4.3 Article

Phase 2 trial of sustained-release fampridine in chronic spinal cord injury

期刊

SPINAL CORD
卷 45, 期 2, 页码 158-168

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/sj.sc.3101947

关键词

4-aminopyridine; spasticity; randomized trial; erectile function; questionnaires

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Study design: Double- blind, randomized, placebo- controlled, parallel- group clinical trial. Objective: Assess safety and efficacy of sustained- release fampridine in subjects with chronic spinal cord injury. Setting: A total of 11 academic rehabilitation research centers in the United States. Methods: A total of 91 subjects with motor-incomplete spinal cord injury ( SCI), randomized to three arms: fampridine, sustained release, 25 mg b. i. d. ( GroupI), 40 mg b. i. d. ( GroupII), and placebo ( Group III) for 8 weeks. Outcome measures: Patient diary questionnaire, Ashworth score, American Spinal Cord Injury Association International Standards, International Index of Erectile Function, bladder and bowel management questionnaires, and Clinician and Subject Global Impressions ( Clinician Global Impression of change, Subject Global Impression ( SGI)). Safety was evaluated from adverse events, physical examinations, vital signs, electrocardiograms, and laboratory tests. Results: In total, 78% of the subjects completed the study. More ( 13/ 30) discontinued from GroupII than GroupI ( 4/ 30) and GroupIII ( 3/ 31). The most frequent adverse events across groups were hypertonia, generalized spasm, insomnia, dizziness, asthenia, pain, constipation, and headache. One subject in GroupII experienced a seizure. SGI changed significantly in favor of GroupI ( P = 0.02). Subgroupanalys is of subjects with baseline Ashworth scores 41 showed signi. cant improvement in spasticity in Group I versus III ( P 0.02). Conclusions: Group I showed signi. cant improvement in SGI, and potential benefit on spasticity. The drug was well tolerated. Group II showed more adverse events and discontinuations.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据