scholarly journals Two vs. three weeks of treatment with amoxicillin-clavulanate for stabilized community-acquired complicated parapneumonic effusions. A preliminary non-inferiority, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
José M. Porcel ◽  
Lucia Ferreiro ◽  
Laura Rumi ◽  
Esther Espino-Paisán ◽  
Carmen Civit ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Clinical Success ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Pleural Thickening ◽  
Small Series ◽  
Amoxicillin Clavulanate ◽  
Clinical Stability

AbstractBackgroundThe optimal duration of antibiotic treatment for complicated parapneumonic effusions (CPPEs) has not been properly defined. Our aim was to compare the efficacy of amoxicillin-clavulanate for 2 vs. 3 weeks in patients with CPPE (i.e. those which required chest tube drainage).MethodsIn this non-inferiority, randomized, double-blind, controlled trial, patients with community-acquired CPPE were recruited from two centers in Spain and, after having obtained clinical stability following 2 weeks of amoxicillin-clavulanate, they were randomly assigned to placebo or antibiotic for an additional week. The primary objective was clinical success, tested for a non-inferiority margin of<10%. Secondary outcomes were the proportion of residual pleural thickening of>10 mm at 3 months, and adverse events. The study was registered with EudraCT, number 2014-003137-25. We originally planned to randomly assign 284 patients.ResultsAfter recruiting 55 patients, the study was terminated early owing to slow enrolment. A total of 25 patients were assigned to 2 weeks and 30 patients to 3 weeks of amoxicillin-clavulanate. Clinical success occurred in the 25 (100%) patients treated for 2 weeks and 29 (97%) treated for 3 weeks (difference 3%, 95% CI −3 to 9.7%). Respective between-group differences in the rate of residual pleural thickening (−12%, 95%CI −39 to 14%) and adverse events (−7%, 95%CI −16 to 2%) did not reach statistical significance.ConclusionsIn this small series of selected adult patients with community-acquired CPPE, amoxicillin-clavulanate treatment could be safely discontinued by day 14 if clinical stability was obtained.

Inhibition of Interleukin-6 (IL-6) Reverses Anemia In Patients with Advanced Non Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC): Results of a Phase II, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial

Blood ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 116 (21) ◽  
pp. 640-640 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael W. Schuster ◽  
James R Rigas ◽  
Sergey V Orlov ◽  
Branislav Milovanovic ◽  
Kumar Prabhash ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Clinical Chemistry ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Safety Data ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Reactive Protein ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Cancer Related Anemia

