Current Issue : April-June Volume : 2024 Issue Number : 2 Articles : 5 Articles
Eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) are well known for their capacity to lower triglyceride levels, but the clinical effectiveness is hindered by limited bioavailability and patient adherence. To address this challenge, we introduce a novel liquid crystalline nanoparticlebased formulation, the innovative medicine and drug delivery (IMD)-Omega soft capsule (cap), designed to optimize the pharmacokinetics (PK) and safety of EPA and DHA. This randomized, open-label, crossover study engages a cohort of 24 healthy adult subjects, utilizing key PK parameters like Cmax, AUC, Tmax, t½, and Ke to conduct a comprehensive evaluation. The trial compares the performance of the IMD-Omega soft cap with the well-established Omacor® soft cap. The IMDOmega soft cap exhibited an impressive 110% increase in bioavailability for EPA and a remarkable 134% surge for DHA in comparison to the Omacor® soft cap over a span of 72 h. The key success can be attributed to the innovative liquid crystalline nanoparticle design, bolstering the dissolution and permeability of these essential fatty acids. Intriguingly, intra-participant variability for AUC0–72 h and Cmax were calculated at 45.04% and 34.26%, respectively. It is noteworthy that the parameters of Tmax for EPA (≈6.00 h) and DHA (≈5.00 h), t½ for both EPA and DHA ≈ 30–40 h, and Kel around 0.18–0.22 h−1 for EPA and ≈0.008–0.02 h−1 for DHA, displayed comparability between the IMDOmega and Omacor® formulations. Encouragingly, the IMD-Omega soft cap showed excellent tolerability. The promise of optimized patient compliance and reduced dosages adds further weight to its potential significance....
Background Nebulized drug delivery is commonly used in pediatric clinical practice. The growing number of literatures have reported the application of nebulized ketamine in pediatric sedation in recent years. This metaanalysis of randomized controlled trials comparing the efficacy and safety of nebulized ketamine versus different pharmacological approaches was conducted to estimate the effects of this technique in pediatric sedation. Methods We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library from inception to Feb 2023. All randomized controlled trials used nebulized ketamine as presurgical and pre-procedural sedatives in children were included. Sedative effects and various adverse events were considered as the outcomes. Results Ten studies with 727 pediatric patients were enrolled. Compared to nebulized dexmedetomidine, using of ketamine via nebulization showed similar sedation satisfaction (54.79% vs. 60.69%, RR = 0.88, with 95%CI [0.61, 1.27]), success rate of parental separation (57.27% vs. 73.64%, RR = 0.81, with 95%CI [0.61, 1.08]), and mask acceptability (37.27% vs. 52.73%, RR = 0.71, with 95%CI [0.45, 1.10]). However, the using of combination of two medications (nebulized ketamine plus nebulized dexmedetomidine) was associated with better sedative satisfaction (33.82% vs. 68.11%, RR = 0.50, with 95%CI [0.27, 0.92]) and more satisfactory mask acceptance (45.59% vs. 71.01%, RR = 0.69, with 95%CI [0.56, 0.86]). Compared with nebulized ketamine, using of nebulized dexmedetomidine was associated with less incidence of emergence agitation (18.18% vs. 3.33%, RR = 4.98, with 95%CI [1.88, 13.16]). Conclusions Based on current evidences, compared to nebulized dexmedetomidine, nebulized ketamine provides inconspicuous advantages in pediatric sedation, and it has a relatively high incidence of emergence agitation. Combination of nebulized ketamine and dexmedetomidine might be considered as one preferred option in pediatric sedation as it can provide more satisfactory sedative effects. However, there is insufficient evidence regarding nebulized ketamine versus ketamine administered through other routes and nebulized ketamine versus other sedatives. The overall low or moderate quality of evidence evaluated by the GRADE system also calls for more highquality studies with larger sample sizes in future....
