ADJUVITE: a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial of adalimumab in early onset, chronic, juvenile idiopathic arthritis-associated anterior uveitis

2017 ◽  
Vol 77 (7) ◽  
pp. 1003-1011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pierre Quartier ◽  
Amandine Baptiste ◽  
Véronique Despert ◽  
Emma Allain-Launay ◽  
Isabelle Koné-Paut ◽  
...  

ObjectivesTo assess the efficacy and safety of adalimumab on uveitis in patients with early onset, chronic, juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA)-associated or idiopathic anterior uveitis and an inadequate response to topical steroids and methotrexate (MTX).MethodsPatients aged 4 years or more with ocular inflammation quantified by laser flare photometry (LFP) ≥30 photon units/ms were double-blindly randomised (1:1) to 2 groups, one treated with placebo and one with adalimumab subcutaneously at a dose of 24 mg/m2 in patients aged <13 years, 40 mg in the others, every other week. The primary outcome was response at month 2 (M2) defined as a 30% reduction of inflammation on LFP in the assessable eye with more severe baseline inflammation and no worsening on slit lamp examination. From M2 to M12, all patients received adalimumab.ResultsAt M2, among 31 patients included in intention-to-treat analysis, there were 9/16 responders on adalimumab and 3/15 on placebo (P=0.038, Χ2 test; relative risk=2.81, 95% CI 0.94 to 8.45; risk difference: 36.3%, 95% CI 2.1 to 60.6); there was no significant difference using the Standardised Uveitis Nomenclature classification criteria of improvement. Thirty patients continued the trial after M2 and received adalimumab (open-label phase), 29 reached M12. There were seven serious adverse events none related to study treatment.ConclusionsThis trial is in favour of using adalimumab in patients with early onset, chronic anterior uveitis, which is in most cases associated with JIA, in case of inadequate response to topical therapy and MTX. LFP could be a valuable tool to assess early treatment efficacy.Trial registration numberNCT01385826.

Rheumatology ◽  
2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Debashish Mishra ◽  
Varun Dhir ◽  
G S R S N K Naidu ◽  
Aastha Khullar ◽  
Vishal Kumar ◽  
...  

Abstract Objectives To evaluate the efficacy and safety of a step-down regimen of oral prednisolone over 24 weeks in patients of axial SpA (axSpA). Methods This proof-of-concept double-blind randomized controlled trial enrolled patients with active axSpA (BASDAI ≥4) having predominantly axial disease (≤1 active joint currently) and inadequate response to NSAIDs. They were randomized to receive either oral prednisolone (n = 32) or placebo (n = 33) at a dose of 60, 40, 30, 20, 15 and 10 mg daily for 1 week each, following which they received 5 mg prednisolone (or placebo) daily for 18 weeks. The primary endpoint was a 50% improvement in the BASDAI (BASDAI50) at week 24. Analysis was intention to treat. Results A BASDAI50 was achieved by 12 of 32 patients (37.5%) in the prednisolone arm and 3 of 33 patients (9.1%) in the placebo arm at 24 weeks [difference 28.4% (95% CI 7.9, 46.7)]. However, there was no difference in achieving a 20 or 40% improvement in the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society response between the groups. Although there was a significant intergroup difference in adjusted ΔBASDAI and ΔAnkylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score with CRP at 24 weeks, there was no difference at 12 weeks. There was also no significant difference in ΔBASFI, ΔBAS-G or ΔBASMI at 12 or 24 weeks. No serious adverse events were noted. There was significant weight gain in the first 12 weeks in the prednisolone group vs placebo [0.9 (s.d. 0.4) kg], but not at 24 weeks. Conclusions In this small study, oral prednisolone was efficacious in axSpA in achieving the primary outcome, but many crucial secondary outcomes such as functional improvement were not met. Its impact on bone loss was not studied. Trial registration: CTRI/2018/01/011342.


2020 ◽  
pp. 2003338
Author(s):  
Christine R. Jenkins ◽  
Fu-Qiang Wen ◽  
Allison Martin ◽  
Peter J. Barnes ◽  
Bartolome Celli ◽  
...  

