Journal of veterinary internal medicine · 2024
A randomized placebo-controlled double-blinded study comparing oral and subcutaneous administration of mistletoe extract for the treatment of equine sarcoid disease.
СтатьяRandomized Controlled Trial, VeterinaryНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Beermann Anke, Clottu Ophélie, Reif Marcus, Biegel Ulrike, Unger Lucia, Koch Christoph
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Equine sarcoids (ES) are the most common cutaneous tumors in equids. Systemic treatment options are sparse. Subcutaneous (SC) injections of Viscum album extract (VAE) demonstrate efficacy as a systemic treatment directed against ES.
OBJECTIVES/AIM: To critically assess the therapeutic efficacy of orally administered VAE.
ANIMALS: Forty-five ES-affected, privately owned, 3-12 year-old horses.
METHODS: A 3-armed randomized placebo-controlled, double-blinded study was conducted in a double-dummy design. Horses were subjected to oral administration and SC injections of either VAE or placebo (VAE oral/placebo SC, VAE SC/placebo oral, placebo oral/placebo SC) over a 7-month treatment period. Primary endpoint was the change of baseline of a composite index of ES number and ES area after 14 months. Second endpoint was the clinical response.
RESULTS: No statistically significant difference in the composite endpoint between the 3 study arms was found. The primary endpoint showed 4 (27%) horses in the VAE oral group with complete ES regression, 3 (21%) in the VAE SC injection group, and 2 (13%) in the placebo group. The clinical response revealed complete or partial regression in 6 horses of the oral VAE group (40%), 4 of the SC injection group (29%), and 4 of the placebo group (25%). Direct comparison of oral VAE and placebo showed an odds ratio, stratified for prognosis of 2.16 (95%-CI: 0.45-10.42) and a P-value of 0.336.
CONCLUSION AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE: Oral administration of VAE is well tolerated. No statistically significant difference in the effectiveness of systemic VAE versus placebo against ES was found.
OBJECTIVES/AIM: To critically assess the therapeutic efficacy of orally administered VAE.
ANIMALS: Forty-five ES-affected, privately owned, 3-12 year-old horses.
METHODS: A 3-armed randomized placebo-controlled, double-blinded study was conducted in a double-dummy design. Horses were subjected to oral administration and SC injections of either VAE or placebo (VAE oral/placebo SC, VAE SC/placebo oral, placebo oral/placebo SC) over a 7-month treatment period. Primary endpoint was the change of baseline of a composite index of ES number and ES area after 14 months. Second endpoint was the clinical response.
RESULTS: No statistically significant difference in the composite endpoint between the 3 study arms was found. The primary endpoint showed 4 (27%) horses in the VAE oral group with complete ES regression, 3 (21%) in the VAE SC injection group, and 2 (13%) in the placebo group. The clinical response revealed complete or partial regression in 6 horses of the oral VAE group (40%), 4 of the SC injection group (29%), and 4 of the placebo group (25%). Direct comparison of oral VAE and placebo showed an odds ratio, stratified for prognosis of 2.16 (95%-CI: 0.45-10.42) and a P-value of 0.336.
CONCLUSION AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE: Oral administration of VAE is well tolerated. No statistically significant difference in the effectiveness of systemic VAE versus placebo against ES was found.