BOND study: a randomised double-blind, placebo-controlled trial over 12 months to assess the effects of benfotiamine on morphometric, neurophysiological and clinical measures in patients with type 2 diabetes with symptomatic polyneuropathy.

INTRODUCTION: Diabetic sensorimotor polyneuropathy (DSPN) affects approximately 30% of people with diabetes, while around half of cases are symptomatic. Currently, there are only few pathogenetically oriented pharmacotherapies for DSPN, one of which is benfotiamine, a prodrug of thiamine with a high bioavailability and favourable safety profile. While benfotiamine has shown positive effects in preclinical and short-term clinical studies, no long-term clinical trials are available to demonstrate disease-modifying effects on DSPN using a comprehensive set of disease-related endpoints. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The benfotiamine on morphometric, neurophysiological and clinical measures in patients with type 2 diabetes trial is a randomised double-blind, placebo-controlled parallel group monocentric phase II clinical trial to assess the effects of treatment with benfotiamine compared with placebo in participants with type 2 diabetes and mild to moderate symptomatic DSPN. Sixty participants will be 1:1 randomised to treatment with benfotiamine 300 mg or placebo two times a day over 12 months. The primary endpoint will be the change in corneal nerve fibre length assessed by corneal confocal microscopy (CCM) after 12 months of benfotiamine treatment compared with placebo. Secondary endpoints will include other CCM measures, skin biopsy and function indices, variables from somatic and autonomic nerve function tests, clinical examination and questionnaires, general health, health-related quality of life, cost, safety and blood tests. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial was approved by the competent authority and the local independent ethics committee. Trial results will be published in peer-reviewed journals, conference abstracts, and via online and print media. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: DRKS00014832.

[Wirksamkeit und Verträglichkeit eines homöopathischen Komplexmittels (Sinusitis Hevert SL) bei akuter, unkomplizierter Rhinosinusitis: Eine multizentrische, randomisierte, doppelblinde, placebokontrollierte Studie an erwachsenen Patienten].

Hintergrund: In der vorliegenden Studie wurden die Wirksamkeit und Verträglichkeit des homöopathischen Arzneimittels Sinusitis Hevert SL an Patienten mit akuter Rhinosinusitis untersucht. Methoden: In einer randomisierten, placebokontrollierten klinischen Studie wurden 314 Patienten mit bis zu 3 Tagen bestehenden Symptomen, leichtem bis moderatem Gesichtsschmerz und einem Major Rhinosinusitis Symptom Score (MRSS) ≥ 8 und ≤ 14 für 15 Tage (Tag 0 erster Arztbesuch plus 14 Tage Behandlung) eingeschlossen und mit Sinusitis Hevert SL oder Placebo behandelt. Den primären Endpunkt bildeten die Responderrate im MRSS (Reduktion ≥ 50%) bei der Abschlussvisite sowie die Rate der Remissionen (komplettes Abklingen aller 5 Hauptsymptome). Sekundäre Zielkriterien bildeten die Einschätzung der Wirksamkeit durch den Prüfer (auf einer 4-Punkte-Skala) und der Sino-Nasal Outcome Test 20 German Adapted Version (SNOT-20 GAV; Selbsterhebung durch die Patienten). Ergebnisse: 314 Patienten wurden in die Studie eingeschlossen. Davon wurden 308 mit der Studienmedikation behandelt: 153 mit Sinusitis Hevert SL und 155 mit Placebo. 265 Patienten schlossen die Studie vollständig und valide ab (Valid Completers). Die MRSSpat-Responderrate aller Patienten war für Sinusitis Hevert SL nicht signifikant besser (85,6% vs. 80,6%; p = 0,243), die Rate der Remissionen war mit 31,4% für Sinusitis Hevert SL und 37,4% für Placebo in beiden Gruppen nicht signifikant unterschiedlich (p = 0,2641). In der sekundären Completer-Analyse zeigte sich eine signifikante Differenz der Responderraten von 92,1% versus 83,5% zugunsten von Sinusitis Hevert SL (p = 0,032). Weiter war die Zeit bis zur Verbesserung der Rhinorrhoe signifikant kürzer (4,0 vs. 6,0 Tage; p = 0,040). Vor allem relevante nasale Symptome des SNOT-20 und die Lebensqualität verbesserten sich unter Behandlung mit Sinusitis Hevert SL signifikant deutlicher. Schlussfolgerungen: Es zeigte sich in dieser Studie bei akuter Rhinosinusitis und hoher Placebo-Ansprechrate keine Überlegenheit für Sinusitis Hevert SL in der Gesamtresponder- und Remissionsrate. Es fand sich ein Nutzen von Sinusitis Hevert SL in der Auswertung der Valid Completers für die Response sowie für spezifische Verbesserungen klinisch relevanter Symptome und die Abheilungsgeschwindigkeit der akuten Rhinosinusitis bei guter Verträglichkeit.

