scholarly journals Cyclamen europaeum nasal spray, a novel phytotherapeutic product for the management of acute rhinosinusitis: a randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

2012 ◽  
Vol 50 (1) ◽  
pp. 37-44
Author(s):  
O. Pfaar ◽  
J. Mullol ◽  
C. Anders ◽  
K. Hörmann ◽  
L. Klimek
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Nasal Spray ◽  
Facial Pain ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Double Blind Placebo ◽  
Acute Rhinosinusitis ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Symptom Scores ◽  
Change In Mean

Aim: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of a phytotherapeutic nasal spray containing Cyclamen europaeum (CE) in the treatment of acute rhinosinusitis (ARS). Material/methods: We performed a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of CE nasal spray once daily for 15 days in 99 adult patients with moderate-to-severe ARS who also received amoxicillin 500 mg three times daily for the first 8 days. The primary endpoint was the change in mean total symptom scores (TSS) on day 7. Secondary endpoints included individual symptom scores (nasal congestion, mucus secretion, facial pain, impairment of smell) and endoscopic findings on days 7 and 15 and others. Results: No statistically significant difference in TSS was noted for CE versus placebo on day 7. Moreover, the individual scores were not statistically different between the groups for the ITT-population on day 7. However, both a reduction in facial pain and an improvement in endoscopically-assessed mucosal obstruction significantly favoured CE on day 7. The most common adverse events were nasal burning and mild epistaxis, but no severe adverse events were documented. Conclusion: In summary, this is the first randomized controlled trial on phytotherapy in patients with moderate-to-severe ARS demonstrating clinical safety and some encouraging effects of CE which merit to investigate phytotherapeutic products in further large-scale clinical trials.

scholarly journals Escitalopram add-on in stable Schizophrenia with subsyndromal depression

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 211
Author(s):  
Anil Nischal ◽  
Pooja Singh ◽  
Manu Agarwal ◽  
Anuradha Nischal ◽  
Bandna Gupta ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mental Illness ◽  
Placebo Group ◽  
Depressive Symptoms ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Significant Proportion ◽  
Anti Psychotic ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Double Blind Placebo ◽  
Significant Difference

Background: Significant proportion of the patients of schizophrenia suffer from subsyndromal symptomatic depressive symptoms (SSD) which not only add to the burden of disease but also to the already pre-existing challenges of living with this serious mental illness. Many psychiatrists prescribe antidepressants to patients with schizophrenia who have subsyndromal symptomatic depressive symptoms but data regarding SSD in schizophrenia is meagre. Aim was to study the effect of addition of Escitalopram on psychopathology, cognition and functioning in patients with stable schizophrenia having subsyndromal depressive symptoms and to compare these parameters with patients treated with antipsychotics alone.Methods: The study was a prospective, 8-week randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial. Seventy four patients who fulfilled the diagnostic criteria of Schizophrenia on the basis of the ICD10-DCR, adjudged to be stable clinically and not requiring any increase in dose of antipsychotic medication over the last eight weeks were recruited into the study. The patients randomly received either Antipsychotics with add-on Escitalopram (10 mg/day) or Antipsychotics with placebo for 8 weeks. The patients were assessed using the HAM-D, CDRS, PANSS, SCoRS, SOFAS and CGI scores at the end of 8 weeks. Patients were also assessed for adverse events at baseline, week 4 and week 8.Results: A total of sixty-six patients who completed the study were analyzed. The HAM-D, CDRS and PANSS score  showed significantly better cognition and functioning in the patients of add-on Escitalopram group when compared with the placebo group. There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of observed side effects.Conclusions: Escitalopram addition to the standard anti-psychotic treatment of schizophrenia, in patients having subsyndromal depressive symptoms, results in better cognition and improved functioning.

