Experimental Pharmacology of Glucosamine Sulfate

Several clinical studies demonstrated that glucosamine sulfate (GS) is effective in controlling osteoarthritis (OA), showing a structure-modifying action. However, little is known about the molecular mechanism(s) by which GS exerts such action and about the effects of GS at a tissue level on osteoarthritic cartilage and other joint structures. Here we provide mechanistic evidence suggesting that in vitro GS attenuates NF-κB activation at concentrations in the range of those observed after GS administration to volunteers and patients, thus strengthening previous findings. Furthermore, we describe the effects of GS at a tissue level on the progression of the disease in a relevant model of spontaneous OA, the STR/ort mouse. In this model, the administration of GS at human corresponding doses was associated with a significant decrease of OA scores. Histomorphometry showed that the lesion surface was also significantly decreased, while the number of viable chondrocytes within the matrix was significantly increased. GS improved the course of OA in the STR/Ort mouse, by delaying cartilage breakdown as assessed histologically and histomorphometrically

Diagnostic Yield and Miss Rate of EndoRings in an Organized Colorectal Cancer Screening Program: the SMART (Study Methodology for ADR-Related Technology) Trial

Background and aims The add-on EndoRings has been claimed to improve adenoma detection at colonoscopy, but available data are inconsistent. When testing a new technology, parallel and crossover methodologies measure different outcomes, leaving uncertainty on their correspondence. Aims of this study were to compare the diagnostic yield and miss rate of the EndoRings for colorectal neoplasia. Methods Consecutive subjects undergoing colonoscopy after a positive fecal immunochemical test (FIT) within organized screening program in 7 Italian centers, were randomized between a parallel (EndoRings or Standard) or a crossover (EndoRings/Standard or Standard/EndoRings) methodology. Outcomes measures were the detection rates of (advanced) adenomas (A-)ADR in the parallel arms and miss rate of adenomas in the crossover arms. Results Of 958 eligible subjects, 927 (317 EndoRings; 317 Standard; 142 EndoRings/Standard; 151 Standard/Endorings) were included in the final analysis. In the parallel arms (mean ADR: 51.3%; mean AADR: 25.4%), no difference between Standard and EndoRings was found for both ADR (RR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.95-1.28) and A-ADR (RR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.88-1.51), as well as for the mean number of adenomas and advanced adenomas per patient (EndoRings: 1.9±1.3 and 1.0±1.2; Standard 2.1±1.5 and 1.0±1.2; p=NS for both comparisons). In the crossover arms, no difference in miss rate for adenomas between EndoRings and Standard was found at per-polyp (RR, 1.43; 95% CI, 0.97-2.10), as well as at per-patient analysis (24% vs 26%; p=0.76). Conclusions No statistically significant difference in diagnostic yield and miss rate between EndoRings and Standard colonoscopy was detected in FIT+ patients. A clinically relevant correspondence between miss and detection rates was shown, supporting a cause-effect relationship