A Randomized Trial Comparing the NeoVas Sirolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Scaffold and Metallic Everolimus-Eluting Stents.

OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the NeoVas bioresorbable scaffold (BRS) compared with metallic drug-eluting stents. BACKGROUND: BRS have the potential to improve very late outcomes compared with metallic drug-eluting stents, but some BRS have been associated with increased rates of device thrombosis before complete bioresorption. NeoVas is a new poly-l-lactic acid BRS that elutes sirolimus from a poly-D, l-lactide coating. METHODS: Eligible patients with a single de novo native coronary artery lesion with a reference vessel diameter 2.5 to 3.75 mm and a lesion length ≤20 mm were randomized 1:1 to NeoVas BRS versus cobalt-chromium everolimus-eluting stents (CoCr-EES). Angiographic follow-up was performed in all patients at 1 year. The primary endpoint was angiographic in-segment late loss (LL), and the major secondary endpoint was the rate of angina. Baseline and follow-up optical coherence tomography and fractional flow reserve were performed in a pre-specified subgroup of patients. RESULTS: The authors randomized 560 patients at 32 centers to treatment with NeoVas (n = 278) versus CoCr-EES (n = 282). One-year in-segment LL with NeoVas and CoCr-EES were 0.14 ± 0.36 mm versus 0.11 ± 0.34 mm (difference 0.03 mm; upper 1-sided 97.5% confidence interval 0.09 mm; pnoninferiority < 0.0001; psuperiority = 0.36). Clinical outcomes at 1 year were similar in the 2 groups, as were the rates of recurrent angina (27.9% vs. 32.1%; p = 0.26). Optical coherence tomography at 1 year demonstrated a higher proportion of covered struts (98.7% vs. 96.2%; p < 0.001), less strut malapposition (0% vs. 0.6%; p <0.001), and a smaller minimal lumen area (4.71 ± 1.64 vs. 6.00 ± 2.15 mm2; p < 0.001) with NeoVas compared with CoCr-EES respectively, with nonsignificant differences in fractional flow reserve (0.89 ± 0.08 vs. 0.91 ± 0.06; p = 0.07). CONCLUSIONS: The NeoVas BRS was noninferior to CoCr-EES for the primary endpoint of 1-year angiographic in-segment LL, and resulted in comparable 1-year clinical outcomes, including recurrent angina. (NeoVas Bioresorbable Coronary Scaffold Randomized Controlled Trial; NCT02305485).

TRPV4 is necessary for trigeminal irritant pain and functions as a cellular formalin receptor.

Detection of external irritants by head nociceptor neurons has deep evolutionary roots. Irritant-induced aversive behavior is a popular pain model in laboratory animals. It is used widely in the formalin model, where formaldehyde is injected into the rodent paw, eliciting quantifiable nocifensive behavior that has a direct, tissue-injury-evoked phase, and a subsequent tonic phase caused by neural maladaptation. The formalin model has elucidated many antipain compounds and pain-modulating signaling pathways. We have adopted this model to trigeminally innervated territories in mice. In addition, we examined the involvement of TRPV4 channels in formalin-evoked trigeminal pain behavior because TRPV4 is abundantly expressed in trigeminal ganglion (TG) sensory neurons, and because we have recently defined TRPV4's role in response to airborne irritants and in a model for temporomandibular joint pain. We found TRPV4 to be important for trigeminal nocifensive behavior evoked by formalin whisker pad injections. This conclusion is supported by studies with Trpv4(-/-) mice and TRPV4-specific antagonists. Our results imply TRPV4 in MEK-ERK activation in TG sensory neurons. Furthermore, cellular studies in primary TG neurons and in heterologous TRPV4-expressing cells suggest that TRPV4 can be activated directly by formalin to gate Ca(2+). Using TRPA1-blocker and Trpa1(-/-) mice, we found that both TRP channels co-contribute to the formalin trigeminal pain response. These results imply TRPV4 as an important signaling molecule in irritation-evoked trigeminal pain. TRPV4-antagonistic therapies can therefore be envisioned as novel analgesics, possibly for specific targeting of trigeminal pain disorders, such as migraine, headaches, temporomandibular joint, facial, and dental pain, and irritation of trigeminally innervated surface epithelia.

[Clinical examination of mizolastine in the seasonal allergic rhinitis].

OBJECTIVE: An open randomized comparative study versus loratadine was conducted in order to examine the efficacy and safety of mizolastine in the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR). METHOD: Six-seven adult patients completed mizolastine 10 mg (34/67) and loratadine 10 mg (33/67) once daily for 14 days. Other 5 patients withdrew or dropped out from the trial. RESULT: All symptom score decreased significantly after treatment in both groups. Efficacy assessment based on symptom score reducing index showed that the efficacy of Mizolastine was 82.4%, and the excellent rate was 20.6%, while the efficacy of Loratadine was 66.7%, and the excellent rate was 6.1%. No serious adverse events were reported in the two groups. The incidences of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) of Mizolastine and Loratadine were 38.2% and 33.3% respectively. The mild or moderate drowsiness and dry mouth in Mizolastine group were 26.5% and 8.8% respectively, and in Loratadine group they were 18.2% and 9.0%. There were no significant changes in laboratory examinations including blood and urine routine tests, liver and renal functions and ECG. CONCLUSION: Mizolastine is effective in relieving SAR symptoms. The efficacy and ADR of mizolastine is similar to Loratadine in the treatment of SAR.