A prospective, open-label, multicentre study of pregabalin in the treatment of neuropathic pain in Latin America.

AIMS: The objective of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of pregabalin at flexible doses of 150-600 mg/day in Latin American patients with neuropathic pain. METHODS: A prospective, multicentre, open-label, non-comparative study included patients age >or= 18 years diagnosed with neuropathic pain associated with diabetic peripheral neuropathy, postherpetic neuralgia, chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathic pain (PNP), or human immunodeficiency virus-related PNP. Eligible patients (N = 121) had a score of >or= 40 mm on the visual analogue scale and a daily pain rating scale (DPRS) score of >or= 4 throughout screening. Patients received flexible-dose pregabalin (150-600 mg/day) for 12 weeks, which included a 4-week dose-adjustment phase. The primary efficacy measure was change from baseline to end of treatment/last observation carried forward (EOT/LOCF) in weekly mean pain score on the DPRS. Secondary efficacy measures included pain, anxiety, sleep interference, treatment satisfaction and Patient and Clinician Global Impression of Change. RESULTS: Pregabalin significantly reduced the weekly mean pain score on DPRS from baseline to EOT/LOCF [-3.8 (95% CI: -4.2 to -3.3); p < 0.0001]. Reductions from baseline to EOT/LOCF were observed for all secondary efficacy outcomes (p < 0.0001). Pain and sleep interference were significantly improved compared with baseline across all weeks of the study, as early as 1 week after initiation of pregabalin (p < 0.0001). The most common adverse events (AEs) were somnolence, dizziness, weight gain and peripheral oedema. Nine (7.4%) patients discontinued the study because of AEs and 25 (20.7%) temporarily stopped or reduced their pregabalin dose because of AEs. CONCLUSIONS: Flexible-dose pregabalin (150-600 mg/day) significantly reduced pain and anxiety and improved sleep and was generally well tolerated in Latin American patients with neuropathic pain.

Radiosurgery for brain metastases: who may not benefit?

PURPOSE: To select a group of patients with brain metastases for whom stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) may not be beneficial. PATIENTS, MATERIALS, AND METHODS: Actuarial survival of 87 patients with brain metastases treated with SRS between July 1993 and May 1999 was retrospectively analyzed under stratification by the Score Index for Stereotactic Radiosurgery for Brain Metastases (SIR). To identify the group of patients most likely to survive less than 6 months after SRS, Cox model survival curves were calculated for all SIR values, and Kaplan-Meier survival curves were calculated for two SIR subsets (0-5 and 6-10) and were compared by log-rank test. RESULTS: Overall median survival after SRS was 6.88 months. The stratification of patients into two SIR subsets (0-5 and 6-10) sustained statistical significance regarding survival with p = 0.0001. The median survival time for the group of patients with SIR between 0 and 5 was 4.52 months (95% confidence interval of 2.82 to 5.84 months). Survival probability at 6 months for this group of patients with poor prognosis was 35.6%. CONCLUSION: Patients with brain metastases and SIR of 5 or lower have an expected median survival of less than 6 months after treatment with radiosurgery. Thus, radiosurgery may not be beneficial for this group of patients.

Radiosurgery for brain metastases: a score index for predicting prognosis.

PURPOSE: To analyze a prognostic score index for patients with brain metastases submitted to stereotactic radiosurgery (the Score Index for Radiosurgery in Brain Metastases [SIR]). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Actuarial survival of 65 brain metastases patients treated with radiosurgery between July 1993 and December 1997 was retrospectively analyzed. Prognostic factors included age, Karnofsky performance status (KPS), extracranial disease status, number of brain lesions, largest brain lesion volume, lesions site, and receiving or not whole brain irradiation. The SIR was obtained through summation of the previously noted first five prognostic factors. Kaplan-Meier actuarial survival curves for all prognostic factors, SIR, and recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) (RTOG prognostic score) were calculated. Survival curves of subsets were compared by log-rank test. Application of the Cox model was utilized to identify any correlation between prognostic factors, prognostic scores, and survival. RESULTS: Median overall survival from radiosurgery was 6.8 months. Utilizing univariate analysis, extracranial disease status, KPS, number of brain lesions, largest brain lesion volume, RPA, and SIR were significantly correlated with prognosis. Median survival for the RPA classes 1, 2, and 3 was 20.19 months, 7.75 months, and 3. 38 months respectively (p = 0.0131). Median survival for patients, grouped under SIR from 1 to 3, 4 to 7, and 8 to 10, was 2.91 months, 7.00 months, and 31.38 months respectively (p = 0.0001). Using the Cox model, extracranial disease status and KPS demonstrated significant correlation with prognosis (p = 0.0001 and 0.0004 respectively). Multivariate analysis also demonstrated significance for SIR and RPA when tested individually (p = 0.0001 and 0.0040 respectively). Applying the Cox Model to both SIR and RPA, only SIR reached independent significance (p = 0.0004). CONCLUSIONS: Systemic disease status, KPS, SIR, and RPA are reliable prognostic factors for patients with brain metastases submitted to radiosurgery. Applying SIR and RPA classifications to our patients' data, SIR demonstrated better accuracy in predicting prognosis. SIR should be further tested with larger patient accrual and for all patients with brain metastases subjected or not to stereotactic radiosurgery.

Five-year follow-op of the medicine, angioplasty, or surgery study (MASS): A prospective, randomized trial of medical therapy, balloon angioplasty, or bypass surgery for single proximal left anterior descending coronary artery stenosis.

BACKGROUND: Although coronary angioplasty and myocardial bypass surgery are routinely used, there is no conclusive evidence that these interventional methods offer greater benefit than medical therapy alone. This study is intended to evaluate, in a prospective, randomized, and comparative analysis, the benefit of the 3 current therapeutic strategies for patients with stable angina and single proximal left anterior descending coronary artery stenosis. METHODS AND RESULTS: In a single institution, 214 patients with stable angina, normal ventricular function, and severe proximal stenosis (>80%) on the left anterior descending artery were selected for the study. After random assignment, 70 patients were referred to surgical treatment, 72 to angioplasty, and 72 to medical treatment. The primary end points were the occurrence of acute myocardial infarction or death and presence of refractory angina. After a 5-year follow-up, these combined events were reported in only 6 patients referred to surgery as compared with 29 patients treated with angioplasty and 17 patients who only received medical treatment (P=0.001). However, no differences were noted in relation to the occurrence of cardiac-related death in the 3 treatment groups (P=0. 622). No patient assigned to surgery needed repeat operation, whereas 8 patients assigned to angioplasty and 8 patients assigned to medical treatment required surgical bypass after the initial random assignment. Surgery and angioplasty reduced anginal symptoms and stress-induced ischemia considerably. However, all 3 treatments effectively improved limiting angina. CONCLUSIONS: Bypass surgery for single-vessel coronary artery disease is associated with a lower incidence of medium-term and long-term events as well as fewer anginal symptoms than that found in the patients who underwent angioplasty or medical therapy. In this study, coronary angioplasty was only superior to medical strategies in relation to the anginal status. However, the 3 treatment regimens yielded a similar incidence of acute myocardial infarction and death. Such information should be useful when choosing the best therapeutic option for similar patients.