A Multicenter, randomized, open-label, controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of hydroxychloroquine and a retrospective study in adult patients with mild to moderate Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)

Objective In this study, we evaluated the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) via a randomized controlled trial (RCT) and a retrospective study. Methods Subjects admitted to 11 designated public hospitals in Taiwan between April 1 and May 31, 2020, with COVID-19 diagnosis confirmed by pharyngeal real-time RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2, were randomized at a 2:1 ratio and stratified by mild or moderate illness. HCQ 400 mg twice for 1 d and HCQ 200 mg twice daily for 6 days were administered. Both study group and controlled group received standard of care (SOC). Pharyngeal swabs and sputum were collected every other day. The proportion and time to negative viral PCR were assessed on day 14. In the retrospective study, medical records were reviewed for patients admitted before March 31, 2020. Results There were 33 and 37 cases in the RCT and retrospective study, respectively. In the RCT, the median times to negative rRT-PCR from randomization to hospital day 14 were 5 days (95% CI; 1-9 days) and 10 days (95% CI; 2-12 days) for the HCQ and SOC groups, respectively (p = 0.40). On day 14, 81.0% (17/21) and 75.0% (9/12) of the subjects in the HCQ and SOC groups, respectively, had undetected virus (p = 0.36). In the retrospective study, 12 (42.9%) in the HCQ group and 5 (55.6%) in the control group had negative rRT-PCR results on hospital day 14 (p = 0.70). Conclusions Neither study demonstrated that HCQ shortened viral shedding in mild to moderate COVID-19 subjects.

Download Full-text

A multicenter, randomized, open-label, controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of hydroxychloroquine and a retrospective study in adult patients with mild to moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)

PLoS ONE ◽

10.1371/journal.pone.0242763 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 15 (12) ◽

pp. e0242763 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Cheng-Pin Chen ◽

Yi-Chun Lin ◽

Tsung-Chia Chen ◽

Ting-Yu Tseng ◽

Hon-Lai Wong ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Retrospective Study ◽

Controlled Trial ◽

Standard Of Care ◽

Public Hospitals ◽

Control Group ◽

Rt Pcr ◽

Open Label ◽

Viral Shedding ◽

Randomized Controlled ◽

And Control

Objective In this study, we evaluated the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) via a randomized controlled trial (RCT) and a retrospective study. Methods Subjects admitted to 11 designated public hospitals in Taiwan between April 1 and May 31, 2020, with COVID-19 diagnosis confirmed by pharyngeal real-time RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2, were randomized at a 2:1 ratio and stratified by mild or moderate illness. HCQ (400 mg twice for 1 d or HCQ 200 mg twice daily for 6 days) was administered. Both the study and control group received standard of care (SOC). Pharyngeal swabs and sputum were collected every other day. The proportion and time to negative viral PCR were assessed on day 14. In the retrospective study, medical records were reviewed for patients admitted before March 31, 2020. Results There were 33 and 37 cases in the RCT and retrospective study, respectively. In the RCT, the median times to negative rRT-PCR from randomization to hospital day 14 were 5 days (95% CI; 1, 9 days) and 10 days (95% CI; 2, 12 days) for the HCQ and SOC groups, respectively (p = 0.40). On day 14, 81.0% (17/21) and 75.0% (9/12) of the subjects in the HCQ and SOC groups, respectively, had undetected virus (p = 0.36). In the retrospective study, 12 (42.9%) in the HCQ group and 5 (55.6%) in the control group had negative rRT-PCR results on hospital day 14 (p = 0.70). Conclusions Neither study demonstrated that HCQ shortened viral shedding in mild to moderate COVID-19 subjects.

