scholarly journals Trial protocol: preoperative administration of tranexamic acid in sleeve gastrectomy (PATAS) to reduce haemorrhage rates. A randomised controlled trial

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. e034572
Author(s):  
Marjolijn Leeman ◽  
Jeannine Huisbrink ◽  
Julie M A Wijnand ◽  
L Ulas Biter ◽  
Serge J C Verbrugge ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Sleeve Gastrectomy ◽  
Tranexamic Acid ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
Induction Phase ◽  
Secondary Outcome Measure ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Postoperative Haemorrhage ◽  
Preoperative Administration ◽  
Venous Thromboembolic Events

IntroductionFast-track protocols often include short-term thromboprophylaxis and short length of hospital stay. These treatment strategies may negatively affect the occurrence and diagnosis of postoperative haemorrhage. Over the years, the rates of venous thromboembolic events (VTEs) have decreased, while there seems to be an increase in the occurrence of postoperative haemorrhage. Tranexamic acid (TXA) can potentially lower the incidence of postoperative haemorrhage. This trial aims to investigate whether preoperative administration of TXA reduces the preoperative and postoperative haemorrhage rates in laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG).Methods and analysisThis is a single centre double-blind randomised placebo-controlled trial. Patients undergoing an LSG are included after obtaining informed consent. Patients are randomised between two groups: (1) administration of placebo infusion and (2) administration of 1500 mg TXA. In both groups, the infusions will be administered during the induction phase of the procedure. Primary outcome measures are preoperative use of haemostatic clips, postoperative haemoglobin decrease and postoperative haemorrhage. Secondary outcome measure is the rates of VTE.Ethics and disseminationThe protocol version 3 was approved by the medical ethical committee Medical Research Ethics Committees United (MEC-U), Nieuwegein, on 29 July 2019. The trial results will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal and at conference presentations.Trial registration numberThe Netherlands Trial Registry (NL8029); Pre-results.

scholarly journals The Safety and Efficacy of an Enzyme Combination in Managing Knee Osteoarthritis Pain in Adults: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial

Arthritis ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 2015 ◽  
pp. 1-7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wolfgang W. Bolten ◽  
Michael J. Glade ◽  
Sonja Raum ◽  
Barry W. Ritz
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Median Number ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
Secondary Outcome Measure ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Safety And Efficacy ◽  
Double Blind Placebo ◽  
Knee Oa ◽  
Enzyme Combination

This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, and comparator-controlled trial evaluated the safety and efficacy of an enzyme combination, as Wobenzym, in adults with moderate-to-severe osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee. Adults (n=150) received Wobenzym, diclofenac (a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug, NSAID), or placebo for 12 weeks. Improvement in pain scores (Lequesne Functional Index) did not differ between subjects treated with Wobenzym or diclofenac, and both treatment groups improved compared to placebo (P<0.05). Reduction in total WOMAC scores (secondary outcome measure) did not differ between Wobenzym and diclofenac, although only diclofenac emerged as different from placebo (P<0.05). The median number of rescue medication (paracetamol) tablets consumed was less in the Wobenzym group compared to placebo (P<0.05), while there was no difference between diclofenac and placebo. Adverse events were similar in frequency in Wobenzym and placebo groups (7.2% and 9.1% of subjects, resp.) and higher in diclofenac group (15.6%). Wobenzym is comparable to the NSAID diclofenac in relieving pain and increasing function in adults with moderate-to-severe painful knee OA and reduces reliance on analgesic medication. Wobenzym is associated with fewer adverse events and, therefore, may be appropriate for long-term use.

scholarly journals Efficacy and Safety of Divaza for the Correction of Oxidative Disturbances in Patients with Cerebral Atherosclerosis: A Randomized Controlled Trial

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-11
Author(s):  
Nataliia U. Lashch ◽  
Pavel R. Kamchatnov ◽  
Tatiana N. Fedorova ◽  
Olga A. Muzychuk ◽  
Kristina K. Khacheva ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cognitive Impairment ◽  
Placebo Group ◽  
Study Design ◽  
Therapeutic Option ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Prospective Trial ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
Secondary Outcome Measure ◽  
Cerebral Atherosclerosis ◽  
Endogenous Antioxidant

