Randomised clinical trial: high-dose acid suppression for chronic cough - a double-blind, placebo-controlled study.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Shaheen NJ
PROVIDER: S-EPMC3073617 | biostudies-literature | 2011 Jan
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Randomised clinical trial: high-dose acid suppression for chronic cough - a double-blind, placebo-controlled study.
Shaheen N J NJ Crockett S D SD Bright S D SD Madanick R D RD Buckmire R R Couch M M Dellon E S ES Galanko J A JA Sharpless G G Morgan D R DR Spacek M B MB Heidt-Davis P P Henke D D
Alimentary pharmacology & therapeutics 20101117 2
<h4>Background</h4>Cough may be a manifestation of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GERD). The utility of acid suppression in GERD-related cough is uncertain.<h4>Aim</h4>To assess the impact of high-dose acid suppression with proton pump inhibitors (PPI) on chronic cough in subjects with rare or no heartburn.<h4>Methods</h4>Subjects were nonsmokers without history of asthma, with chronic cough for >8 weeks. All subjects underwent a baseline 24-h pH/impedance study, methacholine challenge test ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BACKGROUND:To investigate the effect of BC1036 on health-related quality of life (QOL) in subjects with persistent cough. The secondary objective was to investigate the effect of BC1036 on subjective cough severity. METHODS:This was a randomised, multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study in 289 subjects with persistent cough. Subjects received BC1036 or placebo twice daily for 14 days. The primary endpoint comprised cough-related QOL assessed using the validated Leicester Cough Questionnaire (LCQ) at Day 14. Secondary endpoints comprised the LCQ scores at Day 7 and Day 28, cough severity VAS scores at each visit and pulmonary function tests. RESULTS:At baseline, mean total LCQ score in the BC1036 group was lower (i.e., worse QOL) than placebo (P<0.001), indicating significant between-group heterogeneity. Mean baseline-adjusted change in LCQ score at Day 14 was greater for BC1036 [mean (SD) 2.4±3.5] compared to placebo [mean (SD) score 2.2±3.0], but did not reach statistical significance (P=0.60). Mean cough severity VAS score decreased to a greater extent in the BC1036 group compared to placebo, but again the results were not statistically significant (-12.2±23.28 in BC1036 group and -11.0±21.34 in placebo group at Day 14, P=0.688). There was no significant change in pulmonary function measurements. The adverse event (AE) profile was similar in both groups. CONCLUSIONS:This study showed that BC1036 was well tolerated and, although the primary endpoint did not achieve statistical significance, the magnitude of improvement was greater with BC1036 compared to placebo with respect to improving QOL and reducing cough severity. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01656668.
| S-EPMC5542984 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Hyperprolactinaemia is a troublesome side-effect of treatment with antipsychotics.This double-blind, placebo-controlled study aimed at examining the effect of adjunctive treatment with 10?mg aripiprazole on prolactin levels and sexual side-effects in patients with schizophrenia symptomatically maintained on risperidone.Thirty patients taking risperidone were enrolled into the trial (CTRI/2012/11/003114). Aripiprazole was administered at a fixed daily dose of 10?mg/day for 8 weeks. Serum prolactin was measured at baseline and at 8 weeks. Hyperprolactinaemia-related problems, psychopathology and side-effects were evaluated every 2 weeks.Prolactin levels decreased by 58% in the aripiprazole group compared with an increase by 22% in the placebo group. Prolactin levels normalised in 46% of patients in the aripiprazole group (number needed to treat, NNT=2). Aripiprazole improved erectile dysfunction in five out of six patients. There were no significant differences in change in psychopathology or side-effects between groups.Adjunctive aripiprazole reduced prolactin levels in those treated with risperidone, with no effect on psychopathology and extrapyramidal symptoms. This is a potential treatment for hyperprolactinaemia observed during treatment with second-generation antipsychotics.None.© The Royal College of Psychiatrists 2015. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Non-Commercial, No Derivatives (CC BY-NC-ND) licence.