Download Full-text

AYUSH-64 as an adjunct to Standard Care in mild to moderate COVID-19: An open-label randomized controlled trial in Chandigarh, India

10.31219/osf.io/xyuas ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Harbans Singh ◽

Sumit Shrivastva ◽

Babita Yadav ◽

Amit Kumar Rai ◽

Sophia Jameela ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Randomized Controlled Trial ◽

Inflammatory Markers ◽

Standard Care ◽

Controlled Trial ◽

Control Group ◽

Rt Pcr ◽

Open Label ◽

Clinical Recovery ◽

Randomized Controlled ◽

Significant Difference

Background: There is limited evidence on the safety and efficacy of administering Ayurveda interventions as add-on to the standard care for COVID-19. Objective: To explore the therapeutic efficacy and safety of AYUSH-64 as an add-on to standard care in the management of mild to moderate stage COVID-19.Design, setting, participants and interventions: This was an open-label randomized controlled trial with 80 patients of mild to moderate stage COVID-19. Participants in the AYUSH-64 add-on group received two tablets (500 mg each) three times daily for 30 days along with conventional standard care (Paracetamol, Cetirizine, Vitamin C, and Azithromycin). The control group received standard care alone. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome assessed was the proportion of participants with clinical recovery and negative RT-PCR assay for COVID-19 on day 7, 15, 23, and 30. Additionally, change in pro-inflammatory markers, metabolic functions, HRCT chest and incidence of Adverse Drug Reaction (ADR) / Serious Adverse Event (SAE) were assessed.Results: Statistically significant difference was observed in the proportion of participants with clinical recovery in the AYUSH-64 add-on group (p<0.001) at each of the scheduled follow-up visits. All the participants in the AYUSH-64 add-on group clinically recovered by day 23 compared to 32.4 per cent in the control group. The mean duration for clinical recovery in AYUSH-64 add-on group (5.8 ± 2.67 days) was less as compared to control group (10.0 ± 4.06 days). The proportion of participants who turned RT-PCR negative for COVID-19 on day 7, 15, and 23 were 81.8, 94.5, and 100 per cent in AYUSH-64 add-on group, and 79.4, 94.5, and 97.2 per cent in control group, however, the difference observed was statistically not significant (p=0.314). The proportion of participants with improvement in HRCT chest was statistically significant in AYUSH-64 add-on group (p=0.031) unlike in control group (p=0.210). Similar reductions in most inflammatory markers measured (IL-6, CRP, Serum ferritin, and LDH) on day 30 (p<0.05) were observed in both groups. Conclusion: AYUSH-64 as adjunct to standard conventional care is safe and hastens clinical recovery in adult patients with mild to moderate COVID-19.

Download Full-text

Safety and Efficacy of Repurposed Siddha Medicines in Mild, Moderate, and Severe COVID-19 Patients Admitted To a Government Tertiary Hospital Near Chennai, Tamil Nadu– An Open-Labeled, Randomized, Controlled Trial.

10.21203/rs.3.rs-999914/v1 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Christian G J ◽

Meenakumari Ramasamy ◽

Shanthimalar Ramalingam ◽

Sankar Ganesan ◽

Ravichandran Vadugam Muthusamy ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Treatment Group ◽

Standard Care ◽

Tamil Nadu ◽

Controlled Trial ◽

Standard Of Care ◽

Tertiary Hospital ◽

Control Group ◽

Open Label ◽

Randomized Controlled ◽

Oxygenation Status

Abstract BackgroundCOVID-19 resulted in loss of human lives owing to respiratory failure caused by dysregulated immune system. Though many treatments are evaluated, the most appropriate is yet to be established. We hypothesized accelerated recovery and reduced mortality in mild, moderate and severe COVID-19 with Siddha regimen consisting of natural products.MethodsIn a randomized, controlled open-label trial conducted on 200 hospitalized COVID-19 patients, they were allocated equally to be treated with add-on Siddha regimen with Standard care or only standard care. The primary and secondary end points were accelerated recovery (≤ 7 days) and mortality comparison between the groups respectively. Patients were followed through 90 days.ResultsIn this study the accelerated recovery was 59.0% and 27.0% in treatment and control group (ITT analyses) (p < 0.001) respectively and Odds for it were four times higher in the treatment group (OR: 3.9; 95% CI: 1.9, 8.0). The estimated median time for recovery in the treatment group was 7 days (95% CI: 6.0, 8.0; p=0.003) and 10 days (95% CI: 8.7, 11.3) in control. Hazard ratio for death in control was 2.3 times that of treatment group. No adverse reactions or alarming laboratory values were observed in response to intervention. In severe treatment group (n=80), mortality was 15.0% and 39.5% in control (n=81). The COVID stage progression was 65% less in treatment group.ConclusionSiddha regimen demonstrated that they can synergistically improve oxygenation status, enhance the recovery rate and reduce the mortality better as compared to only Standard of Care.

