scholarly journals Prednisolone adverse events in the treatment and prevention of leprosy neuropathy in two large double blind randomized clinical trials 

2021 ◽  
Vol 92 (3) ◽  
pp. 236-246
Author(s):  
Erik Post ◽  
Inge Wagenaar ◽  
Wim Brandsma ◽  
Bob Bowers ◽  
Khorshed Alam ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Treatment And Prevention ◽  
Leprosy Neuropathy

The Detection of Adverse Events in Randomized Clinical Trials: Can we Really Say New Medicines are Safe?

2013 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 104-113 ◽  
Author(s):  
Izyan Wahab ◽  
Nicole Pratt ◽  
Lisa Kalisch ◽  
Elizabeth Roughead
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials

scholarly journals Recombinant Human Adenovirus-p53 Therapy for the Treatment of Oral Leukoplakia and Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Systematic Review

Medicina ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 57 (5) ◽  
pp. 438
Author(s):  
Jagadish Hosmani ◽  
Shazia Mushtaq ◽  
Shahabe Saquib Abullais ◽  
Hussain Mohammed Almubarak ◽  
Khalil Assiri ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Oral Cancer ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Oral Leukoplakia ◽  
Research Articles ◽  
Original Research ◽  
Therapeutic Effects ◽  
The World

Background and Objectives: Oral cancer is the 6th most common cancer in the world and oral leukoplakia is an oral potentially malignant disorder that could develop into oral cancer. This systematic review focusses on randomized clinical trials for recombinant adenovirus p-53 (rAD-p53) therapy for the treatment of oral leukoplakia and cancer. Materials and Methods: We searched for research articles on various databases such as Pubmed/Medline, Embase, CNKI (China National Knowledge Infra-structure), Springerlink, cochrane and Web of sciences from 2003 to 2020. MeSH (Medical Subject Headings) terms were used for the search. Inclusion criteria included original research, randomized clinical trials and articles only in English language. Exclusion criteria were any articles that were not research articles, not randomized trials, non-human studies, etc. The articles were further graded on the Jadad scale. Results: 578 articles were assessed from various databases; only 3 articles were found to be appropriate for this review. Thus, meta-analysis was not performed because of heterogeneity and lack of data. In the three studies, whether rAD-p53 was used as a standalone therapy or with other therapies, there was a beneficial effect of the therapy. Furthermore, there were no serious adverse events and the only adverse events reported were fever, pain at the local injection site, flu-like symptoms and lowered WBC count. Conclusions: Thus, we can conclude that this therapy has a potential for beneficial therapeutic effects and further clinical trials with more patients need to be performed to get better understanding of the effect of rAD-p53 therapy, which probably will pave the way to its approval in other parts of the world.

scholarly journals Agonist-Like or Antagonist-Like Treatment for Cocaine Dependence with Methadone for Heroin Dependence: Two Double-Blind Randomized Clinical Trials

2003 ◽  
Vol 29 (5) ◽  
pp. 969-981 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Grabowski ◽  
Howard Rhoades ◽  
Angela Stotts ◽  
Katherine Cowan ◽  
Charles Kopecky ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Cocaine Dependence ◽  
Heroin Dependence ◽  
Double Blind

What are the reciprocal influences of randomized clinical trials and the patient–psychiatrist relationship?

1999 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 93-100
Author(s):  
J. Catteau ◽  
C. Cyran ◽  
R. Bordet ◽  
C.E. Thomas ◽  
B.A. Dupuis
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Depressive Disorders ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Antidepressant Drugs ◽  
Antidepressant Medication ◽  
Study Data ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Phase Iii Clinical Trials ◽  
Reciprocal Influences

SummaryThe goal of this prospective investigation was to study the course and the quality of patient-psychiatrist relationships during phase II / phase III clinical trials of antidepressant medication prescribed for depressive disorders. All patients who participated in the clinical trials (and subsequently in this survey) signed written informed consent statements and were subject to random double blind treatment assignment. Retrospective analysis of 118 investigations was carried out, and the patients involved were questioned concerning their experiences and impressions during and after the study. Data show that the outcome of clinical trials of antidepressant drugs are not a function of pre-existing good patient-psychiatrist relationships. On the other hand, no effects on the patient-psychiatrist relationship were found as a result of the experimental procedure, and it can be concluded that no detrimental effects on future patient-psychiatrist relationships were incurred.

