P706Treatment of hypercholesterolaemia with PCSK-9 Inhibitors in Denmark. Assessment of real-life data; safety an extent of adverse effects after the first years of clinical use

2019 ◽  
Vol 40 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
S Mulverstedt ◽  
I C Klausen ◽  
M H Martinsen ◽  
H Kanstrup ◽  
K K Thomsen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Effects ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Plasma Lipids ◽  
Real Life ◽  
Outcome Studies ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Significant Difference

Abstract Introduction PCSK9 Inhibitors (PCSK9 I) are a new group of drugs for treatment of hyperlipidaemia. These drugs have been available in Denmark since October 2015. From the two existing major outcome studies (FOURIER and ODYSSEY OUTCOMES) it has been shown that there was no significant difference in the risk of serious adverse events, discontinuation due to adverse events, neurocognitive events, diabetes-related events, muscle-related events, or myalgia in the treatment group, compared with the control group. In FOUIRER 12.5% came of treatment; In ODYSSEY the rate was 10.2–14.8%. Although this highlights the efficacy and safety in patients with cardiovascular disease, we have little knowledge of the use, efficacy and safety with these drugs in real-life populations Purpose We aim to describe the demography, the treatment efficacy and the extent of adverse effects among patients treated in Danish lipid clinics. Methods Data on all patients treated with PCSK9 I between October 1st, 2015 and May 1st, 2018 were obtained from lipid clinics in Denmark. A database containing information on medications before treatment, adverse effects, plasma lipids (LDL-C, Triglyceride, High density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C)) and supplementary blood tests was created. Levels of plasma lipids and organ markers (Creatinine, Hba1c or Alanine aminotransferase (ALAT)) at baseline and at follow up visits were analysed. Results Nationwide, 383 patients were included, an estimated 90% of all patients undergoing treatment with PCSK9 I in Denmark. A large proportion (n=243 - 63.4%) were described as statin intolerant and only 94 patients were receiving statins at baseline. Adverse effects (AE) were reported by 71 patients (18.5%) on PCSK9 I therapy and 50 patients (13.1%) stopped treatment. Most common AE were flu like symptoms and musculoskeletal aches. In two cases an increase in serum creatinine kinase was detected. One case of angioedema and three cases of local reactions to injections had been documented. No case of anaphylaxis was reported. Of the 71 patients with AEs 55 (77.5%) were statin intolerant. Of the 50, who came off treatment, 43 (86.0%) were statin intolerant. When treatment was stopped 15 patients (30.0%) tried the alternative PCSK9 Inhibitor (cross over). Of those, nine patients were able to tolerate the alternative PCSK9 I treatment. Conclusion Many patients (18.3%) reported AEs on a wide range of symptoms, but the rate of patients terminating PCSK9 I treatment was the same as found in the outcome studies (13.1% vs. 12.2 and 10.2–14.8%). Most of the patients who stopped treatment were statin intolerant and produced the same symptoms, as they had experienced with statins. Interestingly, nine of the 15 patients that were switched to the alternate PCSK9 I seems to tolerate this treatment.

Efficacy and Safety of Non-Steroidal Anti-Androgens in Patients with Metastatic Prostate Cancer: Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 34-47 ◽  
Author(s):  
Muhammed Rashid ◽  
Madhan Ramesh ◽  
K. Shamshavali ◽  
Amit Dang ◽  
Himanshu Patel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Quality Assessment ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Significant Difference