BackgroundThe highest burden of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) occurs in low and middle income countries. Low cost oral medications, if effective, could enable affordable, accessible COPD treatment.MethodsIn this randomised, 3 arm, double-blind, double dummy, placebo controlled study conducted in 37 centres in China, symptomatic patients with moderate/very severe COPD were randomised 1:1:1 to low dose (LD) theophylline 100 mg bd+prednisone 5 mg once daily; LD theophylline 100 mg bd+placebo once daily; or placebo bd+placebo once daily for 48 weeks. The primary endpoint was annualised exacerbation rate.Findings1670 subjects were randomised, and 1242 completed the study (1142 with acceptable Week 48 data). Subjects (75.7% male) were mean age 64.4 years, with mean (sd) baseline post-bronchodilator Forced Expiratory Volume in 1 s (FEV1) 1.1 (0.4)L, 42.2% predicted and mean (sd) St Georges Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) score 45.8 (20.1). There were negligible differences between annualised exacerbation rates across the three treatments, being 0.89 (95%CI=0.78–1.02) on Prednisone-LD Theophylline; 0.86 (0.75–0.99) on LD Theophylline plus placebo, and 1.00 (0.87–1.14) on double placebo. The Rate Ratio between the first and the pooled comparative arms was 0.96 (0.83–1.12), and for LD Theophylline+placebo versus placebo was 0.866, 95% CI 0.728; 1.029, p=0.101 and for LD Theophylline+Low dose oral Prednisone versus placebo was 0.895, 95% CI 0.755; 1.061, p=0.201. Secondary outcomes of hospitalisations, FEV1, SGRQ and COPD Assessment Test (CAT) score showed no statistically significant difference between treatment arms. Serious adverse events (SAEs) other than exacerbations were <2% and did not differ between the treatment arms.ConclusionsLD theophylline alone or in combination with prednisone did not reduce exacerbation rates or clinically important secondary endpoints compared to placebo.


F1000Research ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
pp. 150 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michelle J Nichols ◽  
Johanna M Hartlein ◽  
Meredith GA Eicken ◽  
Brad A Racette ◽  
Kevin J Black

Background: Psychosis is a common and debilitating side effect of long-term dopaminergic treatment of Parkinson disease (PD). While clozapine is an effective treatment, the need for blood monitoring has limited its first-line use. Objective: Since olanzapine shows similar receptor affinity to clozapine, we hypothesized that it might be an effective alternative to clozapine for treatment of drug-induced psychosis (DIP) in PD, and that lower doses than usual might make it tolerable.Methods: In 1998-2003 we conducted a four-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel group, fixed-dose trial of olanzapine (0, 2.5mg, or 5mg) in 23 PD patients with DIP while allowing for clinically realistic dose adjustments of dopaminomimetic mid-study. The primary outcome measures were Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) ratings scored from videotaped interviews after study termination by an observer blinded to dose assignment and to interview timing, and CGI (Clinical Global Impression). The Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale motor subscale (UPDRS) was the primary measure of tolerability.Results: Intention-to-treat analysis found no significant differences among treatment groups in study completion or serious adverse events. However, a disproportionate number of olanzapine vs. placebo subjects reported mild side effects (p<0.04), many citing motor worsening. Fourteen patients completed the study (seven on placebo, two on 2.5mg olanzapine, five on 5mg olanzapine). In study completers, analysis by repeated measures ANOVA revealed no significant difference between olanzapine and placebo groups in BPRS psychosis reduction (p=0.536), parkinsonism (p=0.608), or any other measured parameters (CGI, MMSE, Beck Depression Inventory, Hamilton Depression score, PDQ‑39, Schwab-England ADL assessment, and sleep scores).Conclusion: This study adds to other evidence that olanzapine is ineffective in treating medication-induced psychosis in Parkinson disease.


BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (5) ◽  
pp. e045559
Author(s):  
Xuelei Zhang ◽  
Anxin Wang ◽  
Jing Yu Zhang ◽  
Baixue Jia ◽  
Xiaochuan Huo ◽  
...  

