scholarly journals Early versus differed arterial catheterisation in critically ill patients with acute circulatory failure: a multicentre, open-label, pragmatic, randomised, non-inferiority controlled trial: the EVERDAC protocol

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (9) ◽  
pp. e044719
Author(s):  
Grégoire Muller ◽  
Toufik Kamel ◽  
Damien Contou ◽  
Stephan Ehrmann ◽  
Maëlle Martin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Catheter Insertion ◽  
Arterial Catheter ◽  
Haemodynamic Monitoring ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Health Economic Analysis ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Patient’S Outcome ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Invasive Intervention

IntroductionThe use of peripheral indwelling arterial catheter for haemodynamic monitoring is widespread in the intensive care unit and is recommended in patients with shock. However, there is no evidence that the arterial catheter could improve patient’s outcome, whereas the burden of morbidity generated is significant (pain, thrombosis, infections). We hypothesise that patients with shock may be managed without an arterial catheter.Methods and analysisThe EVERDAC study is an investigator-initiated, pragmatic, multicentre, randomised, controlled, open-label, non-inferiority clinical trial, comparing a less invasive intervention (ie, no arterial catheter insertion until felt absolutely needed, according to predefined safety criteria) or usual care (ie, systematic arterial catheter insertion in the early hours of shock). 1010 patients will be randomised with a 1:1 ratio in two groups according to the strategy. The primary outcome is all-cause mortality by 28 days after inclusion. A health economic analysis will be carried out.Ethics and disseminationThe study has been approved by the Ethics Committee (Comité de Protection des Personnes Île de France V, registration number 61606 CAT 2, 19 july 2018) and patients will be included after informed consent. The results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration numberNCT03680963.

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 Safety and efficacy of subcutaneous tocilizumab in systemic sclerosis: results from the open-label period of a phase II randomised controlled trial (faSScinate)

2017 ◽  
Vol 77 (2) ◽  
pp. 212-220 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dinesh Khanna ◽  
Christopher P Denton ◽  
Celia J F Lin ◽  
Jacob M van Laar ◽  
Tracy M Frech ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systemic Sclerosis ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Safety Data ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Skin Score ◽  
Open Label Extension ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Randomised Controlled

ObjectivesAssess the efficacy and safety of tocilizumab in patients with systemic sclerosis (SSc) in a phase II study.MethodsPatients with SSc were treated for 48 weeks in an open-label extension phase of the faSScinate study with weekly 162 mg subcutaneous tocilizumab. Exploratory end points included modified Rodnan Skin Score (mRSS) and per cent predicted forced vital capacity (%pFVC) through week 96.ResultsOverall, 24/44 (55%) placebo-tocilizumab and 27/43 (63%) continuous-tocilizumab patients completed week 96. Observed mean (SD (95% CI)) change from baseline in mRSS was –3.1 (6.3 (–5.4 to –0.9)) for placebo and –5.6 (9.1 (–8.9 to–2.4)) for tocilizumab at week 48 and –9.4 (5.6 (–8.9 to –2.4)) for placebo-tocilizumab and –9.1 (8.7 (–12.5 to –5.6)) for continuous-tocilizumab at week 96. Of patients who completed week 96, any decline in %pFVC was observed for 10/24 (42% (95% CI 22% to 63%)) placebo-tocilizumab and 12/26 (46% (95% CI 27% to 67%)) continuous-tocilizumab patients in the open-label period; no patients had >10% absolute decline in %pFVC. Serious infection rates/100 patient-years (95% CI) were 10.9 (3.0 to 27.9) with placebo and 34.8 (18.0 to 60.8) with tocilizumab during the double-blind period by week 48 and 19.6 (7.2 to 42.7) with placebo-tocilizumab and 0.0 (0.0 to 12.2) with continuous-tocilizumab during the open-label period.ConclusionsSkin score improvement and FVC stabilisation in the double-blind period were observed in placebo-treated patients who transitioned to tocilizumab and were maintained in the open-label period. Safety data indicated increased serious infections in patients with SSc but no new safety signals with tocilizumab.Trial registration numberNCT01532869; Results.

