| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Clamp, A. R., et al.
(författare)
-
SCOTROC 2B : feasibility of carboplatin followed by docetaxel or docetaxel-irinotecan as first-line therapy for ovarian cancer
- 2006
-
Ingår i: British Journal of Cancer. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 0007-0920 .- 1532-1827. ; 94:1, s. 55-61
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The feasibility of combination irinotecan, carboplatin and docetaxel chemotherapy as first-line treatment for advanced epithelial ovarian carcinoma was assessed. One hundred patients were randomised to receive four 3-weekly cycles of carboplatin (area under the curve (AUC) 7) followed by four 3-weekly cycles of docetaxel 100 mg m(-2) (arm A, n=51) or docetaxel 60 mg m(-2) with irinotecan 200 mg m(-2) (arm B, n=49). Neither arm met the formal feasibility criterion of an eight-cycle treatment completion rate that was statistically greater than 60% (arm A 71% (90% confidence interval (CI) 58-81%; P=0.079; arm B 67% (90% CI 55-78%; P=0.184)). Median-dose intensities were >85% of planned dose for all agents. In arms A and B, 15.6 and 12.2% of patients, respectively, withdrew owing to treatment-related toxicity. Grade 3-4 sensory neurotoxicity was more common in arm A (1.9 vs 0%) and grade 3-4 diarrhoea was more common in arm B (0.6 vs 3.5%). Of patients with radiologically evaluable disease at baseline, 50 and 48% responded to therapy in arms A and B, respectively; at median 17.1 months' follow-up, median progression-free survival was 17.1 and 15.9 months, respectively. Although both arms just failed to meet the formal statistical feasibility criteria, the observed completion rates of around 70% were reasonable. The addition of irinotecan to first-line carboplatin and docetaxel chemotherapy was generally well tolerated although associated with increased gastrointestinal toxicity. Further exploratory studies of topoisomerase-I inhibitors in this setting may be warranted.
|
|
| 3. |
- Uusitalo, H., et al.
(författare)
-
Improved systemic safety and risk-benefit ratio of topical 0.1% timolol hydrogel compared with 0.5% timolol aqueous solution in the treatment of glaucoma
- 2006
-
Ingår i: Graefe's Archives for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 0721-832X .- 1435-702X. ; 244:11, s. 1491-1496
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The purpose of the study was to compare the systemic safety and risk-benefit ratio of 0.1% timolol hydrogel and 0.5% aqueous timolol eye drops in the treatment of glaucoma. An 8-week randomised, double-blind, cross-over, multicentre study. A total of 25 patients with primary open-angle glaucoma, exfoliation glaucoma, or ocular hypertension was enrolled. After completing a wash-out period, patients were randomly chosen to receive either 0.1% timolol hydrogel once daily or 0.5% aqueous timolol eye drops twice daily. Intraocular pressure and heart rate during rest and exercise, head-up tilt test results, spirometry readings, and plasma concentrations of timolol were recorded. The risk-benefit ratio was determined by calculating the ratio between several heart rate endpoints and the change in intraocular pressure (IOP). The mean drug-induced change in the peak heart rate during exercise was -13.5 beats/min (SD 7.6) in the 0.5% aqueous timolol group and -5.1 beats/min (SD 6.7) in the 0.1% timolol hydrogel group (P < 0.001; 95% CI 4.06-12.18). There was no significant difference in the IOP-reducing efficacy between these compounds. The risk-benefit ratio was significantly improved when 0.1% timolol hydrogel was used, compared with 0.5% aqueous timolol in the exercise test. In the head-up tilt test the risk-benefit ratio was significantly improved at rest (P < 0.05), at 1 min (P < 0.05) and at 5 min (P < 0.001) after patients had received 0.1% timolol hydrogel. There were, however, no differences in spirometry readings. After patients had been treated with 0.1% timolol hydrogel, plasma concentrations of timolol were 1/6 (at peak) and 1/50 (at trough) of those of 0.5% aqueous timolol. Drug-induced changes in the peak heart rate, and head-up tilt test results as well as plasma concentrations of timolol, were significantly more pronounced after treatment with 0.5% aqueous timolol than with 0.1% timolol hydrogel. Because of the statistically similar IOP-reducing efficacy of these formulations the risk-benefit ratio was significantly improved when patients used 0.1% timolol hydrogel instead of 0.5% aqueous timolol.
|
|
