ArticleClinical drug investigation2002
Propionyl-L-Carnitine versus Pentoxifylline : Improvement in Walking Capacity in Patients with Intermittent Claudication.
Article in Clinical drug investigation, 2002. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Propionyl-L-carnitine for intermittent claudication.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Pentoxifylline for intermittent claudication.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020Pooled it
- Pentoxifylline for intermittent claudication.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2015Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the efficacy and tolerability of propionyl-1-carnitine with those of pentoxifylline in the treatment of intermittent claudication.
designThis study was a phase II multicentre (n = 14), randomised, open trial. PATIENTS: 114 patients were enrolled who had intermittent claudication [as diagnosed by an ankle/brachial pressure index (ABPI) ≤0.8 that decreased by ≥20% after exercise].
interventionsAfter a 6-week run-in phase, patients were randomised to 12 months of treatment with propionyl-L-carnitine (500mg orally, three times daily) or pentoxifylline (400mg orally, three times daily). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES AND
resultsPrimary outcome measures included 12-month changes from baseline in claudication distance and maximal walking distance, as assessed by treadmill. Secondary outcome measures included ABPI and safety. Statistical analyses were performed in the per-protocol population (34 patients in each group). Compared with baseline, improvement in initial claudication distance was 174% with propionyl-L-carnitine versus 67% with pentoxifylline (p = 0.020). The improvement in maximal walking distance was 123 versus 54% (p = 0.004). There were no changes in electrocardiographic and routine biochemical and haematological tests that would indicate an adverse effect of either drug. Adverse events requiring drug discontinuation were five in the propionyl-L-carnitine group and eight in the pentoxifylline group. Resting and postexercise ABPI was not modified by treatments.
conclusionsThe findings of this study suggest that propionyl-L-carnitine, a safe and well tolerated drug, is more effective than pentoxifylline in improving walking capacity in patients with intermittent claudication.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.