scholarly journals SecurAstaP trial: securement with SecurAcath versus StatLock for peripherally inserted central catheters, a randomised open trial

BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. e016058 ◽  
Author(s):  
Godelieve Alice Goossens ◽  
Niel Grumiaux ◽  
Christel Janssens ◽  
Martine Jérôme ◽  
Steffen Fieuws ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Dwell Time ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Incidence Rates ◽  
Nursing Time ◽  
User Friendliness ◽  
Primary Analysis ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Dressing Change

ObjectivesTo assess the effect on needed nursing time for dressing change.Design, setting, participantsA parallel-group, open-label, randomised controlled trial in patients who are in need for a peripherally inserted central catheter insertion in one teaching hospital in Belgium. The follow-up lasted 180 days or until catheter removal, whatever came first. A computer generated table was used to allocate devices. Randomised patients were 105 adults (StatLock, n=53; SecurAcath, n=52) and primary analysis was based on all patients (n=92) with time measurements (StatLock, n=43; SecurAcath, n=49).InterventionsStatLock which has to be changed weekly versus SecurAcath which could remain in place for the complete catheter dwell time.Main outcome measureNeeded time for the dressing change at each dressing change (SecurAcath) or at each dressing change combined with the change of the securement device (StatLock).ResultsMedian time needed for dressing change was 7.3 min (95% CI 6.4 min to 8.3 min) in the StatLock group and in the SecurAcath group 4.3 min (95% CI 3.8 min to 4.9 min) (P<0.0001). The time in the SecurAcath group was reduced with 41% (95% CI 29% to 51%). Incidence rates of migration, dislodgement and catheter-related bloodstream infection were comparable across groups. Pain scores were higher with SecurAcath than with StatLock at insertion (P=0.02) and at removal (P<0.001) and comparable during dressing change (P=0.38) and during dwell time (P=0.995). User-friendliness was scored at insertion and removal. All statements regarding the user-friendliness were scored significantly higher for StatLock than for SecurAcath (P<0.05). Only for the statement regarding the recommending routine use of the device, which was asked at removal, no difference was found between the two devices (P=0.32).ConclusionUse of SecurAcath saves time during dressing change compared with StatLock. Training on correct placement and removal of SecurAcath is critical to minimise pain.Trial registration numberNCT02311127; Pre-results.

Comparison of two dose escalation strategies of methotrexate in active rheumatoid arthritis: a multicentre, parallel group, randomised controlled trial

2021 ◽  
pp. annrheumdis-2021-220512
Author(s):  
Siddharth Jain ◽  
Varun Dhir ◽  
Amita Aggarwal ◽  
Ranjan Gupta ◽  
Bidyalaxmi Leishangthem ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Dose Escalation ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Group Differences ◽  
Drug Discontinuation ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Intention To Treat ◽  
Parallel Group ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Randomised Controlled

ObjectivesThere are no head-to-head trials of different dose escalation strategies of methotrexate (MTX) in RA. We compared the efficacy, safety and tolerability of ‘usual’ (5 mg every 4 weeks) versus ‘fast’ (5 mg every 2 weeks) escalation of oral MTX.MethodsThis multicentre, open-label (assessor blinded) RCT included patients 18-55 years of age having active RA with disease duration <5 years, and not on DMARDs. Patients were randomized 1:1 into usual or fast escalation groups, both groups starting MTX at 15 mg/week till a maximum of 25 mg/week. Primary outcome was EULAR good response at 16 weeks, secondary outcomes were ΔDAS28 and adverse effects (AE). Analyses were intention-to-treat.Results178 patients with mean DAS28-CRP of 5.4(1.1) were randomized to usual (n=89) or fast escalation groups (n=89). At 16 weeks, there was no difference in good EULAR response in the usual (28.1%) or fast escalation (22.5%) groups (p=0.8). There was no difference in mean ΔDAS28-CRP at 8 weeks (-0.9, -0.8, p=0.72) or 16 weeks (-1.3, -1.3, p=0.98). Even at 24 weeks (extended follow-up), responses were similar. There were no inter-group differences in ΔHAQ, or MTX-polyglutamates 1-3 levels at 8 or 16 weeks. Gastrointestinal AE were higher in the fast escalation group over initial 8 weeks (27%, 40%, p=0.048), but not over 16 weeks. There was no difference in cytopenias, transaminitis, or drug discontinuation/dose reduction between the groups. No serious AE were seen.ConclusionA faster MTX escalation strategy in RA was not more efficacious over 16-24 weeks, and did not significantly increase AE, except higher gastrointestinal AE initially.Trial registration numberCTRI/2018/12/016549

scholarly journals Randomised Ambulatory Management of Primary Pneumothorax (RAMPP): protocol of an open-label, randomised controlled trial

