Search

Summary: This post-hoc analysis queried whether women experiencing fracture on denosumab indicates inadequate treatment response or whether the risk of subsequent fracture remains low with continuing denosumab. Results showed that denosumab decreases the risk of subsequent fracture and fracture sustained while on denosumab is not necessarily indicative of inadequate treatment response.Introduction: This analysis assessed whether a fracture sustained during denosumab therapy indicates inadequate treatment response and if the risk of a subsequent fracture decreases with continuing denosumab treatment.Methods: In FREEDOM, a clinical trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of denosumab, postmenopausal women with osteoporosis were randomized to placebo or denosumab for 3 years. In the 7-year FREEDOM Extension, all participants were allocated to receive denosumab. Here we compare subsequent osteoporotic fracture rates between denosumab-treated subjects during FREEDOM or the Extension and placebo-treated subjects in FREEDOM.Results: During FREEDOM, 438 placebo- and 272 denosumab-treated subjects had an osteoporotic fracture. Exposure-adjusted subject incidence per 100 subject-years was lower for denosumab (6.7) vs placebo (10.1). Combining all subjects on denosumab from FREEDOM and the Extension for up to 10 years (combined denosumab), 794 (13.7%) had an osteoporotic fracture while on denosumab. Of these, one or more subsequent fractures occurred in 144 (18.1%) subjects, with an exposure-adjusted incidence of 5.8 per 100 subject-years, similar to FREEDOM denosumab (6.7 per 100 subject-years) and lower than FREEDOM placebo (10.1 per 100 subject-years). Adjusting for prior fracture, the risk of having a subsequent on-study osteoporotic fracture was lower in the combined denosumab group vs placebo (hazard ratio [95% CI]: 0.59 [0.43-0.81]; P = 0.0012).Conclusions: These data demonstrate that denosumab decreases the risk of subsequent fracture and a fracture sustained while on denosumab is not necessarily indicative of inadequate treatment response. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A case report of severe rhabdomyolysis in a 33-year-old motorcyclist after multiple trauma is described. The injuries included severe thoracic and abdominal trauma as well as injuries to the extremities and spinal column. During the first 3 days of treatment a forced volume therapy was performed because of increased levels of creatine kinase during which the patients condition stabilized both hemodynamically and respiratorily. On day 10 the patient developed a rise in temperature to 42°C with no evidence of a re-infection and the creatine kinase levels rose to 109,830 U/l. A continuous hemofiltration was started because of acute renal failure. The creatine kinase levels declined significantly and renal function also returned to normal with adequate diuresis up to day 20. After intensive questioning of the relatives a history of long-term use of anabolic steroids, clenbuterol as well as the intake of testosterone enanthate was conceded. Cocaine and amphetamines were also taken regularly by the patient. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Preference and Satisfaction Questionnaire (PSQ) compares patient preference and satisfaction between a 6-month subcutaneous injection and weekly oral tablet for treatment of bone loss. Patients preferred and were more satisfied with a treatment that was administered less frequently, suggesting the acceptability of the 6-month injection for treatment of bone loss. The PSQ compares patient preference and satisfaction between a 6-month subcutaneous injection and a weekly oral tablet for treatment of bone loss. Postmenopausal women with low bone mass who enrolled in two separate randomized phase 3 double-blind, double-dummy studies received a 6-month subcutaneous denosumab injection (60 mg) plus a weekly oral placebo or a weekly alendronate tablet (70 mg) plus a 6-month subcutaneous placebo injection. After 12 months, patients completed the PSQ to rate their preference, satisfaction, and degree of bother with each regimen. Most enrolled patients (1,583 out of 1,693; 93.5%) answered ≥1 item of the PSQ. Significantly more patients preferred and were more satisfied with the 6-month injection versus the weekly tablet ( P < 0.001). More patients reported no bother with the 6-month injection (90%) than the weekly tablet (62%). Patients preferred, were more satisfied, and less bothered with a 6-month injection regimen for osteoporosis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Clinical Research in Cardiology