| S-EPMC4998932 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundHigh dose oral ascorbic acid substantially improved myelination and locomotor function in a Charcot-Marie-Tooth type 1A mouse model. A phase II study was warranted to investigate whether high dose ascorbic acid also has such a substantial effect on myelination in Charcot-Marie-Tooth type 1A patients and whether this treatment is safe.MethodsPatients below age 25 years were randomly assigned to receive placebo or ascorbic acid (one gram twice daily) in a double-blind fashion during one year. The primary outcome measure was the change over time in motor nerve conduction velocity of the median nerve. Secondary outcome measures included changes in minimal F response latencies, compound muscle action potential amplitude, muscle strength, sensory function, Charcot-Marie-Tooth neuropathy score, and disability.ResultsThere were no significant differences between the six placebo-treated (median age 16 years, range 13 to 24) and the five ascorbic acid-treated (19, 14 to 24) patients in change in motor nerve conduction velocity of the median nerve (mean difference ascorbic acid as opposed to placebo treatment of 1.3 m/s, confidence interval -0.3 to 3.0 m/s, P = 0.11) or in change of any of the secondary outcome measures over time. One patient in the ascorbic acid group developed a skin rash, which led to discontinuation of the study medication.ConclusionOral high dose ascorbic acid for one year did not improve myelination of the median nerve in young Charcot-Marie-Tooth type 1A patients. Treatment was relatively safe.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN56968278, ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00271635.
| S-EPMC2784478 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIntravenous use of sufentanil can elicit cough. This study aimed to evaluate the inhibitory effect of pre-injection of a mall dose of remifentanil on sufentanil-induced cough during the induction of general anesthesia.MethodsThis prospective, randomized, controlled trial was conducted from January 10, 2019 to March 01, 2019. A total of 100 patients undergoing elective surgery under general anesthesia were enrolled, and at last 84 patients were included and randomly allocated into two equal size groups (n =?42): Patients in the Remifentanil group (R group) received an intravenous infusion of remifentanil 0.3??g/kg (diluted to 2?ml) 1?min before sufentanil injection; patients in the Control group (C group) received 2?ml of normal saline (NS) at the same time point. Injections of patients in both groups were completed within 5?s. Then, sufentanil 0.5??g/kg was injected within 5?s and the number of coughs that occurred within 1?min after sufentanil injection were recorded. One minute after sufentanil injection, etomidate 0.3?mg/kg and cisatracurium 0.15?mg/kg were given for general anesthesia induction irrespective of the presence or absence of cough. The mean arterial pressure (MAP) and heart rate (HR) at time points just before remifentanil pretreatment administration (T0), 3?min after administration (T1), 1?min after intubation (T2), and 3?min after intubation (T3) were recorded.ResultsThe incidence of cough in patients in the R group and C group was 4.8 and 31%, respectively. Compared with group C, the incidence and severity of cough in group R was significantly lower (P <?0.01). No significant differences were observed in MAP and HR at the time of general anesthesia induction between the two groups (P >?0.05).ConclusionPretreatment with a small dose of remifentanil effectively and safely reduced the incidence and severity of cough induced by sufentanil during anesthesia induction and can be used as an alternative treatment to inhibit coughing caused by sufentanil.Trial registrationChinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR1900020587, registered date: January 9, 2019), http://www.chictr.org.cn.
