HAGIL (Hamburg Vigil Study): a randomized placebo-controlled double-blind study with modafinil for treatment of fatigue in patients with multiple sclerosis

2011 ◽  
Vol 17 (8) ◽  
pp. 1002-1009 ◽  
Author(s):  
F Möller ◽  
J Poettgen ◽  
F Broemel ◽  
A Neuhaus ◽  
M Daumer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Sclerosis ◽  
Cognitive Impairment ◽  
Safety Concern ◽  
Dropout Rate ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
Controlled Study ◽  
Double Blind Study ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Neuropsychological Measures ◽  
Intention To Treat

Objective: To reassess the effect of modafinil, a wakefulness-promoting artificial psychostimulant, on fatigue and neuropsychological measures in patients with multiple sclerosis. Methods: Multiple sclerosis (MS) patients with a baseline score of ≥4 on the Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS) and an Expanded Disability Status Scale score <7 were eligible for the 8-week randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Modafinil was dosed up to 200 mg/day within 1 week. Assessments were performed at baseline and after 4 and 8 weeks. The primary outcome parameter was the mean change of the FSS mean score. Secondary outcome variables were other questionnaires covering fatigue, daytime sleepiness and sleep quality. Cognitive impairment was assessed by the oral version of the Symbol Digit Modalities Test (SDMT) and the Paced Auditory Serial Addition Test (PASAT). Results: The study included 121 MS patients. Dropout rate was 9%. Both treatment groups showed improvements through time. While mean FSS at 8 weeks showed a trend difference between groups in the intention-to-treat analysis, the primary endpoint was not met. Assessment of cognitive impairment by SDMT and PASAT showed contradictory results. All other secondary endpoints were not met. There was no major safety concern. Conclusions: In general, the study does not support modafinil as an effective treatment for MS fatigue. However, the study shows the need for new study designs and endpoints in MS fatigue studies.

scholarly journals Efficacy of ethyl-eicosapentaenoic acid in bipolar depression: Randomised double-blind placebo-controlled study

2006 ◽  
Vol 188 (1) ◽  
pp. 46-50 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sophia Frangou ◽  
Michael Lewis ◽  
Paul McCrone
Keyword(s):  
Eicosapentaenoic Acid ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Bipolar Depression ◽  
Unipolar Depression ◽  
Adjunctive Treatment ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
Controlled Study ◽  
Double Blind Study ◽  
Young Mania ◽  
Double Blind

BackgroundEpidemiological and clinical studies suggest that increased intake of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) alleviates unipolar depression.AimsTo examine the efficacy of EPA in treating depression in bipolar disorder.MethodIn a 12-week, double-blind study individuals with bipolar depression were randomly assigned to adjunctive treatment with placebo (n=26) or with 1g/day (n=24) or 2 g/day (n=25) of ethyl-EPA. Primary efficacy was assessed by the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD), with changes in the Young Mania Rating Scale and Clinical Global Impression Scale (CGI) as secondary outcome measures.ResultsThere was no apparent benefit of 2g over 1g ethyl-EPA daily. Significant improvement was noted with ethyl-EPA treatment compared with placebo in the HRSD (P=0.04) and the CGI (P=0.004) scores. Both doses were well tolerated.ConclusionsAdjunctive ethyl-EPA is an effective and well-tolerated intervention in bipolar depression.

scholarly journals Effect of radial shock wave therapy on pain and muscle hypertonia: a double-blind study in patients with multiple sclerosis

2014 ◽  
Vol 21 (5) ◽  
pp. 622-629 ◽  
Author(s):  
L Marinelli ◽  
L Mori ◽  
C Solaro ◽  
A Uccelli ◽  
E Pelosin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Sclerosis ◽  
Shock Wave ◽  
Muscle Tone ◽  
Controlled Study ◽  
Double Blind Study ◽  
Long Term Effects ◽  
Shock Wave Therapy ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Muscle Hypertonia ◽  
Spinal Excitability

Background: Radial shock wave therapy (RSWT) has been extensively used in rehabilitative medicine to treat pain, and more recently muscle hypertonia, in patients with cerebral palsy and stroke. Objectives: To assess the long-term effects of RSWT in a cohort of subjects affected by multiple sclerosis (MS) who were suffering from painful hypertonia of ankle extensor muscles. Methods: In this randomised, double blind, placebo-controlled study, we treated 34 patients with four sessions of RSWT (once weekly) and treated 34 patients with placebo. Participants were assessed at baseline, 1 week after the first session, and 1 week and 4 weeks after the last session. We measured pain using the visual analogue scale for pain, while we assessed muscle tone using the modified Ashworth scale and evaluated spinal excitability using the H-reflex. Results: After RSWT, muscle tone decreased 1 week after the last session and pain decreased at all the follow-up evaluations, while spinal excitability was unaffected. No significant changes were found after the placebo treatment. Conclusions: RSWT can reduce pain and muscle tone in MS patients without adverse effects. The lack of RSWT effects on spinal excitability supports the idea that RSWT is likely to act on non-reflex hypertonia, for example reducing muscle fibrosis.