Etoricoxib is a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug with high selectivity for cyclooxygenase 2 (COX-2), exerting a pronounced anti-inflammatory effect with fewer adverse events when compared to COX-1 inhibitors. The present study aimed to evaluate the bioequivalence between two etoricoxib-coated tablet formulations to meet regulatory requirements for a branded generic product registration in Brazil. A crossover study with an open-label, randomized design and a single-dose regimen with two treatments and two periods was conducted on healthy Brazilians of both genders. Subjects randomly received a single dose of a 90 mg etoricoxib coated tablet of test product Xumer® 90 mg (Adium S.A.) and the reference product Arcoxia® 90 mg (Merck Sharp & Dohme Farmacêutica Ltda.) under fasting conditions separated by a 14-day period. Blood samples were collected sequentially for up to 96 h following drug administration, and the concentrations of etoricoxib in plasma were determined using a validated UPLC-MS/MS method. Pharmacokinetic parameters were computed utilizing non-compartmental analysis methods. A total of 32 healthy subjects were enrolled, and 25 subjects completed the study. Geometric mean ratios (90% confidence intervals) for Cmax, AUC0-t, and AUC0-inf were 103.98% (95.63–113.06), 96.82% (91.82–102.09), and 95.79% (90.70–101.16), respectively. In accordance with regulatory standards, the test formulation (Xumer® 90 mg) has been deemed bioequivalent to the reference product (Arcoxia® 90 mg). As a result, these formulations can be considered interchangeable in clinical practice, with both proving to be safe and well-tolerated. The need for in vivo testing for the Xumer® 60 mg strength was waived due to the proportional similarity of the formulations and the similar in vitro dissolution profiles observed across the various strengths....
Background and Objectives: Approximately 5–10% of all patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) harbor a BRAFV600E mutation. These patients exhibit distinct metastatic patterns, poor prognosis, and heterogenous survival outcomes. The findings from the TRIBE study indicated that the administration of FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab as first-line treatment extended the median duration of overall survival (OS). In this study, we explored the effects of UGT1A1 polymorphism on the outcomes of irinotecan dose escalation versus FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab in patients with BRAFV600E-mutant mCRC. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 25 patients who had received a diagnosis of BRAFV600E-mutant mCRC between October 2015 and August 2022. All patients underwent UGT1A1 genotyping before receiving bevacizumab plus FOLFIRI. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS), and secondary endpoints were OS and adverse events (AEs). The two treatment arms were compared in terms of 6-month PFS and 12-month OS. Results: Over a median follow-up duration of 15.0 (interquartile range, 10.0–30.5) months, no significant differences were noted between the treatment arms in severe AEs (SAEs), 6-month PFS, or 12-month OS (all p < 0.05). Regarding AEs, the FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab regimen was associated with a lower incidence of anorexia than was the FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab regimen (p = 0.042). Conclusions: Our findings indicate that FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab with irinotecan dose escalation is an effective first-line treatment regimen for patients with BRAFV600E-mutant mCRC. This regimen leads to acceptable clinical outcomes with manageable AEs. However, the effects on survival and safety outcomes could only be speculated, and further studies are needed because of the sample size, the follow-up for the OS evaluation, and the non-uniformity in all the variables considered in the two groups....
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccines based on variant strains have been in use as booster doses to update immunity against circulating variants. Here we present the results of a phase one prospective, randomized, and open-labeled trial to study the safety and immunogenicity of a booster dose consisting of a subunit vaccine based on the stabilized prefusion SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, MVC-COV1901, or its Beta version, MVC-COV1901- Beta. Participants aged ≥18 and <55 years who received two or three prior doses of MVC-COV1901 vaccines were enrolled and were to receive a booster dose of either 15 mcg of MVC-COV1901, 15 mcg, or 25 mcg of MVC-COV1901-Beta in a 1:1:1 ratio. Adverse reactions after either MVC-COV1901 or MVC-COV1901-Beta booster doses after two or three doses of MVC-COV1901 were comparable and mostly mild and transient. At four weeks after the booster dose, participants with two prior doses of MVC-COV1901 had higher levels of neutralizing antibodies against ancestral SARS-CoV-2, Beta, and Omicron variants than participants with three prior doses of MVC-COV1901, regardless of the type of booster used. MVC-COV1901 and MVC-COV1901-Beta can both be effectively used as booster doses against SARS-CoV-2, including the BA.4/BA.5 Omicron variants....
Loading....