| S-EPMC6712682 | biostudies-literature
Project description:A novel subcutaneous allergen immunotherapy formulation (gpASIT+™) containing Lolium perenne peptides (LPP) and having a short up-dosing phase has been developed to treat grass pollen-induced seasonal allergic rhinoconjunctivitis. We investigated peptide immunotherapy containing the hydrolysate from perennial ryegrass allergens for the optimum dose in terms of clinical efficacy, immunogenicity and safety.This prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase IIb, parallel, four-arm, dose-finding study randomized 198 grass pollen-allergic adults to receive placebo or cumulative doses of 70, 170 or 370 ?g LPP. All patients received weekly subcutaneous injections, with the active treatment groups reaching assigned doses within 2, 3 and 4 weeks, respectively. Efficacy was assessed by comparing conjunctival provocation test (CPT) reactions at baseline, after 4 weeks and after completion. Grass pollen-specific immunoglobulins were analysed before and after treatment.Conjunctival provocation test (CPT) response thresholds improved from baseline to V7 by at least one concentration step in 51.2% (170 ?g; P = .023), 46.3% (370 ?g), and 38.6% (70 ?g) of patients receiving LPP vs 25.6% of patients receiving placebo (modified per-protocol set). Also, 39% of patients in the 170-?g group became nonreactive to CPT vs 18% in the placebo group. Facilitated allergen-binding assays revealed a highly significant (P < .001) dose-dependent reduction in IgE allergen binding across all treatment groups (70 ?g: 17.1%; 170 ?g: 18.8%; 370 ?g: 26.4%). Specific IgG4 levels increased to 1.6-fold (70 ?g), 3.1-fold (170 ?g) and 3.9-fold (370 ?g) (mPP).Three-week immunotherapy with 170 ?g LPP reduced CPT reactivity significantly and increased protective specific antibodies.
| S-EPMC5947135 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundPsilocybin has been suggested as a novel, rapid-acting treatment for depression. Two consecutive doses have been shown to markedly decrease symptom severity in an open-label setting or when compared to a waiting list group. To date, to our knowledge, no other trial compared a single, moderate dose of psilocybin to a placebo condition.MethodsIn this double-blind, randomised clinical trial, 52 participants diagnosed with major depressive disorder and no unstable somatic conditions were allocated to receive either a single, moderate dose (0.215 mg/kg body weight) of psilocybin or placebo in conjunction with psychological support. MADRS and BDI scores were assessed to estimate depression severity, while changes from baseline to 14 days after the intervention were defined as primary endpoints. The trial took place between April 11th, 2019 and October 12th, 2021 at the psychiatric university hospital in Zürich, Switzerland and was registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03715127).FindingsThe psilocybin condition showed an absolute decrease in symptom severity of -13.0 points compared to baseline and were significantly larger than those in the placebo condition (95% CI -15.0 to -1.3; Cohens' d = 0.97; P = 0.0011; MADRS) and -13.2 points (95% CI; -13.4 to -1.3; Cohens' d = 0.67; P = 0.019; BDI) 14 days after the intervention. 14/26 (54%) participants met the MADRS remission criteria in the psilocybin condition.InterpretationThese results suggest that a single, moderate dose of psilocybin significantly reduces depressive symptoms compared to a placebo condition for at least two weeks. No serious adverse events were recorded. Larger, multi-centric trials with longer follow-up periods are needed to inform further optimisation of this novel treatment paradigm.FundingThe study was funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation, Crowdfunding, the Swiss Neuromatrix Foundation, and the Heffter Research Institute.
| S-EPMC9830149 | biostudies-literature
Project description:High levels of oxidative stress can have considerable impact on the outcomes of in vitro fertilisation (IVF). Recent studies have reported that melatonin, a neurohormone secreted from the pineal gland in response to darkness, has significant antioxidative capabilities which may protect against the oxidative stress of infertility treatment on gametes and embryos. Early studies of oral melatonin (3-4?mg/day) in IVF have suggested favourable outcomes. However, most trials were poorly designed and none have addressed the optimum dose of melatonin. We present a proposal for a pilot double-blind randomised placebo-controlled dose-response trial aimed to determine whether oral melatonin supplementation during ovarian stimulation can improve the outcomes of assisted reproductive technology.We will recruit 160 infertile women into one of four groups: placebo (n=40); melatonin 2?mg twice per day (n=40); melatonin 4?mg twice per day (n=40) and melatonin 8?mg twice per day (n=40). The primary outcome will be clinical pregnancy rate. Secondary clinical outcomes include oocyte number/quality, embryo number/quality and fertilisation rate. We will also measure serum melatonin and the oxidative stress marker, 8-hydroxy-2'-deoxyguanosine at baseline and after treatment and levels of these in follicular fluid at egg pick-up. We will investigate follicular blood flow with Doppler ultrasound, patient sleepiness scores and pregnancy complications, comparing outcomes between groups. This protocol has been designed in accordance with the SPIRIT 2013 Guidelines.Ethical approval has been obtained from Monash Health HREC (Ref: 13402B), Monash University HREC (Ref: CF14/523-2014000181) and Monash Surgical Private Hospital HREC (Ref: 14107). Data analysis, interpretation and conclusions will be presented at national and international conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals.ACTRN12613001317785.
