A randomized double-blind pilot study comparing cetirizine with diphenhydramine in the prevention of paclitaxel-associated infusion-related reactions.

e24080 Background: Cetirizine is a less sedative alternative to diphenhydramine for the prevention of infusion-related reactions (IRR) to paclitaxel. However, there is no prospective data to support its use in this context. In this study, we conducted a feasibility study for a future definitive non-inferiority trial comparing cetirizine with diphenhydramine as premedication to prevent paclitaxel-related IRR. Methods: This was a single center randomized double-blind parallel-group prospective pilot study. Participants were paclitaxel-naive cancer patients scheduled to start paclitaxel chemotherapy, alone or in combination. They were assigned to receive either intravenous diphenhydramine 50 mg + oral placebo (diphenhydramine group) or intravenous placebo + oral cetirizine 10 mg (cetirizine group) for their first two paclitaxel treatments. To assess the feasibility of a larger study, the percentage of eligible patients completing a first paclitaxel treatment and the recruitment rate were calculated. IRR events were documented. Change in drowsiness compared with baseline was assessed using the Stanford Sleepiness Scale (SSS). Results: Among 37 eligible patients, 27 were recruited and randomized (control 13; intervention 14) and 25 completed the study. The recruitment rate was 4.8 participants/month, meeting the primary feasibility target of 4 participants per month. One participant had an IRR (cetirizine group, CTCAE grade 2) and no unexpected serious adverse events occurred. Drowsiness was the main adverse effect associated with the premedication. The increase in drowsiness compared to baseline (ΔSSS) was greater in the diphenhydramine group compared to the cetirizine group (median ΔSSS 2 (IQR 3.25) vs median ΔSSS 0 (IQR 1), p < 0.01) when measured one hour after the administration of the premedication. Patient self-assessed moderate or intense discomfort caused by drowsiness was exclusively reported in the diphenhydramine group, by 4 out of 13 participants. Conclusions: The trial methods were feasible in terms of recruitment rate, retention and patient safety. IRR were infrequent and a larger trial is warranted to confirm non-inferiority for IRR prevention. Cetirizine was significantly less sedating than diphenhydramine when administered as premedication to prevent paclitaxel-associated IRR. Clinical trial information: NCT04237090. [Table: see text]

Download Full-text

HAPPi Kneecaps! A double-blind, randomised, parallel group superiority trial investigating the effects of sHoe inserts for adolescents with patellofemoral PaIn: phase II feasibility study

Journal of Foot and Ankle Research ◽

10.1186/s13047-021-00498-0 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 14 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Isobel C. O’Sullivan ◽

Kay M. Crossley ◽

Steven J. Kamper ◽

Marienke van Middelkoop ◽

Bill Vicenzino ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Quality Of Life ◽