Download Full-text

Sofosbuvir and daclatasvir compared with standard of care in the treatment of patients admitted to hospital with moderate or severe coronavirus infection (COVID-19): a randomized controlled trial

Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy ◽

10.1093/jac/dkaa334 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 75 (11) ◽

pp. 3379-3385 ◽

Cited By ~ 12

Author(s):

Anahita Sadeghi ◽

Ali Ali Asgari ◽

Alireza Norouzi ◽

Zahedin Kheiri ◽

Amir Anushirvani ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Standard Care ◽

Controlled Trial ◽

Standard Of Care ◽

Control Group ◽

Controlled Clinical Trial ◽

University Hospitals ◽

Open Label ◽

Serious Adverse Events ◽

Clinical Recovery ◽

Randomized Controlled

Abstract Background Currently no effective antiviral therapy has been found to treat COVID-19. The aim of this trial was to assess if the addition of sofosbuvir and daclatasvir improved clinical outcomes in patients with moderate or severe COVID-19. Methods This was an open-label, multicentre, randomized controlled clinical trial in adults with moderate or severe COVID-19 admitted to four university hospitals in Iran. Patients were randomized into a treatment arm receiving sofosbuvir and daclatasvir plus standard care, or a control arm receiving standard care alone. The primary endpoint was clinical recovery within 14 days of treatment. The study is registered with IRCT.ir under registration number IRCT20200128046294N2. Results Between 26 March and 26 April 2020, 66 patients were recruited and allocated to either the treatment arm (n = 33) or the control arm (n = 33). Clinical recovery within 14 days was achieved by 29/33 (88%) in the treatment arm and 22/33 (67%) in the control arm (P = 0.076). The treatment arm had a significantly shorter median duration of hospitalization [6 days (IQR 4–8)] than the control group [8 days (IQR 5–13)]; P = 0.029. Cumulative incidence of hospital discharge was significantly higher in the treatment arm versus the control (Gray’s P = 0.041). Three patients died in the treatment arm and five in the control arm. No serious adverse events were reported. Conclusions The addition of sofosbuvir and daclatasvir to standard care significantly reduced the duration of hospital stay compared with standard care alone. Although fewer deaths were observed in the treatment arm, this was not statistically significant. Conducting larger scale trials seems prudent.

Download Full-text

Investigating the Impact of Cognitive Training for Individuals With Bothersome Tinnitus: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Otolaryngology ◽

10.1177/0194599821994742 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 019459982199474

Author(s):

Maggie Xing ◽

Dorina Kallogjeri ◽

Jay F. Piccirillo

Keyword(s):

Randomized Controlled Trial ◽

Cognitive Training ◽

Mixed Model ◽

Controlled Trial ◽

Intervention Group ◽

Control Group ◽

Functional Index ◽

Open Label ◽

Randomized Controlled ◽

The Impact

Objective To evaluate the effectiveness of cognitive training in improving tinnitus bother and to identify predictors of patient response. Study Design Prospective open-label randomized controlled trial. Setting Online. Methods Participants were adults with subjective idiopathic nonpulsatile tinnitus causing significant tinnitus-related distress. The intervention group trained by using auditory-intensive exercises for 20 minutes per day, 5 days per week, for 8 weeks. The active control group trained on the same schedule with non–auditory intensive games. Surveys were completed at baseline, 8 weeks, and 12 weeks. Results A total of 64 participants completed the study. The median age was 63 years (range, 25-69) in the intervention group and 61 years (34-68) in the control group. Mixed model analysis revealed that within-subject change in Tinnitus Functional Index in the intervention group was not different than the control group, with marginal mean differences (95% CI): 0.24 (–11.20 to 10.7) and 2.17 (–8.50 to 12.83) at 8 weeks and 2.33 (–8.6 to 13.3) and 3.36 (–7.91 to 14.6) at 12 weeks, respectively. When the 2 study groups were compared, the control group had higher Tinnitus Functional Index scores than the intervention group by 10.5 points at baseline (95% CI, –0.92 to 29.89), 8.1 at 8 weeks (95% CI, –3.27 to 19.42), and 9.4 at 12 weeks (95% CI, –2.45 to 21.34). Conclusion Auditory-intensive cognitive training was not associated with changes in self-reported tinnitus bother. Given the potential for neuroplasticity to affect tinnitus, we believe that future studies on cognitive training for tinnitus remain relevant.

