Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, multicentric, phase IIA clinical trial for evaluating the safety, tolerability, and therapeutic efficacy of daily oral administration of NFX88 to treat neuropathic pain in individuals with spinal cord injury.

STUDY DESIGN: Double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group multicentric phase IIA clinical trial. OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety and tolerability of oral administration of NFX-88 in subjects with chronic spinal cord injury (SCI) and explore its efficacy in pain control. SETTING: A total of 7 spinal cord injury rehabilitation units in Spain. METHODS: A total of 61 adult with traumatic complete or incomplete spinal cord injury (C4-T12 level), were randomised 1:1:1:1 to a placebo, NFX88 1.05 g, 2.1 g, 4.2 g/day for up to 12 weeks. The placebo or NFX-88 was administered as add-on therapy to pre-existing pregabalin (150-300 mg per day). Safety and tolerability were evaluated, and the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) was the primary measure to explore the efficacy of NFX-88 in pain control. RESULTS: No severe treatment-related adverse effects were reported for any of the four study groups. 44 SCI individuals completed the study and were analysed. The data obtained from the VAS analysis and the PainDETECT Questionnaire (PD-Q) suggested that the combination of NFX88 with pregabalin is more effective than pregabalin with placebo at reducing neuropathic pain (NP) in individuals with SCI and that the dose 2.10 g/day causes the most dramatic pain relief. CONCLUSIONS: NFX88 treatment was found to be highly safe and well tolerated, with the dose of 2.10 g/day being the most effective at causing pain relief. Thus, the promising efficacy of this first-in-class lipid mediator deserves further consideration in future clinical trials.

Toddler Screening for Autism Spectrum Disorder: A Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Accuracy.

Great efforts focus on early detection of autism spectrum disorder, although some scientists and policy-makers have questioned early universal screening. The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the different screening tools. Several electronic databases were used to identify published studies. A Bayesian model was used to estimate the screening accuracy. The pooled sensitivity was 0.72 (95% CI 0.61-0.81), and the specificity was 0.98 (95% CI 0.97-0.99). Subgroup analyses to remove heterogeneity indicated sensitivity was 0.77 (95% CI 0.69-0.84), and specificity was 0.99 (95% CI 0.97-0.99; SD ≤ 0.01). Level 1 screening tools for ASD showed consistent statistically significant results and therefore are adequate to detect autism at 14-36 months.