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)

scholarly journals Efficacy of a nasal spray containing Iota-Carrageenan in the prophylaxis of COVID-19 in hospital personnel dedicated to patients care with COVID-19 disease. A pragmatic multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial (CARR-COV-02)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Juan Manuel Figueroa ◽  
Monica Lombardo ◽  
Ariel Dogliotti ◽  
Luis Flynn ◽  
Robert P. Giugliano ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Placebo Group ◽  
Nasal Spray ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Hospital Personnel ◽  
Culture Methods ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Double Blind Placebo ◽  
Significant Efficacy ◽  
To Receive

Background Iota-Carrageenan (I-C) is a sulfate polysaccharide synthesized by red algae, with demonstrated antiviral activity and clinical efficacy as nasal spray in the treatment of common cold. In vitro, I-C inhibits SARS-CoV-2 infection in cell culture. Methods This is a pragmatic multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial assessing the use of a nasal spray containing I-C in the prophylaxis of COVID-19 in hospital personnel dedicated to care of COVID-19 patients. Clinically healthy physicians, nurses, kinesiologists and others medical providers were assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive four daily doses of I-C spray or placebo for 21 days. The primary end point was clinical COVID-19, as confirmed by reverse-transcriptase-polymerase-chain-reaction testing, over a period of 21 days. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04521322). Findings A total of 394 individuals were randomly assigned to receive I-C or placebo. Both treatment groups had similar baseline characteristics. The incidence of COVID-19 was significantly lower in the I-C group compared to placebo (1.0% vs 5.0%) (Odds Ratio 0.19 (95% confidence interval 0.05 to 0.77; p= 0.03). Workday loss in placebo group compared to I-C were 1.6% days / person (95% CI, 1.0 to 2.2); p <0.0001 There were no differences in the incidence of adverse events across the two groups (17.3% in the I-C group and 15.2% in the placebo group, p= 0.5). Interpretation I-C showed significant efficacy in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection in hospital personnel dedicated to care patients with COVID-19 disease.

scholarly journals Faecal microbiota transplantation alters gut microbiota in patients with irritable bowel syndrome: results from a randomised, double-blind placebo-controlled study

Gut ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 67 (12) ◽  
pp. 2107-2115 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sofie Ingdam Halkjær ◽  
Alice Højer Christensen ◽  
Bobby Zhao Sheng Lo ◽  
Patrick Denis Browne ◽  
Stig Günther ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gut Microbiota ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Symptom Relief ◽  
Controlled Study ◽  
Faecal Microbiota ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Double Blind Placebo ◽  
Faecal Microbiota Transplantation ◽  
Faecal Samples ◽  
Significant Difference

ObjectiveIBS is associated with an intestinal dysbiosis and faecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) has been hypothesised to have a positive effect in patients with IBS. We performed a randomised, double-blind placebo-controlled trial to investigate if FMT resulted in an altered gut microbiota and improvement in clinical outcome in patients with IBS.DesignWe performed this study in 52 adult patients with moderate-to-severe IBS. At the screening visit, clinical history and symptoms were assessed and faecal samples were collected. Patients were randomised to FMT or placebo capsules for 12 days and followed for 6 months. Study visits were performed at baseline, 1, 3 and 6 months, where patients were asked to register their symptoms using the IBS-severity scoring system (IBS-SSS) and IBS-specific quality of life (IBS-QoL). Prior to each visit, faecal samples were collected.ResultsA significant difference in improvement in IBS-SSS score was observed 3 months after treatment (p=0.012) favouring placebo. This was similar for IBS-QoL data after 3 months (p=0.003) favouring placebo. Patients receiving FMT capsules had an increase in faecal microbial biodiversity while placebos did not.ConclusionIn this randomised double-blinded placebo-controlled study, we found that FMT changed gut microbiota in patients with IBS. But patients in the placebo group experienced greater symptom relief compared with the FMT group after 3 months. Altering the gut microbiota is not enough to obtain clinical improvement in IBS. However, different study designs and larger studies are required to examine the role of FMT in IBS.Trial registration numberNCT02788071.

