Evaluation of a new five-injection, two-site,intradermal schedule for purified chick embryo cell rabies vaccine: A randomized, open-label, active-controlled trial in healthy adult volunteers in India

BACKGROUND

Human rabies is an ongoing significant public health problem inmany developing countries, with India reporting the highest incidence of rabies-related deaths (∼20,000 per year). Many people living in India cannot afford the standard IM postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) with cell-culture vaccines, which are administered using a 5-dose regimen developed in Essen, Germany. A potentially less expensive intradermal (ID) regimen, based on the Essen regimen, has been developed at the Kempegowda Institute of Medical Sciences (KIMS), Bangalore, India.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to compare the immunogenicity and local and systemic tolerability of the KIMS-1D regimen with those of the standard Essen IM regimen in healthy adult volunteers in India.

METHODS

This randomized, open-label, active-controlled trial was conductedat the Antirabies Clinic, Medical College, KIMS. Healthy adult volunteers were randomly assigned to receive purified chick embryo cell vaccine (PCECV) using the KIMS-1D regimen (0.1 mL injected ID at 2 body sites on days 0, 3, 7, 14, and 28 ["2-2-2-2-2"]) or the Essen IM regimen (1 mL injected IM at 1 body site on the same days Subjects were followed up for 365 days by the treating physician and encouraged to voluntarily report any adverse events (AEs). Serum rabies virus-neutralizing antibody (RVNA) concentrations were measured before the first injection on day 0 (baseline) and on days 14, 28, 90, 180, and 365, using the rapid fluorescent focus inhibition test.

RESULTS

Ninety-one subjects were enrolled and included in the tolerabilityand immunogenicity analyses. The ID group comprised 45 subjects (26 men, 19 women; mean [SD] age, 20.84 [1.48] years); the IM group, 46 subjects (28 men, 18 women; mean [SD] age, 21.02 [1.16] years). The most common local AEs were pain at the injection site (2/225 [0.9%] in the ID group and 10/230 [4.3%] in the IM group; P < 0.006) and itching at the injection site (5/225 [2.2%] in the ID group and none in the IM group; P = 0.026). All of the AEs were transient and resolved without the need for medication. All subjects had serum RVNA concentrations ≥0.5 IU/mL-considered protective by the World Health Organization-at all follow-up visits. However, the mean RVNA concentrations in the IM group were significantly higher compared with those in the ID group from days 14 to 365 (all, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

In this study in healthy volunteers, PEP with PCECV administered using the KIMS-ID regimen was well tolerated and immunologically efficacious for 365 days. Adequate RVNA levels were maintained with the KIMS-ID regimen from days 14 to 365, although these levels were significantly lower than those achieved in the group receiving the Essen IM regimen (all, P < 0.001).

Ramipril vs captopril in mild to moderate hypertension

Ramipril 5 mg once daily was compared to Captopril 50 mg twice daily in a randomised, double-blind, parallel group study in 60 patients with a diastolic blood pressure between 95 to 120 mmHg over a period of 2 months. Both drugs in the dose regimen used in this study exerted a similar anti-hypertensive effect at the end of 2 months of treatment resulting in a fall of supine diastolic blood pressure with Ramipril = 19.27 +/- 3.34 mmHg and Captopril = 19.15 +/- 2.63, in patients receiving the drugs without the diuretic. The mean fall in supine diastolic blood pressure 4 hours after the first dose of Ramipril was 6.5 mmHg and Captopril 8 mmHg. None of the patients developed first dose hypotension or orthostatic hypotension and there was no significant alteration of the heart rate in either group. The serum K+ levels remained unchanged in both groups of patients. Both drugs were well tolerated and there were no adverse effects observed on the liver, kidney, blood sugar or haemopoietic system. Based on the results of this study, it can be concluded that the antihypertensive efficacy of 5 mg ramipril in a once daily dose is equivalent to 50 mg captopril given twice daily. However an appreciably greater number of patients reported improvement in the "quality of life' parameters with ramipril as compared to captopril. Thus for the routine treatment of mild to moderate arterial hypertension, ramipril offers reliable antihypertensive efficacy in a once daily dose, thereby helping to improve patient compliance and making the treatment more economical.

Ramipril and methyldopa compared in patients with mild to moderate hypertension

Twenty-seven patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension were randomly assigned to receive 5 mg of ramipril once daily or 250 mg of methyldopa twice daily for eight weeks. Similar reductions in diastolic blood pressure and heart rate were noted in the two treatment groups during treatment. Perhaps because of the limited number of patients, no between-group differences in the results of a measure of quality of life were found, but on overall assessments of treatment outcome by patients and the investigator, slightly better outcome was apparent in the ramipril-treated patients. No side effects or clinically significant changes in laboratory test results were reported. It is concluded that ramipril is a safe and effective agent in mild to moderate hypertension when administered as a single daily dose.