675 FUNDOPLICATION VERSUS ORAL PROTON PUMP INHIBITORS FOR GASTROESOPHAGEAL REFLUX DISEASE: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS OF RANDOMIZED CLINICAL TRIALS

2021 ◽  
Vol 34 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Luca Schiliró Tristão ◽  
Francisco Tustumi ◽  
Guilherme Tavares ◽  
Letícia Nogueira Datrino ◽  
Maria Carolina Andrade Serafim ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease ◽  
Gastroesophageal Reflux ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Proton Pump ◽  
Reflux Disease ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Oral Intake

Abstract   Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a widely studied and highly prevalent condition. However, few is reported about the exact efficacy and safety of fundoplication (FPT) compared to oral intake proton-pump inhibitors (PPI). This systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCT) aims to compare PPI and FPT in relation to the efficacy, as well as the adverse events associated with these therapies. Methods This systematic review was guided by PRISMA statement. Search carried out in June 2020 was conducted on Medline, Cochrane, EMBASE and LILACS. The inclusion criteria were (I) patients with GERD; (II) Randomized clinical trials, comparing oral intake PPI with FPT; (III) relevant outcomes for this review. The exclusion criteria were (I) reviews, case reports, editorials and letters (II) transoral or endoscopic FPT (III) studies with no full text. No restrictions were set for language or period. Certainty of evidence and risk of bias were assessed with GRADE Pro and with Review Manager Version 5.4 bias assessment tool. Results Ten RCT were included. Meta-analysis showed that heartburn (RD = −0.19; 95% CI = −0.29, −0.09) was less frequently reported by patients that underwent FPT. Furthermore, patients undergoing surgery had greater pressure on the lower esophageal sphincter than those who used PPI (MD = 7.81; 95% CI 4.79, 10.83). There was no significant difference between groups in the percentage of time with pH less than 4 in 24 hours, sustained remission and Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale. Finally, FPT did not increase significantly the risk for adverse events such as postoperative dysphagia and impaired belching. Conclusion FPT is a more effective therapy than PPI treatment for GERD, without significantly increasing the risk for adverse events. However, before indicating a possible surgical approach, it is extremely important to correctly assess and select the patients who would benefit from FPT, such as those with severe erosive esophagitis, severe respiratory symptoms, low adherence to continuous drug treatment and patients with non-acid reflux, to ensure better results.

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

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.

scholarly journals Opportunities for selective reporting of harms in randomized clinical trials: Selection criteria for nonsystematic adverse events

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Evan Mayo-Wilson ◽  
Nicole Fusco ◽  
Hwanhee Hong ◽  
Tianjing Li ◽  
Joseph K. Canner ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Selection Criteria ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Bipolar Depression ◽  
Selective Reporting ◽  
Journal Articles ◽  
Multiple Sources ◽  
Study Results ◽  
Meta Analyses

Abstract Background: Adverse events (AEs) in randomized clinical trials may be reported in multiple sources. Different methods for reporting adverse events across trials, or across sources for a single trial, may produce inconsistent and confusing information about the adverse events associated with interventions Methods: We sought to compare the methods authors use to decide which AEs to include in a particular source (i.e., “selection criteria”) and to determine how selection criteria could impact the AEs reported. We compared sources (e.g., journal articles, clinical study reports [CSRs]) of trials for two drug-indications: gabapentin for neuropathic pain and quetiapine for bipolar depression. We identified selection criteria and assessed how criteria affected AE reporting. Results: We identified 21 gabapentin trials and 7 quetiapine trials. All CSRs (6 gabapentin, 2 quetiapine) reported all AEs without applying selection criteria; by comparison, no other source reported all AEs, and 15/68 (22%) gabapentin sources and 19/48 (40%) quetiapine sources reported using selection criteria. Selection criteria greatly affected the number of AEs that would be reported. For example, 67/316 (21%) AEs in one quetiapine trial met the criterion “occurring in ≥2% of participants in any treatment group,” while only 5/316 (2%) AEs met the criterion, “occurring in ≥10% of quetiapine-treated patients and twice as frequent in the quetiapine group as the placebo group.” Conclusions: Selection criteria for reporting AEs vary across trials and across sources for individual trials. If investigators do not pre-specify selection criteria, they might “cherry-pick” AEs based on study results. Even if investigators pre-specify selection criteria, selective reporting of AEs will produce biased meta-analyses and clinical practice guidelines. Data about all AEs identified in clinical trials should be publicly available; however, sharing data will not solve all the problems we identified in this study. Keywords: Harms, adverse events, clinical trials, reporting bias, selective outcome reporting, data sharing, trial registration

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document