Library

Notes: Abstract According to the two currently most popular biological hypotheses, schizophrenic symptoms result from a hyperactivity in dopaminergic neurotransmission or from a hypoactivity in GABAergic neurotransmission. Since diazepam is known to reduce dopamine release and to potentiate GABA, the possible beneficial effects of diazepam were tested in ten hospitalized chronic schizophrenic patients who were resistant to standard neuroleptic treatment. High doses of diazepam, up to 200 mg/day initially, but smaller maintenance doses (less than 55 mg/day diazepam in eight of the ten patients) were added to the previous neuroleptic medication of these patients. The diazepam dose was adjusted daily to avoid oversedation. The effects of diazepam treatment on the mental status were assessed weekly for 12 weeks by the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), the physician's Clinical Global Impressions Scale (CGI), and the Psychotic inpatient Profile Scale (PIP). For additional documentation, videotapes of mental status interviews were obtained at baseline and during diazepam treatment. These videotapes were rated blind by an independent psychiatrist. The addition of diazepam produced a marked improvement in three, a moderate improvent in four, a mild improvement in one and no change in two of the ten patients. Four of the ten patients were so much improved that they were discharged from the hospital. No side effects were noted, except for one patient who became confused and disoriented on 160 mg diazepam/day. Oversedation was avoided in the other patients, whose maximum daily dose of diazepam was 100 mg or higher, by reducing the diazepam dose within 1 week after the maximum daily dose was reached. It is concluded that diazepam may be of use in the treatment of schizophrenia and that further controlled clinical studies are warranted.

Notes: Abstract Background:This study was performed to evaluate thepharmacokinetics, bioequivalence, and feasibility of a combined oralformulation of 5-flurouracil (5-FU) and eniluracil (Glaxo Wellcome Inc.,Research Triangle Park, North Carolina), an inactivator of dihydropyrimidinedehydrogenase (DPD). The rationale for developing a combined eniluracil/5-FUformulation oral dosing form is to simplify treatment with these agents, whichhas been performed using separate dosing forms, and decrease the probabilityof severe toxicity and/or suboptimal therapeutic results caused byinadvertently high or conversely insufficient 5-FU dosing. Patients and methods:The trial was a randomized, three-waycrossover bioequivalence study of three oral dosing forms of eniluracil/5-FUtablets in adults with solid malignancies. Each period consisted of two daysof treatment and a five- to seven-day washout phase. Eniluracil at a dose of20 mg, which results in maximal DPD inactivation, was administered twice dailyon the first day and in the evening on the second day of each of the threetreatments. On the morning of the second day, all patients received a totaleniluracil dose of 20 mg orally and a total 5-FU dose of 2 mg orally as eitherseparate tablets (treatment A) or combined eniluracil/5-FU tablets in twodifferent strengths (2 tablets of eniluracil/5-FU at a strength (mg/mg) of10/1 (treatment B) or 8 tablets at a strength of 2.5/0.25 (treatment C)). Thepharmacokinetics of plasma 5-FU, eniluracil, and uracil, and the urinaryexcretion of eniluracil, 5-FU, uracil, and α-fluoro-β-alanine (FBAL),were studied. To determine the bioequivalence of the combined eniluracil/5-FUdosing forms compared to the separate tablets, an analysis of variance onpharmacokinetic parameters reflecting eniluracil and 5-FU exposure wasperformed. Results:Thirty-nine patients with advanced solid malignancies hadcomplete pharmacokinetic studies performed during treatments A, B, and C. Thepharmacokinetics of eniluracil and 5-FU were similar among the three types oftreatment. Both strengths of the combined eniluracil/5-FU dosing form and theseparate dosing forms were bioequivalent. Mean values for terminal half-life,systemic clearance, and apparent volume of distribution for oral 5-FU duringtreatments A/B/C were 5.5/5.6/5.6 hours, 6.6/6.6/6.5 liters/hour, and50.7/51.5/50.0 liters, respectively. The intersubject coefficient of variationfor pharmacokinetic variables reflecting 5-FU exposure and clearance intreatments ranged from 23% to 33%. The urinary excretion ofunchanged 5-FU over 24 hours following treatments A, B, and C averaged52.2%, 56.1%, and 50.8% of the administered dose of 5-FU,respectively. Parameters reflecting DPD inhibition, including plasma uraciland urinary FBAL excretion following treatments A, B, and C were similar.Toxicity was generally mild and similar following all three types oftreatments. Conclusions:The pharmacokinetics of 5-FU and eniluracil weresimilar and met bioequivalence criteria following treatment with the separateoral formulations of 5-FU and eniluracil and two strengths of the combinedformulation. The availability of a combined eniluracil/5-FU oral dosing formwill likely simplify dosing and decrease the probability of severe toxicityor suboptimal therapeutic results caused by an inadvertent 5-FU overdose orinsufficient 5-FU dosing in the case of separate oral formulations, therebyenhancing the overall feasibility and therapeutic index of oral 5-FU therapy.