The potential of a diclofenac-Na Emulgel<sup>TM</sup> (diclofenac gel) to alleviate the pain and associated symptoms caused by sunburn has been evaluated versus vehicle. Sunburn was induced on the buttock skin of healthy adult male subjects by irradiation with UVA + UVB rays. Investigational products were applied 6 and 10 h after irradiation, and efficacy was assessed on the basis of spontaneous and provoked pain, erythema, oedema, skin colour and temperature. The minimal efficacious concentration evaluated in an extension (0.1 vs. 0.25% diclofenac gel) of a previous concentration-finding study (1, 0.5 and 0.25% diclofenac gel) was 0.1% and was efficacious in alleviating pain (spontaneous and provoked) as well as reducing erythema, oedema and skin temperature. In a single- versus 2-application comparison study, a single application of 0.1% gel was sufficient to alleviate the pain and accompanying symptoms of sunburn with an onset of action 2 h after application. A second application of gel 4 h after the first maintained the analgesia and reduction of other symptoms for a period of up to 48 h after irradiation.
Journal Article Lupus erythematosus gyratus repens. Report of a case associated with a lung carcinoma Get access D. BLANC, D. BLANC Clinique dermatologique universitaire, 2, Place Saint‐Jacques, 25030 Besancon Cedex, France Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar J.‐L. KIENZLER J.‐L. KIENZLER Clinique dermatologique universitaire, 2, Place Saint‐Jacques, 25030 Besancon Cedex, France Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar Clinical and Experimental Dermatology, Volume 7, Issue 2, 1 March 1982, Pages 129–134, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2230.1982.tb02399.x Published: 01 March 1982 Article history Accepted: 29 April 1981 Published: 01 March 1982
Systemic bioavailability and pharmacodynamics of topical diclofenac sodium gel 1% were compared with those of oral diclofenac sodium 50-mg tablets. In a randomized, 3-way crossover study, healthy volunteers (n = 40) received three 7-day diclofenac regimens: (A) 16 g gel applied as 4 g to 1 knee 4 times daily (4 g on surface area 400 cm(2)), (B) 48 g gel applied as 4 g per knee 4 times daily to 2 knees plus 2 g gel per hand applied 4 times daily to 2 hands (12 g on 1200 cm(2)), and (C) 150 mg oral diclofenac applied as 50-mg tablets 3 times daily. Thirty-nine participants completed all 3 regimens. Systemic exposure was greater with oral diclofenac (AUC(0-24), 3890 +/- 1710 ng x h/mL) than with topical treatments A (AUC(0-24), 233 +/- 128 ng x h/mL) and B (AUC(0-24), 807 +/- 478 ng x h/mL). Oral diclofenac inhibited platelet aggregation, cyclooxygenase-1 (COX-1), and COX-2. Topical diclofenac did not inhibit platelet aggregation and inhibited COX-1 and COX-2 less than oral diclofenac. Treatment-related adverse events were mild and limited to application site reactions with diclofenac sodium gel 1% (n = 4) and gastrointestinal reactions with oral diclofenac (n = 3). Systemic exposure with diclofenac sodium gel 1% was 5- to 17-fold lower than with oral diclofenac. Systemic effects with topical diclofenac were less pronounced.
A randomised, double-blind, single-centre, vehicle-controlled clinical trial was conducted to assess the efficacy and tolerability of diclofenac-Na 0.1% gel in 172 subjects suffering from acute first-degree natural sunburn. Overall 172 subjects with skin phototypes II-IV were randomised in a ratio of 2:1 to receive two applications of either diclofenac-Na 0.1% Emulgel gel or its vehicle Emulgel gel, 6 and 10 hours after the end of sun exposure. Subjects were drawn from a target population of healthy volunteers and well outdoor sunbathers with normal tolerance to ultraviolet light and the sun. Previously untanned areas were exposed to carefully determined standardised doses of sun (2.8 individual minimal erythema doses) on 15% body surface area to induce first-degree sunburn. After administration of diclofenac-Na 0.1% gel, subjects reported a significant reduction in spontaneous pain intensity compared with those on vehicle. Pain relief was rapid with a reduction in erythema, which was apparent within the first few hours after the first application of the trial medication with a maximum effect observed up to 30 hours after sun exposure. A good', very good', or excellent' cooling effect was recorded by 85% of subjects after treatment. Reported treatment-emergent adverse effects were infrequent, generally mild and none were considered to be related to the trial medication. Only one severe treatment emergent adverse event (abdominal pain) was recorded in the active group, and another (burning sensation) with vehicle.