The history of sclerosing foams.

BACKGROUND: The use of foamed sclerosants in phlebology is undergoing a renaissance. The use of foam sclerotherapy was relaunched only a few years ago. Despite this, the early developments, pioneer findings, and improvements, especially in foaming techniques, are not widely recognized. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to give an overview from the very beginnings of foam sclerotherapy until the most recent and progressive techniques, as described by Tessari or the double syringe system technique. RESULTS: The publications found after a thorough research for literature about foam sclerotherapy allow us to examine what has been invented between Orbach's work in 1944 and now and--surprisingly--even before 1944. The contributions of greatly reputed and also of unknown colleagues, such as Orbach, Sigg, Mayer, or Flückiger, are presented, giving a historical overview from the very beginnings of foam sclerotherapy until the most recent techniques. Basically, the literature shows that remarkable work was carried out in the field of noncommercial foam sclerotherapy and that sclerosing foams have been used by numerous doctors continuously for the past six decades, especially for the treatment of varicose veins of the lower limbs. CONCLUSION: The use of foamed sclerosing agents in therapy of large or small varicose veins is not new. It started as early as 1939 and has continuously been improved in the past decades.

Evaluation of the efficacy of polidocanol in the form of foam compared with liquid form in sclerotherapy of the greater saphenous vein: initial results.

BACKGROUND: Foamed sclerosing agents have been used with enthusiasm by phlebologists for more than 5 decades. Any type of varicose veins can and has been treated with this technique. Numerous publications have stressed the advantages of foamed sclerosing agents on the basis of empiric and experimental criteria and have described various individual techniques to prepare foams. Until now, however, no comparative study for the treatment of large varicose veins with foam or liquid exists. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this first randomized, prospective, multicenter trial was to study the elimination of reflux, the rate of recanalization, and possible side effects of foam sclerotherapy (FS) compared with conventional liquid sclerotherapy for the greater saphenous vein (GSV). METHODS: Eighty-eight patients were randomized into two groups: One group was treated with sclerosing foam (45 patients) and the other with sclerosing liquid (43 cases). Sclerotherapy was performed with direct puncture of the vessel under duplex guidance. The reference sclerosing agent was polidocanol in a 3% solution. The foam was prepared using the Double Syringe System (DSS) method. Only one injection of 2.0 or 2.5 mL liquid or foam was allowed, depending on the diameter of the GSV. Results were assessed according to the protocol. RESULTS: Follow-up after 3 weeks showed 84% elimination of reflux in the GSV with DSS foam versus 40% with liquid sclerosant (P < 0.01). At 6 months, six recanalizations were found in the liquid group versus two in the foam group. After 1 year, no additional recanalization was observed with either foam or liquid. Longer term studies are underway. Side effects did not differ between both groups. CONCLUSION: The efficacy of sclerosing foam (DSS) compared with sclerosing liquid in therapy of the GSV is superior, a finding that had already gained empirical recognition but for which there has not been any clinical evidence to date.