scholarly journals Nasal fentanyl alone plus buccal midazolam: an open-label, randomised, controlled feasibility study in the dying

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 300-303
Author(s):  
Paul Perkins ◽  
Anne Parkinson ◽  
Ralph Kwame Akyea ◽  
Emma Husbands
Keyword(s):  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Symptom Control ◽  
Drop Out ◽  
Terminal Phase ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Study Planning ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Dying At Home ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
At Home

IntroductionMany patients want to stay at home to die. They invariably become unable to take oral medication during their terminal phase. Symptoms are usually controlled by subcutaneous medications. There have been no studies on nasal fentanyl (NF) or buccal midazolam (BM) to control symptoms in the dying.ObjectiveTo establish how best to conduct a definitive, randomised controlled trial (RCT) to determine whether NF and BM administered by families, for patients dying at home, lead to faster and better symptom control and fewer community nursing visits than standard breakthrough medication by healthcare professionals.MethodsThis open-label mixed-method feasibility RCT compared the efficacy of NF and BM by family members to standard breakthrough medication by nurses for the terminally ill in a specialist palliative care unit. Partway through the study, a third observational arm was introduced where BM alone was used. The primary outcomes were whether recruitment and randomisation were possible, assessment of withdrawal and drop-out, and whether the methods were acceptable and appropriate.ResultsAdministration of NF and BM was acceptable to patients and families. Both were well tolerated. We were unable to obtain quality of life data consistently but did get time period data for dose-controlled symptoms.ConclusionsStudy participation in a hospice population of the dying was acceptable. The results will help guide future community study planning.Trial registration numberNCT02009306.

scholarly journals Nasal fentanyl and buccal midazolam carer administration ‘as needed’ for breakthrough symptom control in a specialist palliative care unit: a nested qualitative study

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 440-443
Author(s):  
Paul Perkins ◽  
Anne Parkinson ◽  
Vanessa Taylor ◽  
Emma Husbands
Keyword(s):  
Healthcare Professionals ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Symptom Relief ◽  
Symptom Control ◽  
Drug Efficacy ◽  
Ease Of Use ◽  
Symptom Intensity ◽  
Dying At Home ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
At Home

IntroductionWhen people are dying and unable to take oral medication, injectable medication is commonly used, usually administered by healthcare professionals. There may be delays to symptom relief due to travel to the person’s home. In a randomised controlled trial (RCT) previously reported, nasal fentanyl (NF) or buccal midazolam (BM) were administered by lay carers in a hospice.Objective(1) To report experiences of lay carers who administered NF and BM for symptom control and (2) To use feedback to develop guidance informing a future definitive RCT to determine whether NF and BM administered by lay carers can lead to timely, improved symptom control for people dying at home and fewer ‘emergency’ community nursing visits than standard breakthrough medication administered by healthcare professionals.Material and methodsSemistructured interviews with lay carers who gave trial medication were conducted. Interview data were analysed using a stage by stage method to code and categorise transcripts.FindingsThe six themes were: (1) Participation—lay carers welcomed the opportunity to administer medication; (2) Ease of use—lay carers found preparations easy to use; (3) How things could have been done differently—lay carers would have liked access to trial drugs at home; (4) Training—lay carers were happy with the training they received; (5) Timing—lay carers liked the immediacy of trial drugs and (6) Evaluation—assessing symptom intensity and drug efficacy.ConclusionsParticipation was acceptable to patients and lay carers, and beneficial for symptom relief. The findings will inform planning for a future community-based study.