Background: Prostate cancer (PCa) is the sixth primary cause of cancer death. However, conflicts are present about the efficacy and safety of Non-steroidal anti-androgens (NSAA) for its treatment. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of NSAAs versus any comparator for the treatment of advanced or metastatic PCa (mPCa). Methodology: MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library were searched. References of included studies and clinicaltrials.gov were also searched for relevant studies. Only English language studies after 1990 were considered for review. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining the efficacy and safety of NSAAs as compared with any other comparator including surgery or chemotherapy in mPCa patients were included. The outcomes include efficacy, safety and the tolerability of the treatment. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool was used for quality assessment. Two authors were independently involved in the selection, extraction and quality assessment of included studies and disagreements were resolved by discussion or by consulting a third reviewer. Results: Fifty-eight out of 1307 non-duplicate RCTs with 29154 patients were considered for the review. NSAA showed significantly better progression-free survival [PFS] (Hazard ratio [HR], 0.60; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.46-0.78; P=0.0001), time to distant metastasis or death [TTD] (HR, 0.80; 95% CI 0.73-0.91; p<0.0001), objective response (Odds ratio [OR], 1.64; 95% CI 1.06-2.54; P=0.03) and clinical benefits (OR, 1.33; 95% CI 1.08-1.63; P=0.006) as compared to the control group. There was no significant difference observed between the groups in terms of overall survival (HR, 0.95; 95%CI, 0.87-1.03; P=0.18) and time to progression (HR, 0.93; 95% CI 0.77-1.11; P=0.43). Treatment-related adverse events were more with the NSAA group, but the discontinuation due to lack of efficacy reason was 43% significantly lesser than the control group in patients with mPCa. Rest of the outcomes were appeared to be non-significant. Conclusion: Treatment with NSAA was appeared to be better efficacious with respect to PFS, TTD, and response rate with considerable adverse events when compared to the control group in patients with metastatic PCa.

scholarly journals POS0630 COMPARISON OF THE EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF ORIGINAL AND BIOSIMILAR ADALIMUMAB MOLECULES IN CHILDHOOD RHEUMATIC DISEASES

2021 ◽  
Vol 80 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 553.1-553
Author(s):  
K. Ulu ◽  
F. Demir ◽  
T. Coşkuner ◽  
Ş. Çağlayan ◽  
B. Sözeri
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Disease Activity ◽  
Rheumatic Diseases ◽  
Behcet’S Disease ◽  
Behçet's Disease ◽  
Inactive Disease ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Abp 501

Background:The TNF-α inhibitor adalimumab is a biological disease modifying anti-rheumatic drug (bDMARD) that has been used in different rheumatic diseases with a resistant course. ABP-501 is a biosimilar product (BP) of adalimumab, recently approved by the FDA and EMA. To our knowledge, there is no study assess the efficacy and safety of these two molecules on pediatric patients.Objectives:We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of the original and biosimilar adalimumab (ABP-501) molecules in childhood rheumatic diseases.Methods:This non-interventional, retrospective, single-centre analysis carried out in Umraniye Training and Resrach Hospital, Pediatric Rheumatology Clinic, Istanbul, Turkey. The study group consisted of patients who were followed due to chronic rheumatic disease between January 1, 2016 and June 1, 2020, and received reference or biosimilar adalimumab therapy for at least three months. Demographic and clinical data of patients were collected at baseline, 3rd, 6th, and 12th months of treatment. Disease activity assessment was made with JADAS-27 in JIA patients, with SUN criteria in uveitis patients, and with Behçet’s Disease Activity Index in BD patients. Efficacy and safety of treatments were compared between reference and biosimilar adalimumab groups.Results:A total of 89 patients (65 with original and 24 with biosimilar molecule) treated with adalimumab, were included in the study. There were 45 female and 44 male in the study, and the median age at the initiation of the adalimumab was 166 months (min-max: 36-231). Of the 89 patients evaluated, the primary diagnoses of 62 were juvenile idiopathic arthritis, 13 were idiopathic uveitis, eight were Behçet’s disease, three were Blau syndrome, two were chronic recurrent multifocal osteomyelitis and one was Vogt-Koyanagi-Harada syndrome. 63 of the patients were biologic-naïve, and 13 were switched from etanercept, 11 from infliximab, and two from other bDMARDs. The median exposure time of adalimumab was 16 months (min-max:3-70) in RP and 14.5 months (min-max: 3-23) in BP. All patients had active disease before treatment. In the group treated with RP, inactive disease was achieved in 60%, 76.6% and 87.2% of the patients at the 3rd, 6th and 12th months, respectively. Also, inactive disease was achieved in 62.5%, 78.2% and 78.2% of the patients at the 3rd, 6th and 12th months in the group treated with BP, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in efficacy between the groups at the 3rd, 6th and 12th months (p=0.83, 0.07 and 0.32). Serious adverse events were seen in one patient in each groups (lymphoma in RP group, tuberculous meningitis in BP group). Non-serious adverse events were observed in eight patients (12.3%) in the RP group and in two patients (8.3%) in the BP group, without statistically significant difference between groups (p=0.86).Conclusion:No significant difference was observed between the biosimilar adalimumab ABP-501 and RP adalimumab in terms of efficacy and safety.References:[1]Renton, William D et al. Pediatr Rheumatol Online J. 2019;17(1):67.[2]Lovell DJ, Ruperto N, Goodman S, et al. N Engl J Med. 2008;359(8):810-820.[3]Kingsbury, Daniel J et al. Clin Rheumatol 2014;33(10):1433-41.Disclosure of Interests:None declared

