Forodesine Hydrochloride

A new generation of modified surface flow diverters (FDs) and monotherapy using new antiplatelets may reduce both ischemic and hemorrhagic complications during the treatment of intracranial aneurysms. Previous preliminary safety analysis of distal unruptured intracranial aneurysms treated with the FD p48 MW HPC (phenox-Wallaby, Bochum, Germany) under antiplatelet monotherapy with prasugrel showed promising results. However, the long term outcomes of distal intracranial aneurysms treated with FDs under antiplatelet monotherapy are not known.

This was a single center, prospective, pivotal, open single arm study. The primary (safety) endpoint was absence of any new neurological deficits after treatment until the 24 month follow-up. The primary (efficacy) endpoint was the incidence of complete aneurysm occlusion 24 months after treatment. The secondary (efficacy) endpoints were any incidence of aneurysm dome reduction 24 months after treatment.

21 patients harboring 27 distal aneurysms of the anterior circulation were included. No patient had neurologic deficits in the time from treatment to the 24 month follow-up. Complete aneurysm occlusion occurred in 20 (74%) of 27 aneurysms at the 24 month follow-up. Four aneurysms (14.8%) had dome reduction, and three aneurysms (11.1%) remained unchanged.

In this pilot trial, treatment of distal unruptured intracranial aneurysms with an FD under monotherapy with prasugrel, followed by monotherapy with aspirin, appeared to be safe and effective. Randomized studies with long term follow-up are needed to confirm these results.

Pairwise comparison of heavy dynamic strength and fast dynamic strength interventions on sprint performance: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Strength Cond Res 38(9): 1675–1686, 2024—Previous studies have shown that both heavy dynamic strength (HDS) and fast dynamic strength (FDS) training can be used to improve sprint performance; however, a review and meta-analysis investigating pairwise studies that compare these two training interventions have not been performed. The aims of the study were to systematically review and analyze HDS and FDS training methodologies and evaluate their effect size difference, in pairwise comparison studies to determine and compare their effects on sprint performance. Databases were systematically searched using Boolean phrasing to identify eligible articles, and meta-analyses were performed on the extracted data. Seven studies met the inclusion criteria, which resulted in data from 138 subjects across 24 separate sprint assessments. Overall, there was a small effect in favor of FDS (standardized mean difference = 0.27, 95% confidence intervals [−0.07; 0.60], 95% prediction intervals [−1.01; 1.55]), but this was deemed not significant because of the wide-ranging prediction intervals. There is no distinguishable difference between HDS and FDS training on sprint performance. The wide-ranging prediction intervals suggest the variability is too great to determine whether one training type is more effective than the other. Practitioners should consider the individual needs of their athletes when deciding which training type to use for long-term sprint development.