Objective: The stratum corneum (SC) pharmacokinetics of terbinafine following single-dose administration of a novel cutaneous solution (film-forming solution, FFS) containing terbinafine hydrochloride and a film-forming agent, was investigated in three studies. Terbinafine 1% cream (Lamisil) was included as a benchmark in two of these studies.Research design and methods: Drugs were applied to areas of the back, and skin strips were taken from defined areas at baseline and from 1 to 312 h after application. Samples were analysed using validated liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry.Results: The residence time of the film on the skin was up to 72 h after application (up to 12 h for the 1% cream). After application of terbinafine FFS, 30% of the total amount of drug delivered into the SC occurred during the first 2 h, 31% from 2–12 h, and 39% thereafter. The Cmax was observed as early as 1.5 h (tmax). SC levels were still detected after 13 days (24 ng/cm2) (t½ was 162 h). Terbinafine 1% cream showed a similar tmax (2 h) with a lower Cmax than terbinafine 1% FFS, and mean SC levels after 7 days of treatment were 46 ng/cm2 (day 13). The t½ was 68 h. Washing at 30 min removed 86% of the film still present on the surface; the decrease of terbinafine concentration in the SC was 84%. A later washing at 12 h removed 73% of the film in comparison to non-washed skin and induced a decrease in the terbinafine content in the SC of 27%.Conclusions: The SC pharmacokinetic profile of terbinafine 1% FFS indicates that this novel formulation is efficient in delivering high amounts of terbinafine to the skin for a prolonged time and supports its use in the treatment of dermatophytoses with a single application.Introduction
The use of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) can almost double the chances of success for smokers to quit. Nevertheless, there is still a considerable number of cessation attempts that are made without any treatment. This novel oral formulation, (lozenge containing nicotine bitartrate dihydrate) has been developed to enlarge the offer for efficient smoking cessation drug therapies, assuming that increasing treatment options will bring more smokers to find the support they personally need to stop smoking.Three pharmacokinetic (PK), one safety and two efficacy studies were carried out with Nicotinell lozenges. PK trials were: (1) a single-dose, three-way crossover study comparing 1 and 2 mg lozenges with 2 mg nicotine gum; (2) a multiple-dose, two-way crossover study comparing 1 mg lozenge with 2 mg gum; (3) a multiple-dose, three-way crossover study comparing 1 and 2 mg lozenges with 4 mg gum. Safety trial: (4) a single dose study to assess the safety of swallowing up to 12 lozenges containing 1 mg nicotine. Efficacy trials: two efficacy studies in (5) France and (6) the USA, including more than 900 smokers followed-up for up to one year, conducted with the 1 mg lozenge.The results of the individual PK trials showed that the 1 mg Nicotinell lozenge is bioequivalent to 2 mg polacrilex gum, as demonstrated by similar blood PK parameters (tmax, Cmax, AUC). The 2 mg lozenge was found to deliver quantities of nicotine that were intermediate between those delivered by 2 and 4 mg polacrilex gum. The short-term efficacy of the 1 mg lozenge in comparison with placebo was also demonstrated with significantly more subjects continuously abstinent from smoking with active lozenges on week 6 in two different populations: moderate to heavy smokers (FTND between 4 and 7) OR = 1.72 [95% CI: 1.05-2.80]; heavy to very heavy smokers (FTND 6 and over) OR = 2.87 [95% CI: 1.18-6.97]. Nicotinell lozenges were found to be safe with mainly mild and reversible adverse events. The safety of the 1 mg lozenge formulation, even when misused was also demonstrated.The data presented in this review demonstrate high nicotine bioavailability, excellent safety profile and proven short-term efficacy of Nicotinell lozenges. At nominal equivalent doses 1 and 2 mg Nicotinell lozenges were shown to deliver larger amounts of bioavailable nicotine compared to the nicotine polacrilex gum. According to the data developed here, the systemic exposure to nicotine could be ranked: 4 mg polacrilex gum > 2 mg Nicotinell lozenge > 1 mg Nicotinell lozenge = 2 mg polacrilex gum.Adverse events observed during the clinical trials were mild or moderate in severity, transient and completely reversible. With respect to efficacy in smoking cessation, significantly higher continuous abstinence rates were achieved with lozenge compared to placebo. In conclusion, Nicotinell lozenges offer a valuable addition to the therapeutic armamentarium available for smoking cessation.