<b><i>Objective:</i></b> The objective of this study was to determine if Divaza, a drug with nootropic and antioxidant effects, was safe and effective for the correction of oxidative disturbances and to stabilize cognitive impairment in patients with cerebral atherosclerosis. <b><i>Study Design:</i></b> The study design consisted of a 12-week multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, prospective trial in parallel groups. <b><i>Setting:</i></b> The setting in which the study was conducted comprised 10 clinical centers across the Russian Federation. <b><i>Interventions:</i></b> Patients were randomized into 2 groups and instructed to take either 2 tablets of the study drug or a placebo 3 times per day in conjunction with basic therapy. <b><i>Outcomes:</i></b> The primary outcome was a change in the average endogenous antioxidant potential after the completion of the study. The blood indicators of the oxidative stress (OS) were analyzed at the baseline and then after 12 weeks of therapy using iron-induced chemiluminescence analysis. The Montreal cognitive assessment test was used as a secondary outcome measure to evaluate cognitive impairment at the end of the study. <b><i>Results:</i></b> 124 outpatients with a mean age of 60.7 ± 7.6 years were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive Divaza (<i>n</i> = 65) or a placebo (<i>n</i> = 59). An improvement of cognitive function was observed in all patients of the Divaza group at the end of the treatment; this was significantly better than the placebo group (100 [100] vs. 89.5 [89.1]%, respectively, <i>p</i> = 0.0272 [<i>p</i> = 0.0128]). The administration of Divaza restored the activity of the endogenous antioxidant system. The change in the average level of lipoprotein resistance to oxidation after 12 weeks of therapy, compared to the baseline, was significantly higher in the Divaza group (14.8 ± 14.7 [14.8 ± 14.7] seconds latent period vs. 6.4 ± 16.9 [6.9 ± 16.7] seconds in the placebo group (<i>p</i> = 0.007 [<i>p</i> = 0.0107]). <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> Divaza is a safe and effective therapeutic option for attenuating OS and recovery of cognitive impairment in patients with cerebral atherosclerosis.

scholarly journals Tranexamic acid for acute intracerebral haemorrhage growth based on imaging assessment (TRAIGE): a multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled trial

2021 ◽  
pp. svn-2021-000942
Author(s):  
Jingyi Liu ◽  
Ximing Nie ◽  
Hongqiu Gu ◽  
Qi Zhou ◽  
Haixin Sun ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Placebo Group ◽  
Tranexamic Acid ◽  
Intracerebral Haemorrhage ◽  
Intracranial Haemorrhage ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Intracerebral Haematoma ◽  
Spot Sign ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Risk Of Death

BackgroundStudies show tranexamic acid can reduce the risk of death and early neurological deterioration after intracranial haemorrhage. We aimed to assess whether tranexamic acid reduces haematoma expansion and improves outcome in intracerebral haemorrhage patients susceptible to haemorrhage expansion.MethodsWe did a prospective, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial at 10 stroke centres in China. Acute supratentorial intracerebral haemorrhage patients were eligible if they had indication of haemorrhage expansion on admission imaging (eg, spot sign, black hole sign or blend sign), and were treatable within 8 hours of symptom onset. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either tranexamic acid or a matching placebo. The primary outcome was intracerebral haematoma growth (>33% relative or >6 mL absolute) at 24 hours. Clinical outcomes were assessed at 90 days.ResultsOf the 171 included patients, 124 (72.5%) were male, and the mean age was 55.9±11.6 years. 89 patients received tranexamic acid and 82 received placebo. The primary outcome did not differ significantly between the groups: 36 (40.4%) patients in the tranexamic acid group and 34 (41.5%) patients in the placebo group had intracranial haemorrhage growth (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.77, p=0.89). The proportion of death was lower in the tranexamic acid treatment group than placebo group (8.1% vs 10.0%), but there were no significant differences in secondary outcomes including absolute intracranial haemorrhage growth, death and dependency.ConclusionsAmong patients susceptible to haemorrhage expansion treated within 8 hours of stroke onset, tranexamic acid did not significantly prevent intracerebral haemorrhage growth. Larger studies are needed to assess safety and efficacy of tranexamic acid in intracerebral haemorrhage patients.

scholarly journals Methotrimeprazine versus haloperidol in palliative care patients with cancer-related nausea: a randomised, double-blind controlled trial

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (9) ◽  
pp. e029942 ◽  
Author(s):  
Janet Rea Hardy ◽  
Helen Skerman ◽  
Jennifer Philip ◽  
Phillip Good ◽  
David C Currow ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Palliative Care ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Response Rates ◽  
Complete Response ◽  
Response To Treatment ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Intention To Treat ◽  
Point Reduction

