Combination therapy with topical alprostadil and phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors after failure of oral therapy in patients with erectile dysfunction: a prospective, two-arm, open-label, non-randomized study

Author(s):  
Pablo Garrido-Abad ◽  
Isabel Senra-Bravo ◽  
Celeste Manfredi ◽  
Esaú Fernández-Pascual ◽  
Estefanía Linares-Espinós ◽  
...  
2021 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ekaterina Alexeeva ◽  
Gerd Horneff ◽  
Tatyana Dvoryakovskaya ◽  
Rina Denisova ◽  
Irina Nikishina ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Remission is the primary objective of treating juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA). It is still debatable whether early intensive treatment is superior in terms of earlier achievement of remission. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of early etanercept+methotrexate (ETA+MTX) combination therapy versus step-up MTX monotherapy with ETA added in refractory disease. Methods A multi-centre, double-blind, randomized study in active polyarticular JIA patients treated with either ETA+MTX (n = 35) or placebo+MTX (n = 33) for up to 24 weeks, followed by a 24-week open-label phase. The efficacy endpoints included pedACR30 criteria improvement at week 12, inactive disease at week 24, and remission at week 48. Patients who failed to achieve the endpoints at week 12 or at week 24 escaped to open-label ETA+MTX. Safety was assessed at each visit. Results By intention-to-treat analysis, more patients in the ETA+MTX group reached the pedACR30 response at week 12 (33 (94.3%)) than in the placebo+MTX group (20 (60.6%); p = 0.001). At week 24, comparable percentages of patients reached inactive disease (11 (31.4%) vs 11 (33.3%)). At week 48, 11 (31.4%) and eight (24.2%) patients achieved remission. The median (+/−IQR) times to achieve an inactive disease state in the ETA+MTX and placebo+MTX groups were 24 (14–32) and 32 (24–40) weeks, respectively. Forty-four (74/100 patient-years) adverse events (AEs) were reported, leading to treatment discontinuation in 6 patients. Conclusions Early combination therapy with ETA+MTX proved to be highly effective compared to the standard step-up regimen. Compared to those treated with the standard regimen, more patients treated with a combination of ETA+MTX reached the pedACR30 response and achieved inactive disease and remission more rapidly.


2008 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 21-33 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Sandner ◽  
Niels Svenstrup ◽  
Hanna Tinel ◽  
Helmut Haning ◽  
Erwin Bischoff

2020 ◽  
Vol 40 (9) ◽  
pp. 2228-2241 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frank E. Uschner ◽  
Kathleen Glückert ◽  
Rafael Paternostro ◽  
Thorsten Gnad ◽  
Robert Schierwagen ◽  
...  

1997 ◽  
Vol 41 (8) ◽  
pp. 1704-1708 ◽  
Author(s):  
D Yamamura ◽  
R Gucalp ◽  
P Carlisle ◽  
M Cimino ◽  
J Roberts ◽  
...  

An open-label randomized trial comparing the efficacy and safety of cefepime versus piperacillin plus gentamicin (P+G) given intravenously for the treatment of febrile episodes in neutropenic patients with underlying malignancy was conducted at two oncology centers. Over a 30-month period 111 patients were enrolled and 99 patients were found to be suitable for evaluation. At the 72-h time of evaluation, cefepime monotherapy and P+G combination therapy produced comparable clinical response rates (78% for both). P+G and cefepime produced comparable response rates in microbiologically documented (78 versus 71%), clinically documented (100 versus 100%), and possible (75 versus 79%) infections. The P+G and cefepime treatments achieved comparable microbiological eradication of gram-negative (100 versus 71%) (P = 0.09) and gram-positive (44 versus 70%) (P = 0.37) organisms. There were no statistically significant differences in the rates of superinfection between the groups; however, more superinfections of fungal origin were noted in the P+G group. Cefepime was demonstrated to be an effective and safe treatment for febrile episodes in neutropenic patients with malignancies, and its lack of nephrotoxicity compared to P+G was noteworthy. Cefepime appears to be a candidate for monotherapy in febrile neutropenic cancer patients.


2015 ◽  
Vol 68 (4) ◽  
pp. 674-680 ◽  
Author(s):  
Liang Chen ◽  
Sergej E.L. Staubli ◽  
Marc P. Schneider ◽  
Alfons G. Kessels ◽  
Sandra Ivic ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document