Search

Background: Peripheral Nerve Stimulation (PNS) is an established therapy for chronic neuropathic pain of peripheral origin, typically following nerve injury. However, there is a paucity of Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) demonstrating the therapeutic benefits of PNS. The goals of the current study (COMFORT Study) are to document the safety and efficacy of the Nalu Neurostimulation in a PNS RCT, compared to conventional medical management (CMM). Methods/Design: This is a prospective, multicenter, RCT evaluating the treatment of neuropathic pain with PNS therapy. One of the following four regions will be targeted for treatment: low back, shoulder, knee or foot/ankle. Consented subjects will undergo a baseline evaluation, after which they are randomized 2:1 (PNS+CMM arm to CMM arm). Subjects randomized to PNS+CMM arm will undergo a trial implant period using best clinical practices. Subjects who pass the trial phase, by showing a ≥ 50% reduction in pain relative to baseline, will receive the permanent implant. All subjects receiving a permanent implant will be followed for a total of 36 months. At the 3-month primary end point, subjects in CMM arm will be given the option to crossover into PNS+CMM arm, beginning with a trial implant. The study duration is expected to be 5.5 years from first enrollment to last follow-up of last subject and subsequent study closure. Adverse events will be captured throughout the study. Discussion: The COMFORT study, described here, has the potential to demonstrate the efficacy and safety of the Nalu Neurostimulation System in the treatment of peripheral neuropathy. Results of this study will be the first Level-I evidence, out to 36 months, validating the use of this PNS system in the treatment of chronic pain. This study is designed to enroll the largest cohort, to date, of subjects comparing PNS+CMM vs CMM alone. Plain Language Summary: Peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) has been used for decades to treat neuropathic pain of peripheral origin. This therapy typically involves the placement small (~1 mm diameter) cylindrical electrodes (leads) near the nerve(s) in question, which is then followed by the delivery mild electrical pulses to the target, thereby blocking the pain signal from reaching the central nervous system. Despite the clinical success of this approach, there are few randomized controlled trials (RCTs) demonstrating PNS efficacy in the treatment of peripheral neuralgia/neuropathy. This may be, in large part, due to a paucity of PNS devices that are small enough to deliver this therapy at multiple locations in the extremities and the torso. For example, most implantable pulse generators (IPGs) range in size from 14 to 40 cm3 in volume. The purpose of this RCT is to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of an externally powered micro-IPG (< 1.5 cm3 in volume), in the delivery of PNS to treat peripheral neuropathic pain. Active Arm subjects will receive therapy with the micro-IPG and continue to use conventional medical management (CMM); Control Arm subjects will be treated with CMM only. The primary endpoint is the responder rate at 3-months, in both arms, defined as the percentage of subjects with ≥ 50% pain reduction from baseline following implantation of the micro-IPG. Control Arm subjects will be given the option to crossover to the Active Arm at 3-months. Study subjects in both arms are followed out to 36 months. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The formation of new blood vessels, or angiogenesis, is a complex process that plays important roles in growth and development, tissue and organ regeneration, as well as numerous pathological conditions. Angiogenesis undergoes multiple discrete steps that can be individually evaluated and quantified by a large number of bioassays. These independent assessments hold advantages but also have limitations. This article describes in vivo, ex vivo, and in vitro bioassays that are available for the evaluation of angiogenesis and highlights critical aspects that are relevant for their execution and proper interpretation. As such, this collaborative work is the first edition of consensus guidelines on angiogenesis bioassays to serve for current and future reference.

Inhibition of the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) pathway has failed to improve overall survival of patients with glioblastoma (GBM). We previously showed that angiopoietin-2 (Ang-2) overexpression compromised the benefit from anti-VEGF therapy in a preclinical GBM model. Here we investigated whether dual Ang-2/VEGF inhibition could overcome resistance to anti-VEGF treatment. We treated mice bearing orthotopic syngeneic (Gl261) GBMs or human (MGG8) GBM xenografts with antibodies inhibiting VEGF (B20), or Ang-2/VEGF (CrossMab, A2V). We examined the effects of treatment on the tumor vasculature, immune cell populations, tumor growth, and survival in both the Gl261 and MGG8 tumor models. We found that in the Gl261 model, which displays a highly abnormal tumor vasculature, A2V decreased vessel density, delayed tumor growth, and prolonged survival compared with B20. In the MGG8 model, which displays a low degree of vessel abnormality, A2V induced no significant changes in the tumor vasculature but still prolonged survival. In both the Gl261 and MGG8 models A2V reprogrammed protumor M2 macrophages toward the antitumor M1 phenotype. Our findings indicate that A2V may prolong survival in mice with GBM by reprogramming the tumor immune microenvironment and delaying tumor growth.