Home About us Contact
|
Home About us Contact | ||
|
|
||
Target Joint (target + joint)
Selected AbstractsProphylactic recombinant factor VIIa in haemophilia patients with inhibitorsHAEMOPHILIA, Issue 3 2005G. Young Summary., Prevention of bleeding, especially into joints, with prophylactic factor infusions is the most effective treatment for severe haemophilia patients. Approximately 15,30% of patients with factor VIII deficiency and 3,5% of patients with factor IX deficiency develop neutralizing antibodies (inhibitors) to factor precluding their use. Such patients often have significant bleeding complications including life- and limb-threatening bleeds and severe joint disease. Prophylaxis for such patients is not generally considered because of the fact that the standard (bypassing) agents for such patients are not as effective as natural factor replacement, because of concerns for thrombotic complications and also because of the very high cost of bypassing agents. We treated two patients with high titre inhibitors with prophylactic recombinant factor VIIa (rFVIIa). The first patient was treated as a result of development of a target joint and to reduce the use of agents that can lead to anamnesis of his inhibitor. The second patient had multiple severe bleeds and was hospitalized 20% of the time over a 2-year period. He had a very poor quality of life. Both patients had shown good responses previously to rFVIIa for treatment of bleeds. Both patients had an outstanding response to prophylaxis albeit at a very high cost. Prophylaxis with rFVIIa can be an effective approach in select inhibitor patients with severe complications related to bleeding. [source] Prophylactic treatment of severe factor X deficiency with prothrombin complex concentrateHAEMOPHILIA, Issue 2 2001P. A. Kouides Factor X (FX) deficiency is an autosomal recessive trait that occurs in fewer than 1 in 500 000 people. Not surprisingly, reports of prophylactic treatment for FX deficiency are exceedingly rare. We now report our experience of the use of prophylactic therapy in a FX-deficient patient. This 18-year-old African-American male presented at the age of 4½ years with an FX level < 1%. Treatment was on demand with prothrombin complex concentrates (PCCs) given at two times the dose per kilogram of body weight for factor IX. He experienced frequent epistaxis, soft tissue bleeding and joint bleeding. The development of a target joint (right ankle) prompted the initiation of prophylactic treatment in the beginning of 1998 to the present with 30 units kg,1 Profilnine twice per week via a home infusion programme. If breakthrough bleeding occurred, he was instructed to infuse another dose. He was instructed that Profilnine should not be infused in more than two doses in 24 h or on more than three consecutive days. A trough level drawn 48 h post-infusion showed an FX level of 30%. In the initial 12 months with prophylactic treatment, there was no breakthrough bleeding. Subsequently, with an additional 11 months of follow-up, he has reported one bleed. He rates his quality of life improved since starting prophylactic treatment. There have been no thrombotic events. Prophylaxis with PCC for FX deficiency with adequate education and follow-up can be performed capably in the home setting with a resultant decrease in the frequency of bleeding and attendant complications. [source] A randomized, double-blind, controlled study of ultrasound-guided corticosteroid injection into the joint of patients with inflammatory arthritis,ARTHRITIS & RHEUMATISM, Issue 7 2010Joanna Cunnington Objective Most corticosteroid injections into the joint are guided by the clinical examination (CE), but up to 70% are inaccurately placed, which may contribute to an inadequate response. The aim of this study was to investigate whether ultrasound (US) guidance improves the accuracy and clinical outcome of joint injections as compared with CE guidance in patients with inflammatory arthritis. Methods A total of 184 patients with inflammatory arthritis and an inflamed joint (shoulder, elbow, wrist, knee, or ankle) were randomized to receive either US-guided or CE-guided corticosteroid injections. Visual analog scales (VAS) for assessment of function, pain, and stiffness of the target joint, a modified Health Assessment Questionnaire, and the EuroQol 5-domain questionnaire were obtained at baseline and at 2 weeks and 6 weeks postinjection. The erythrocyte sedimentation rate and C-reactive protein level were measured at baseline and 2 weeks. Contrast injected with the steroid was used to assess the accuracy of the joint injection. Results One-third of CE-guided injections were inaccurate. US-guided injections performed by a trainee rheumatologist were more accurate than the CE-guided injections performed by more senior rheumatologists (83% versus 66%; P = 0.010). There was no significant difference in clinical outcome between the group receiving US-guided injections and the group receiving CE-guided injections. Accurate