Efficacy and safety of Nd:YAG laser vitreolysis for symptomatic vitreous floaters: A randomized controlled trial

2020 ◽  
pp. 112067212096876
Author(s):  
Gustavo D Ludwig ◽  
Henrique Gemelli ◽  
Guilherme M Nunes ◽  
Pedro D Serracarbassa ◽  
Márgara Zanotele
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Contrast Sensitivity ◽  
Nd:Yag Laser ◽  
Visual Disturbance ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Yag Laser ◽  
Vitreous Floaters ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Laser Group

Background: Vitreous floaters are a common and inconvenient phenomena. This study aims to examine the efficacy and safety in treating vitreous floaters using Nd:YAG laser vitreolysis. Methods: In this prospective double-blinded randomized clinical trial 24 eyes of twenty-four patients were randomized into intervention with YAG laser vitreolysis and control groups. Primary outcomes were visual disturbance on a 10-point scale, qualitative changes in a 4-level scale, contrast sensitivity measured with the Pelli-Robson table and the National Eye Institute Visual Functioning Questionnaire 25 (NEI VFQ-25). Secondary results included objective change in vitreous opacities, best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), variation in intraocular pressure (IOP) and other adverse events. Results: Twenty-one patients (21 eyes; 5 male, 16 female) were enrolled in this study (mean age 62 ± 7.9 years), three were lost during follow-up. In the YAG laser group, the 10-point visual disturbance score improved a mean of 4.7 points ( p < 0.001) compared to the control group that improved 2.1 ( p = 0.09). The YAG laser group reported greater subjectively symptomatic improvement (77%) than controls (25%). NEI VFQ-25 revealed improved general vision (75.8 versus 59.2; p = 0.037) and in mental health at 6 months (84.3 versus 70.3; p = 0.048). There was no significant difference in contrast sensitivity ( p = 0.848) and in IOP ( p = 0.505). No differences in adverse events between groups were identified. Conclusion: Vitreolysis with Nd:YAG laser improves visual results in patients with symptomatic vitreous floaters, without adverse events considered clinically relevant. Other trials with a larger number of participants are required to corroborate these results.

scholarly journals EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF ADALIMUMAB IN ANKYLOSING SPONDYLITIS: DATA FROM REAL LIFE

2015 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 44-49
Author(s):  
Claudiu Popescu ◽  
◽  
Cristina Coroama ◽  
Costin Mitulescu ◽  
Denisa Predeteanu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ankylosing Spondylitis ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Clinical Setting ◽  
Demyelinating Disease ◽  
Real Life ◽  
Time Frame ◽  
University Hospital ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Serious Adverse Events

Rationale. Data from controlled trials showed that adalimumab, a humanized anti-TNF monoclonal antibody, is effective and safe in the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis (AS). Objectives. The present study aimed to observe the effi cacy and safety of adalimumab in AS in a real life clinical setting. Methods. The study observed cross-sectionaly and retrospectively the efficacy and safety of adalimumab in all the patients admitted to the Rheumatology Department of “Sfânta Maria” Clinical Hospital between January 2008 and June 2013 who were classified as having AS according to the modified New York criteria. The diagnosis and follow-up of uveitic cases were done in the Ophthalmology Department of the Emergency University Hospital. Results. Within the study time-frame, 79 AS patients met the inclusion criteria: 71 (89.9%) had adalimumab for at least 24 months; 8 (10.1%) switched from adalimumab to another biological, as follows: 3 (3.8%) because of serious adverse events, 3 (3.8%) were primary non-responders and 2 (2.5%) were secondary non-responders. The clinical response was fast: after 3 months of treatment, 59 (83.1%) patients had BASDAI < 4 and 55 (77.5%) patients had BASFI < 4. Regarding safety, the serious adverse effects recorded were: infectious arthritis, pulmonary tuberculosis, pulmonary sarcoidosis. There were no cases of cancer or demyelinating disease during the study frame. Conclusions. Therapy with adalimumab in AS produces a prompt and lasting effect. The efficacy (remission) and safety (adverse events) of adalimumab can be monitored in the real-life clinical setting using BASDAI, BASFI, and routine clinical evaluations. Clinicians may need to expect a slightly higher rate of serious adverse events and rate of treatment discontinuation than those reported by controlled trials.