is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Vasopressin and terlipressin are increasingly used as alternative non-adrenergic vasopressors for hemodynamic support of septic patients with arterial hypotension. Despite excellent vasopressive effects, vasopressin analogues may potentially impair macro-hemodynamics, oxygen transport and microvascular blood flow. Due to those unwanted side-effects, vasopressin and terlipressin may potentially compromise organ function and possibly foster the development of multiple organ failure. This review article discusses the results of clinical and experimental studies to judge the effects of vasopressin and terlipressin on microcirculation, oxygen supply, metabolism and organ function in patients with sepsis or systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS). Although vasopressin analogues are emerging as promising alternatives to treat catecholamine-refractory hypotension, there is no evidence that vasopressin receptor agonists improve outcome. To date, vasopressin and terlipressin can, therefore, not be recommended for routine clinical use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Anaesthesist is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Anaesthesist is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

We have recently reported the results of a 24-month, double-blind, placebo-controlled study in 359 elderly osteoporotic women who were treated with daily oral alendronate (ALN) 1, 2.5, or 5 mg or placebo (PBO). We report the results of a 12-month, open-label, extension study during which 246 patients from the original study were treated with ALN 10 mg/day. Significant increases in lumbar spine bone mineral density (BMD) were observed in patients who had previously received PBO or ALN 1 and 2.5 mg/day for 24 months. Significant gains in trochanter BMD were seen in all treatment groups. Small changes were observed in femoral neck, total body, and forearm BMD during the course of this extension study. In general, the greatest increases in BMD during the open-label extension year occurred in patients who received either PBO or the lower doses of ALN during the previous 2-year blinded study. The frequencies of all categories of upper gastrointestinal adverse experiences (AEs) were less during months 25-36 (open-label extension) than during months 0-24 (original study). In conclusion, treatment with ALN 10 mg/day for 12 months in elderly women with osteoporosis who were previously treated for 24 months with PBO or ALN 1, 2.5, or 5 mg/day increased or maintained BMD of the spine, trochanter, and forearm, and was generally safe and well tolerated, especially in the upper gastrointestinal tract. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The present study compared the effects of nitric oxide (NO) synthase inhibition and NO scavenging with haemoglobin in endotoxaemic sheep.Design: 12 sheep were instrumented for chronic study. Six sheep received LG-nitro-arginine-methylester (L-NAME, 2.5 mg/kg bolus followed by a continuous infusion of 0.5 mg/kg per h), the other 6 sheep received pyridoxalated haemoglobin polyoxyethylene conjugate (PHP, 100 mg/kg bolus followed by a continuous infusion of 20 mg/kg per h).Measurements and Results: Haemodynamic and oxygenation parameters were measured in healthy sheep, after infusion of Salmonella typhosa endotoxin (10 ng/kg per min) for 24 h and after infusion of L-NAME or PHP. The infusion of endotoxin resulted in a hypotensive, hyperdynamic circulation. Infusion of L-NAME increased mean arterial pressure (MAP) from 76.1 +/- 4.2 mmHg to normal values of 95.8 +/- 5.7 mmHg (p < 0.05). PHP increased MAP from 73.0 +/- 3.0 to 88.6 +/- 4.7 mmHg (p < 0.05). This increase in MAP was associated in the L-NAME group with a more prominent drop in cardiac index (from 10.2 +/- 0.4 to 7.0 +/- 0.51.min-1.m-2; p < 0.05) than in the PHP group (from 10.7 +/- 0.2 to 9.3 +/- 0.61.min-1.m-2). During the first 90 min of infusion, cardiac index remained lower in the L-NAME group than in the PHP group. The increase in pulmonary vascular resistance was also higher in the L-NAME group.Conclusion: These results suggest, that at the doses used in the experiment, NO scavenging with PHP has smaller effects on cardiac index and pulmonary vascular resistance than NO synthase inhibition with L-NAME. Therefore, the concept of NO scavenging in hyperdynamic sepsis should be further evaluated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Presents a letter to the editor regarding the use of terlipressin in patients with septic shock, published in the May 2004 issue of "Intensive Care Medicine."