Abstract Abstract 640 Background: ALD518 is a humanized, desialyated anti-IL-6 antibody being developed for the treatment of cancer-related anemia, cachexia and fatigue. The primary objective of the study was to determine the efficacy and safety of ALD518 in patients with advanced NSCLC. Secondary objectives examined hematologic parameters. Methods: 124 patients with NSCLC, ECOG 0–3, weight loss in the preceding 3 months of >5% body weight, hemoglobin (Hb) >7g/dL, and C-reactive protein (CRP) >10mg/L were dosed. Patients were randomized to 1 of 4 groups (n~30/group). Placebo or ALD518 80mg, 160mg, or 320mg was administered intravenously every 8 weeks. Pts were followed up for 24 weeks. Data included hematologic parameters, clinical chemistry, CRP, D-dimer, lean body mass and adverse events (AEs). Quality of life data included the FACIT-F, FACT-L, and FAACT questionnaires. Data presented in this abstract relates to the safety and hematology results. Results: 29 pts completed the study treatments and evaluations, 38 failed to complete every visit, 52 died of progressive disease, and 5 withdrew because of adverse events. There were no dose limiting toxicities (DLTs), infusion reactions, or anti-idiotypic antibody responses to ALD518 observed in the study. 84 pts had serious AEs of which 1 was deemed to be possibly related to administration of ALD518 (rectal hemorrhage). The majority of the serious adverse events were due to progression of the NSCLC. Six patients had a CTC grade 4 change in laboratory safety data during the study. Four patients experienced a grade 4 hypercalcemia: 1 (3.6%), 2 (6.1%), and 1 (3.2%) in the ALD518 80mg, 160mg and placebo groups, respectively, and there was 1 patient with grade 4 GGT elevation (placebo) and 1 patient with grade 4 hypokalemia (ALD518 160mg). There were no treatment related differences in vitals sign or 12-lead ECG data. The mean (±SD) values for Hb, hematocrit (Hct), mean corpuscular Hb (MCH) and platelet counts are listed below: 38/93 pts treated with ALD518 and 10/31 given placebo had a pre-dose Hb =< 11g/dL. 24 of these pts on ALD518 and 7 of these pts on placebo remained in the study at week 4. 14/24 pts on ALD518 and 0/7 on placebo had raised their Hb from =< 11g/dL to >= 12g/dL. Conclusions: ALD518 increased Hb, Hct, MCH in NSCLC pts and raised Hb to >= 12g/dL in 58% of pts with a Hb =< 11g/dL at baseline. There was also a modest fall in platelet count observed in patients treated with ALD518 but no patients had a CTC grade 4 thrombocytopenia and only one patient (ALD518 160mg group) had a grade 3 thrombocytopenia at one time point. There were no major safety signals related to the administration of ALD518. Further study of ALD518 as a novel non-erythropoietic stimulating agent for cancer-related anemia is warranted. Disclosures: Schuster: Alder Biopharmaceuticals Inc: Honoraria. Rigas: Alder Biopharmaceuticals inc: Honoraria. Smith:Alder Biopharmaceuticals Inc: Employment.

scholarly journals Randomized Double-Blind Study Comparing 3- and 6-Day Regimens of Azithromycin with a 10-Day Amoxicillin-Clavulanate Regimen for Treatment of Acute Bacterial Sinusitis

2003 ◽  
Vol 47 (9) ◽  
pp. 2770-2774 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dan C. Henry ◽  
Ernie Riffer ◽  
William N. Sokol ◽  
Naumann I. Chaudry ◽  
Robert N. Swanson
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Multicenter Study ◽  
Clinical Success ◽  
Double Blind Study ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Success Rates ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Once Daily ◽  
Acute Bacterial Sinusitis ◽  
Amoxicillin Clavulanate

ABSTRACT A randomized, double-blind, multicenter study of adults with acute bacterial sinusitis (ABS) compared the efficacy and safety of two azithromycin (AZM) regimens, 500 mg/day once daily for 3 days (AZM-3) or 6 days (AZM-6) to the efficacy and safety of an amoxicillin-clavulanate (AMC) regimen of 500-125 mg three times daily for 10 days. A total of 936 subjects with clinically and radiologically documented ABS were treated (AZM-3, 312; AZM-6, 311; AMC, 313). Clinical success rates were equivalent among per-protocol subjects at the end of therapy (AZM-3, 88.8%; AZM-6, 89.3%; AMC, 84.9%) and at the end of the study (AZM-3, 71.7%; AZM-6, 73.4%; AMC, 71.3%). Subjects treated with AMC reported a higher incidence of treatment-related adverse events (AE) (51.1%) than AZM-3 (31.1%, P < 0.001) or AZM-6 (37.6%, P < 0.001). More AMC subjects discontinued the study (n = 28) than AZM-3 (n = 7) and AZM-6 (n = 11) subjects. Diarrhea was the most frequent treatment-related AE. AZM-3 and AZM-6 were each equivalent in efficacy and better tolerated than AMC for ABS.

scholarly journals Efficacy and Safety of Pharmacokinetically Enhanced Amoxicillin-Clavulanate at 2,000/125 Milligrams Twice Daily for 5 Days versus Amoxicillin-Clavulanate at 875/125 Milligrams Twice Daily for 7 Days in the Treatment of Acute Exacerbations of Chronic Bronchitis

