores but BDP was significantly better than terfenadine in relieving running nose and sneezing (P less than 0.05). BDP also had a greater effect on reducing nasal inflammation than terfenadine. Although the clinicians and patients assessed both therapies to be equi-effective, significantly more patients preferred the BDP treatment (P less than 0.003). Overall, BDP therapy proved more beneficial than terfenadine therapy in this small group of perennial rhinitis sufferers.

A double-blind crossover study lasting 16 weeks was carried out in children with chronic extrinsic asthma to compare the clinical effects of regular inhalations of salbutamol and beclomethasone dipropionate from a combination inhaler and regular inhalations of the same two drugs used sequentially from separate inhalers. Eighteen patients entered the study and 16 completed both 8-week treatment periods. However, there was a large amount of missing data, with only 9 complete sets of paired data; efficacy analyses were performed on data from 10 patients on separate inhaler therapy and from 14 patients on combination inhaler therapy. There were no significant differences between daily peak flow rate measurements, symptom scores, additional symptomatic bronchodilator therapy, acute exacerbations of asthma or incidence of adverse events, demonstrating that both treatments were similarly effective in controlling the patient's asthmatic symptoms. There was, however, a trend for higher peak flow values and lower symptom scores on separate inhaler therapy in this small group of asthmatic children. Although the results suggest that regular therapy using a combination inhaler is as effective as sequential administration of salbutamol and beclomethasone dipropionate from separate inhalers, it is concluded that the study should be extended to a larger group of patients to determine whether there might be any statistically significant differences between the two regimens.

No abstract