Citations

Stiff skin syndrome, an autosomal dominant congenital form of scleroderma, is caused by mutations in the domain of fibrillin-1 that mediates integrin binding.

The success of vascularized bone grafts from the medial femoral condyle in various clinical applications has sparked renewed interest in the microvascular anatomy of this region. This study describes the arterial supply of the distal medial femoral condyle and its implications in harvesting vascularized bone grafts. The location, branching pattern, internal diameter, and distribution of perforators of the descending genicular artery and superior medial genicular artery in 19 fresh cadaveric lower limbs were recorded. The descending genicular artery was present in 89% and the superior medial genicular artery was present in 100% of specimens with average distances proximal to the articular surface of 13.7 cm and 5.2 cm, respectively. The average number of perforating vessels was greatest in the posterior distal quadrant of the condyle. The blood supply of the medial femoral condyle is plentiful and consistent making it a useful source for free vascularized bone grafts.

Objectives: This is the second of a pair of studies designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of onabotulinumtoxinA (BOTOX®) for prophylaxis of headaches in adults with chronic migraine. Methods: PREEMPT 2 was a phase 3 study, with a 24-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase, followed by a 32-week, open-label phase. Subjects were randomized (1:1) to injections of onabotulinumtoxinA (155U–195U; n = 347) or placebo ( n = 358) every 12 weeks for two cycles. The primary efficacy endpoint was mean change in headache days per 28 days from baseline to weeks 21–24 post-treatment. Results: OnabotulinumtoxinA was statistically significantly superior to placebo for the primary endpoint, frequency of headache days per 28 days relative to baseline (−9.0 onabotulinumtoxinA/−6.7 placebo, p < .001). OnabotulinumtoxinA was significantly favoured in all secondary endpoint comparisons. OnabotulinumtoxinA was safe and well tolerated, with few treatment-related adverse events. Few patients (3.5% onabotulinumtoxinA/1.4% placebo) discontinued due to adverse events. Conclusions: The results of PREEMPT 2 demonstrate that onabotulinumtoxinA is effective for prophylaxis of headache in adults with chronic migraine. Repeated onabotulinumtoxinA treatments were safe and well tolerated.

Objectives: This is the first of a pair of studies designed to assess efficacy, safety and tolerability of onabotulinumtoxinA (BOTOX®) as headache prophylaxis in adults with chronic migraine. Methods: The Phase III REsearch Evaluating Migraine Prophylaxis Therapy 1 (PREEMPT 1) is a phase 3 study, with a 24-week, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled phase followed by a 32-week, open-label phase. Subjects were randomized (1:1) to injections every 12 weeks of onabotulinumtoxinA (155 U–195 U; n = 341) or placebo ( n = 338) (two cycles). The primary endpoint was mean change from baseline in headache episode frequency at week 24. Results: No significant between-group difference for onabotulinumtoxinA versus placebo was observed for the primary endpoint, headache episodes (−5.2 vs. −5.3; p = 0.344). Large within-group decreases from baseline were observed for all efficacy variables. Significant between-group differences for onabotulinumtoxinA were observed for the secondary endpoints, headache days ( p = .006) and migraine days ( p = 0.002). OnabotulinumtoxinA was safe and well tolerated, with few treatment-related adverse events. Few subjects discontinued due to adverse events. Conclusions: There was no between-group difference for the primary endpoint, headache episodes. However, significant reductions from baseline were observed for onabotulinumtoxinA for headache and migraine days, cumulative hours of headache on headache days and frequency of moderate/severe headache days, which in turn reduced the burden of illness in adults with disabling chronic migraine.

Abstract The need to practice evidence-based medicine is the current prevailing paradigm within the medical community. Evidence to guide practice can and should come from a variety of sources, including clinical trials, observational studies, and meta-analyses of both or either. This paper discusses the relative strengths and weaknesses of data that arise from these various sources. The different types of evidence required to demonstrate “efficacy” versus “effectiveness,” a critical and often overlooked distinction, are discussed. In the genomic age, in which targeted therapies with or without specific biomarkers are emerging in cancer care, new approaches are necessary to generate the evidence required for decision making.