OPEN IN READ APP
JOURNAL ARTICLE
MULTICENTER STUDY
RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL

Efficacy and safety of once- and twice-daily formulations of molsidomine in patients with stable angina pectoris: double-blind and open-label studies

Roger Messin, Fabienne Cerreer-Bruhwyler, Claude Dubois, Jean-Pierre Famaey, Joseph G├ęczy
Advances in Therapy 2006, 23 (1): 107-30
16644612
Molsidomine, a sydnonimine acting as a heterocyclic direct nitric oxide donor, has been used for many years in several European countries for the treatment of patients with stable angina pectoris. The efficacy and tolerability of a novel once-daily 16-mg formulation of molsidomine (M16) were compared with those of the currently used twice-daily 8-mg molsidomine tablet (M8) in 666 patients. Study 1, a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, twin crossover study, involved 533 patients given acute and 2-week treatment with each drug formulation. Study 2, a multicenter, open-label, sequential, add-on trial, compared M16 and M8 in 133 patients. Drug effects on exercise capacity (study 1 only), frequency of anginal attacks and consumption of short-acting itroderivatives, and incidence of adverse events (AEs) were evaluated. Compared with placebo, M16 increased exercise capacity by 15% (P<.001) at the start of study 1 and by 13% (P<.001) after 2 weeks' treatment, and was not inferior to M8. In terms of anginal attack frequency and nitroderivative consumption, M16 was not inferior to M8 in either study. Moreover, compared with M8, M16 produced a statistically and clinically significant reduction in the incidence of anginal attacks in elderly (>/=75 y) but not in younger patients (<75 y) (study 2), nor in patients from study 1. No significant difference from M8 was found in either study in short-acting nitroderivative consumption. No tolerance to M8 or M16 was observed after 2-week treatment. No statistically significant differences in incidences of all AEs and drug-related AEs were observed between M16 and M8 in either study. The same held true for proportions of patients experiencing AEs and drug-related AEs on M16 vs M8: in study 1-14.3% and 11.8% for all AEs (P=.218), 6.9% and 5.4% for drug-related AEs (P=.280); in study 2-1.3% and 1.3% for all AEs, 0% and 1.3% for drug-related AEs (P>.10) in young patients; and in the elderly, 3.6% and 0% for drug-related AEs (P>.10). Only the proportion of elderly patients with all AEs was significantly higher with M16 than with M8: 14.5% vs 1.8% (P=.039). M16 once daily was effective and well tolerated in investigated patients with stable angina pectoris, particularly the elderly, affording 24 hours of therapeutic activity. M16 was not inferior to M8 given twice daily in terms of efficacy, safety profile, and tolerability.

Discussion

You are not logged in. Sign Up or Log In to join the discussion.

Trending Papers

Available on the App Store

Available on the Play Store
Remove bar
Read by QxMD icon Read
16644612
×

Search Tips

Use Boolean operators: AND/OR

diabetic AND foot
diabetes OR diabetic

Exclude a word using the 'minus' sign

Virchow -triad

Use Parentheses

water AND (cup OR glass)

Add an asterisk (*) at end of a word to include word stems

Neuro* will search for Neurology, Neuroscientist, Neurological, and so on

Use quotes to search for an exact phrase

"primary prevention of cancer"
(heart or cardiac or cardio*) AND arrest -"American Heart Association"