Lisinopril versus placebo in the treatment of heart failure: the Lisinopril Heart Failure Study Group

Lisinopril, a long-acting, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, was compared with placebo in a randomized, parallel, double-blind, 12-week study of 193 patients with heart failure. All patients were New York Heart Association Functional Class II, III, or IV and had remained symptomatic despite optimal dosing with digoxin and diuretics. After 12 weeks of therapy, the improvement in treadmill exercise duration was greater in the lisinopril group (113 seconds) compared with the placebo group (86 seconds). This improvement in exercise duration was particularly evident in patients with left ventricular ejection fractions less than 35% (lisinopril = 130 seconds; placebo = 94 seconds). In patients receiving lisinopril, the increase in exercise duration was accompanied by an improvement in quality of life as measured by the Yale Scale Dyspnea/Fatigue Index and in signs and symptoms of heart failure. In addition, the lisinopril group had a larger mean increase (3.7%) in left ventricular ejection fraction when compared with the placebo group (1.3%). Thus, lisinopril, administered once daily for 12 weeks, was well tolerated and efficacious in the treatment of heart failure when used concomitantly with diuretics and digoxin.

A method of designing clinical trials for combination drugs

Many pharmaceutical companies are now exploring combination drug therapies as an alternative to monotherapy. Consequently, it is of interest to investigate the simultaneous dose response relationship of two active drugs to select the lowest effective combination. In this paper, we propose a method for designing clinical trials for drug combinations that seems to offer several advantages over the 4 x 3 or even larger factorial studies that have been used to date. In addition, our proposed method provides a convenient formula for calculating the required sample size.

A low concentration of nisoldipine reduces ischemic heart injury: enhanced reflow and recovery of contractile function without energy preservation during ischemia

Isolated working rat hearts which received no drug treatment had reduced ATP and creatine phosphate levels and increased lactate content during 20 min of ischemia. When subjected to 33 min of ischemia and 30 min of reperfusion, these hearts recovered low values of cardiac output (9.8 ml/min), heart rate, maximum developed pressure, pressure-rate product (72.9, 32.6, 27.5% of control, respectively), had low levels of tissue ATP, and reduced coronary flow upon reperfusion. Addition of nisoldipine (1 nM) 10 min before ischemia caused no decrease in cardiac output or heart rate, slightly decreased maximum developed pressure and pressure-rate product (93% of control), and did not reduce the degradation of ATP and creatine phosphate or the accumulation of lactate during 20 min of ischemia. When nisoldipine was included 10 min before ischemia, during ischemia (33 min) and reperfusion (30 min), however, the recovery of cardiac function and tissue ATP levels was significantly increased. This protective effect occurred when drug treated ischemic hearts were reperfused with control buffer, indicating residual effects. The beneficial effects of nisoldipine were not due to changes in afterload or preload (isolated perfused heart), collateral flow (zero flow model), energy preservation during ischemia (little contractile depression, ATP not enhanced during ischemia), or reduced lactate accumulation during ischemia. The beneficial effects were associated with increased coronary flow (31% higher than no drug) during reperfusion, indicating a reduction in the no-reflow phenomenon.

Diflunisal 500-750 mg versus aspirin 2600-3900 mg in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis

Diflunisal was compared to aspirin in a 12-week, double-blind, parallel, multicenter rheumatoid arthritis study. One hundred twenty-six (126) patients received diflunisal and 123 patients received aspirin. Both treatment groups demonstrated significant improvement from baseline in joint pain, morning stiffness, grip strength, walking time and painful and swollen joint scores. For these parameters, the only statistically significant difference between the groups was that diflunisal was more effective than aspirin for overall joint pain at week 2. The overall evaluation by patients and by investigators showed significantly better responses in those treated with diflunisal at weeks 1 and 12. Diflunisal produced significantly less gastrointestinal pain and tinnitus than aspirin. Neither drug showed unusual frequency of adverse effects as determined in the laboratory. Long-term studies using a higher-dose regimen are suggested to further define the efficacy and tolerability of diflunisal in the treatment of patients with rheumatoid arthritis.