| S-EPMC4156817 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundChronic pelvic pain affects 2-24% of women worldwide and evidence for medical treatments is scarce. Gabapentin is effective in treating some chronic pain conditions. We aimed to measure the efficacy and safety of gabapentin in women with chronic pelvic pain and no obvious pelvic pathology.MethodsWe performed a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomised trial in 39 UK hospital centres. Eligible participants were women with chronic pelvic pain (with or without dysmenorrhoea or dyspareunia) of at least 3 months duration. Inclusion criteria were 18-50 years of age, use or willingness to use contraception to avoid pregnancy, and no obvious pelvic pathology at laparoscopy, which must have taken place at least 2 weeks before consent but less than 36 months previously. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive gabapentin (titrated to a maximum dose of 2700 mg daily) or matching placebo for 16 weeks. The online randomisation system minimised allocations by presence or absence of dysmenorrhoea, psychological distress, current use of hormonal contraceptives, and hospital centre. The appearance, route, and administration of the assigned intervention were identical in both groups. Patients, clinicians, and research staff were unaware of the trial group assignments throughout the trial. Participants were unmasked once they had provided all outcome data at week 16-17, or sooner if a serious adverse event requiring knowledge of the study drug occurred. The dual primary outcome measures were worst and average pain scores assessed separately on a numerical rating scale in weeks 13-16 after randomisation, in the intention-to-treat population. Self-reported adverse events were assessed according to intention-to-treat principles. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISCRTN77451762.FindingsParticipants were screened between Nov 30, 2015, and March 6, 2019, and 306 were randomly assigned (153 to gabapentin and 153 to placebo). There were no significant between-group differences in both worst and average numerical rating scale (NRS) pain scores at 13-16 weeks after randomisation. The mean worst NRS pain score was 7·1 (standard deviation [SD] 2·6) in the gabapentin group and 7·4 (SD 2·2) in the placebo group. Mean change from baseline was -1·4 (SD 2·3) in the gabapentin group and -1·2 (SD 2·1) in the placebo group (adjusted mean difference -0·20 [97·5% CI -0·81 to 0·42]; p=0·47). The mean average NRS pain score was 4·3 (SD 2·3) in the gabapentin group and 4·5 (SD 2·2) in the placebo group. Mean change from baseline was -1·1 (SD 2·0) in the gabapentin group and -0·9 (SD 1·8) in the placebo group (adjusted mean difference -0·18 [97·5% CI -0·71 to 0·35]; p=0·45). More women had a serious adverse event in the gabapentin group than in the placebo group (10 [7%] of 153 in the gabapentin group compared with 3 [2%] of 153 in the placebo group; p=0·04). Dizziness, drowsiness, and visual disturbances were more common in the gabapentin group.InterpretationThis study was adequately powered, but treatment with gabapentin did not result in significantly lower pain scores in women with chronic pelvic pain, and was associated with higher rates of side-effects than placebo. Given the increasing reports of abuse and evidence of potential harms associated with gabapentin use, it is important that clinicians consider alternative treatment options to off-label gabapentin for the management of chronic pelvic pain and no obvious pelvic pathology.FundingNational Institute for Health Research.