Download Full-text

EVALUATION OF EFFECTIVENESS OF AROGYA KASHAYAM-20 IN COVID-19 CASES - A RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED STUDY

10.31219/osf.io/au3ct ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Umesh Shukla ◽

Nitin Ujjaliya

Keyword(s):

Controlled Trial ◽

Care Center ◽

Large Population ◽

Intervention Group ◽

Controlled Study ◽

Control Group ◽

Rt Pcr ◽

Randomized Controlled ◽

Group A ◽

Negative Conversion

Introduction: The characteristic clinical features of Covid-19 disease range between asymptomatic to mild-moderate symptoms. Studies suggest that a large population (80%) presents its asymptomatic or milder form. Remaining 20 percent, owing to severity of the diseases, need hospital-based care. Many treatment protocols and strategies have been promoted and recommended by authorities including WHO, but nothing has actually been finalized till date. The present study was planned to evaluate the effectiveness of an Ayurvedic formulation viz. Arogya Kashayam-20 in the hospitalized cases of Covid-19.Aim: To evaluate the effectiveness of Arogya Kashayam-20 in the cases of COVID-19 particularly the negative conversion of RTPCR in 10 days duration.Material and Methods: This was a randomized controlled trial conducted at COVID-19 Care Center, Pt. Khushilal Sharma Government Ayurveda College & Institute, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh with a sample size of 112 participants, aged between 16 to 60 years of either sex. Participants were divided in two groups viz. group A and B. Both the groups received Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), vitamin C and Zinc as per the prevailing ICMR guidelines and group 'A' received additionally Arogya Kashayam-20 for 10 days. Outcome measure of the study was to see the negative conversion RT-PCR test after intervention period of 10 days. CTRI Registration: CTRI/2020/06/026221. Results: Among the 60 cases registered in study group (group A), 51 cases (85.00%) were reported with negative RTPCR on 10th day. Out of 52 cases registered in control group (group B); 39 cases (75.00%) were tested negative RTPCR on 10th day. In both the groups all the cases were discharged asymptomatically on 10th day as per the prevailing ICMR guidelines. No ADR/AE observed during the intervention period.Conclusion: The study observes that the add on intervention group has a better outcome in terms of RT-PCR negative reports after 10 days comparing to the control group.

Download Full-text

Unfractionated heparin in acute chest syndrome: a pilot feasibility randomized controlled trial of unfractionated heparin vs. standard of care in acute chest syndrome

Pilot and Feasibility Studies ◽

10.1186/s40814-020-00715-w ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 6 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Craig D. Seaman ◽

Enrico Novelli ◽

Laura De Castro ◽

Margaret V. Ragni

Keyword(s):

