PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

J R Azanza

Publications and source records attributed to J R Azanza.

16 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed1991

A multicenter double-blind study comparing lovastatin and gemfibrozil in the treatment of primary hypercholesterolemia.

The efficacy and tolerability of lovastatin and gemfibrozil were compared in a randomized double-blind 12-week study including 182 patients with primary hypercholesterolemia, from 7 hospitals in Spain. Inclusion criteria were total-cholesterol of at least 250 mg/dl and triglycerides less than 350 mg/dl. Patients were stratified in two groups: group 1, cholesterol less than 300 mg/dl, and group II, cholesterol equal to or more than 300 mg/dl. Patients were randomized to gemfibrozil (600 mg b.i.d.) or lovastatin (20 mg q.p.m., group I and 40 mg q.p.m., group II). If after 6 weeks of treatment cholesterol remained above 200 mg/dl, lovastatin does were doubled. In group I, lovastatin decreased cholesterol by 20%, LDL-C by 28%, and triglycerides by 17%, and increased HDL-C by 8%. In group II the results were: -26%, -33%, -19% and +6% respectively. The corresponding results with gemfibrozil were: -8%, -9%, -28% and +14% (group I); and -13%, -14%, -33% and +9% (group II). In both groups, lovastatin was more effective in reducing cholesterol and LDL-C (P less than 0.001) and gemfibrozil in reducing triglycerides (P less than 0.05 group I and P less than 0.01 group II). Both drugs were well tolerated. Thus, lovastatin and gemfibrozil are effective lipid-lowering agents; lovastatin has more pronounced effects in patients with hypercholesterolemia.

Adult↗
PubMed1989

[Clinical experience with a new fluoroquinolone: ciprofloxacin].

Twenty one adult patients, both males and females, with 32 bacterial infections of several localizations and moderate to severe prognosis were treated with ciprofloxacin (200 mg every 12 hours), initially intravenously and then with 500 mg every 12 hours orally during 25 +/- 11 days. At the end of the evolution period it was found that 28 infections (87.5%) were cured in 24 of the 28 patients (85.7%), in three patients there was a definite clinical improvement and the treatment failed in the remaining patient. Adverse reactions were suspected in 2 patients, but their relation with the administration of ciprofloxacin was considered to be remote. In 3 patients mild leukopenia without clinical relevance was detected.

Adult↗
PubMed1988

Open cross-over comparison of tulobuterol and fenoterol in asthmatic adult patients.

The objective of this open randomized cross-over study was to compare the clinical efficacy and safety of a recently introduced beta-2 mimetic, tulobuterol, with fenoterol in asthma patients. The study length was four weeks with each drug, with a seven-day washout period between treatment courses. Spirometric tests were carried out every 14 days; laboratory tests and an electrocardiograph were performed at the beginning and end of each treatment course, and a daily diary of salbutamol aerosol use and adverse reactions was kept. Pulmonary function tests and registration of pulse rate and arterial pressure were performed on days 1, 14 and 28 of both treatment courses, before the morning dose and 3 h after administration of the drug. No statistically significant changes were detected in laboratory tests, pulse rate or arterial pressure. The only adverse reaction noted was transient tremor which appeared in three cases with tulobuterol and in two cases with fenoterol. Spirometric tests revealed increases in all parameters with both drugs, although in the comparison between groups no overall statistically significant differences were found. All patients required inhaled salbutamol with both of the drug treatments, and there was a significant increase (p less than 0.05) in its use during the fenoterol treatment course. With both tulobuterol and fenoterol, inhaled salbutamol was mainly used within 2 h before and 1 h after each dose. It is concluded that tulobuterrol (2 mg, twice daily) was at least as effective as fenoterol (2.5 mg, thrice daily), while its clinical effect was longer-lasting. It is doubtful, however, that it provides coverage for 12 h in the type of patients selected.

Adult↗
PubMed1986

201Tl myocardial imaging in a cardiac rejection episode.