2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. e000403 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rob Hallifax ◽  
Magda Laskawiec-Szkonter ◽  
Melissa Dobson ◽  
Stephen Gerry ◽  
Robert F Miller ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Hospital Stay ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Young Patients ◽  
Chest Drain ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Health Economic Analysis ◽  
Ambulatory Treatment ◽  
South Central ◽  
Randomised Controlled

IntroductionPneumothorax is a common clinical problem. Primary spontaneous pneumothorax (PSP) occurs in otherwise fit young patients, but optimal management is not clearly defined and often results in a long hospital stay. Ambulatory treatment options are available, but the existing data on their efficacy are poor. The Randomised Ambulatory Management of Primary Pneumothorax trial is a multicentre, randomised controlled trial comparing ambulatory management with standard care, specifically designed to safely and effectively reduce hospital stay.Methods and analysis236 patients with PSP will be recruited from UK hospitals. Patients will be randomised 1:1 to treatment to either the ‘Intervention’ arm (ambulatory device; Rocket Pleural Vent) or the ‘Control’ arm (aspiration ± standard chest drain insertion). Patients will be followed up for a total of 12 months to assess recurrence rates. The primary outcome is total length of stay in hospital (including readmissions) up to 30 days postrandomisation. The secondary outcomes are pain and breathlessness scores, air leak measurement and radiological evidence (on CT scanning) of emphysema-like changes, compared with short-term and long-term outcomes, respectively, and health economic analysis.Ethics and disseminationThe trial has received ethical approval from the National Research Ethics Service Committee South-Central Oxford A (15/SC/0240).Trial registration numberISRCTN79151659

scholarly journals Shunting outcomes in communicating hydrocephalus: protocol for a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (8) ◽  
pp. e051127
Author(s):  
Tong Sun ◽  
Wenyao Cui ◽  
Jingguo Yang ◽  
Yikai Yuan ◽  
Xuepei Li ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Primary Outcome Measure ◽  
Communicating Hydrocephalus ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Shunt Insertion ◽  
Institutional Review ◽  
Evans Index ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Potential Benefits ◽  
Randomised Controlled

IntroductionVentriculoperitoneal shunt (VPS) remains the most widely used methods to treat communicating hydrocephalus. More recently, lumboperitoneal shunt (LPS) has been suggested as a reasonable option in some studies. However, there is lack of high-quality studies comparing these two techniques in order to certain the benefits and harms to use one of these two methods. The purpose of the current study is to determine the effectiveness and safety of the LPS versus the VPS in patients with communicating hydrocephalus.Methods and analysisAll eligible patients aged 18–90 years with communicating hydrocephalus will be recruited and then randomly allocated into LPS or VPS group in a ratio of 1:1. All patients will be analysed before shunt insertion, at the time of discharge, 1 month, 6 months, 12 months and 24 months postoperatively. The primary outcome measure is the rate of shunt failure at a 2-year follow-up term. The secondary outcomes include Keifer’s Hydrocephalus Scale, National Institute of Health Stroke Scale, Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended, Evans index, safety endpoints and cost-effectiveness of hospital stay.Ethics and disseminationThe study will be performed in compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki (2002) of the World Medical Association. The study was approved by Institutional Review Board of West China Hospital. All patients will be fully informed the potential benefits, potential risks and responsibilities, those who will sign the informed consents once they are included. Preliminary and final results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at national and international congresses.Trial registration numberChiCTR2100043839.