Unfractionated Heparin ◽

Large Scale ◽

Controlled Trial ◽

Standard Of Care ◽

Phase Iii ◽

Therapeutic Modality ◽

Red Blood Cell Transfusion ◽

Acute Chest Syndrome ◽

Open Label ◽

Randomized Controlled

Abstract Background Acute chest syndrome (ACS) is the leading cause of mortality in sickle cell disease (SCD). The pathogenesis of ACS is complex and not entirely understood with multiple etiologies likely contributing simultaneously. One particular etiology is pulmonary vascular occlusion due to thrombosis. Thus, anticoagulation is an attractive therapeutic modality. Methods This was a single-center, randomized controlled, open-label, pilot study to determine the feasibility of performing a larger multicenter phase III trial to assess the effects of unfractionated heparin (UFH) in ACS. Subjects were randomized within 24 h of diagnosis of ACS to one of two treatment arms, UFH, and standard of care (SOC), or no UFH and SOC. UFH was given intravenously for 7 days, or until discharge, if discharge was shorter than 7 days. SOC consisted of intravenous fluids, antibiotics, supplemental oxygen, analgesia, red blood cell transfusion, and exchange transfusion. Results From July 2014 to June 2018, a total of 7 patients underwent randomization (four patients received UFH in addition to SOC and 3 patients received SOC only). Two of the prespecified feasibility criteria were not met: the capacity to consent eligible individuals and the timely notification of hospitalized patients with ACS necessary to permit randomization within 24 h of diagnosis; thus, as a result of poor enrollment, the study was terminated early. The duration of hospitalization was 279.43 (SD 267.98) and 127.31 (SD 137.70) h in the UFH and SOC arms, respectively. The duration of hypoxemia, leukocytosis, fever, and moderate to severe pain was 117.52 (SD 60.52), 24.90 (SD 29.69), 117.52 (SD 60.52), and 117.52 (SD 60.52) h, respectively, in the UFH group, and 51.49 (SD 44.79), 0, 53.11 (SD 25.06), and 88.68 (SD 72.77) h, respectively, in the SOC group. No major bleeding was noted in either group. Conclusions Our study did not achieve prespecified feasibility criteria, resulting in poor enrollment and early termination, and serves to highlight some of the pitfalls experienced in clinical research in SCD. It did show the use of UFH without any major adverse events in 7 subjects. No future large-scale study is planned. Trials registration Registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT #02098993) on March 28, 2014.

Download Full-text

Reflective testing – A randomized controlled trial in primary care patients

Annals of Clinical Biochemistry International Journal of Laboratory Medicine ◽

10.1177/0004563220968373 ◽

2020 ◽

pp. 000456322096837

Author(s):

Wytze P Oosterhuis ◽

Wilhelmine PHG Verboeket-van de Venne ◽

Cees TBM van Deursen ◽

Henri EJH Stoffers ◽

Bernadette AC van Acker ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Primary Care ◽

Randomized Controlled Trial ◽

General Practitioners ◽

Medical Records ◽

Controlled Trial ◽

Intervention Group ◽

Control Group ◽

Test Results ◽

Randomized Controlled ◽

Primary Care Patients

Background Reflective testing, i.e. interpreting, commenting on and, if necessary, adding tests in order to aid the diagnostic process in a meaningful and efficient manner, is an extra service provided by laboratory medicine. However, there have been no prospective randomized controlled trials investigating the value of reflective testing in patient management. Methods In this trial, primary care patients were randomly allocated to an intervention group, where general practitioners received laboratory tests results as requested as well as add-on test results with interpretative comments where considered appropriate by the laboratory specialist, or to a control group, where general practitioners only received the laboratory test results requested. Patients’ medical records were evaluated with a follow-up period of six months. For both groups, the primary outcome measures, i.e. both intended action and actual management action, were blindly assessed by an independent expert panel as adequate, neutral or inadequate. Results In 226 of the 270 cases (84%), reflective testing was considered to be useful for the patient. In the intervention group ( n = 148), actual management by the general practitioner was scored as adequate ( n = 104; 70%), neutral ( n = 29; 20%) or not adequate ( n = 15; 10%). In the control group ( n = 122), these numbers were 57 (47%), 37 (30%) and 28 (23%). This difference was statistically significant ( P < 0.001). Conclusion This randomized controlled trial showed a positive effect of reflective testing in primary care patients on the adequacy of their management, as documented in medical records.