| S-EPMC7527829 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the efficacy and safety of varenicline (a licensed cigarette smoking cessation aid) in helping users of smokeless tobacco to quit.DesignDouble blind, placebo controlled, parallel group, multicentre, randomised controlled trial.SettingMedical clinics (mostly primary care) in Norway and Sweden.ParticipantsMen and women aged ≥18 who used smokeless tobacco at least eight times a day, with no abstinence period over three months within one year before screening, who wanted to quit all tobacco use. Participants were excluded if they used any other form of tobacco (except smokeless tobacco) or medication to stop smoking within three months of screening or had any pre-existing medical or psychiatric condition.InterventionsVarenicline 1 mg twice daily (titrated during the first week) or placebo for 12 weeks, with 14 weeks' follow-up after treatment.Main outcome measuresThe primary end point was the four week continuous abstinence rate at the end of treatment (weeks 9-12) confirmed with cotinine concentration. A secondary end point was continuous abstinence rate for weeks 9-26. Safety and tolerability were also evaluated.Results431 participants (213 varenicline; 218 placebo) were randomised and received at least one dose of study drug. Participants' demographics and baseline use of smokeless tobacco were similar (89% (189) and 90% (196), respectively, were men; mean age in both groups was 43.9; participants used smokeless tobacco products about 15 times a day, and about 80% first used smokeless tobacco within 30 minutes after awakening). Continuous abstinence rate at week 9-12 was higher in the varenicline group than the placebo group (59% (125) v 39% (85); relative risk 1.60, 95% confidence interval 1.32 to 1.87, P<0.001; risk difference 20%; number needed to treat 5). The advantage of varenicline over placebo persisted through 14 weeks of follow-up (continuous abstinence rate at week 9-26 was 45% (95) v 34% (73); relative risk 1.42, 1.08 to 1.79, P=0.012; risk difference 11%; number needed to treat 9). The most common adverse events in the varenicline group compared with the placebo group were nausea (35% (74) v 6% (14)), fatigue (10% (22) v 7% (15)), headache (10% (22) v 9% (20)), and sleep disorder (10% (22) v 7% (15)). Few adverse events led to discontinuation of treatment (9% (19) and 4% (9), respectively), and serious adverse events occurred in two (1%) and three (1%) participants, respectively.ConclusionVarenicline can help people to give up smokeless tobacco and has an acceptable safety profile. The response rate in the placebo group in this study was high, suggesting a population less resistant to treatment than smokers.Trial registrationNCT00717093.
| S-EPMC2997603 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIdiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is a progressive disease that leads to lung scarring. Cough is reported by 85% of patients with IPF and can be a distressing symptom with a significant impact on patients' quality of life. There are no proven effective therapies for IPF-related cough. Whilst morphine is frequently used as a palliative agent for breathlessness in IPF, its effects on cough have never been tested. PAciFy Cough is a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover trial of morphine sulphate for the treatment of cough in IPF.MethodsWe will recruit 44 subjects with IPF prospectively from three interstitial lung disease units in the UK, namely the Royal Brompton Hospital, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust (MFT) and Aintree University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust. Patients will be randomised (1:1) to either placebo twice daily or morphine sulphate 5 mg twice daily for 14 days. They will then crossover after a 7-day washout period. The primary endpoint is the percent change in daytime cough frequency (coughs per hour) from baseline as assessed by objective cough monitoring at day 14 of treatment.DiscussionThis multicentre, randomised trial will assess the effect of opioids on cough counts and cough associated quality of life in IPF subjects. If proven to be an effective intervention, it represents a readily available treatment for patients.Trial registrationThe study was approved by the UK Medicines and Healthcare Regulatory Agency (Ref: CTA 21268/0224/001-0001 - EUDRACT 2019-003571-19 - Protocol Number RBH2019/001) on 08 April 2020, in compliance with the European Clinical Trials Directive and the Medicines for Human Use (Clinical Trials) Regulations 2004 and its subsequent amendments. The study was provided with ethical approval by the London Brent Research Ethics Committee (Ref: 20/LO/0368) on 21 May 2020 and is registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04429516) on 12 June 2020, available at https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04429516.
| S-EPMC8889046 | biostudies-literature