Early clinical studies suggested that the anti–interleukin-17 receptor A monoclonal antibody brodalumab has efficacy in the treatment of psoriasis. In two phase 3 studies (AMAGINE-2 and AMAGINE-3), patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis were randomly assigned to receive brodalumab (210 mg or 140 mg every 2 weeks), ustekinumab (45 mg for patients with a body weight ≤100 kg and 90 mg for patients >100 kg), or placebo. At week 12, patients receiving brodalumab were randomly assigned again to receive a brodalumab maintenance dose of 210 mg every 2 weeks or 140 mg every 2 weeks, every 4 weeks, or every 8 weeks; patients receiving ustekinumab continued to receive ustekinumab every 12 weeks, and patients receiving placebo received 210 mg of brodalumab every 2 weeks. The primary aims were to evaluate the superiority of brodalumab over placebo at week 12 with respect to at least a 75% reduction in the psoriasis area-and-severity index score (PASI 75) and a static physician’s global assessment (sPGA) score of 0 or 1 (clear or almost clear skin), as well as the superiority of brodalumab over ustekinumab at week 12 with respect to a 100% reduction in PASI score (PASI 100). At week 12, the PASI 75 response rates were higher with brodalumab at the 210-mg and 140-mg doses than with placebo (86% and 67%, respectively, vs. 8% [AMAGINE-2] and 85% and 69%, respectively, vs. 6% [AMAGINE-3]; P<0.001); the rates of sPGA scores of 0 or 1 were also higher with brodalumab (P<0.001). The week 12 PASI 100 response rates were significantly higher with 210 mg of brodalumab than with ustekinumab (44% vs. 22% [AMAGINE-2] and 37% vs. 19% [AMAGINE-3], P<0.001). The PASI 100 response rates with 140 mg of brodalumab were 26% in AMAGINE-2 (P=0.08 for the comparison with ustekinumab) and 27% in AMAGINE-3 (P=0.007). Rates of neutropenia were higher with brodalumab and with ustekinumab than with placebo. Mild or moderate candida infections were more frequent with brodalumab than with ustekinumab or placebo. Through week 52, the rates of serious infectious episodes were 1.0 (AMAGINE-2) and 1.3 (AMAGINE-3) per 100 patient-years of exposure to brodalumab. Brodalumab treatment resulted in significant clinical improvements in patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis. (Funded by Amgen; AMAGINE-2 and AMAGINE-3 ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT01708603 and NCT01708629.)

Context Globally, one in five men aged >50 years is predicted to experience an osteoporotic fracture. Because of the treatment gap in osteoporosis and the paucity of bone-forming agents for men, new osteoporosis treatments are needed. Objective To evaluate the safety and efficacy of romosozumab in men with osteoporosis. Design Phase III randomized BRIDGE study (placebo-controlled double-blind study evaluating the efficacy and safety of romosozumab in treating men with osteoporosis; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT02186171) for 12 months. Setting Thirty-one centers in Europe, Latin America, Japan, and North America. Patients Men aged 55 to 90 years with a baseline bone mineral density (BMD) T-score at the lumbar spine (LS), total hip (TH), or femoral neck of ≤−2.5 or ≤−1.5 with a history of a fragility nonvertebral or vertebral fracture. Interventions The subjects were randomized 2:1 to receive romosozumab 210 mg subcutaneously monthly or placebo for 12 months. Main Outcome Measures The primary efficacy endpoint was percentage change from baseline in LS BMD at month 12. Results In 245 subjects (163 romosozumab, 82 placebo), at month 12, the mean percentage change from baseline in the LS and TH BMD was significantly greater for the romosozumab group than for the placebo group (LS, 12.1% vs 1.2%; TH, 2.5% vs −0.5%; P < 0.001). Adverse events and serious adverse events were balanced between the two groups, with a numerical imbalance in the positively adjudicated cardiovascular serious adverse events [romosozumab, 8 (4.9%) vs placebo, 2 (2.5%)]. Conclusions Treatment with romosozumab for 12 months increased the spine and hip BMD compared with placebo and was well tolerated in men with osteoporosis.