Efficacy of Phenazone in the Treatment of Acute Migraine Attacks: A Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Randomized Study

Cephalalgia ◽  
2004 ◽  
Vol 24 (10) ◽  
pp. 888-893 ◽  
Author(s):  
H Göbel ◽  
A Heinze ◽  
U Niederberger ◽  
T Witt ◽  
V Zumbroich
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Randomized Study ◽  
Controlled Study ◽  
Acute Migraine ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Double Blind Placebo ◽  
Number Of Patients ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Main Target

In this study we compared the efficacy of 1000 mg phenazone with that of placebo in the treatment of acute migraine attacks in a randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled study of 208 patients. The main target criterion was the number of patients with a pain reduction from severe or moderate to slight or no pain 2 h after taking the pain medication. The percentage of patients satisfying the main target criterion was 48.6% for phenazone and 27.2% ( P < 0.05) for placebo. Freedom from pain after 2 h was reported by 27.6% with phenazone treatment and 13.6% ( P < 0.05) with placebo. Compared with placebo, the phenazone treatment also resulted in a significant improvement in the associated migraine symptoms of nausea, phonophobia and photophobia. Of patients treated with phenazone 11.4%, and 5.8% of those treated with placebo reported adverse events. There was no significant difference between the groups with regard to numbers of patients with adverse events. No serious adverse events occurred. The results show that phenazone at a dosage of 1000 mg is effective and well tolerated in the treatment of acute migraine attacks.

scholarly journals Safety and efficacy of midazolam nasal spray in the outpatient treatment of patients with seizure clusters—a randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled trial

Epilepsia ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 60 (9) ◽  
pp. 1797-1808 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kamil Detyniecki ◽  
Peter J. Van Ess ◽  
David J. Sequeira ◽  
James W. Wheless ◽  
Tze‐Chiang Meng ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Nasal Spray ◽  
Outpatient Treatment ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Safety And Efficacy ◽  
Double Blind Placebo

Randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial of celecoxib for radiation-induced oral mucositis.

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 9620-9620
Author(s):  
Rajesh V. Lalla ◽  
Linda E. Choquette ◽  
Kathleen F. Curley ◽  
Robert J. Dowsett ◽  
Richard S. Feinn ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Oral Mucositis ◽  
Fixed Effects ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Opioid Analgesics ◽  
T Test ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Double Blind Placebo ◽  
Pain Scores ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Cox 2

9620 Background: Oral mucositis (OM) is a painful complication of radiation therapy (RT) for head and neck (H&N) cancer. OM can compromise nutrition, require opioid analgesics and hospitalization for pain control, and lead to treatment interruptions. Due to the role of inflammatory pathways in the pathogenesis of OM, this study investigated the effect of inhibition of cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) on severity and morbidity of OM. Methods: In this randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial,40 H&N cancer patients were randomized to daily use of 200 mg celecoxib or matched placebo, for the duration of RT. Eligibility criteria included planned RT dose of ≥ 5000 cGy to 2+ areas of the mouth and no contraindication for celecoxib use. The planned sample size of 20 per arm provided 80% power to detect a 1 point difference in mean Oral Mucositis Assessment Scale (OMAS) score (range 0-5) at 5000 cGy RT (primary endpoint), applying a two-tailed, two-sample t-test at the 5% level of significance. Clinical OM, normalcy of diet, pain scores and analgesic use were assessed 2-3 times a week by blinded investigators during the 6-7 week period of RT, using validated scales. Results: Twenty subjects were randomized to each arm, which were similar with respect to tumor location, radiation dose, and concomitant chemotherapy. In both arms, mucositis and pain scores increased over the course of RT. Intent-to-treat analyses demonstrated no significant difference in mean (SD) OMAS scores at 5000 cGy [celecoxib 1.32 (0.71), placebo 1.27 (0.86), p = 0.83, two sample t-test]. There was also no difference between the celecoxib and placebo arms respectively, in mean OMAS scores over the period of RT (SD) [0.98(0.77) & 0.97 (0.86), p = 0.84], mean worst pain scores [3.38 (3.07) & 3.31 (3.32), p = 0.83], mean normalcy of diet scores [5.43 (3.86) & 5.11(3.94), p = 0.65], or mean daily opioid medication use in IV morphine equivalents [19.08 (16.57) & 20.48 (19.07), p = 0.48], all by linear mixed model fixed effects regression analysis. There were no SAEs attributed to celecoxib use. Conclusions: Daily use of a selective COX-2 inhibitor, during the period of RT for H&N cancer, did not reduce the severity of clinical OM, pain, dietary compromise or use of opioid analgesics. Clinical trial information: NCT00698204.