injections led to greater improvement in joint function, as determined by VAS scores, at 6 weeks, as compared with inaccurate injections (30.6 mm versus 21.2 mm; P = 0.030). Clinicians who used US guidance reliably assessed the accuracy of joint injection (P < 0.001), whereas those who used CE guidance did not (P = 0.29). Conclusion US guidance significantly improves the accuracy of joint injection, allowing a trainee to rapidly achieve higher accuracy than more experienced rheumatologists. US guidance did not improve the short-term outcome of joint injection. [source] Importance of pharmaceutical composition and evidence from clinical trials and pharmacological studies in determining effectiveness of chondroitin sulphate and other glycosaminoglycans: a critiqueJOURNAL OF PHARMACY AND PHARMACOLOGY: AN INTERNATI ONAL JOURNAL OF PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCE, Issue 10 2009Professor K.D. Rainsford Abstract Objectives Chondroitin sulphate (CS) has attracted much interest over the past two decades or so as a biological agent for use in the relief of pain and joint symptoms in osteoarthritis. Earlier clinical investigations produced variable, if encouraging results. This variability was partly due to limitations on the study designs and the lack of availability of standardized CS. Recently, high quality and fully standardized CS (Condrosulf) has become available and its effects have been studied in large-scale osteoarthritis trials, which are discussed here. Key findings There is now evidence for symptom - and structure-modifying (radio-logically-observed) effects. These studies show that CS (a) has slow onset of response and that relief of pain may not be like that of the direct analgesic actions of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), (b) there are indications of reduced need for intake of analgesics (e.g. NSAIDs) in patients taking CS, and (c) quality of life and cost-benefits may be associated with use of CS. Safety evaluations show that the incidence of adverse reactions is low. Pharmacokinetic studies indicate that although oral absorption is relatively fast CS has moderate oral bioavailability (15,24%) and that depolymerised and degraded CS that is evident after absorption, together with CS itself, may take some time to accumulate in target joints. The pharmacodynamic actions of CS indicate that it has anti-inflammatory effects that include multiple actions involving reduction of catabolic reactions and enhanced anabolic (proteoglycan) synthetic reactions in cartilage and may block osteoclast activation in bone. Further studies are required to (a) establish the effects of depolymerised and degraded CS on degradation of cartilage and bone in vitro, and (b) MRI and other investigations of the effects in osteoarthritis of long-term CS treatment. Summary The findings from this review show there may be potential value of CS in reducing the dependence on intake of NSAIDs and analgesics in patients with osteoarthritis, while at the same time having favourable safety. [source] Efficacy and safety of secondary prophylactic vs. on-demand sucrose-formulated recombinant factor VIII treatment in adults with severe hemophilia A: results from a 13-month crossover studyJOURNAL OF THROMBOSIS AND HAEMOSTASIS, Issue 1 2010P. COLLINS Summary.,Background: Hemarthroses in severe hemophilia precipitate physical, psychosocial and financial difficulties. Objective: To compare the effects of secondary prophylaxis with on-demand sucrose-formulated recombinant factor VIII (rFVIII-FS) therapy in severe hemophilia A. Patients and methods: This open-label study included patients aged 30,45 years with factor VIII (FVIII) coagulant activity < 1 IU dL,1 who were using on-demand FVIII treatment. Patients were treated with rFVIII-FS on demand for 6 months, followed by 7 months prophylaxis (20,40 IU kg,1, three times per week, with the first month considered a run-in). The primary endpoint was the number of hemarthroses. Results: Twenty patients were enrolled (n = 19 completed); the mean age was 36.4 years, and 16 had target joints. The median (25,75%) number of joint bleeds decreased significantly with prophylaxis [0 (0,3)] vs. on-demand [15 (11,26); P < 0.001] therapy. The number of all bleeds was 0 (0,3) vs. 20.5 (14,37; P < 0.001), respectively. Median (range) total Gilbert scores improved after prophylaxis [18 (3,39)] compared with on-demand [25 (4,46)] therapy, predominantly reflecting the improved bleeding score. Median time from last prophylactic infusion to bleed was 2 days; 82.5% of bleeds occurred 2,3 days after the last infusion. Median 48-h and 72-h FVIII trough levels measured during months 10 and 13 were consistently > 6 and > 4 IU dL,1, respectively. Treatment was well tolerated, and no inhibitor formation was observed. Conclusion: Secondary prophylaxis with rFVIII-FS significantly reduced the frequency of hemarthroses compared with on-demand therapy in adult patients with severe hemophilia A. [source] | ||||||||||