Neurofilament light chain: A novel blood biomarker in patients with ataxia telangiectasia.

AIM: Neurofilament light chain (NfL) is recognized as a blood biomarker in several neurodegenerative disorders, but its possible relevance in Ataxia Telangiectasia (A-T) has not been examined. The aim of this study was to investigate the biomarker potential of blood NfL concentrations in patients with A-T. METHOD: Blood (serum/plasma) NfL concentrations were measured in a Dutch and an American cohort of patients with A-T and compared to control values. Additionally, correlations between NfL concentrations and disease phenotype (classic versus variant A-T) were studied. RESULTS: In total 40 (23 Dutch and 17 American) patients with A-T (32 patients with classic A-T and 7 patients with variant A-T) and 17 age- and gender-matched (to the American cohort) healthy controls were included in this study. Blood (serum/plasma) NfL concentrations in patients with classic A-T and age ≤ 12 years were elevated compared to age matched controls. Patients with classic A-T > 12 years also had higher blood (serum/plasma) NfL concentrations (here: compared to age-dependent reference values found in the literature). Patients with classic A-T had higher blood (serum/plasma) NfL concentrations than patients with the variant phenotype. CONCLUSION: Blood (serum/plasma) NfL concentrations are elevated in patients with classic A-T and appear to correlate with the disease phenotype (classic versus variant). Therefore, blood (serum/plasma) NfL may be a promising biomarker in A-T.

Budesonide foam versus budesonide enema in active ulcerative proctitis and proctosigmoiditis.

BACKGROUND: Rectal budesonide is an effective treatment of active ulcerative proctitis or proctosigmoiditis. AIM: To compare the therapeutic efficacy, tolerability and safety, and patient's preference of budesonide foam vs. budesonide enema. METHODS: Patients with active ulcerative proctitis or proctosigmoiditis (clinical activity index > 4 and endoscopic index > or = 4) were eligible for this double-blind, double-dummy, randomized, multicentre study. They received 2 mg/25 mL budesonide foam and placebo enema (n = 265), or 2 mg/100 mL budesonide enema and placebo foam (n = 268) for 4 weeks. Primary endpoint was clinical remission (clinical activity index < or = 4) at the final/withdrawal visit (per protocol). RESULTS: A total of 541 patients were randomized--533 were evaluable for intention-to-treat analysis and 449 for per protocol analysis. Clinical remission rates (per protocol) were 60% for budesonide foam and 66% for budesonide enema (P = 0.02362 for non-inferiority of foam vs. enema within a predefined non-inferiority margin of 15%). Both formulations were safe and no drug-related serious adverse events were observed. Because of better tolerability and easier application most patients preferred foam (84%). CONCLUSION: Budesonide foam is as effective as budesonide enema in the treatment of active ulcerative proctitis or proctosigmoiditis. Both budesonide formulations are safe, and most patients prefer foam.

Efficacy and tolerability of mesalazine foam enema (Salofalk foam) for distal ulcerative colitis: a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Rectal formulations of mesalazine are the treatment of choice in mildly to moderately active ulcerative colitis. A new foam formulation of mesalazine was developed to improve both drug delivery and patient acceptance. METHODS: In this multicentre, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study, 111 patients with mildly to moderately active proctitis, proctosigmoiditis, or left-sided ulcerative colitis received mesalazine foam enema or placebo enema (2 g mesalazine per day) for 6 weeks. Disease activity was monitored on the basis of the Clinical Activity Index, Endoscopic Index, Histological Index, and global efficacy assessment by the investigators. Safety assessments included the recording of adverse events, laboratory variables and vital signs. RESULTS: Clinical remission was more frequent in the mesalazine group than the placebo group (65% vs. 40%; P=0.0082), particularly in patients with mild disease and patients with proctosigmoiditis. The frequency of patients with an endoscopic remission was higher in the mesalazine group (57%) than in the placebo group (37%). Similarly, 59% of patients receiving mesalazine but only 41% of those receiving placebo showed an improved Histological Index. The foam enemas were generally well-tolerated, and no treatment-related changes on laboratory variables and vital signs were noted. CONCLUSIONS: Mesalazine foam enema was well-tolerated and was more effective than placebo in the treatment of patients with distal ulcerative colitis.