LOE switchers had a better clinical response to the second treatment. AE switchers responded equally well to both treatments, with a low risk of discontinuing the second drug as a result of AE. Drug survival of the switchers' second biological therapy was higher than of the first, but lower than that of non-switchers. No difference between various sequences of drugs were found. Danish post-marketing data thus support that RA patients may benefit from switching biological therapy.

Neuropathic pain and spasticity after spinal cord injury (SCI) represent significant problems. Palmitoylethanolamide (PEA), a fatty acid amide that is produced in many cells in the body, is thought to potentiate the action of endocannabinoids and to reduce pain and inflammation. This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel multicenter study was performed to investigate the effect of ultramicronized PEA (PEA-um) as add-on therapy on neuropathic pain in individuals with SCI. A pain diary was completed and questionnaires were completed before and after the 12-week treatment with either placebo or PEA-um. The primary outcome measure was the change in mean neuropathic pain intensity from the 1-week baseline period to the last week of treatment measured on a numeric rating scale ranging from 0 to 10. The primary efficacy analysis was the intention to treat (baseline observation carried forward). Secondary outcomes included a per protocol analysis and effects on spasticity, evoked pain, sleep problems, anxiety, depression, and global impression of change. We randomized 73 individuals with neuropathic pain due to SCI, of which 5 had a major protocol violation, and thus 68 were included in the primary analysis. There was no difference in mean pain intensity between PEA-um and placebo treatment (P = 0.46, mean reductions in pain scores 0.4 (−0.1 to 0.9) vs 0.7 (0.2-1.2); difference of means 0.3 (−0.4 to 0.9)). There was also no effect of PEA-um as add-on therapy on spasticity, insomnia, or psychological functioning. PEA was not associated with more adverse effects than placebo.

Study design: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover, multicenter trial. A 1-week baseline period was followed by two treatment periods of 5 weeks duration with levetiracetam increased from 500 mg b.i.d. to a maximum of 1500 mg b.i.d. separated by a 1-week washout period. Objectives: The objective of the study was primarily to evaluate the efficacy of the anticonvulsant levetiracetam in patients with spinal cord injury (SCI) at-and below-level pain and secondarily to evaluate the effect on spasm severity. Setting: Outpatients at two spinal cord units and a pain center. Methods: Patients were allowed to continue their usual pain treatment at a constant dose. The primary outcome measure was the change in median daily pain score (on a 0-10 point numeric rating scale) from 1-week baseline period to the last week of each treatment period. Secondary outcome measures included pain relief of at-and below-level pain, allodynia, spasms and spasticity. Results: A total of 36 patients with SCI at-and or below-level pain were enrolled. Of these, 24 patients completed the trial. We found no effect of levetiracetam on the primary (P ¼ 0.46) or any of the secondary outcome measures. Only two patients continued levetiracetam treatment following the trial, and one patient was still in levetiracetam treatment at the 6-month follow-up. Levetiracetam was generally well tolerated with no serious adverse events. Conclusions: Levetiracetam does not relieve neuropathic pain or spasm severity following spinal cord injury.