A Moxifloxacin-based Regimen for the Treatment of Recurrent, Drug-sensitive Pulmonary Tuberculosis: An Open-label, Randomized, Controlled Trial

2019 ◽  
Vol 70 (1) ◽  
pp. 90-98 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rubeshan Perumal ◽  
Nesri Padayatchi ◽  
Nonhlanhla Yende-Zuma ◽  
Anushka Naidoo ◽  
Dhineshree Govender ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Absolute Risk ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Treatment Success ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Conversion Rates ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Culture Conversion

Abstract Background The substitution of moxifloxacin for ethambutol produced promising results for improved tuberculosis treatment outcomes. Methods We conducted an open-label, randomized trial to test whether a moxifloxacin-containing treatment regimen was superior to the standard regimen for the treatment of recurrent tuberculosis. The primary and secondary outcomes were the sputum culture conversion rate at the end of 8 weeks and the proportion of participants with a favorable outcome, respectively. Results We enrolled 196 participants; 69.9% were male and 70.4% were co-infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). There was no significant difference between the study groups in the proportion of patients achieving culture conversion at the end of 8 weeks (83.0% [moxifloxacin] vs 78.5% [control]; P = .463); however, the median time to culture conversion was significantly shorter (6.0 weeks, interquartile range [IQR] 4.0–8.3) in the moxifloxacin group than the control group (7.9 weeks, IQR 4.0– 11.4; P = .018). A favorable end-of-treatment outcome was reported in 86 participants (87.8%) in the moxifloxacin group and 93 participants (94.9%) in the control group, for an adjusted absolute risk difference of −5.5 (95% confidence interval −13.8 to 2.8; P = .193) percentage points. There were significantly higher proportions of participants with Grade 3 or 4 adverse events (43.9% [43/98] vs 25.5% [25/98]; P = .01) and serious adverse events (27.6% [27/98] vs 12.2% [12/98]; P = .012) in the moxifloxacin group. Conclusions The replacement of ethambutol with moxifloxacin did not significantly improve either culture conversion rates at the end of 8 weeks or treatment success, and was associated with a higher incidence of adverse events. Clinical Trials Registration NCT02114684.

Clinical Efficacy and Safety of Omalizumab in the Treatment of Allergic Rhinitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

2019 ◽  
Vol 34 (2) ◽  
pp. 196-208 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chenjie Yu ◽  
Kaijian Wang ◽  
Xinyan Cui ◽  
Ling Lu ◽  
Jianfei Dong ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Allergic Rhinitis ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Symptom Score ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Life Questionnaire ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Symptom Scores

Background Patients with moderate to severe allergic rhinitis (AR) who are treated according to the current rhinitis management guidelines may be inadequately controlled. These patients are at risk of serious comorbidities, such as asthma and chronic sinusitis. These symptoms, sneezing and an itchy, runny, stuffy nose, may have a negative impact on patients’ daily functioning. Omalizumab is being developed as a new choice for the treatment of AR. We therefore undertook a meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of omalizumab in the treatment of AR. Methods We systematically searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, and MEDLINE databases for randomized controlled studies on the treatment of AR with omalizumab. Our evaluation outcomes were symptom scores, medication efficacy, combined symptom and medication scores, and adverse events. We descriptively summarized and quantitatively synthesized original data to evaluate the efficacy and safety of omalizumab in the treatment of AR by using Stata12.0 software for meta-analyses. Results The results of our meta-analysis showed that there were statistically significant differences between the omalizumab group and the control group in the following aspects: daily nasal symptom score (standardized mean difference [SMD] = –0.443, 95% confidence interval [CI]: –0.538 to –0.347, P < .001); daily ocular symptom score (SMD = –0.385, 95% CI: –0.5 to –0.269, P < .001); daily nasal medication symptom scores (SMD = –0.421, 95% CI: –0.591 to –0.251, P < .001); proportion of days of emergency drug use (risk ratio [RR] = 0.488, 95% CI: 0.307 to 0.788, P < .005); rhinoconjunctivitis-specific quality of life questionnaire (SMD = –0.286, 95% CI: –0.418 to –0.154, P < .001); and overall evaluation (RR = 1.435, 95% CI: 1.303–1.582, P < .001). There was no statistically significant difference in safety indicator: adverse events (RR = 1.026, 95% CI: 0.916–1.150, P = .655). Conclusion Omalizumab is effective and relatively safe in patients with AR; omalizumab used in conjunction with special immunotherapy has shown promising results, especially in reducing adverse events.