IntroductionAs a neuroprotective medication, butylphthalide (NBP) may help protect against cerebral ischaemic injury. However, evidence on whether NBP influences the outcomes of patients who had acute ischaemic stroke who are receiving revascularisation treatment is limited. This study aims to evaluate whether additional NBP therapy can improve the functional outcome of patients who receive intravenous recombinant tissue plasminogen activator and/or endovascular treatment (EVT).Methods and analysisThe study will be a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multiple-centre, parallel group trial. The sample size is estimated at 1200 patients. Eligible patients will be randomised at a 1:1 ratio to receive either NBP or placebo daily for 90 days, which will include 14 days of injections and 76 days of capsules. The first use of NBP/placebo will be started within 6 hours of onset of ischaemic stroke. The primary outcome is the functional outcome as assessed by the 90-day modified Rankin Scale, adjusted for baseline scores on the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale. The primary safety outcome is the percentage of serious adverse events during the 90 days of treatment. This trial will determine whether NBP medication benefits patients who had acute ischaemic stroke who receive intravenous thrombolysis or EVT.Ethics and disseminationThe protocol was written according to the general ethical guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Institutional Review Board/Ethics Committee of Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University with approval number KY 2018-003-02. Ethics committees of all participating sites have approved the study . Results of the study will be published in peer-reviewed scientific journals and shared in scientific presentations.Trial registration numberNCT03539445.


Pharmaceutics ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 567
Author(s):  
Ivona Tomić ◽  
Sandra Miočić ◽  
Ivan Pepić ◽  
Dubravka Šimić ◽  
Jelena Filipović-Grčić

Acne vulgaris is a common, multifactorial, inflammatory skin disease affecting the pilosebaceous unit. Topical therapy is the first choice in the treatment of mild to moderate acne, and azelaic acid (AZA) is one of the most commonly used drugs. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a low-dose azelaic acid nanocrystal (AZA-NC) hydrogel in the treatment of mild to moderate facial acne. The study was designed as a double-blind, randomized controlled trial. Patients were randomized to treatment with AZA-NC hydrogel, 10%, or AZA cream, 20%, administered in quantities of approximately 1 g twice daily for 8 weeks. Efficacy of therapy was measured by the number of lesions and safety by the frequency and severity of adverse events. At week 8, the success rate of treatment with AZA-NC hydrogel, 10%, was 36.51% (p < 0.001) versus 30.37% (p < 0.001) with AZA cream. At week 8, treatment with AZA-NC hydrogel, 10%, resulted in a significant reduction in total inflammatory lesions from baseline of 39.15% (p < 0.001) versus 33.76% (p < 0.001) with AZA cream, and a reduction in non-inflammatory lesions from baseline of 34.58% (p < 0.001) versus 27.96% (p < 0.001) with AZA cream, respectively. The adverse event rate was low and mostly mild.


Nutrients ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (7) ◽  
pp. 2238
Author(s):  
Xiaomei Zhang ◽  
Shanbin Chen ◽  
Ming Zhang ◽  
Fazheng Ren ◽  
Yimei Ren ◽  
...  

Probiotics have been shown to benefit patients with constipation and depression, but whether they specifically alleviate constipation in patients with depression remains unclear. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of Lacticaseibacillus paracasei strain Shirota (LcS), formerly Lactobacillus casei strain Shirota, on constipation in patients with depression with specific etiology and gut microbiota and on depressive regimens. Eighty-two patients with constipation were recruited. The subjects consumed 100 mL of a LcS beverage (108 CFU/mL) or placebo every day for 9 weeks. After ingesting beverages for this period, we observed no significant differences in the total patient constipation-symptom (PAC-SYM) scores in the LcS group when compared with the placebo group. However, symptoms/scores in item 7 (rectal tearing or bleeding after a bowel movement) and items 8–12 (stool symptom subscale) were more alleviated in the LcS group than in the placebo group. The Beck Depression Index (BDI) and Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD) scores were all significantly decreased, and the degree of depression was significantly improved in both the placebo and LcS groups (p < 0.05), but there was no significant difference between the groups. The LcS intervention increased the beneficial Adlercreutzia, Megasphaera and Veillonella levels and decreased the bacterial levels related to mental illness, such as Rikenellaceae_RC9_gut_group, Sutterella and Oscillibacter. Additionally, the interleukin (IL)-1β, IL-6, and tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) levels were significantly decreased in both the placebo and LcS groups (p < 0.05). In particular, the IL-6 levels were significantly lower in the LcS group than the placebo group after the ingestion period (p < 0.05). In conclusion, the daily consumption of LcS for 9 weeks appeared to relieve constipation and improve the potentially depressive symptoms in patients with depression and significantly decrease the IL-6 levels. In addition, the LcS supplementation also appeared to regulate the intestinal microbiota related to mental illness.