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 Supervised pulmonary tele-rehabilitation versus pulmonary rehabilitation in severe COPD: a randomised multicentre trial

Thorax ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 75 (5) ◽  
pp. 413-421 ◽  
Author(s):  
Henrik Hansen ◽  
Theresa Bieler ◽  
Nina Beyer ◽  
Thomas Kallemose ◽  
Jon Torgny Wilcke ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pulmonary Rehabilitation ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Drop Out ◽  
Group Differences ◽  
Primary Analysis ◽  
Intention To Treat ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Randomised Controlled

RationalePulmonary rehabilitation (PR) is an effective, key standard treatment for people with COPD. Nevertheless, low participant uptake, insufficient attendance and high drop-out rates are reported. Investigation is warranted of the benefits achieved through alternative approaches, such as pulmonary tele-rehabilitation (PTR).ObjectiveTo investigate whether PTR is superior to conventional PR on 6 min walk distance (6MWD) and secondarily on respiratory symptoms, quality of life, physical activity and lower limb muscle function in patients with COPD and FEV1 <50% eligible for routine hospital-based, outpatient PR.MethodsIn this single-blinded, multicentre, superiority randomised controlled trial, patients were assigned 1:1 to 10 weeks of groups-based PTR (60 min, three times weekly) or conventional PR (90 min, two times weekly). Assessments were performed by blinded assessors at baseline, end of intervention and at 22 weeks’ follow-up from baseline. The primary analysis was based on the intention-to-treat principle.Measurements and main resultsThe primary outcome was change in 6MWD from baseline to 10 weeks; 134 participants (74 females, mean±SD age 68±9 years, FEV1 33%±9% predicted, 6MWD 327±103 metres) were included and randomised. The analysis showed no between-group differences for changes in 6MWD after intervention (9.2 metres (95% CI: −6.6 to 24.9)) or at 22 weeks’ follow-up (−5.3 metres (95% CI: −28.9 to 18.3)). More participants completed the PTR intervention (n=57) than conventional PR (n=43) (χ2 test p<0.01).ConclusionPTR was not superior to conventional PR on the 6MWD and we found no differences between groups. As more participants completed PTR, supervised PTR would be relevant to compare with conventional PR in a non-inferiority design.Trial registration numberClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02667171), 28 January 2016.

scholarly journals A Study to Inform the Design of a National Multicentre Randomised Controlled Trial to Evaluate If Reducing Serum Phosphate to Normal Levels Improves Clinical Outcomes including Mortality, Cardiovascular Events, Bone Pain, or Fracture in Patients on Dialysis

2015 ◽  
Vol 2015 ◽  
pp. 1-12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ramya Bhargava ◽  
Philip A. Kalra ◽  
Paul Brenchley ◽  
Helen Hurst ◽  
Alastair Hutchison
Keyword(s):  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Cardiovascular Events ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Drop Out ◽  
Phosphate Binders ◽  
Dialysis Patients ◽  
Definitive Trial ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Background. Retrospective, observational studies link high phosphate with mortality in dialysis patients. This generates research hypotheses but does not establish “cause-and-effect.” A large randomised controlled trial (RCT) of about 3000 patients randomised 50 : 50 to lower or higher phosphate ranges is required to answer the key question: does reducing phosphate levels improve clinical outcomes? Whether such a trial is technically possible is unknown; therefore, a study is necessary to inform the design and conduct of a future, definitive trial.Methodology. Dual centre prospective parallel group study: 100 dialysis patients randomized to lower (phosphate target 0.8 to 1.4 mmol/L) or higher range group (1.8 to 2.4 mmol/L). Non-calcium-containing phosphate binders and questionnaires will be used to achieve target phosphate. Primary endpoint: percentage successfully titrated to required range and percentage maintained in these groups over the maintenance period. Secondary endpoints: consent rate, drop-out rates, and cardiovascular events.Discussion. This study will inform design of a large definitive trial of the effect of phosphate on mortality and cardiovascular events in dialysis patients. If phosphate lowering improves outcomes, we would be reassured of the validity of this clinical practice. If, on the other hand, there is no improvement, a reassessment of resource allocation to therapies proven to improve outcomes will result.Trial Registration Number. This trial is registered with ISRCTN registration numberISRCTN24741445.

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 Docetaxel versus active symptom control for refractory oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma (COUGAR-02): an open-label, phase 3 randomised controlled trial

2014 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 78-86 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hugo E R Ford ◽  
Andrea Marshall ◽  
John A Bridgewater ◽  
Tobias Janowitz ◽  
Fareeda Y Coxon ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Symptom Control ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Phase 3 ◽  
Open Label Phase ◽  
Randomised Controlled

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document