Efficacy and safety of pharmacological cachexia interventions: systematic review and network meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
pp. bmjspcare-2020-002601
Author(s):  
Manit Saeteaw ◽  
Phitjira Sanguanboonyaphong ◽  
Jukapun Yoodee ◽  
Kaitlyn Craft ◽  
Ratree Sawangjit ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Total Body Weight ◽  
Megestrol Acetate ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Pharmacological Interventions ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Significant Difference

AimsRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) demonstrated benefits of pharmacological interventions for cachexia in improving weight and appetite. However, comparative efficacy and safety are not available. We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) to evaluate the relative efficacy and safety of pharmacological interventions for cachexia.MethodsPubMed, EmBase, Cochrane, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for RCTs until October 2019. Key outcomes were total body weight (TBW) improvement, appetite (APP) score and serious adverse events. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. NMA was performed to estimate weight gain and APP score increase at 8 weeks, presented as mean difference (MD) or standardised MD with 95% CI.Results80 RCTs (10 579 patients) with 12 treatments were included. Majority is patients with cancer (7220). Compared with placebo, corticosteroids, high-dose megestrol acetate combination (Megace_H_Com) (≥400 mg/day), medroxyprogesterone, high-dose megestrol acetate (Megace_H) (≥400 mg/day), ghrelin mimetic and androgen analogues (Androgen) were significantly associated with MD of TBW of 6.45 (95% CI 2.45 to 10.45), 4.29 (95% CI 2.23 to 6.35), 3.18 (95% CI 0.94 to 5.41), 2.66 (95% CI 1.47 to 3.85), 1.73 (95% CI 0.27 to 3.20) and 1.50 (95% CI 0.56 to 2.44) kg. For appetite improvement, Megace_H_Com, Megace_H and Androgen significantly improved standardised APP score, compared with placebo. There is no significant difference in serious adverse events from all interventions compared with placebo.ConclusionsOur findings suggest that several pharmacological interventions have potential to offer benefits in treatment of cachexia especially Megace_H and short-term use corticosteroids. Nonetheless, high-quality comparative studies to compare safety and efficacy are warranted for better management of cachexia.

scholarly journals A randomized phase II trial of efficacy and safety of the immunotherapy ALECSAT as an adjunct to radiotherapy and temozolomide for newly diagnosed glioblastoma

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katja Werlenius ◽  
Giuseppe Stragliotto ◽  
Michael Strandeus ◽  
Malin Blomstrand ◽  
Helena Carén ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Phase Ii Trial ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Significant Difference

Abstract Background There is an urgent need for effective treatments against glioblastoma (GBM). In this trial we investigated the efficacy and safety of an adoptive cell-based immunotherapy. Methods Patients with newly diagnosed GBM were recruited at four study sites in Sweden. The patients were randomized 1:2 to receive either radiotherapy (RT), 60 Gy/30 fractions, with concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide (TMZ) only, or RT and TMZ with addition of Autologous Lymphoid Effector Cells Specific Against Tumor (ALECSAT) in an open-label phase II trial. Primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints were survival and safety of ALECSAT. Results Sixty-two patients were randomized to either RT and TMZ alone (n=22) or RT and TMZ with ALECSAT (n=40). Median age was 57 years (range 38-69), 95% of the patients were in good performance status (WHO 0-1). There was no significant difference between the study arms (SOC vs. ALECSAT + SOC) in PFS (7.9 vs. 7.8 months; HR 1.28; 95% CI 0.70, 2.36; P=0.42), or in median overall survival (OS) (18.3 vs. 19.2 months; HR 1.16, 95% CI 0.58, 2.31; P=0.67). The treatment groups were balanced in terms of serious adverse events (52.4% vs. 52.5%), but adverse events ≥ grade 3 were more common in the experimental arm (81.0% vs. 92.5%). Conclusion Addition of ALECSAT immunotherapy to standard treatment with radiochemotherapy was well tolerated but did not improve PFS or OS for patients with newly diagnosed GBM.