1988 ◽  
Vol 102 (1) ◽  
pp. 39-42 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Kristensen ◽  
K. Tveteraas ◽  
P. Hein ◽  
H. B. Poulsen ◽  
K. E. Outzen

AbstractThe pain-relieving efficacy of naproxen and acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) in tonsillectomized patients was compared in a double blind parallel clinical trial comprising 83 patients, among whom 42 were treated with naproxen and 41 with ASA. The patients were treated post-operatively for two days with either naproxen suppositories 500 mg. twice, or ASA effervescent tablets 1000 mg. three times, daily.The therapeutic gain was evaluated by recording the intensity of pain, reduced ability to open the mouth (trismus), consumption of supplementary analgesic (parcetamol), and pain-related sleep disturbances.The statistical analysis of the results revealed no differences in pain intensity, consumption of additional analgesics or pain-related sleep disturbances in the two treatment groups. A considerable degree of trismus was demonstrated in most of the tonsillectomized patients. This reduced ability to open the mouth was gradually overcome in the naproxen group while it remained unchanged in the ASA group, however, no statistical significant difference could be demonstrated. Additionally, no significant positive correlation between pain intensity and trismus was proven. The pain-relieving effect, however, was unsatisfactory in both the naproxen and the ASA group, and clinical controlled trial studies of alternative analgetics in tonsillectomized patients are still to be encouraged.


2020 ◽  
Vol 79 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 35-36 ◽  
Author(s):  
X. Baraliakos ◽  
L. Gossec ◽  
E. Pournara ◽  
S. Jeka ◽  
R. Blanco ◽  
...  

Background:Although axial disease may affect up to 70% of patients (pts) with Psoriatic Arthritis (PsA), evidence on the efficacy of biologics in the treatment of axial manifestations in such pts is limited,1particularly as validated classification criteria for this subtype of PsA are not yet available. MAXIMISE (NCT02721966) is the first randomised controlled trial evaluating the efficacy of a biologic in the management of the axial manifestations of PsA and showed that secukinumab (SEC) 300 and 150 mg provided rapid and significant improvement in ASAS20 responses in these pts through week (Wk) 12.2Objectives:To present 52 wks efficacy results and imaging data from the MAXIMISE trial.Methods:This phase 3b, double-blind, placebo (PBO)-controlled, multicentre 52-wk trial included 498 pts (aged ≥18 years) with a diagnosis of PsA and classified by CASPAR criteria, spinal pain VAS score ≥ 40/100 and BASDAI score ≥ 4 despite use of at least two NSAIDs. Pts were randomised to SEC 300 mg (N=167) or SEC 150 mg (N=165) or PBO (N=166) wkly for 4 wks and every 4 wks thereafter. At Wk 12, PBO pts were re-randomised to SEC 300/150 mg. The primary endpoint was ASAS20 response with SEC 300 mg at Wk 12. The key secondary endpoint was ASAS20 response with SEC 150 mg at Wk 12. Wk 52 data are presented as observed. Bone marrow oedema of the entire spine and sacroiliac joints were assessed centrally with Berlin MRI scores at Baseline, Wk 12 and Wk 52.Results:Primary and key secondary endpoints were met; ASAS20 responses were sustained and increased further through Wk 52. 75%/79.7% of the PBO pts re-randomised at Wk 12 to SEC 300/150 mg achieved ASAS20 response at Wk 52 (Figure 1). ASAS40 responses at Wk 52 were 69.1% [SEC 300 mg], 64.5% [SEC 150 mg], 62.5% [PBO-SEC 300 mg], and 54.1% [PBO-SEC 150 mg]. At baseline, 59.5% [SEC 300 mg], 53.5% [SEC 150 mg] and 64.2% [PBO] of the pts had positive MRIs for the sacroiliac joints and/or the spine with Berlin MRI score ≥1. The reductions of Berlin MRI score for entire spine and sacroiliac joints were statistically significant for pts treated with SEC 300/150 mg vs. placebo (Figure 2a and b). There were no new or unexpected safety findings.Figure 1.ASAS20 Response over 52 Wks*Figure 2.Total Berlin MRI score for the Entire Spine and Sacroiliac Joints at Wk 12Conclusion:Secukinumab improved all evaluated ASAS responses through Wk 52 in PsA pts with axial manifestations and inadequate responses to NSAIDs and led to significant reduction of inflammatory MRI lesions in the spine and the Sacroiliac Joints. The safety profile of secukinumab through Wk 52 was consistent with previous reports.3-4References:[1]McInnes IB, et al.Lancet.2015;386(9999):1137–46.[2]Baraliakos X, et al.Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019;71 (suppl 10).[3]Langley RG, et al.N Engl J Med.2014;371:326–38.[4]Sieper J, et al.Ann Rheum Dis.2016;0:1–8.Acknowledgments:The study was sponsored by Novartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland.Disclosure of Interests:Xenofon Baraliakos Grant/research support from: Grant/research support from: AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Chugai, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB and Werfen, Consultant of: AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Chugai, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB and Werfen, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Chugai, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB and Werfen, Laure Gossec Grant/research support from: Lilly, Mylan, Pfizer, Sandoz, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, Sanofi-Aventis, UCB, Effie Pournara Shareholder of: Novartis, Employee of: Novartis, Sławomir Jeka Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Pfizer, Roche, Novartis, MSD, Sandoz, Eli Lilly, Egis, UCB, Celgene, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Pfizer, Roche, Novartis, MSD, Sandoz, Eli Lilly, Egis, UCB, Celgene, Ricardo Blanco Grant/research support from: AbbVie, MSD, Roche, Consultant of: Abbvie, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, Bristol-Myers, Janssen, UCB Pharma and MSD, Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, Bristol-Myers, Janssen, UCB Pharma. MSD, Salvatore D’Angelo Consultant of: AbbVie, Biogen, BMS, Celgene, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, and UCB, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sanofi, Georg Schett Speakers bureau: AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Roche and UCB, Barbara Schulz Employee of: Novartis, Michael Rissler Shareholder of: Novartis, Employee of: Novartis, Kriti Nagar Employee of: Novartis, Chiara Perella Shareholder of: Novartis, Employee of: Novartis, Laura C Coates: None declared


