Efficacy and tolerability of urate-lowering drugs in gout: a randomised controlled trial of benzbromarone versus probenecid after failure of allopurinol

2008 ◽  
Vol 68 (1) ◽  
pp. 51-56 ◽  
Author(s):  
M K Reinders ◽  
E N van Roon ◽  
T L Th A Jansen ◽  
J Delsing ◽  
E N Griep ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Serum Urate ◽  
Tolerability Profile ◽  
Open Label ◽  
First Choice ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Stage 1 ◽  
Poor Efficacy

Objectives:To investigate the efficacy and tolerability of allopurinol as the first-choice antihyperuricaemic treatment for gout, and compare the efficacy and tolerability of benzbromarone and probenecid as second-choice treatment.Methods:Prospective, multicentre, open-label, two-stage randomised controlled trial in gout patients with normal renal function. Enrolled patients were given 300 mg allopurinol for 2 months (stage 1). Those patients who could not tolerate allopurinol or who did not attain the target serum urate concentration (sUr) ⩽0.30 mmol/l (5.0 mg/dl), which was defined as successful, were randomised to benzbromarone 200 mg/day or probenecid 2 g/day for another 2 months (stage 2).Results:96 patients were enrolled in stage 1. 82 patients (85%) were eligible for the analysis at the end of stage 1: there was a mean (SD) decrease in sUr concentration of 35 (11)% from baseline; 20 patients (24%) attained target sUr ⩽0.30 mmol/l; and 9 patients (11%) stopped allopurinol because of adverse drug reactions.62 patients were enrolled in stage 2. 27 patients received benzbromarone (3 patients not eligible for analysis) and 35 received probenecid (4 patients not eligible for analysis). Treatment with benzbromarone was successful in 22/24 patients (92%) and with probenecid in 20/31 patients (65%) (p = 0.03 compared with benzbromarone). Compared with baseline values, there was a mean (SD) decrease of sUr concentration of 64 (9)% with benzbromarone and 50 (7)% with probenecid (p<0.001).Conclusion:This study showed that allopurinol 300 mg/day has a poor efficacy and tolerability profile when used to attain a biochemical predefined target level of sUr ⩽0.30 mmol/l, following 2 months of treatment. In stage 2, benzbromarone 200 mg/day was more effective and better tolerated than probenecid 2 g/day.Trial registration number:ISRCTN21473387.

scholarly journals Open-label placebo for insomnia (OPIN): study protocol for a cohort multiple randomised controlled trial

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. e044045
Author(s):  
Ben Colagiuri ◽  
Louise Sharpe ◽  
Zahava Ambarchi ◽  
Nick Glozier ◽  
Delwyn Bartlett ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Treatment Period ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Severity Index ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Human Research Ethics ◽  
Sleep Parameters ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Insomnia Symptoms

IntroductionInsomnia is a prevalent sleep disorder that causes substantial personal and societal harm. There is evidence that placebo interventions can reduce insomnia symptoms, but this research has involved deceptively administering the placebo under the guise of a real medication (conventional placebo, CP), which has obvious ethical constraints. Open-label placebo (OLP) treatment, in which a placebo is administered with full disclosure that there are no active ingredients, has been proposed as a method of using the placebo effect ethically, but the efficacy and acceptability of OLP for insomnia is currently unknown.Methods and analysisThis study uses a cohort multiple randomised controlled trial design to compare OLP, CP and no treatment for insomnia. Two-hundred and sixty-seven participants with self-reported insomnia symptoms (Insomnia Severity Index, ISI ≥10) will be recruited into an observational study and have their sleep monitored over a 2-week period. Participants will then be randomised to one of three groups: invite to OLP, invite to CP described deceptively as a new pharmacological agent, or no invite/observational control. Those in OLP and CP accepting the invite receive identical placebos for a 2-week treatment period while sleep is monitored in all participants. The primary outcome is ISI at the end of the treatment period. Secondary outcomes include treatment uptake and clinically significant response rates, objective and subjective sleep parameters, fatigue, mood, expectancy, treatment satisfaction and side effects. Predictors of uptake and responses to OLP and CP will be explored.Ethics and disseminationThe trial has been approved by The University of Sydney Human Research Ethics Committee. Written informed consent is obtained from every participant. OLP and CP participants accepting the invite undergo an additional consent process. Results will be disseminated via peer-reviewed conference proceedings and publications.Trial registration numberACTRN12620001080910.

scholarly journals Lay perspectives of the open-label placebo rationale: a qualitative study of participants in an experimental trial

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (8) ◽  
pp. e053346
Author(s):  
Cosima Locher ◽  
Sarah Buergler ◽  
Antje Frey Nascimento ◽  
Linda Kost ◽  
Charlotte Blease ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Qualitative Study ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Link Type ◽  
Semistructured Interviews ◽  
Lay Perspectives ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Randomised Controlled

ObjectivesTo analyse participants’ concepts about the open-label placebo (OLP) effect; to explore their views about the discussion points that are applied in conventional OLP trials and to examine their experiences of taking part in an OLP trial.DesignA qualitative study using thematic analysis of semistructured interviews that were nested within a randomised controlled trial investigating experimental OLP analgesia (registered at ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02578420).Participants30 healthy adults who took part in the randomised controlled trial.ResultsParticipants mostly conceptualised placebo as something that is inert and requires deception in order to be effective. Interviewees used a broad definition of placebos, going beyond a conventional notion of sugar pills. In contrast to the conventional OLP rationale, participants seldom emphasised classical conditioning as a mechanism of placebo effects, stressing a variety of other well-established components through which placebos might be therapeutic, whereas the conventional OLP disclosures state that ‘a positive attitude helps but is not necessary’, participants in our study applied other attitudes, such as ‘it’s worth a try’. When asked about their experiences during the trial, the majority emphasised that the concept of OLP was completely novel to them. Participants were rather sceptical about the efficacy of the intervention.ConclusionIntegrating lay perspectives into the scientific rationale of OLP treatments might enhance the plausibility and credibility of the rationale in ethical treatments.Trial registration numberNCT02578420.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document