Recruitment Rate ◽

Full Scale ◽

Trial Registration ◽

Foot Orthoses ◽

Double Blind ◽

Parallel Group ◽

Patient Reported ◽

To Receive

Abstract Background Patellofemoral pain (PFP) affects one-third of adolescents and can persist into adulthood, negatively impacting health and quality of life. Foot orthoses are a recommended treatment for adults with PFP, but have not been evaluated in adolescents. The primary objective was to determine the feasibility of conducting a full-scale randomised controlled trial (RCT) evaluating effects of contoured, prefabricated foot orthoses on knee pain severity and patient-perceived global change, compared to flat insoles. The secondary objective was to describe outcomes on a range of patient-reported outcome measures. Methods We recruited adolescents aged 12–18 years with PFP of ≥2 months duration into a double-blind, randomised, parallel-group feasibility trial. Participants were randomised to receive prefabricated contoured foot orthoses or flat shoe insoles, and followed for 3 months. Participants and outcome assessors were blinded to group allocation. Primary outcomes were feasibility of a full-scale RCT (number of eligible/enrolled volunteers; recruitment rate; adherence with the intervention and logbook completion; adverse effects; success of blinding; drop-out rate), and credibility and expectancy of interventions. Secondary outcomes were patient-reported measures of pain, symptoms, function, quality of life, global rating of change, patient acceptable symptom state, and use of co-interventions. Results 36 out of 279 (12.9%) volunteers (27 female, mean (SD) age 15 (2) years, body mass 60 (13) kg) were eligible and enrolled, at a recruitment rate of 1.2 participants/week. 17 participants were randomised to receive foot orthoses, and 19 to flat insoles. 15 participants returned logbooks; 7/15 (47%) adhered to the intervention. No serious adverse events were reported. 28% (10/36, 4 pandemic-related) of participants dropped out before 3 months. Blinding was successful. Both groups found the inserts to be credible. Conclusions Based on a priori criteria for feasibility, findings suggest that a full-scale RCT comparing contoured foot orthoses to flat insoles in adolescents with PFP would not be feasible using the current protocol. Prior to conducting a full-scale RCT, feasibility issues should be addressed, with protocol modifications to facilitate participant retention, logbook completion and shoe insert wear. Trial registration Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR): ACTRN12619000957190. Date registered: 8/07/2019.

Download Full-text

Happi Kneecaps! A Double-Blind, Randomised, Parallel Group Superiority Trial Investigating the Effects of Shoe Inserts for Adolescents with Patellofemoral Pain: Phase II Feasibility Study

10.21203/rs.3.rs-951393/v1 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Isobel C O'Sullivan ◽

Kay M Crossley ◽

Steven J Kamper ◽

Marienke van Middelkoop ◽

Bill Vicenzino ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Quality Of Life ◽

Patellofemoral Pain ◽

Recruitment Rate ◽

Full Scale ◽

Foot Orthoses ◽

Double Blind ◽

Parallel Group ◽

Patient Reported ◽

To Receive

Abstract Background: Patellofemoral pain (PFP) affects one-third of adolescents and can persist into adulthood, negatively impacting health and quality of life. Foot orthoses are a recommended treatment for adults with PFP, but have not been evaluated in adolescents. The primary objective was to determine the feasibility of conducting a full-scale randomised controlled trial (RCT) evaluating effects of contoured, prefabricated foot orthoses on knee pain severity and patient-perceived global change, compared to flat insoles. The secondary objective was to describe outcomes on a range of patient-reported outcome measures. Methods: We recruited adolescents aged 12-18 years with PFP of ³2 months duration into a double-blind, randomised, parallel-group feasibility trial. Participants were randomised to receive prefabricated contoured foot orthoses or flat shoe insoles, and followed for 3 months. Participants and outcome assessors were blinded to group allocation. Primary outcomes were feasibility of a full-scale RCT (number of eligible/enrolled volunteers; recruitment rate; adherence with the intervention and logbook completion; adverse effects; success of blinding; drop-out rate), and credibility and expectancy of interventions. Secondary outcomes were patient-reported measures of pain, symptoms, function, quality of life, global rating of change, patient acceptable symptom state, and use of co-interventions.Results: 36 out of 279 (12.9%) volunteers (27 female, mean (SD) age 15 (2) years, body mass 60 (13) kg) were eligible and enrolled, at a recruitment rate of 1.2 participants/week. 17 participants were randomised to receive foot orthoses, and 19 to flat insoles. 15 participants returned logbooks; 7/15 (47%) adhered to the intervention. No serious adverse events were reported. 28% (10/36, 4 pandemic-related) of participants dropped out before 3 months. Blinding was successful. Both groups found the inserts to be credible. Conclusions: Based on a priori criteria for feasibility, findings suggest that a full-scale RCT comparing contoured foot orthoses to flat insoles in adolescents with PFP would not be feasible using the current protocol. Prior to conducting a full-scale RCT, further feasibility studies are needed, with protocol modifications to facilitate participant retention, logbook completion and shoe insert wear. Trial registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR): ACTRN12619000957190. Date registered: 8/07/2019.

