Efficacy and safety of autologous platelet rich plasma for the treatment of vascular ulcers in primary care: Phase III study

Background: Vascular ulcers are commonly seen in daily practice at all levels of care and have great impact at personal, professional and social levels with a high cost in terms of human and material resources. Given that the application of autologous platelet rich plasma has been shown to decrease healing times in various different studies in the hospital setting, we considered that it would be interesting to assess the efficacy and feasibility of this treatment in primary care. The objectives of this study are to assess the potential efficacy and safety of autologous platelet rich plasma for the treatment of venous ulcers compared to the conventional treatment (moist wound care) in primary care patients with chronic venous insufficiency (C, clinical class, E, aetiology, A, anatomy and P, pathophysiology classification C6). Design: We will conduct a phase III, open-label, parallel-group, multicentre, randomized study. The subjects will be 150 patients aged between 40 and 100 years of age with an at least 2-month history of a vascular venous ulcer assigned to ten primary care centres. For the treatment with autologous platelet rich plasma, all the following tasks will be performed in the primary care setting: blood collection, centrifugation, separation of platelet rich plasma, activation of coagulation adding calcium chloride and application of the PRP topically after gelification. The control group will receive standard moist wound care. The outcome variables to be measured at baseline, and at weeks 5 and 9 later include: reduction in the ulcer area, Chronic Venous Insufficiency Quality of Life Questionnaire score, and percentage of patients who require wound care only once a week. Discussion: The results of this study will be useful to improve the protocol for using platelet rich plasma in chronic vascular ulcers and to favour wider use of this treatment in primary care.

Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controled clinical trial of sublingual immunotherapy in natural rubber latex allergic patients

Trial registration number: CTRN12611000543987

Randomised, crossover clinical trial, in healthy volunteers, to compare the systemic availability of two topical intranasal budesonide formulations

Background: Budesonide has a long history as intranasal drug, with many marketed products. Efforts should be made to demonstrate the therapeutic equivalence and safety comparability between them. Given that systemic availability significantly varies from formulations, the clinical comparability of diverse products comes to be of clinical interest and a regulatory requirement. The aim of the present study was to compare the systemic availability, pharmacodynamic effect, and safety of two intranasal budesonide formulations for the treatment of rhinitis. Methods: Eighteen healthy volunteers participated in this randomised, controlled, crossover, clinical trial. On two separated days, subjects received a single dose of 512 mu g budesonide (4 puffs per nostril) from each of the assayed devices (Budesonida nasal 64 (R), Aldo-Union, Spain and Rhinocort 64 (R), AstraZeneca, Spain). Budesonide availability was determined by the measurement of budesonide plasma concentration. The pharmacodynamic effect on the hypothalamic-adrenal axis was evaluated as both plasma and urine cortisol levels. Adverse events were tabulated and described. Budesonide availability between formulations was compared by the calculation of 90% CI intervals of the ratios of the main pharmacokinetic parameters describing budesonide bioavailability. Plasma cortisol concentration-time curves were compared by means of a GLM for Repeated Measures. Urine cortisol excretion between formulations was compared through the Wilcoxon's test. Results: All the enroled volunteers successfully completed the study. Pharmacokinetic parameters were comparable in terms of AUC(t) (2.6 +/- 1.5 vs 2.2 +/- 0.7), AUCi (2.9 +/- 1.5 vs 2.4 +/- 0.7), t(max) (0.4 +/- 0.1 vs 0.4 +/- 0.2), C(max)/AUC(i) (0.3 +/- 0.1 vs 0.3 +/- 0.0), and MRT (5.0 +/- 1.4 vs 4.5 +/- 0.6), but not in the case of C(max) (0.9 +/- 0.3 vs 0.7 +/- 0.2) and t(1/2) (3.7 +/- 1.8 vs 2.9 +/- 0.4). The pharmacodynamic effects, measured as the effect over plasma and urine cortisol, were also comparables between both formulations. No severe adverse events were reported and tolerance was comparable between formulations. Conclusion: The systemic availability of intranasal budesonide was comparable for both formulations in terms of most pharmacokinetic parameters. The pharmacodynamic effect on hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis was also similar. Side effects were scarce and equivalent between the two products. This methodology to compare different budesonide-containing devices is reliable and easy to perform, and should be recommended for similar products intented to be marketed or already on the market.

Effectiveness of a Multi-Component Smoking Cessation Support Programme (McSCSP) for Patients with Severe Mental Disorders: Study Design

Only a few studies have examined the efficacy and safety of smoking cessation programmes in patients with mental disorders. The aim of this paper is to describe in detail the methodology used in the study as well as the Multi-component Smoking Cessation Support Programme in terms of pharmacological treatments and psychological interventions. An open-label 9-month follow-up study was conducted in Spain. A total of 82 clinically stable outpatients with schizophrenia, schizoaffective or bipolar disorder were enrolled. Treatment consisted of a programme specifically developed by the research team for individuals with severe mental disorders. The programme consisted of two phases: (1) weekly individual motivational therapy for 4-12 weeks, and (2) a 12-week active treatment phase. During this phase, at each study visit patients received a one- or two-week supply of medication (transdermal nicotine patches, varenicline or bupropion) with instructions on how to take it, in addition to group psychotherapy for smoking cessation. Evaluations were performed: (1) at the time of enrolment in the study, (2) during the 12-week active treatment phase of the study (weekly for the first 4 weeks and then biweekly), and (3) after the end of this phase (two follow-up assessments at weeks 12 and 24). Evaluations included: (1) smoking history, (2) substance use, (3) psychopathology, (4) adverse events, and (5) laboratory tests. The importance of this study lies in addressing a topical issue often ignored by psychiatrists: the unacceptably high rates of tobacco use in patients with severe mental disorders.