Serial myocardial imaging using thallium Tl 201 was performed in the early follow-up of two patients with orthotopic cardiac transplantation. In one patient, non-homogeneous uptake, small defects and an irregular myocardial edge were observed during a moderately acute rejection crisis revealed by endomyocardial biopsy. The abnormal gammagraphic findings and histological changes were coincident and exhibited a parallel reversal. We emphasize the connection between these two events. The mechanisms which could explain these phenomena are discussed.

Acute Disease↗
PubMedDate not supplied

[Clinical trial of lovastatin versus gemfibrozil in the treatment of primary hypercholesterolemia].

A randomized, double-blind, 12 weeks comparison of Lovastatin and Gemfibrozil in the treatment of patients with primary hypercholesterolemia was performed in 31 patients. After a placebo and diet period (4 weeks), they were assigned to either Lovastatin 20 mg nightly or Gemfibrozil 600 mg twice daily, if their total serum cholesterol was < 300 mg/dl, and to either Lovastatin 40 mg nightly or Gemfibrozil 600 mg/12 if it was > 300 mg/dl. In both cases, the Lovastatin dose was doubled after 6 weeks, if serum cholesterol remained > 200 mg/dl. The dose of Gemfibrozil kept constant. Lovastatin reduced serum cholesterol from 354 +/- 91 mg/dl to 253 +/- 62 mg/dl (p < 0.001), LDL-cholesterol from 277 +/- 104 to 192 +/- 71 mg/dl (p < 0.001) and serum triglyceride level from 125 +/- 66 a 84 +/- 41 mg/dl. The corresponding reductions achieved by Gemfibrozil were: 343 +/- 86 to 290 +/- 72 mg/dl (p < 0.01), 264 +/- 89 to 217 +/- 67 mg/dl (p < 0.05) and 152 +/- 84 to 89 +/- 41 mg/dl (p < 0.001), respectively. Lovastatin therapy caused a 30.6% reduction in total cholesterol level, while Gemfibrozil achieved a 19.47%. There were no significant changes in HDL-cholesterol. Patients had no serious or clinically significant adverse effects. The current data suggest that Lovastatin (an inhibitor of HMG-Coa reductase) may provide one important means for lipid-lowering therapy in patients with primary hypercholesterolemia.

Adolescent↗
PubMedDate not supplied

[The antihypertensive efficacy and tolerance of bopindolol (LT 31-200) in hypertensive patients].

A open study with increasing doses of bopindolol, a nonselective beta-blocker of long half-life has been carried out in patients with mild and moderate hypertension in order to assess the efficacy and security of the treatment in short and long term. Twenty patients (22 women and 8 men) were included with the ranging ages from 36 to 62 years old (x +/- SD 51.6 +/- 7.6) whose blood pressures were higher than 160 mm Hg for the systolic value and between 90 and 125 mm Hg for the diastolic (x +/- SD 165 +/- 7.2 and 102.6 +/- 6.7 respectively). Nineteen from the twenty patients (95%) responded satisfactorily after 20 weeks of oral bopindolol treatment once a day showing significative statistical differences on forth week of the treatment versus blood pressure rates of placebo's period. Similar results were obtained with regard to the cardiac frequency. HDL cholesterol rates increased significantly as well as the ratio HDL cholesterol/total cholesterol.

Adrenergic beta-Antagonists↗
PubMedDate not supplied

[Celiprolol].

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Adrenergic beta-Antagonists↗
PubMedDate not supplied

[Effectiveness and tolerance of norfloxacin compared with trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole in the treatment of uncomplicated urinary tract infections].

Forty patients with uncomplicated urinary tract infections were randomized to receive norfloxacin (400 mg) twice daily or trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (160-800 mg) twice daily for 10 days. The percentage of patients with bacteriological outcomes of eradication was significantly greater (p = 0.0310) with norfloxacin (90%) than the obtained percentage with trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (55%). The clinical response was, also, significantly better (p = 0.0012) in the norfloxacin group (100%) than in the trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole group (55%). Two patients receiving trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole experienced clinical side effects-gastrointestinal in nature but the treatment was not discontinued. In the norfloxacin group clinical side effects were not observed. No adverse hematological or biochemical changes were noted. From these results, we conclude that norfloxacin is more effective than trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole in the therapy of uncomplicated urinary tract infections.

Clinical Trials as Topic↗