Short-Term and Long-Term Effects of Riding for Children with Cerebral Palsy Gross Motor Functions.

Aim. To evaluate the effects of riding for beginners (short-term) and advanced (long-term) riders with cerebral palsy on their whole mobility. The study involved 15 subjects (two girls and eleven boys). The subjects were aged from 3 to 19 years (8.73 years ± 5.85). All of the subjects had been diagnosed with a spastic form of cerebral palsy. The duration of the participation differed as follows: the advanced subjects had been riding for 1-4 years (2.66 years ± 1.16), while the beginners have been riding for two weeks (10 sessions). Group I (advanced riders) consisted of eight subjects (7 boys and 1 girl) who had therapy sessions regularly once a week and differed only in terms of the duration of their participation in the experiment. Group II (beginners) consisted of seven children (1 girl and 6 boys) who participated in only 10 riding sessions. All of the subjects were assessed according to the Gross Motor Function Measure (GMFM) and Gross Motor Function Classification System for CP (GMFCS) both before the investigation and after it. Conclusions. Ten riding lessons did not have an influence on the beginner riders with cerebral palsy gross motor functions and their gross motor function level did not change. However, in half of the advanced riders with cerebral palsy, the gross motor functions significantly improved. Meanwhile, the level of the performance of the gross motor skills in the four advanced riders increased, but this difference was not statistically significant.

Efficacy and safety of tigecycline compared with vancomycin or linezolid for treatment of serious infections with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus or vancomycin-resistant enterococci: a Phase 3, multicentre, double-blind, randomized study.

INTRODUCTION: Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) are causing serious nosocomial infections. Tigecycline was evaluated in hospitalized patients with MRSA or VRE infection. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A randomized (3:1), double-blind, multicentre, Phase 3 study compared the safety and efficacy of tigecycline with vancomycin or linezolid in hospitalized patients with MRSA or VRE infection, respectively. Patients were treated for 7-28 days and the test-of-cure (TOC) assessment was made 12-37 days after the last dose. The primary efficacy endpoint was the clinical response (cure, failure and indeterminate) in the co-primary, microbiologically evaluable (ME) and microbiologically modified intent-to-treat (m-mITT) populations at the TOC assessment. RESULTS: For MRSA infection, clinical cure rates in the ME population (n = 117) were 81.4% (70 of 86 patients) with tigecycline and 83.9% (26 of 31 patients) with vancomycin. In the m-mITT population (n = 133), clinical cure occurred in 75 of 100 tigecycline-treated patients (75.0%) and in 27 of 33 vancomycin-treated patients (81.8%). In patients with complicated skin and skin structure infections caused by MRSA, cure rates were similar with tigecycline or vancomycin (86.4% versus 86.9% in ME population; and 78.6% versus 87.0% in m-mITT population). In patients with MRSA infection, nausea or vomiting occurred more frequently with tigecycline than with vancomycin (41.0% versus 17.9%); most cases were mild, with only three patients discontinuing treatment. In patients with VRE (total enrollment, 15), 3 of 3 and 3 of 8 patients in the ME and m-mITT populations, respectively, were cured by tigecycline, compared with 2 of 3 patients in the ME and m-mITT populations treated with linezolid. CONCLUSIONS: Tigecycline is safe and effective in hospitalized patients with serious infection caused by MRSA. There were too few cases of VRE to draw any conclusions.

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.