Download Full-text

Adverse events and blinding in two randomized trials of hyperbaric oxygen for persistent post-concussive symptoms

Undersea and Hyperbaric Medicine ◽

10.22462/13.15.2019.10 ◽

2019 ◽

pp. 331-340

Author(s):

Susan Churchill ◽

◽

Kayla Deru ◽

Lindell K. Weaver ◽

Steffanie H. Wilson ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Clinical Trials ◽

Adverse Events ◽

Hyperbaric Oxygen ◽

Gas Flow ◽

Randomized Trials ◽

Symptom Improvement ◽

Sham Control ◽

Serious Adverse Events ◽

Double Blind ◽

To Receive

Safety monitoring and successful blinding are important features of randomized, blinded clinical trials. We report chamber- and protocol-related adverse events (AEs) for participants enrolled in two randomized, double-blind clinical trials of hyperbaric oxygen (HBO2) for persistent post-concussive symptoms clinicaltrials.gov identifiers NCT01306968, HOPPS, and NCT01611194, BIMA), as well as the success of maintaining the blind with a low-pressure sham control arm. In both studies, participants were randomized to receive HBO2 (1.5 atmospheres absolute, >99% oxygen) or sham chamber sessions (1.2 atmospheres absolute, room air). In 143 participants undergoing 4,245 chamber sessions, chamber-related adverse events were rare (1.1% in the HOPPS study, 2.2% in the BIMA study). Minor, non-limiting barotrauma was the most frequently reported. Rarely, some participants experienced headache with chamber sessions. No serious adverse events were associated with chamber sessions. An allocation questionnaire completed after intervention revealed that the sham control arm adequately protected the blind in both trials. Participants based allocation assumptions on symptom improvement or lack of symptom improvement and could not discern intervention arm by pressure, smell, taste, or gas flow.

Download Full-text

No gender-related bias in COPD diagnosis and treatment in Sweden: a randomised, controlled, case-based trial

ERJ Open Research ◽

10.1183/23120541.00342-2020 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 6 (4) ◽

pp. 00342-2020

Author(s):

Hamid Akbarshahi ◽

Zainab Ahmadi ◽

David C. Currow ◽

Jacob Sandberg ◽

Zac Vandersman ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Gender Bias ◽

Diagnostic Procedures ◽

Morbidity And Mortality ◽

Case Scenario ◽

Double Blind ◽

Diagnosis And Management ◽

Hypothetical Patient ◽

Parallel Group ◽

Randomised Controlled ◽

Study Participants

IntroductionCOPD is a major cause of morbidity and mortality. The prevalence, morbidity and mortality of COPD among females have increased. Previous studies indicate a possible gender bias in the diagnosis and management of COPD. The present study aims to determine if there is gender bias in the management of COPD in Sweden.MethodsThis was a double-blind, randomised (1:1), controlled, parallel-group, web-based trial using the hypothetical case scenario of a former smoker (40 pack-years and quit smoking 3 years ago) who was male or female. The participants were blind to the randomisation and the purpose of the trial. The case progressively revealed more information with associated questions on how the physician would manage the patient. Study participants chose from a list of tests and treatments at each step of the case scenario.ResultsIn total, 134 physicians were randomised to a male (n=62) or a female (n=72) case. There was no difference in initial diagnosis (61 (98%) male cases and 70 (97%) female cases diagnosed with COPD) and planned diagnostic procedures between the male and female cases. Spirometry was chosen by all the physicians as one of the requested diagnostic tests. The management of the hypothetical COPD case did not differ by sex of the responding physician.ConclusionIn Sweden, diagnosis and management of a hypothetical patient with COPD did not differ by the gender of the patient or physician.