CHF5074 Reduces Biomarkers of Neuroinflammation in Patients with Mild Cognitive Impairment: A 12-Week, Double-Blind, Placebo- Controlled Study

2013 ◽  
Vol 10 (7) ◽  
pp. 742-753 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joel Ross ◽  
Sanjiv Sharma ◽  
Jaron Winston ◽  
Margarita Nunez ◽  
Gabriella Bottini ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cognitive Impairment ◽  
Mild Cognitive Impairment ◽  
Controlled Study ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Double Blind Placebo

scholarly journals Long-Term Safety and Efficacy of Prebiotic Enriched Infant Formula—A Randomized Controlled Trial

Nutrients ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 1276
Author(s):  
Franka Neumer ◽  
Orenci Urraca ◽  
Joaquin Alonso ◽  
Jesús Palencia ◽  
Vicente Varea ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Infant Formula ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Fecal Microbiota ◽  
First Year ◽  
Double Blind Study ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Term Infants ◽  
Intention To Treat ◽  
Prebiotic Oligosaccharides ◽  
First Year Of Life

The present study aims to evaluate the effects of an infant formula supplemented with a mixture of prebiotic short and long chain inulin-type oligosaccharides on health outcomes, safety and tolerance, as well as on fecal microbiota composition during the first year of life. In a prospective, multicenter, randomized, double-blind study, n = 160 healthy term infants under 4 months of age were randomized to receive either an infant formula enriched with 0.8 g/dL of Orafti®Synergy1 or an unsupplemented control formula until the age of 12 months. Growth, fever (>38 °C) and infections were regularly followed up by a pediatrician. Digestive symptoms, stool consistency as well as crying and sleeping patterns were recorded during one week each study month. Fecal microbiota and immunological biomarkers were determined from a subgroup of infants after 2, 6 and 12 months of life. The intention to treat (ITT) population consisted of n = 149 infants. Both formulae were well tolerated. Mean duration of infections was significantly lower in the prebiotic fed infants (p < 0.05). The prebiotic group showed higher Bifidobacterium counts at month 6 (p = 0.006), and higher proportions of Bifidobacterium in relation to total bacteria at month 2 and 6 (p = 0.042 and p = 0.013, respectively). Stools of infants receiving the prebiotic formula were softer (p < 0.05). Orafti®Synergy1 tended to beneficially impact total daily amount of crying (p = 0.0594). Supplementation with inulin-type prebiotic oligosaccharides during the first year of life beneficially modulates the infant gut microbiota towards higher Bifidobacterium levels at the first 6 months of life, and is associated with reduced duration of infections.

scholarly journals A Phase 3, Randomized, Double-Blind Study Comparing Tedizolid Phosphate and Linezolid for Treatment of Ventilated Gram-Positive Hospital-Acquired or Ventilator-Associated Bacterial Pneumonia

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard G Wunderink ◽  
Antoine Roquilly ◽  
Martin Croce ◽  
Daniel Rodriguez Gonzalez ◽  
Satoshi Fujimi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Response ◽  
Bacterial Pneumonia ◽  
Double Blind Study ◽  
Phase 3 ◽  
Gram Positive ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Intention To Treat ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Hospital Acquired ◽  
Noninferiority Margin

Abstract Background Hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia (HABP) and ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (VABP) are associated with high mortality rates. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of tedizolid (administered as tedizolid phosphate) for treatment of gram-positive ventilated HABP/VABP. Methods In this randomized, noninferiority, double-blind, double-dummy, global phase 3 trial, patients were randomized 1:1 to receive intravenous tedizolid phosphate 200 mg once daily for 7 days or intravenous linezolid 600 mg every 12 hours for 10 days. Treatment was 14 days in patients with concurrent gram-positive bacteremia. The primary efficacy end points were day 28 all-cause mortality (ACM; noninferiority margin, 10%) and investigator-assessed clinical response at test of cure (TOC; noninferiority margin, 12.5%) in the intention-to-treat population. Results Overall, 726 patients were randomized (tedizolid, n = 366; linezolid, n = 360). Baseline characteristics, including incidence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (31.3% overall), were well balanced. Tedizolid was noninferior to linezolid for day 28 ACM rate: 28.1% and 26.4%, respectively (difference, –1.8%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: –8.2 to 4.7). Noninferiority of tedizolid was not demonstrated for investigator-assessed clinical cure at TOC (tedizolid, 56.3% vs linezolid, 63.9%; difference, –7.6%; 97.5% CI: –15.7 to 0.5). In post hoc analyses, no single factor accounted for the difference in clinical response between treatment groups. Drug-related adverse events occurred in 8.1% and 11.9% of patients who received tedizolid and linezolid, respectively. Conclusions Tedizolid was noninferior to linezolid for day 28 ACM in the treatment of gram-positive ventilated HABP/VABP. Noninferiority of tedizolid for investigator-assessed clinical response at TOC was not demonstrated. Both drugs were well tolerated. Clinical Trials Registration NCT02019420.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document