2005 ◽  
Vol 49 (1) ◽  
pp. 153-160 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sanjay Sethi ◽  
John Breton ◽  
Brian Wynne
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Chronic Bronchitis ◽  
Clinical Success ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Success Rates ◽  
Bacterial Strains ◽  
Treatment Difference ◽  
Acute Exacerbations ◽  
Amoxicillin Clavulanate ◽  
Similar Incidence

ABSTRACT This randomized, controlled trial was designed to show that a short, 5-day course of pharmacokinetically enhanced amoxicillin-clavulanate at 2,000/125 mg (Augmentin XR) is as effective clinically as a longer, 7-day course of conventional amoxicillin-clavulanate at 875/125 mg (both given twice daily) in the treatment of acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis (AECB). Amoxicillin-clavulanate at 2,000/125 mg was designed to extend the therapeutic levels of amoxicillin in serum over the 12-h dosing interval, compared with conventional formulations, to eradicate bacterial strains for which amoxicillin MICs were ≤4 μg/ml while retaining efficacy against β-lactamase-producing pathogens. A total of 893 patients were randomized and received study medication (amoxicillin-clavulanate at 2,000/125 mg for 443 patients and 875/125 mg for 450 patients). Overall, 141 patients receiving amoxicillin-clavulanate at 2,000/125 mg and 135 receiving the comparator formulation had at least one pathogen identified at screening. Amoxicillin-clavulanate at 2,000/125 mg was as effective clinically in the per-protocol (PP) population at the test of cure (days 14 to 21, primary efficacy endpoint) as amoxicillin-clavulanate at 875/125 mg (clinical success rates of 93.0 and 91.2%, respectively; treatment difference, 1.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], −2.2, 5.7). Bacteriological success in the bacteriology PP population was high for both formulations (amoxicillin-clavulanate at 2,000/125 mg, 76.7%; amoxicillin-clavulanate at 875/125 mg, 73.0%; treatment difference, 3.8; 95% CI, −7.5, 15.0). Both therapies were well tolerated, with a similar incidence of adverse events. Fewer than 5% of patients in each group withdrew from the study due to adverse events. The shorter, 5-day course of amoxicillin-clavulanate at 2,000/125 mg was shown to be as effective clinically as a longer, 7-day course of amoxicillin-clavulanate at 875/125 mg, with high bacteriological efficacy and no difference in tolerability.

scholarly journals Ivermectin in mild and moderate COVID-19 (RIVET-COV): a randomized, placebo-controlled trial

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anant Mohan ◽  
Pawan Tiwari ◽  
Tejas Suri ◽  
Saurabh Mittal ◽  
Ankit Patel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Viral Load ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Severe Disease ◽  
Rt Pcr ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Intention To Treat ◽  
Treat Population

Abstract Introduction: Till date, no drug has shown definite benefit in non-severe COVID-19. Ivermectin is an antiparasitic drug which has in-vitro efficacy in reducing coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) load in severe disease. Objectives: To determine if a single oral administration of Ivermectin to patients with mild and moderate COVID-19 is effective in converting SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR to negative result and in reducing viral load.Methods: In this double-blind trial, patients were randomized to elixir formulation of Ivermectin in 24 mg, 12 mg or placebo in 1:1:1 ratio. The co-primary outcomes were conversion of RT-PCR to negative result and the decline of viral load at day 5 of enrolment and were assessed in patients with positive RT-PCR at enrolment (modified intention-to-treat population). Safety outcomes included total and serious adverse events and were assessed in all patients who received the trial drug (intention-to-treat population). Results: Among 157 patients randomized, 125 patients were included in mITT analysis. Forty patients each were assigned to Ivermectin 24 mg and 12 mg, and 45 patients to placebo. The RT-PCR negativity at day 5 was higher in the two Ivermectin arms but failed to attain statistical significance (Ivermectin 24 mg, 47.5%; 12 mg, 35.0%; and placebo, 31.1%; p= 0.30). The decline of viral load at day 5 was similar in the three arms. No serious adverse events were encountered.Conclusion: In patients with mild and moderate COVID-19, a single administration of Ivermectin elixir (either 24 mg or 12 mg) demonstrated a trend towards higher proportion of RT-PCR negativity at day 5 of enrolment. The protocol was registered in the Clinical Trial Registry – India (CTRI) vide ref No CTRI/2020/06/026001.

