Search

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to prospectively evaluate the clinical and radiological results of double level osteotomy (distal femoral lateral closed wedge and proximal tibial medial open wedge) in medial osteoarthritis and varus malalignment due to bifocal deformity of femur and tibia., Methods: From 2017 to 2019 all cases of DLO in osteoarthritic varus malaligned knees with bifocal deformity (femoral and tibial deformity) were prospectively enrolled into this observational therapeutic study. Evaluation was performed preoperatively, at six, twelve, 18 and 24 months with regard to survival (not requiring arthroplasty), functional outcome [subjective International Knee Documentation Committee score (IKDC), Oxford Knee Score (OKS), Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome score (KOOS) and Tegner Activity Scale], pain level (numeric rating scale), subjective satisfaction (rating 1-5), radiographic parameters on a pre-and postoperative full leg x-rays (mechanical axis, mechanical proximal tibial and distal femoral angles) and complications. For statistical evaluation student's t test, Mann-Whitney U test and Wilcoxon-signed-rank test were used., Results: Fifty-two consecutive cases in 48 patients were enrolled in the study. Three cases were excluded, resulting in a follow-up rate of 94%. No arthroplasties were performed within follow-up. All functional outcome scores substantially and significantly increased as early as six months after the index procedure and further increased until final follow-up (p < 0.001). Pain level significantly decreased (p < 0.001). At final follow-up all patients stated that they would retrospectively undergo the operation again, and rated the result with 4.5 ± 0.6 out of 5 (3-5). Radiographic parameters were within physiological limits postoperatively. No severe complications occurred., Conclusions: Double level osteotomy has excellent short-term results while maintaining physiological radiographic parameters. Therefore, it should be an integral part and standard procedure in realignment surgery for monocompartimental osteoarthritis., Level of Evidence: IV (prospective observational therapeutic study)., (© 2022. The Author(s) under exclusive licence to European Society of Sports Traumatology, Knee Surgery, Arthroscopy (ESSKA).)

Background and Purpose: Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF; AX200; Filgrastim) is a stroke drug candidate with excellent preclinical evidence for efficacy. A previous phase IIa dose-escalation study suggested potential efficacy in humans. The present large phase IIb trial was powered to detect clinical efficacy in acute ischemic stroke patients., Methods: G-CSF (135 µg/kg body weight intravenous over 72 hours) was tested against placebo in 328 patients in a multinational, multicenter, randomized, and placebo-controlled trial (NCT00927836; www.clinicaltrial.gov). Main inclusion criteria were ≤9-hour time window after stroke onset, infarct localization in the middle cerebral artery territory, baseline National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score range of 6 to 22, and baseline diffusion-weighted imaging lesion size ≥15 mL. Primary and secondary end points were the modified Rankin scale score and the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score at day 90, respectively. Data were analyzed using a prespecified model that adjusted for age, National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score at baseline, and initial infarct volume (diffusion-weighted imaging)., Results: G-CSF treatment failed to meet the primary and secondary end points of the trial. For additional end points such as mortality, Barthel index, or infarct size at day 30, G-CSF did not show efficacy either. There was, however, a trend for reduced infarct growth in the G-CSF group. G-CSF showed the expected peripheral pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles, with a strong increase in leukocytes and monocytes. In parallel, the cytokine profile showed a significant decrease of interleukin-1., Conclusions: G-CSF, a novel and promising drug candidate with a comprehensive preclinical and clinical package, did not provide any significant benefit with respect to either clinical outcome or imaging biomarkers., Clinical Trial Registration Url: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00927836.

The anti-asthmatic effect of theophylline may supplement those of inhaled steroids in asthma. The aim of the present trial was to study how the addition of theophylline compares to doubling the dose of inhaled steroid in asthmatics who remain symptomatic on beclomethasone dipropionate (BDP) 400 micrograms/day. The trial was designed as a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study in several European countries. 69 patients were treated for 6 weeks with theophylline plus BDP 400 micrograms/day, compared to 64 patients treated with BDP 800 micrograms/day. The mean +/- SD serum theophylline concentration was 10.1 +/- 4.2 mg/l. Lung function measurements were made throughout the study and patients kept daily records of peak expiratory flow rate (PEF), symptoms and salbutamol usage. Forced expiratory volume in one second and PEF at week 6 were significantly increased by both treatments (p < 0.01). PEF variability was reduced by about 30% in both groups. There were significant improvements in asthma symptoms and rescue medication use (p < 0.001). There were no significant differences between the treatment groups. The study demonstrated clinical equivalence of theophylline plus beclomethasone dipropionate 400 micrograms/day and beclomethasone dipropionate 800 micrograms/day in patients whose asthma is not controlled on beclomethasone dipropionate 400 micrograms/d. The results support the use of theophylline as steroid-sparing agent. The combination of low-dose inhaled steroid plus theophylline is a suitable treatment for moderate asthma.