ObjectivesMethotrimeprazine is commonly used for the management of nausea but never tested formally against other drugs used in this setting. The aim was to demonstrate superior antiemetic efficacy.DesignDouble-blind, randomised, controlled trial of methotrimeprazine versus haloperidol.Setting11 palliative care sites in Australia.ParticipantsParticipants were >18 years, had cancer, an average nausea score of ≥3/10 and able to tolerate oral medications. Ineligible patients had acute nausea related to treatment, nausea for which a specific antiemetic was indicated, were about to undergo a procedure or had received either of the study drugs or a change in glucocorticoid dose within the previous 48 hours.InterventionsBased on previous studies, haloperidol was used as the control. Participants were randomised to encapsulated methotrimeprazine 6·25 mg or haloperidol 1·5 mg one time or two times per day and assessed every 24 hours for 72 hours.Main outcome measuresA ≥two-point reduction in nausea score at 72 hours from baseline. Secondary outcome measures were as follows: complete response at 72 hours (end nausea score less than 3), response at 24 and 48 hours, vomiting episodes, use of rescue antiemetics, harms and global impression of change.ResultsResponse to treatment at 72 hours was 75% (44/59) in the haloperidol (H) arm and 63% (36/57) in the methotrimeprazine (M) arm with no difference between groups (intention-to-treat analysis). Complete response rates were 56% (H) and 51% (M). In theper protocolanalysis, there was no difference in response rates: (85% (44/52) (H) and 74% (36/49) (M). Completeper protocolresponse rates were 64% (H) and 59% (M). Toxicity worse than baseline was minimal with a trend towards greater sedation in the methotrimeprazine arm.ConclusionThis study did not demonstrate any difference in response rate between methotrimeprazine and haloperidol in the control of nausea.Trial registration numberACTRN 12615000177550.

scholarly journals Association between Age, Weight, and Dose and Clinical Response to Probiotics in Children with Acute Gastroenteritis

2020 ◽  
Vol 151 (1) ◽  
pp. 65-72
Author(s):  
David Schnadower ◽  
Robert E Sapien ◽  
T Charles Casper ◽  
Cheryl Vance ◽  
Phillip I Tarr ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Acute Gastroenteritis ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Interaction Effects ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
Z Score ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Weight Percentile ◽  
Age And Sex

ABSTRACT Background Gastroenteritis is a common and impactful disease in childhood. Probiotics are often used to treat acute gastroenteritis (AGE); however, in a large multicenter randomized controlled trial (RCT) in 971 children, Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG (LGG) was no better than placebo in improving patient outcomes. Objectives We sought to determine whether the effect of LGG is associated with age, weight z score and weight percentile adjusted for age and sex, or dose per kilogram administered. Methods This was a preplanned secondary analysis of a multicenter double-blind RCT of LGG 1 × 1010 CFU twice daily for 5 d or placebo in children 3–48 mo of age with AGE. Our primary outcome was moderate to severe gastroenteritis. Secondary outcomes included diarrhea and vomiting frequency and duration, chronic diarrhea, and side effects. We used multivariable linear and nonlinear models testing for interaction effects to assess outcomes by age, weight z score and weight percentile adjusted for age and sex, and dose per kilogram of LGG received. Results A total of 813 children (84%) were included in the analysis; 413 received placebo and 400 LGG. Baseline characteristics were similar between treatment groups. There were no differential interaction effects across ranges of age (P-interaction = 0.32), adjusted weight z score (P-interaction = 0.43), adjusted weight percentile (P-interaction = 0.45), or dose per kilogram of LGG received (P-interaction = 0.28) for the primary outcome. Whereas we found a statistical association favoring placebo at the extremes of adjusted weight z scores for the number of vomiting episodes (P-interaction = 0.02) and vomiting duration (P-interaction = 0.0475), there were no statistically significant differences in other secondary outcome measures (all P-interactions &gt; 0.05). Conclusions LGG does not improve outcomes in children with AGE regardless of the age, adjusted weight z score, and adjusted weight percentile of participants, or the probiotic dose per kilogram received. These results further strengthen the conclusions of low risk of bias clinical trials which demonstrate that LGG provides no clinical benefit in children with AGE. This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT01773967.

scholarly journals Corrigendum: Nutritional Evaluation and Optimisation in Neonates (NEON) trial of amino acid regimen and intravenous lipid composition in preterm parenteral nutrition: a randomised double-blind controlled trial

2017 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 81-82
Author(s):  
Sabita Uthaya ◽  
Xinxue Liu ◽  
Daphne Babalis ◽  
Caroline Dore ◽  
Jane Warwick ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Analysis Data ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
Final Report ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Correct Treatment ◽  
Data Set ◽  
Study Results ◽  
Made In

Abstract During the uploading of data for submission to the EudraCT results database, a discrepancy was identified. It was noted that the number of deaths per group was not consistent with the number in the final report and trial publication. This discrepancy was found to relate to two randomisation numbers. During the trial, the randomisation database had been held separately from the trial database, with manual transcription of randomisation numbers from the randomisation database to the trial database. Two randomisation numbers had been entered incorrectly into the trial database and, although this was documented at the time, the correction had not been made in the analysis data set. The two infants in question received the correct treatment in accordance with their allocation, but were analysed according to the wrong treatment group. Following the identification of this error, all analyses were repeated. It was confirmed that this error had a negligible impact on the study results. Furthermore, the two infants in question had not been included in the primary and secondary outcome analyses, as one had died and the other had withdrawn prior to the primary end-point assessment, so the key study outcomes remain unchanged. The only changes to the results are in the number of serious adverse events and minor changes to the data in demographics tables mostly affecting decimal points and the CONSORT diagram. Our interpretation of the study results remains unchanged.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document