Vertebroplasty versus sham procedure for painful acute osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (VERTOS IV):Randomised sham controlled clinical trial

Objective To assess whether percutaneous vertebroplasty results in more pain relief than a sham procedure in patients with acute osteoporotic compression fractures of the vertebral body. Design Randomised, double blind, sham controlled clinical trial. Setting Four community hospitals in the Netherlands, 2011-15. Participants 180 participants requiring treatment for acute osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures were randomised to either vertebroplasty (n=91) or a sham procedure (n=89). Interventions Participants received local subcutaneous lidocaine (lignocaine) and bupivacaine at each pedicle. The vertebroplasty group also received cementation, which was simulated in the sham procedure group. Main outcome measures Main outcome measure was mean reduction in visual analogue scale (VAS) scores at one day, one week, and one, three, six, and 12 months. Clinically significant pain relief was defined as a decrease of 1.5 points in VAS scores from baseline. Secondary outcome measures were the differences between groups for changes in the quality of life for osteoporosis and Roland-Morris disability questionnaire scores during 12 months’ follow-up. Results The mean reduction in VAS score was statistically significant in the vertebroplasty and sham procedure groups at all follow-up points after the procedure compared with baseline. The mean difference in VAS scores between groups was 0.20 (95% confidence interval −0.53 to 0.94) at baseline, −0.43 (−1.17 to 0.31) at one day, −0.11 (−0.85 to 0.63) at one week, 0.41 (−0.33 to 1.15) at one month, 0.21 (−0.54 to 0.96) at three months, 0.39 (−0.37 to 1.15) at six months, and 0.45 (−0.37 to 1.24) at 12 months. These changes in VAS scores did not, however, differ statistically significantly between the groups during 12 months’ follow-up. The results for secondary outcomes were not statistically significant. Use of analgesics (non-opioids, weak opioids, strong opioids) decreased statistically significantly in both groups at all time points, with no statistically significant differences between groups. Two adverse events occurred in the vertebroplasty group: one respiratory insufficiency and one vasovagal reaction. Conclusions Percutaneous vertebroplasty did not result in statistically significantly greater pain relief than a sham procedure during 12 months’ follow-up among patients with acute osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures

Vertebroplasty versus conservative treatment in acute osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (Vertos II): an open-label randomised trial

Background Percutaneous vertebroplasty is increasingly used for treatment of pain in patients with osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures, but the efficacy, cost-effectiveness, and safety of the procedure remain uncertain. We aimed to clarify whether vertebroplasty has additional value compared with optimum pain treatment in patients with acute vertebral fractures. Methods Patients were recruited to this open-label prospective randomised trial from the radiology departments of six hospitals in the Netherlands and Belgium. Patients were aged 50 years or older, had vertebral compression fractures on spine radiograph (minimum 15% height loss; level of fracture at Th5 or lower; bone oedema on MRI), with back pain for 6 weeks or less, and a visual analogue scale (VAS) score of 5 or more. Patients were randomly allocated to percutaneous vertebroplasty or conservative treatment by computer-generated randomisation codes with a block size of six. Masking was not possible for participants, physicians, and outcome assessors. The primary outcome was pain relief at 1 month and 1 year as measured by VAS score. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00232466. Findings Between Oct 1,2005, and June 30,2008, we identified 431 patients who were eligible for randomisation. 229 (53%) patients had spontaneous pain relief during assessment, and 202 patients with persistent pain were randomly allocated to treatment (101 vertebroplasty, 101 conservative treatment). Vertebroplasty resulted in greater pain relief than did conservative treatment; difference in mean VAS score between baseline and 1 month was -5.2 (95% CI -5.88 to -4.72) after vertebroplasty and -2.7 (-3.22 to -1.98) after conservative treatment, and between baseline and 1 year was -5.7 (-6.22 to -4.98) after vertebroplasty and -3-7 (-4.35 to -3.05) after conservative treatment. The difference between groups in reduction of mean VAS score from baseline was 2.6 (95% CI 1.74-3.37, p<0.0001) at 1 month and 2.0 (1.13-2.80, p<0.0001) at 1 year. No serious complications or adverse events were reported. Interpretation In a subgroup of patients with acute osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures and persistent pain, percutaneous vertebroplasty is effective and safe. Pain relief after vertebroplasty is immediate, is sustained for at least a year, and is significantly greater than that achieved with conservative treatment, at an acceptable cost

How the COVID-19 pandemic highlights the necessity of animal research

Contains fulltext : 225123.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access)Recently, a petition was offered to the European Commission calling for an immediate ban on animal testing. Although a Europe-wide moratorium on the use of animals in science is not yet possible, there has been a push by the non-scientific community and politicians for a rapid transition to animal-free innovations. Although there are benefits for both animal welfare and researchers, advances on alternative methods have not progressed enough to be able to replace animal research in the foreseeable future. This trend has led first and foremost to a substantial increase in the administrative burden and hurdles required to make timely advances in research and treatments for human and animal diseases. The current COVID-19 pandemic clearly highlights how much we actually rely on animal research. COVID-19 affects several organs and systems, and the various animal-free alternatives currently available do not come close to this complexity. In this Essay, we therefore argue that the use of animals is essential for the advancement of human and veterinary health