scholarly journals Furosemide versus mannitol in Japanese patients with thoracic malignancy who received cisplatin-based chemotherapy using short hydration: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (12) ◽  
pp. e029057
Author(s):  
Eriko Murakami ◽  
Hiroaki Akamatsu ◽  
Toshio Shimokawa ◽  
Kiyoko Wada ◽  
Nobuyuki Yamamoto
Keyword(s):  
Phase Ii ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Japanese Patients ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Institutional Review ◽  
Open Label Phase ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Thoracic Malignancies

IntroductionCisplatin (CDDP) is a key drug for various thoracic malignancies. To avoid renal toxicity of CDDP, mannitol is routinely used, but it sometimes causes phlebitis which damages patients’ quality of life. Furosemide is another widely used option for diuresis administered more quickly. To date, previous comparisons of these diuretics have lacked statistical significance owing to study design. We therefore undertake a randomised phase II comparative study of furosemide and mannitol in CDDP-based chemotherapy using short hydration.Methods and analysisThis is a two-arm, prospective, randomised, single-centre, open-label phase II study. The primary endpoint is set as the proportion of patients who experienced any grade of ‘creatinine increase’ using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events V.4.0, during the first cycle. Secondary endpoints are: the proportion of patients who experienced ≥grade 2 of creatinine increase during the first cycle, any grade and ≥grade 2 of creatinine increase after the completion of fourth cycle, and the proportion of patients with phlebitis. Enrolled in this trial will be 105 patients.Ethics and disseminationThis study was approved by the Wakayama Medical University Institutional Review Board on 30 March 2018 study (approval number: 2258). Patients have been enrolled since May 2018. As the study will complete accrual in March 2021, results will be published by 2021. This study will provide important information about the utility of furosemide compared with mannitol to protect against nephrotoxicity.Trial registration numberUMIN000031910.

scholarly journals Microablative fractional radiofrequency for the genitourinary syndrome of menopause: protocol of randomised controlled trial

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (7) ◽  
pp. e046372
Author(s):  
Ayane Cristine Alves Sarmento ◽  
Fabíola S Fernandes ◽  
Ana Paula Ferreira Costa ◽  
Kleyton Santos Medeiros ◽  
Janaina Cristina Crispim ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Clinical Intervention ◽  
Vaginal Mucosa ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Randomised Study ◽  
Informed Consent Form ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Vaginal Pain ◽  
Follicular Reserve ◽  
Randomised Controlled

IntroductionMenopause is a physiological and progressive phenomenon secondary to decreased ovarian follicular reserve. These changes have consequences: vaginal dryness, dyspareunia, discomfort, burning and irritation, vulvovaginal pruritus, dysuria and increased frequency of genitourinary infections. The therapy more suitable for vaginal symptoms in postmenopause yet is the use of a topical hormone. However, the prescription of topical oestrogens should also be avoided in women with a history of breast cancer, oestrogen-sensitive tumours and thromboembolism, emphasising the necessity of alternative treatments. Recently, physical methods, such as laser and radiofrequency (RF), in their non-ablative, ablative and microablative forms have been used in the vaginal mucosa to promote neocolagenesis and neoelastogenesis. This randomised study aims to compare the efficiency of microablative fractional RF (MAFRF) treatment with vaginal oestrogens and no treatment.Methods and analysesThis randomised, controlled clinical intervention trial with an open label design comparing the treatment of MAFRF with vaginal oestrogens and no treatment. Four important moments were considered to evaluate treatment results (T0, T1, T2 and T3). The primary outcome includes vulvovaginal atrophy (vaginal pain, burning, itching, dryness, dyspareunia and dysuria), and the secondary outcomes will be sexual function, vaginal health (epithelial integrity, vaginal elasticity, moisture, fluid volume and vaginal pH) and quality of life.Ethics and disseminationDue to the nature of the study, we obtained approval from the ethics committee. All participants must sign an informed consent form before randomisation. The results of this study will be published in peer-reviewed journals. The data collected will also be available in a public repository of data.Trial registration numberRBR-94DX93.

scholarly journals Evaluation of Artesunate-mefloquine as a Novel Alternative Treatment for Schistosomiasis in African Children (SchistoSAM): protocol of a proof-of-concept, open-label, two-arm, individually-randomised controlled trial