Download Full-text

Convalescent plasma for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and the effect of plasma antibodies: a randomized controlled, open-label trial

10.1101/2021.06.29.21259427 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Philippe Bégin ◽

Jeannie Callum ◽

Erin Jamulae Jamula ◽

Richard Cook ◽

Nancy M Heddle ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Primary Outcome ◽

Controlled Trial ◽

Harmful Effect ◽

Standard Of Care ◽

Hospitalized Patients ◽

Open Label ◽

Serious Adverse Events ◽

Randomized Controlled ◽

Negative Results ◽

Intent To Treat

The efficacy of convalescent plasma for COVID-19 is unclear. While most randomized controlled trials have shown negative results, uncontrolled studies have suggested that the antibody content may influence patient outcomes. We conducted an open-label, randomized controlled trial of convalescent plasma for adults with COVID-19 receiving oxygen within 12 days of respiratory symptom onset. Patients were allocated 2:1 to 500 mL of convalescent plasma or standard of care. The composite primary outcome was intubation or death by 30 days. The effect of convalescent plasma antibodies on the primary outcome was assessed by logistic regression. The trial was terminated at 78% of planned enrollment after meeting stopping criteria for futility. 940 patients were randomized and 921 patients were included in the intent-to-treat analysis. Intubation or death occurred in 199/614 (32.4%) in the convalescent plasma arm and 86/307 (28.0%) in the standard of care arm; relative risk (RR) 1.16 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.94-1.43; p=0.18). Patients in the convalescent plasma arm had more serious adverse events (33.4% vs. 26.4%; RR=1.27, 95% CI 1.02-1.57, p=0.034). The antibody content significantly modulated the therapeutic effect of convalescent plasma. In multivariate analysis, each standard log increase in neutralization or antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity independently reduced the potential harmful effect of plasma (OR=0.74; 0.57-0.95 and OR=0.66; 0.50-0.87, respectively), while IgG against the full transmembrane Spike protein increased it (OR=1.53, 95% CI 1.14-2.05). Convalescent plasma did not reduce the risk of intubation or death at 30 days among hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Transfusion of convalescent plasma with unfavourable antibody profiles may be associated with worse clinical outcomes compared to standard care.

Download Full-text

Pharmacist-guided pre-emptive pharmacogenetic testing in antidepressant therapy (PrePGx): study protocol for an open-label, randomized controlled trial

Trials ◽

10.1186/s13063-021-05724-5 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 22 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Céline K. Stäuble ◽

Markus L. Lampert ◽

Samuel Allemann ◽

Martin Hatzinger ◽

Kurt E. Hersberger ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Randomized Controlled Trial ◽

Antidepressant Treatment ◽

Controlled Trial ◽

Response Rates ◽

Control Group ◽

Open Label ◽

Randomized Controlled ◽

Link Type ◽

Increased Risk ◽

Antidepressant Pharmacotherapy

Abstract Background It is known that only 50% of patients diagnosed with major depressive disorders (MDD) respond to the first-line antidepressant treatment. Accordingly, there is a need to improve response rates to reduce healthcare costs and patient suffering. One approach to increase rates of treatment response might be the integration of pharmacogenetic (PGx) testing to stratify antidepressant drug selection. The goal of PGx assessments is to identify patients who have an increased risk to experience adverse drug reactions or non-response to specific drugs. Especially for antidepressants, there is compiling evidence on PGx influencing drug exposure as well as response. Methods This study is an open-label, randomized controlled trial conducted in two study centers in Switzerland: (1) the Psychiatric Clinic of Solothurn and (2) the Private Clinic Wyss in Münchenbuchsee. Adult inpatients diagnosed with a unipolar moderate or severe depressive episode are recruited at clinic admission and are included in the study. If the adjustment to a new antidepressant pharmacotherapy is necessary, the participants are randomized to either Arm A (intervention group) or Arm B (control group). If no new antidepressant pharmacotherapy is introduced the participants will be followed up in an observational arm. The intervention is the service of pharmacist-guided pre-emptive PGx testing to support clinical decision making on antidepressant selection and dosing. As a comparison, in the control group, the antidepressant pharmacotherapy is selected by the treating physician according to current treatment guidelines (standard of care) without the knowledge of PGx test results and support of clinical pharmacists. The primary outcome of this study compares the response rates under antidepressant treatment after 4 weeks between intervention and control arm. Discussion The findings from this clinical trial are expected to have a direct impact on inter-professional collaborations for the handling and use of PGx data in psychiatric practice. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.govNCT04507555. Registered on August 11, 2020. Swiss National Clinical Trials Portal SNCTP000004015. Registered August 18, 2020.

Download Full-text