Search

Importance Cryptogenic sensory polyneuropathy (CSPN) is a common generalized slowly progressive neuropathy, second in prevalence only to diabetic neuropathy. Most patients with CSPN have significant pain. Many medications have been tried for pain reduction in CSPN, including antiepileptics, antidepressants, and sodium channel blockers. There are no comparative studies that identify the most effective medication for pain reduction in CSPN. Objective To determine which medication (pregabalin, duloxetine, nortriptyline, or mexiletine) is most effective for reducing neuropathic pain and best tolerated in patients with CSPN. Design, Setting, and Participants From December 1, 2014, through October 20, 2017, a bayesian adaptive, open-label randomized clinical comparative effectiveness study of pain in 402 participants with CSPN was conducted at 40 neurology care clinics. The trial included response adaptive randomization. Participants were patients with CSPN who were 30 years or older, with a pain score of 4 or greater on a numerical rating scale (range, 0-10, with higher scores indicating a higher level of pain). Participant allocation to 1 of 4 drug groups used the utility function and treatment’s sample size for response adaptation randomization. At each interim analysis, a decision was made to continue enrolling (up to 400 participants) or stop the whole trial for success (80% power). Patient engagement was maintained throughout the trial, which helped guide the study and identify ways to communicate and disseminate information. Analysis was performed from December 11, 2015, to January 19, 2018. Interventions Participants were randomized to receive nortriptyline (n = 134), duloxetine (n = 126), pregabalin (n = 73), or mexiletine (n = 69). Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was a utility function that was a composite of the efficacy (participant reported pain reduction of ≥50% from baseline to week 12) and quit (participants who discontinued medication) rates. Results Among the 402 participants (213 men [53.0%]; mean [SD] age, 60.1 [13.4] years; 343 White [85.3%]), the utility function of nortriptyline was 0.81 (95% bayesian credible interval [CrI], 0.69-0.93; 34 of 134 [25.4%] efficacious; and 51 of 134 [38.1%] quit), of duloxetine was 0.80 (95% CrI, 0.68-0.92; 29 of 126 [23.0%] efficacious; and 47 of 126 [37.3%] quit), pregabalin was 0.69 (95% CrI, 0.55-0.84; 11 of 73 [15.1%] efficacious; and 31 of 73 [42.5%] quit), and mexiletine was 0.58 (95% CrI, 0.42-0.75; 14 of 69 [20.3%] efficacious; and 40 of 69 [58.0%] quit). The probability each medication yielded the highest utility was 0.52 for nortriptyline, 0.43 for duloxetine, 0.05 for pregabalin, and 0.00 for mexiletine. Conclusions and Relevance This study found that, although there was no clearly superior medication, nortriptyline and duloxetine outperformed pregabalin and mexiletine when pain reduction and undesirable adverse effects are combined to a single end point. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier:NCT02260388

BACKGROUND The alexandrite laser selectively targets melanin and hemoglobin. We used the alexandrite laser with variable pulse widths to treat facial telangiectasia. METHODS Nineteen patients were enrolled in this study, which consisted of two parts: a series of test spots over a range of pulse durations (3–80 ms) and treatment over a larger area based on the pulse width–specific outcomes from the test spots. The final follow-up visit was 12 weeks after irradiation. RESULTS The 40-ms pulse width achieved the optimal balance of pain tolerance, epidermal tolerance, and vessel reduction. Mean fluence was 88 J/cm2, with a 6-mm spot. Overall, a 48% reduction in vessels was noted after one treatment. Side effects were minimal. CONCLUSIONS In fair-skinned patients with large telangiectasia, the alexandrite laser is a good option for vessel reduction. The equipment used in this study was loaned by Candela. Dr. Ross is on the medical advisory board for Candela and is a consultant to Palomar, Cutera, Sciton, and Lumenis. Y. Domankevitz is an employee of the Candela Corp.

A robotic system for performing remote-controlled angioplasty and stent placement is now in clinical use in the US. This robotic system allows the operator to perform percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) while seated in a lead-lined cockpit, thereby minimizing radiation exposure and eliminating

Background and Objectives Monopolar radiofrequency (RF) treatment is used by physicians to tighten and contour the skin of their patients. In many cases, patients have received prior treatment with other aesthetic modalities such as soft-tissue augmentation or they may wish to receive these treatment modalities simultaneously. Together, soft-tissue augmentation and monopolar RF treatment have the potential to restore tissue volume and improve facial laxity. To date, no published studies have documented the effects of RF treatment directly over soft-tissue fillers. Study Design/Materials and Methods We examined the tissue interactions of monopolar RF heating with five commonly injected fillers in a juvenile pig model. This is the first part of a two-part study. In this study, the interaction of monopolar RF and filler substances was examined over a period of 4 months. The five soft-tissue fillers examined were cross-linked human collagen (Cosmoplast™), hyaluronic acid (Restylane®), calcium hydroxylapatite (Radiesse™), polylactic acid (Sculptra™), and liquid injectable silicone (Silikon™ 1000). Results There was no apparent increase in the risk of local burns and no observable effect of RF treatment on filler persistence in the tissue. With monopolar RF treatment, an increase in fibroplasia and collagen deposition surrounding Restylane, Radiesse, and Sculptra was observed. When scored in a blinded fashion, the increase in collagen deposition was statistically significant for Radiesse. Conclusions In this animal study, RF treatment had no observed adverse effect on filler collagen responses or persistence. Filler presence did not increase the risk of undesirable thermal effects with monopolar RF treatment. Further clinical studies are required to evaluate the effect of monopolar RF treatment over dermal fillers with respect to aesthetic outcome. Lasers Surg. Med. 00:1–10,2005. © 2005 Wiley-Liss, Inc.