Prospective Randomized Evaluation of Local Injection of Allogeneic Growth Factors in Plantar Fasciitis

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (11) ◽  
pp. 1335-1341 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mahmoud Ibrahim Kandil ◽  
Eslam Abdelshafi Tabl ◽  
Adel Samy Elhammady
Keyword(s):  
Growth Factors ◽  
Treatment Group ◽  
Adverse Effects ◽  
Plantar Fasciitis ◽  
Short Form ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Level I

Background: The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of injection of allogeneic growth factors in patients with plantar fasciitis. Methods: This study included 150 patients who were randomly divided into 2 equal groups; the patients were locally injected with allogeneic growth factors (GFs) (treatment group) or with saline 0.9% (control group). The patients were assessed using visual analog scale (VAS) and Foot Function Index–Revised short form (FFI-Rs) scores preinjection and 1, 3, 6, and 12 months postinjection. The patients were questioned about their satisfaction. Any adverse effects were recorded. Results: At baseline, there was no significant difference between both groups regarding the mean VAS and FFI-Rs scores. At 3-month follow-up, the reduction in mean VAS score was 87% in the treatment group and 55% in the control group ( P < .001), and the reduction in mean FFI-Rs score was 62% in the treatment group and 40% in the control group ( P < .001). Treatment group and study visit were significant factors affecting both VAS and FFI-Rs scores. Overall, 92% were satisfied in the treatment group, and 78.2% in the control group. Postinjection pain occurred in 5 patients in the treatment group. Conclusion: This study provides Level I evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of allogeneic GF injection in patients with plantar fasciitis. However, additional studies are needed to evaluate their adverse effects, immunogenicity, and microbiological safety. Level of Evidence: Level I, prospective randomized controlled case series.

Abstract 14373: Efficacy and Safety of Antihypertensive Drug Classes: The Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT)

Circulation ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 142 (Suppl_3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Christina Byrne ◽  
Anubodh Varshney ◽  
Zaid Almarzooq ◽  
Kristian H Kragholm ◽  
Maria L Krogager ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Blood Pressure ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Systolic Blood Pressure ◽  
Antihypertensive Drug ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Drug Classes ◽  
Safety Outcomes

Purpose: To assess the efficacy and safety of antihypertensive drug classes, including angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin II receptor blockers (ACEi/ARB), beta blockers (BB), calcium channel blockers (CCB), and thiazide diuretics (TD), in subjects at high cardiovascular (CV) risk. Methods: SPRINT was a randomized, controlled, open-label trial in which individuals without diabetes aged ≥50 years, at high CV risk, and with a systolic blood pressure (SBP) 130-180 mmHg were randomized to intensive (SBP target <120mmHg) or standard BP control (SBP target 135-139 mmHg). The primary outcome was the composite of acute coronary syndromes, stroke, heart failure, or CV death. Safety outcomes included serious adverse events, i.e., hypotension, syncope, electrolyte abnormalities, acute kidney injury or failure, and falls. Associations between baseline antihypertensive drug classes, efficacy, and safety outcomes, stratified by level of SBP control, were examined using Cox proportional-hazards regression. Results: Of 9361 participants, baseline use of antihypertensive agents was as follows: ACEi/ARB in 1317 (14%), BB in 911 (10%), CCB in 796 (9%), and TD in 979 (10%). A total of 1366 (15%) subjects did not have a record of being on an antihypertensive drug at baseline. In the intensive BP control group, use of a BB-based regimen at baseline was associated with a significantly higher risk of the primary outcome when compared with no medications ( Figure ). Similar patterns were observed for secondary efficacy endpoints. The risk of serious adverse events tended to be lower in patients receiving a treatment regimen containing either an ACEi/ARB or a TD compared with those receiving a regimen containing a BB or a CCB ( Figure ). Conclusions: In SPRINT, the risk of adverse events was lowest in patients who were not on an antihypertensive drug at baseline. ACEi/ARB-based and TD-based regimens appeared to have the best balance between efficacy and safety.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document