4.3 Article

Aldose reductase inhibitor ranirestat significantly improves nerve conduction velocity in diabetic polyneuropathy: A randomized double-blind placebo-controlled study in Japan

Journal

JOURNAL OF DIABETES INVESTIGATION
Volume 10, Issue 2, Pages 466-474

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jdi.12890

Keywords

Diabetic polyneuropathy; Nerve conduction velocity; Ranirestat

Funding

  1. Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma Co., Ltd.

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aims/Introduction Diabetic polyneuropathy is one of the most frequent diabetic complications, and impairs patients' quality of life. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of ranirestat (40 mg/day) in patients with diabetic polyneuropathy. Materials and Methods This was a multicenter, placebo-controlled, randomized double-blind, parallel-group, phase III study in which 557 patients were randomly assigned to either the ranirestat or placebo group and assessed for 52 weeks. The co-primary end-points were the changes in tibial motor nerve conduction velocity and total modified Toronto Clinical Neuropathy Score as a measure of clinical symptoms. Results There was a significant increase in tibial motor nerve conduction velocity in the ranirestat group compared with the placebo group. The difference between groups in the change at last observation was 0.52 m/s (P = 0.021). Increases in nerve conduction velocity in the ranirestat group were found not only in the tibial motor nerves, but also in the median motor nerves, proximal median sensory nerves and distal median sensory nerves. No significant differences in modified Toronto Clinical Neuropathy Score or safety parameters were found between the two groups. Conclusions Ranirestat (40 mg/day) was well tolerated and improved nerve conduction velocity. Regarding symptoms and signs, no detectable benefits over the placebo were observed in the ranirestat group during the 52 weeks of treatment.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available