Download Full-text

A Parallel-Group Comparison of Astemizole and Loratadine for the Treatment of Perennial Allergic Rhinitis

Journal of International Medical Research ◽

10.1177/030006059702500401 ◽

1997 ◽

Vol 25 (4) ◽

pp. 175-181 ◽

Cited By ~ 66

Author(s):

H Al-Muhaimeed

Keyword(s):

Allergic Rhinitis ◽

Statistical Significance ◽

Double Blind Study ◽

Perennial Allergic Rhinitis ◽

Double Blind ◽

Once Daily ◽

Runny Nose ◽

Parallel Group ◽

The Mean ◽

To Receive

The efficacy and safety of the two antihistamines, astemizole and loratadine, were compared in a double-blind study of 84 patients with perennial allergic rhinitis. Patients were randomized to receive orally either astemizole 10 mg once daily ( n = 40) or loratadine 10 mg once daily ( n = 44) for 1 week. No other antirhinitis medication was allowed during the study. By day 7 the mean daily symptom scores, recorded on diary cards, were lower in patients receiving astemizole than in those receiving loratadine for runny nose, itchy nose and sneezing, although not for blocked nose, and treatment differences only reached statistical significance for runny nose. After 7 days, 53.75% of patients on astemizole and 38.6% on loratadine were free of symptoms, and 87% of patients on astemizole described the treatment as good or excellent compared with 62% on loratadine. The present results suggest that astemizole may be more effective than loratadine in controlling symptoms of perennial allergic rhinitis.

Download Full-text

A randomized double-blind comparison of ondansetron and metoclopramide in the prophylaxis of emesis induced by cyclophosphamide, fluorouracil, and doxorubicin or epirubicin chemotherapy.

Journal of Clinical Oncology ◽

10.1200/jco.1990.8.6.1063 ◽

1990 ◽

Vol 8 (6) ◽

pp. 1063-1069 ◽

Cited By ~ 81

Author(s):

J Bonneterre ◽

B Chevallier ◽

R Metz ◽

P Fargeot ◽

E Pujade-Lauraine ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Group Analysis ◽

Loading Dose ◽

Breast Cancer Patients ◽

Double Blind ◽

Parallel Group ◽

Blind Comparison ◽

Prophylaxis Of Emesis ◽

To Receive ◽

Blind Crossover Study ◽

Double Blind Crossover Study

Seventy-five breast cancer patients scheduled to receive a first course (in a new cycle) of cyclophosphamide, fluorouracil, and doxorubicin (FAC) or epirubicin (FEC) participated in a double-blind crossover study to compare the antiemetic efficacy and safety of ondansetron (GR38032), a 5-hydroxytryptamine3 (5-HT3) receptor antagonist, and metoclopramide. Ondansetron was given as an 8 mg loading dose (4 mg intravenously [IV] plus 4 mg orally) before chemotherapy followed by 8 mg every 8 hours orally for 3 to 5 days. Metoclopramide was given as an 80 mg loading dose (60 mg IV plus 20 mg orally) before chemotherapy followed by 20 mg every 8 hours orally for 3 to 5 days. A "period" interaction in the analysis of emetic response in the first 24 hours necessitated a parallel group analysis of first treatments only, 68 patients being assessable for this parameter. In the first 24 hours, complete or major control (zero to two emetic episodes) of emesis was achieved in 30 of 35 (86%) patients receiving ondansetron and in 14 of 33 (42%) patients receiving metoclopramide (P less than .001). Ondansetron was also more effective in reducing acute nausea. On days 2 to 3, the complete or major responses were significantly better with ondansetron (81% v 65%; P = .033), but there was no statistical difference in the control of nausea. There was a significant patient preference for ondansetron (63% v 26%; P = .001). Extrapyramidal reactions were observed in two metoclopramide treatments; both treatments were otherwise well tolerated. These results are consistent with serotonin (5-HT), being a significant neurotransmitter of cyclophosphamide/doxorubicin- or epirubicin/fluorouracil-induced emesis.

Download Full-text