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (6) ◽  
pp. e047147
Author(s):  
Clémentine Roucher ◽  
Isabel Brosius ◽  
Moustapha Mbow ◽  
Babacar Thiendella Faye ◽  
Annelies De Hondt ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Alternative Treatment ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Reduction Rate ◽  
Response Assessment ◽  
Malaria Prevalence ◽  
Open Label ◽  
African Children ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Conventional Microscopy ◽  
Randomised Controlled

IntroductionAlternative drugs and diagnostics are needed for the treatment and control of schistosomiasis. The exclusive use of praziquantel (PZQ) in mass drug administration programmes may result in the emergence of drug resistance. PZQ has little activity against Schistosoma larvae, thus reinfection remains a problem in high-risk communities. Furthermore, the insufficient sensitivity of conventional microscopy hinders therapeutic response assessment. Evaluation of artesunate-mefloquine (AM) as a Novel Alternative Treatment for Schistosomiasis in African Children (SchistoSAM) aims to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the antimalarial combination artesunate-mefloquine, re-purposed for the treatment of schistosomiasis, and to assess the performance of highly sensitive novel antigen-based and DNA-based assays as tools for monitoring treatment response.Methods and analysisThe SchistoSAM study is an open-label, two-arm, individually randomised controlled non-inferiority trial, with a follow-up of 48 weeks. Primary school-aged children from the Richard Toll district in northern Senegal, an area endemic for Schistosoma mansoni and Schistosoma haematobium, are allocated to the AM intervention arm (3-day courses at 6-week intervals) or the PZQ control arm (single dose of 40 mg/kg). The trial’s primary endpoints are the efficacy (cure rate (CR), assessed by microscopy) and safety (frequency and pattern of drug-related adverse events) of one AM course versus PZQ at 4 weeks after treatment. Secondary endpoints include (1) cumulative CR, egg reduction rate and safety after each additional course of AM, and at weeks 24 and 48, (2) prevalence and severity of schistosomiasis-related morbidity and (3) malaria prevalence, incidence and morbidity, both after 24 and 48 weeks. CRs and intensity reduction rates are also assessed by antigen-based and DNA-based diagnostic assays, for which performance for treatment monitoring is evaluated.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval was obtained both in Belgium and Senegal. Oral assent from the children and signed informed consent from their legal representatives was obtained, prior to enrolment. The results will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals and at international conferences.Trial registration numberNCT03893097; pre-results.

scholarly journals Haemostasis treatment using dual red imaging during endoscopic submucosal dissection: a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial

2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. e000275 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ai Fujimoto ◽  
Yutaka Saito ◽  
Seiirhicro Abe ◽  
Shu Hoteya ◽  
Kosuke Nomura ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Operation Time ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Submucosal Dissection ◽  
Parallel Group ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Mucosal Incision ◽  
Colorectal Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection ◽  
Randomised Controlled

IntroductionPatients scheduled to undergo oesophageal, gastric and colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) are to be investigated to verify the efficacy of dual red imaging (DRI) for establishing haemostasis during ESD.Methods and analysisThe trial is designed as a multicentre, open-label randomised, parallel-group, controlled intervention study. Registered patients will be randomly assigned to DRI and white light imaging (WLI) groups. In the DRI group, the mucosal incision and submucosal dissection will be performed by WLI, and haemostasis will be managed by DRI when bleeding occurs. In the WLI group, the mucosal incision and submucosal dissection are to be performed by WLI and the haemostasis management is to be performed by WLI. The primary endpoint is the time from the recognition of bleeding up to the achievement of complete haemostasis (haemostasis time). The secondary endpoints are the operation time, the proportion of cases in which perforation occurs, and the psychological stress experienced by the endoscopist during haemostasis treatment.Ethics and disseminationThis trial was approved by the Keio University Review Board for Clinical Trials (5 December 2016).DiscussionThis will be the first multicentre collaborative research using DRI for haemostasis treatment during ESD. When the safety and simplicity of DRI as a treatment for haemostasis during ESD can be proven, the ESD procedure can be simplified and disseminated more widely in clinical practice.Trial registration numberUMIN000025134

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document