Cephalalgia ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 033310242110474
Author(s):  
Debashish Chowdhury ◽  
Luv Bansal ◽  
Ashish Duggal ◽  
Debabrata Datta ◽  
Ankit Mundra ◽  
...  

Objective The aim of the TOP-PRO-study, a double-blind randomized controlled trial, was to assess the efficacy (non-inferiority) and tolerability of propranolol compared to topiramate for the prevention of chronic migraine. Background Except for topiramate, oral preventive treatment for chronic migraine lacks credible evidence. Methods Chronic migraine patients aged above 18 years and less than 65 years of age, not on any preventive treatment were randomly allocated to receive topiramate (100 mg/day) or propranolol (160 mg/day). The primary efficacy outcome was the mean change in migraine days per 28 days at the end of 24 weeks from baseline. A mean difference of 1.5 days per four weeks was chosen as the cut-off delta value. Multiple secondary efficacy outcomes and treatment emergent adverse events were also assessed. Results As against the planned sample size of 244, only 175 patients could be enrolled before the spread of the corona virus disease-2019 pandemic and enforcement of lockdown in India. Of the 175 randomized patients, 95 (topiramate 46 and propranolol 49) completed the trial. The mean change in migraine days was −5.3 ± 1.2 vs −7.3 ± 1.1 days (p = 0.226) for topiramate and propranolol groups respectively. Propranolol was found to be non-inferior and not superior to topiramate (point estimate of −1.99 with a 95% confidence interval of −5.23 to 1.25 days). Multiple secondary outcomes also did not differ between the two groups. Intention to treat analysis of 175 patients and per-protocol analysis of 95 patients yielded concordant results. There was no significant difference in the incidence of adverse events between the two groups. Conclusion Propranolol (160mg/day) was non-inferior, non-superior to topiramate (100mg/day) for the preventive treatment of chronic migraine and had a comparable tolerability profile. Trial Registration: Clinical Trials Registry-India CTRI/2019/05/018997)


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document