scholarly journals Early combination therapy with etanercept and methotrexate in JIA patients shortens the time to reach an inactive disease state and remission: results of a double-blind placebo-controlled trial

2021 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ekaterina Alexeeva ◽  
Gerd Horneff ◽  
Tatyana Dvoryakovskaya ◽  
Rina Denisova ◽  
Irina Nikishina ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Combination Therapy ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Randomized Study ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Disease State ◽  
Inactive Disease ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Standard Regimen ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Early Combination Therapy

Abstract Background Remission is the primary objective of treating juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA). It is still debatable whether early intensive treatment is superior in terms of earlier achievement of remission. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of early etanercept+methotrexate (ETA+MTX) combination therapy versus step-up MTX monotherapy with ETA added in refractory disease. Methods A multi-centre, double-blind, randomized study in active polyarticular JIA patients treated with either ETA+MTX (n = 35) or placebo+MTX (n = 33) for up to 24 weeks, followed by a 24-week open-label phase. The efficacy endpoints included pedACR30 criteria improvement at week 12, inactive disease at week 24, and remission at week 48. Patients who failed to achieve the endpoints at week 12 or at week 24 escaped to open-label ETA+MTX. Safety was assessed at each visit. Results By intention-to-treat analysis, more patients in the ETA+MTX group reached the pedACR30 response at week 12 (33 (94.3%)) than in the placebo+MTX group (20 (60.6%); p = 0.001). At week 24, comparable percentages of patients reached inactive disease (11 (31.4%) vs 11 (33.3%)). At week 48, 11 (31.4%) and eight (24.2%) patients achieved remission. The median (+/−IQR) times to achieve an inactive disease state in the ETA+MTX and placebo+MTX groups were 24 (14–32) and 32 (24–40) weeks, respectively. Forty-four (74/100 patient-years) adverse events (AEs) were reported, leading to treatment discontinuation in 6 patients. Conclusions Early combination therapy with ETA+MTX proved to be highly effective compared to the standard step-up regimen. Compared to those treated with the standard regimen, more patients treated with a combination of ETA+MTX reached the pedACR30 response and achieved inactive disease and remission more rapidly.

scholarly journals Management of walled-off necrosis with nasocystic irrigation with hydrogen peroxide versus biflanged metal stent: randomized controlled trial

2021 ◽  
Vol 09 (07) ◽  
pp. E1108-E1115
Author(s):  
Sudhir Maharshi ◽  
Shyam Sunder Sharma ◽  
Sandeep Ratra ◽  
Bharat Sapra ◽  
Dhruv Sharma
Keyword(s):  
Hydrogen Peroxide ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Clinical Success ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Procedure Time ◽  
Metal Stent ◽  
Technical Success ◽  
Group A ◽  
Group B ◽  
Walled Off Necrosis

Abstract Background and study aims Walled-off necrosis (WON) is a known complication of acute necrotizing pancreatitis (ANP). There is no study comparing nasocystic irrigation with hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) versus biflanged metal stent (BMS) in the management of WON. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical efficacy of both the treatment strategies. Patients and methods This study was conducted on patients with symptomatic WON who were randomized to nasocystic irrigation with H2O2 (Group A) and BMS placement (Group B). Primary outcomes were clinical and technical success while secondary outcomes were procedure time, adverse events, need for additional procedures, duration of hospitalization, and mortality. Results Fifty patients were randomized into two groups. Group A (n = 25, age 37.8 ± 17.6 years, 16 men) and Group B (n = 25, age 41.8 ± 15.2 years, 17 men). There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics between the two groups. The most common etiology of pancreatitis was alcohol, observed in 27 (54 %) patients. Technical success (100 % vs 96 %, P = 0.98), clinical success (84 % vs 76 %, P = 0.76), requirement of additional procedures (16 % vs 24 %, P = 0.70) and adverse events (4 vs 7, P = 0.06) were comparable in both the groups. The duration to clinical success (34.4 ± 12 vs 14.8 ± 10.8 days, P = 0.001) and procedure time (36 ± 15 vs 18 ± 12 minutes, P = 0.01) were longer in Group A compared to Group B. Conclusions Nasocystic irrigation with H2O2 and BMS are equally effective in the management of WON but time to clinical success and procedure time is longer with nasocystic irrigation.