Increasing prevalence and severity of asthma worldwide encourage the development of new antiasthmatic drugs, alternative treatment regimens and improved formulations of established drugs. Whereas the efficacy of new chemical entities (NCEs) is usually demonstrated by superiority over placebo or a subtherapeutic dose of the active drug, equivalence concepts have to be used in the following situations: the need to replace chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) propellants for inhalative asthma medications by suitable alternatives, and the need to demonstrate that an alternative treatment regimen is not clinically inferior to an established reference treatment. To cover both situations, the recent ICH guidance on biostatistics clearly distinguishes between two-sided equivalence trials and one-sided non-inferiority trials. In this context, non-inferiority always means "not inferior by a clinically relevant amount". After having confirmed non-inferiority, superiority of the alternative test treatment over the reference treatment can additionally be tested without the need to adjust the significance level. The definition of equivalence acceptance limits becomes crucial, particularly in studies conducted in the flat range of the dose-response curve of inhaled steroids. In order to assess the non-inferiority of steroid sparing add-on treatments we propose a one-sided test based on post-/pre-ratios which have substantially reduced coefficients of variation compared to the post-treatment values themselves. The non-inferiority acceptance limit of 0.90 - as opposed to 0.80 in bioequivalence assessment - reflects clinically irrelevant changes of lung function variables. The proposed methodology is illustrated by 2 examples from randomized, double-blind, parallel-group studies comparing inhaled steroid plus theophylline versus doubling the steroid dose in asthmatics who are symptomatic on low-dose inhaled steroid.

Dexniguldipine (DNIG) is the R-enantiomer of the dihydropyridine derivate niguldipine. DNIG showed a binding affinity to the P-glycoprotein (P-gp) and therefore it is to be assumed to block the P-gp pumping mechanism. This open phase I study was conducted to determine the maximal tolerated dose (MTD) and safety of intravenously administered DNIG alone and in combination with vinblastine in patients with a metastatic or locally advanced cancer. Additionally, serum levels of DNIG were assessed and compared between dosage groups to investigate the intravenous dose linearity. The study was divided into two parts concerning DNIG administration. In part I the patients received DNIG for four hours daily over four consecutive days and additionally 0.15 mg/kg vinblastine at day 3. Treatment was started with 1 mg/kg/4h, and whenever the drug was well tolerated the dosage was increased. In part II the patients received up to three courses of a four-hour infusion (5 and 7 mg/kg/4h) of DNIG followed by a continuous infusion for 48 hours (5 and 7 mg/kg/24h). Twenty-six patients entered this trial and were given at least one infusion of DNIG; vinblastine was given immediately after the 4-hour infusion. One to seven courses and dosages from 1-11 mg/kg were administered. In five patients the dose limiting toxicity was seen in cardiovascular adverse events such as a drop in blood pressure, decreased heart rate and in one patient an AV block III. Most frequent adverse events were nausea, dizziness, vomiting, peripheral paresthesia, atactic gait, mild constipation, polyuria, hypocalcemia; all disappeared within 24 hours after discontinuation of infusion. A linear increase in DNIG serum concentration with increasing doses was found following intravenous infusion of DNIG over a four-hour period. Long-term infusion regimes over a period of two or five days resulted in reasonably constant DNIG serum levels. MTD was determined at 5 mg/kg/4h. It is to be assumed that the MTD for continuous infusion of DNIG is higher than 5 mg/kg/24h, but this was not followed up in the study and must be the aim of a later trial.

Dexniguldipine-HCl is a new dihydropyridine derivative with antineoplastic activity and potency for overcoming multidrug resistance. In this pharmacokinetic study the bioavailability of 3 doses of an oral formulation of dexniguldipine was to be determined. Fourteen patients with malignant disease not eligible for higher priority treatment and sufficient general condition were included. In 12 patients all pharmacokinetic investigations were available for evaluation. A single 4-h infusion of 2 mg per kg body weight of dexniguldipine was given as reference. Thereafter 3 increasing oral dosages (750, 1,500, 2,250 mg/d) were given on a 3-time daily basis for 3 consecutive weeks. On day 7 (under steady state conditions) of each period, a pharmacokinetic profile was done. Absolute bioavailability at the 3-dose levels was 3, 4, and 5%, respectively, thus slightly increasing with dose, but generally low. After intravenous administration terminal half life was 22.4 h, clearance 36.9 l/h and volume of distribution 1,193 1. Toxicity was tolerable with main adverse events being loss of appetite, nausea, and vomiting. Cardiovascular effects and a decrease in serum calcium were reported in several patients. Patients were allowed to continue treatment if a benefit was expected, and 2 patients showed tumor regression during treatment. One patient with renal cell carcinoma achieved a partial remission. Bioavailability of this oral formulation seems too low for routine clinical use, despite the fact that clinical effects have been observed.