Edge vascular response after polymer-free vs. polymer-based paclitaxel-eluting stent implantation.

BACKGROUND It is unknown if lack of polymer can provoke a different edge response in drug-eluting stents. The aim of this study was to compare edge vascular response between polymer-free paclitaxel-eluting stent (PF-PES) and polymer-based paclitaxel-eluting stents (PB-PES). METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 165 eligible patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention were prospectively randomized 1:1 to receive either PF-PES or PB-PES. Those patients with paired intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) after procedure and at 9-month follow-up were included in this analysis.Seventy-six patients with 84 lesions, divided into PB-PES (38 patients, 41 lesions) and PF-PES groups (38 patients, 43 lesions) had paired post-procedure and 9-month follow-up IVUS and were therefore included in this substudy. There was a significant lumen decrease at the proximal edge of PF-PES (from 9.02±3.06 mm(2)to 8.47±3.05 mm(2); P=0.040), and a significant plaque increase at the distal edges of PF-PES (from 4.39±2.73 mm(2)to 4.78±2.63 mm(2); P=0.004). At the distal edge there was a significant plaque increase in the PF-PES compared to PB-PES (+8.0% vs. -0.6%, respectively; P=0.015) with subsequent lumen reduction (-5.2% vs. +6.0%, respectively; P=0.024). CONCLUSIONS PF-PES had significant plaque increase and lumen reduction at the distal edge as compared to PB-PES, probably due to difference in polymer-based drug-release kinetics between the 2 platforms.

Effectiveness of glatiramer acetate compared to other multiple sclerosis therapies.

OBJECTIVE To assess the effectiveness of glatiramer acetate (GA) compared to other multiple sclerosis (MS) therapies in routine clinical practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS Observational cohort study carried out in MS patients treated with GA (GA cohort) or other MS therapies -switched from GA- (non-GA cohort). Study data were obtained through review of our MS patient database. The primary endpoint was the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) scores reached at the end of treatment/last check-up. RESULTS A total of 180 patients were included: GA cohort n = 120, non-GA cohort n = 60. Patients in the GA cohort showed better EDSS scores at the end of treatment/last check-up (mean ± SD, 2.8 ± 1.8 vs. 3.9 ± 2.2; P = 0.001) and were 1.65 times more likely to show better EDSS scores compared to the non-GA cohort (odds ratio, 0.606; 95%CI, 0.436-0.843; P = 0.003). Patients in the GA cohort showed longer mean time to reach EDSS scores of 6 (209.1 [95%CI, 187.6-230.6] vs. 164.3 [95% CI, 137.0-191.6] months; P = 0.004) and slower disability progression (hazard ratio, 0.415 [95%CI, 0.286-0.603]; P < 0.001). The annualized relapse rate was lower in the GA cohort (mean ± SD, 0.5 ± 0.5 vs. 0.8 ± 0.5; P = 0.001) and patients' quality of life was improved in this study cohort compared to the non-GA cohort (mean ± SD, 0.7 ± 0.1 vs. 0.6 ± 0.2; P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS GA may slow down the progression of EDSS scores to a greater extent than other MS therapies, as well as achieving a greater reduction in relapses and a greater improvement in patients' quality of life. Switching from GA to other MS therapies has not proved to entail a better response to treatment.