Optimizing chair time in infusion centers using intravenous cetirizine premedication for the prevention of hypersensitivity infusion reactions.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e13508-e13508
Author(s):  
Julio Antonio Peguero ◽  
Ahmed Ayad ◽  
Stacia Young-Wesenberg ◽  
Teresa Yang ◽  
Janine North ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Quality Care ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Acute Urticaria ◽  
Number Of Patients ◽  
Study Results ◽  
Secondary Endpoints ◽  
Infusion Reactions ◽  
Anti Cd20

e13508 Background: Oncology infusion centers are increasingly focused on improving operational efficiencies and patient satisfaction, while maintaining quality care. One key component is optimizing chair time, which has been especially important for patient safety during the COVID-19 pandemic to reduce risk of transmission. Many infusions require antihistamine premedication to reduce the risk of hypersensitivity infusion reactions (IRs). The two IV options are IV diphenhydramine and IV cetirizine, which have a quicker onset than oral options and can be administered IV push. In treating acute urticaria, IV cetirizine was shown to be comparable to IV diphenhydramine, with fewer side effects, and it may be effective for preventing IRs with improved chair time. Methods: A randomized, double-blind phase 2 study evaluating premedication with single dose IV cetirizine 10 mg versus IV diphenhydramine 50 mg was conducted in 34 patients receiving paclitaxel, rituximab, its biosimilar or obinutuzumab (first cycle, retreatment after 6 months or with persistent IRs). The primary objective was the incidence of IRs after premedication. Secondary endpoints included sedation due to antihistamines and time to readiness for discharge. Sedation was reported by patients on a scale of 0-4 (0 = none to 4 = extremely severe). No formal statistical analyses were planned given the exploratory nature of the study. Results: Adults primarily with cancer (n = 31 [91%]) were enrolled during the COVID-19 pandemic, from March 25 to November 23, 2020. The median age was 65 and 67 years in the IV cetirizine and diphenhydramine groups, respectively. The number of patients with IRs was 2/17 (11.8%) with IV cetirizine versus 3/17 (17.6%) with IV diphenhydramine. The mean sedation score in the IV cetirizine group compared to the IV diphenhydramine group was lower at all time points, including at discharge (0.1 vs 0.4, respectively). Mean time to discharge was 24 minutes less with IV cetirizine (4.3 hours [1.5]) versus IV diphenhydramine (4.7 hours [1.2]). This difference was greater (30 minutes less) in those ≥65 years of age (4.4 [1.3] vs 4.9 [1.0] hours). Regardless of whether patients received paclitaxel (n = 9) or an anti-CD20 (n = 25), patients had less chair time when premedicated with IV cetirizine. There were fewer treatment-related adverse events (AEs) with IV cetirizine (2 events) than with IV diphenhydramine (4 events). Conclusions: This was the first randomized, controlled trial evaluating IV antihistamine premedication for IRs and chair time. It was shown that IV cetirizine can prevent IRs, with less sedation, fewer related AEs and reduced chair time compared to IV diphenhydramine. This improves infusion center operations and patient experience. Clinical trial information: NCT04189588.

