RESUMEN
Attenuation of the secondary injury of spinal cord injury (SCI) can suppress the spread of spinal cord tissue damage, possibly resulting in spinal cord sparing that can improve functional prognoses. Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) is a haematological cytokine commonly used to treat neutropenia. Previous reports have shown that G-CSF promotes functional recovery in rodent models of SCI. Based on preclinical results, we conducted early phase clinical trials, showing safety/feasibility and suggestive efficacy. These lines of evidence demonstrate that G-CSF might have therapeutic benefits for acute SCI in humans. To confirm this efficacy and to obtain strong evidence for pharmaceutical approval of G-CSF therapy for SCI, we conducted a phase 3 clinical trial designed as a prospective, randomized, double-blinded and placebo-controlled comparative trial. The current trial included cervical SCI [severity of American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA) Impairment Scale (AIS) B or C] within 48 h after injury. Patients are randomly assigned to G-CSF and placebo groups. The G-CSF group was administered 400 µg/m2/day × 5 days of G-CSF in normal saline via intravenous infusion for five consecutive days. The placebo group was similarly administered a placebo. Allocation was concealed between blinded evaluators of efficacy/safety and those for laboratory data, as G-CSF markedly increases white blood cell counts that can reveal patient treatment. Efficacy and safety were evaluated by blinded observer. Our primary end point was changes in ASIA motor scores from baseline to 3 months after drug administration. Each group includes 44 patients (88 total patients). Our protocol was approved by the Pharmaceuticals and Medical Device Agency in Japan and this trial is funded by the Center for Clinical Trials, Japan Medical Association. There was no significant difference in the primary end point between the G-CSF and the placebo control groups. In contrast, one of the secondary end points showed that the ASIA motor score 6 months (P = 0.062) and 1 year (P = 0.073) after drug administration tend to be higher in the G-CSF group compared with the placebo control group. Moreover, in patients aged over 65 years old, motor recovery 6 months after drug administration showed a strong trend towards a better recovery in the G-CSF treated group (P = 0.056) compared with the control group. The present trial failed to show a significant effect of G-CSF in primary end point although the subanalyses of the present trial suggested potential G-CSF benefits for specific population.
Asunto(s)
Factor Estimulante de Colonias de Granulocitos/uso terapéutico , Recuperación de la Función/efectos de los fármacos , Traumatismos de la Médula Espinal/tratamiento farmacológico , Adolescente , Adulto , Anciano , Método Doble Ciego , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Adulto JovenRESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) is generally used for neutropaenia. Previous experimental studies revealed that G-CSF promoted neurological recovery after spinal cord injury (SCI). Next, we moved to early phase of clinical trials. In a phase I/IIa trial, no adverse events were observed. Next, we conducted a non-randomised, non-blinded, comparative trial, which suggested the efficacy of G-CSF for promoting neurological recovery. Based on those results, we are now performing a phase III trial. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The objective of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of G-CSF for acute SCI. The study design is a prospective, multicentre, randomised, double-blinded, placebo-controlled comparative study. The current trial includes cervical SCI (severity of American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA) Impairment Scale B/C) within 48 hours after injury. Patients are randomly assigned to G-CSF and placebo groups. The G-CSF group is administered 400 µg/m2/day×5 days of G-CSF in normal saline via intravenous infusion for 5 consecutive days. The placebo group is similarly administered a placebo. Our primary endpoint is changes in ASIA motor scores from baseline to 3 months. Each group includes 44 patients (88 total patients). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study will be conducted according to the principles of the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki and in accordance with the Japanese Medical Research Involving Human Subjects Act and other guidelines, regulations and Acts. Results of the clinical study will be submitted to the head of the respective clinical study site as a report after conclusion of the clinical study by the sponsor-investigator. Even if the results are not favourable despite conducting the clinical study properly, the data will be published as a paper. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: UMIN000018752.
Asunto(s)
Factor Estimulante de Colonias de Granulocitos/administración & dosificación , Neuroprotección/efectos de los fármacos , Traumatismos de la Médula Espinal/tratamiento farmacológico , Enfermedad Aguda , Adolescente , Adulto , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Ensayos Clínicos Fase III como Asunto , Método Doble Ciego , Femenino , Humanos , Japón , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Estudios Multicéntricos como Asunto , Estudios Prospectivos , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto , Recuperación de la Función , Índice de Severidad de la Enfermedad , Factores de Tiempo , Resultado del Tratamiento , Adulto JovenRESUMEN
We investigated the efficacy of pregabalin (PGB) for neuropathic leg pain in lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) patients with disturbed activities of daily living (ADL)/quality of life (QOL) in a prospective observational study. Subjects were a total of 104 LSS patients with neuropathic pain (NeP) in leg and neurological intermittent claudication (IMC) refractory to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for at least a month. NeP was identified using screening tool, Pain DETECT questionnaire. Visual analog scale (VAS) scores and responses to the Japanese Orthopaedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire (JOABPEQ) were assessed before and 6 weeks after PGB treatment initiation. Changes in IMC distance and adverse events were also recorded. PGB significantly improved their VAS scores for pain and sleep quality (P < 0.001). With respect to JOABPEQ, significant improvements were observed with regard to the following dimensions: pain-related disorders (P < 0.01), lumbar spine dysfunction (P = 0.031), gait disturbance (P = 0.028), and psychological disorders (P = 0.014). The IMC distance showed an improvement tendency after PGB treatment, albeit with no significance (P = 0.063). Minor adverse events such as dizziness were observed. PGB can be effective for neuropathic leg pain refractory to NSAIDs in LSS patients, resulting in not only pain control but also improving lower back pain-related ADL/QOL scores.