Objectives Chondroitin sulfate 800 mg/day (CS) pharmaceutical-grade in the management of symptomatic knee osteoarthritis consistent with the European Medicines Agency guideline. Methods A prospective, randomised, 6-month, 3-arm, double-blind, double-dummy, placebo and celecoxib (200 mg/day)-controlled trial assessing changes in pain on a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and in the Lequesne Index (LI) as coprimary endpoints. Minimal-Clinically Important Improvement (MCII), Patient-Acceptable Symptoms State (PASS) were used as secondary endpoints. Results 604 patients (knee osteoarthritis) diagnosed according to American College of Rheumalogy (ACR) criteria, recruited in five European countries and followed for 182 days. CS and celecoxib showed a greater significant reduction in pain and LI than placebo. In the intention-to-treat (ITT) population, pain reduction in VAS at day 182 in the CS group (−42.6 mm) and in celecoxib group (−39.5 mm) was significantly greater than the placebo group (−33.3 mm) (p=0.001 for CS and p=0.009 for celecoxib), while no difference observed between CS and celecoxib. Similar trend for the LI, as reduction in this metric in the CS group (−4.7) and celecoxib group (−4.6) was significantly greater than the placebo group (−3.7) (p=0.023 for CS and p=0.015 for celecoxib), no difference was observed between CS and celecoxib. Both secondary endpoints (MCII and PASS) at day 182 improved significantly in the CS and celecoxib groups. All treatments demonstrated excellent safety profiles. Conclusion A 800 mg/day pharmaceutical-grade CS is superior to placebo and similar to celecoxib in reducing pain and improving function over 6 months in symptomatic knee osteoarthritis (OA) patients. This formulation of CS should be considered a first-line treatment in the medical management of knee OA.

The purpose of this review is to describe and compare selected traditional and modern extraction methods employed in the isolation of isoflavonoids from plants. Conventional methods such as maceration, percolation, or Soxhlet extraction are still frequently used in phytochemical analysis. Despite their flexibility, traditional extraction techniques have significant drawbacks, including the need for a significant investment of time, energy, and starting material, and a requirement for large amounts of potentially toxic solvents. Moreover, these techniques are difficult to automate, produce considerable amount of waste and pose a risk of degradation of thermolabile compounds. Modern extraction methods, such as: ultrasound-assisted extraction, microwave-assisted extraction, accelerated solvent extraction, supercritical fluid extraction, and negative pressure cavitation extraction, can be regarded as remedies for the aforementioned problems. This manuscript discusses the use of the most relevant extraction techniques in the process of isolation of isoflavonoids, secondary metabolites that have been found to have a plethora of biological and pharmacological activities.

Many patients, particularly those aged above 40, experience knee joint pain, which hampers both sports activities and daily living. Treating isolated chondral and osteochondral defects in the knee poses a significant clinical challenge, particularly in younger patients who are not typically recommended partial or total knee arthroplasty as alternatives. Several surgical approaches have been developed to address focal cartilage defects. The treatment strategies are characterized as palliation (e.g., chondroplasty and debridement), repair (e.g., drilling and microfracture), or restoration (e.g., autologous chondrocyte implantation, osteochondral autograft, and osteochondral allograft). This review offers an overview of the commonly employed clinical methods for treating articular cartilage defects, with a specific focus on the clinical trials conducted in the last decade. Our study reveals that, currently, no single technology fully meets the essential requirements for effective cartilage healing while remaining easily applicable during surgical procedures. Nevertheless, numerous methods are available, and the choice of treatment should consider factors such as the location and size of the cartilage lesion, patient preferences, and whether it is chondral or osteochondral in nature. Promising directions for the future include tissue engineering, stem cell therapies, and the development of pre-formed scaffolds from hyaline cartilage, offering hope for improved outcomes.