TOP-PRO study: A randomized double-blind controlled trial of topiramate versus propranolol for prevention of chronic migraine

Cephalalgia ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 033310242110474
Author(s):  
Debashish Chowdhury ◽  
Luv Bansal ◽  
Ashish Duggal ◽  
Debabrata Datta ◽  
Ankit Mundra ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Chronic Migraine ◽  
Virus Disease ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Preventive Treatment ◽  
Point Estimate ◽  
Tolerability Profile ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
The Mean

Objective The aim of the TOP-PRO-study, a double-blind randomized controlled trial, was to assess the efficacy (non-inferiority) and tolerability of propranolol compared to topiramate for the prevention of chronic migraine. Background Except for topiramate, oral preventive treatment for chronic migraine lacks credible evidence. Methods Chronic migraine patients aged above 18 years and less than 65 years of age, not on any preventive treatment were randomly allocated to receive topiramate (100 mg/day) or propranolol (160 mg/day). The primary efficacy outcome was the mean change in migraine days per 28 days at the end of 24 weeks from baseline. A mean difference of 1.5 days per four weeks was chosen as the cut-off delta value. Multiple secondary efficacy outcomes and treatment emergent adverse events were also assessed. Results As against the planned sample size of 244, only 175 patients could be enrolled before the spread of the corona virus disease-2019 pandemic and enforcement of lockdown in India. Of the 175 randomized patients, 95 (topiramate 46 and propranolol 49) completed the trial. The mean change in migraine days was −5.3 ± 1.2 vs −7.3 ± 1.1 days (p = 0.226) for topiramate and propranolol groups respectively. Propranolol was found to be non-inferior and not superior to topiramate (point estimate of −1.99 with a 95% confidence interval of −5.23 to 1.25 days). Multiple secondary outcomes also did not differ between the two groups. Intention to treat analysis of 175 patients and per-protocol analysis of 95 patients yielded concordant results. There was no significant difference in the incidence of adverse events between the two groups. Conclusion Propranolol (160mg/day) was non-inferior, non-superior to topiramate (100mg/day) for the preventive treatment of chronic migraine and had a comparable tolerability profile. Trial Registration: Clinical Trials Registry-India CTRI/2019/05/018997)

Zao Ren An Shen capsule for insomnia: A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial

SLEEP ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yoann Birling ◽  
Xiaoshu Zhu ◽  
Nicole Avard ◽  
Caterina Tannous ◽  
Paul P Fahey ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Herbal Medicine ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Chinese Herbal Medicine ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Subjective Sleep ◽  
Chinese Herbal ◽  
Cohen’S D ◽  
Cohen's D ◽  
Insomnia Severity

Abstract Study Objectives The aim of this study was to test the efficacy and safety of Zao Ren An Shen (ZRAS) capsule, a Chinese herbal medicine product, for the treatment of insomnia. Methods We conducted a double-blind randomized placebo-controlled trial. After a one-week placebo run-in, a total of 85 people with insomnia were randomly allocated to receive ZRAS or placebo for four weeks. The primary outcomes were insomnia severity assessed with the Insomnia Severity Index (ISI) and the number of participants with adverse events. Secondary outcomes included objective and subjective sleep parameters, psychological status, fatigue level, quality of life, acceptability, and tolerability. Results A non-significant (p &gt; 0.05) difference of 0.7 points in ISI in favor of ZRAS capsule was found at the end of the treatment. The number of participants with adverse events was not significantly different (p &gt; 0.05) between the two groups. Except for subjective sleep onset latency, which had a non-significant (p &gt; 0.05) medium effect (Cohen’s d = 0.5), the effects in secondary efficacy outcomes were all small (Cohen’s d &lt; 0.4) and non-significant (p &gt; 0.05). The acceptability and tolerability were high in the active group. Conclusions ZRAS capsule is safe, acceptable, and tolerable, yet not more effective than placebo in the treatment of insomnia. As previous evidence showed that Chinese herbal medicine was effective for insomnia, these results may be explained by the dose of the product, which was lower than the dose generally used in the clinic.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document