A phase 3, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of lenvatinib (E7080) in patients with 131I-refractory differentiated thyroid cancer (SELECT).

2014 ◽  
Vol 32 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. LBA6008-LBA6008 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Schlumberger ◽  
Makoto Tahara ◽  
Lori J. Wirth ◽  
Bruce Robinson ◽  
Marcia S. Brose ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Weight Loss ◽  
Thyroid Cancer ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Differentiated Thyroid Cancer ◽  
Kinase Inhibitor ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Controlled Study ◽  
Phase 3 ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Double Blind Placebo

LBA6008 Background: Lenvatinib (LEN) is an oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor of the VEGFR1-3, FGFR1-4, PDGFRβ, RET, and KIT signaling networks. Based on efficacy results of the phase 2 study of patients (pts) with 131I-refractory differentiated thyroid cancer (RR-DTC), this phase 3 Study of (E7080) Lenvatinib in Differentiated Cancer of the Thyroid (SELECT) was developed. Methods: This randomized, double-blind, placebo (PBO)-controlled study enrolled pts with RR-DTC with documented disease progression within 13 months (mo). Pts were stratified by age (≤65, >65 years), region and ≤1 prior VEGFR-targeted therapies and randomized 2:1 to LEN or PBO (24mg/d, 28-d cycle). Upon progression, pts receiving PBO could crossover to open-label LEN. The primary endpoint was PFS assessed by Independent Radiologic Review; secondary endpoints included overall response rate (ORR; complete response [CR] + PR), overall survival (OS) and safety. Results: 392 pts (63.0 years median age; 51.0% male) were randomized. Pts on LEN had a significantly prolonged PFS vs PBO (hazard ratio 0.21, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.14–0.31; P <.0001); median PFS was LEN: 18.3 mo (95% CI 15.1–not evaluable), PBO: 3.6 mo (95% CI 2.2–3.7). A LEN PFS benefit was observed in all predefined subgroups; median LEN PFS for pts with prior vs no prior VEGF-therapy was 15.1 mo (n=66) and 18.7 mo (n=195), respectively. Rates (n) of CRs were LEN: 1.5% (4), PBO: 0; PRs were LEN: 63.2% (165), PBO: 1.5% (2).Median exposure duration was LEN: 13.8 mo, PBO: 3.9 mo; median time to LEN response was 2.0 mo. Median OS has not been reached; deaths per arm were LEN: 71 (27.2%), PBO: 47 (35.9%). The 5 most common LEN treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs; any grade) were hypertension (68%), diarrhea (59%), appetite decreased (50%), weight loss (46%), nausea (41%). LEN grade ≥3 TRAEs (≥5%) were hypertension (42%), proteinuria (10%), weight loss (10%), diarrhea (8%), appetite decreased (5%). The dose was reduced in 78.5% of pts and discontinued due to adverse events (AEs) in 14.2% of pts. Conclusions: LEN significantly improved PFS compared with PBO in pts with progressive RR-DTC. There were no unexpected toxicities and AEs were manageable. Clinical trial information: NCT01321554.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document