For the first time efficacy and safety of a new prostaglandin E1 (PGE1) regimen in the treatment of intermittent claudication were evaluated in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled multicenter clinical trial. The study involved 213 outpatients with a maximum walking distance of 50 to 200 m measured on the treadmill (3 km/hr, 12% grade). After a 2-week run-in phase they received a 2-hour intravenous infusion of 60 micrograms PGE1 or placebo 5 days a week for 4 weeks. It was followed by a 4-week interval treatment with the same medication administered only twice a week. Patients were monitored for 3 months when they received no study medication. In the PGE1 group the intention-to-treat analysis (n = 208) revealed an increase in walking distance after 4 weeks of 75% (placebo, 43%). At the end of the interval treatment the walking distance had improved to 101% (placebo, 60%). The results remained virtually constant during follow-up (PGE1, 104%, placebo, 63%). Between-group comparisons showed significant differences in favor of PGE1 for all three time points of measurement (p < 0.05, p < 0.01, and p < 0.05). PGE1 was well tolerated; the rate of adverse reactions related to the treatment was 12.8% (placebo, 7.7%). In summary, these results show that the new PGE1 regimen is effective and safe in the treatment of outpatients with intermittent claudication.

The aim of this randomized study was to compare the reliability of the treadmill test at constant-load (C-test, 3 km/hr; fixed grade of 12%) recommended in Germany with that of the graded-exercise test (G-test, 3 km/hr; increase in grade of 3.5% every 3 minutes) propagated in the United States. In 50 patients with an absolute claudication distance (ACD) in the C-test of between 50 and 400 m, the two treadmill tests were carried out in randomized order on one and the same day, and repeated on 3 days within 1 week. For the initial claudication distance (ICD), the intraclass correlation was 0.88 in the C-test and 0.87 in the G-test. For the ACD the coefficients were identical at 0.91. The within-subject variation (CVwithin) in the C-test and G-test was 25% and 27% for the ICD and for the ACD 24% and 21%, respectively. The between-subject variation was very similar with 72% and 73% (ICD) and with 78% and 68% (ACD). However, in ACDs below 100 m and between 100 to 150 m, the C-test showed significantly smaller coefficients of variation than the G-test: 13% vs 81% and 14% vs 50%, respectively. In conclusion, the results showed that both C-test and G-test are equally well reproducible.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract