A double-blind, randomized, multicenter, Italian study of frovatriptan versus rizatriptan for the acute treatment of migraine.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Savi L
PROVIDER: S-EPMC3075392 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Lasmiditan, a serotonin 5-HT1F receptor agonist, was effective for acute treatment of patients with migraine in a phase 3 double-blind randomized controlled study. The current study was designed to replicate these findings in a generalizable population of patients with migraine, including those with a cardiovascular medical history. This prospective, double-blind, phase 3 multicentre study randomly assigned patients with migraine with and without aura (1:1:1:1 ratio) to oral lasmiditan 200 mg, 100 mg, 50 mg, or placebo. Patients were instructed to dose at home within 4 h of onset of migraine attack of at least moderate intensity and not improving. The primary objective was to assess the proportion of patients' headache pain-free and most bothersome symptom-free at 2 h post-dose for each dose of lasmiditan versus placebo (NCT02605174). Patients (n = 3005) were assigned and treated (n = 2583, safety population): 1938 lasmiditan (200 mg n = 528, 100 mg n = 532, and 50 mg n = 556 included in primary analysis) and 645 placebo (540 included in primary analysis). Most patients (79.2%) had ≥1 cardiovascular risk factor at baseline, in addition to migraine. Lasmiditan was associated with significantly more pain freedom at 2 h (lasmiditan 200 mg: 38.8%, odds ratio 2.3, 95% confidence interval 1.8-3.1, P < 0.001; 100 mg: 31.4%, odds ratio 1.7, 1.3-2.2, P < 0.001; 50 mg: 28.6%, odds ratio 1.5, 1.1-1.9, P = 0.003 versus placebo 21.3%) and freedom from most bothersome symptom at 2 h (lasmiditan 200 mg: 48.7%, odds ratio 1.9, 95% confidence interval 1.4-2.4, P < 0.001; 100 mg: 44.2%, odds ratio 1.6, 1.2-2.0, P < 0.001; 50 mg: 40.8%, odds ratio 1.4, 1.1-1.8, P = 0.009 versus placebo 33.5%). Treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 253 of 649 (39.0%), 229 of 635 (36.1%), and 166 of 654 (25.4%) of patients on lasmiditan 200, 100, and 50 mg, respectively, versus 75 of 645 (11.6%) on placebo. Most adverse events were CNS-related and included dizziness, somnolence and paraesthesia. Lasmiditan was effective at 2 h post-dose for acute treatment of migraine at all oral doses tested. Efficacy and safety were consistent with the previous phase 3 study.
| S-EPMC6620826 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVE:To assess the efficacy and safety of a remote electrical neuromodulation (REN) device for the acute treatment of migraine. BACKGROUND:There is a significant unmet need for novel effective well-tolerated acute migraine treatments. REN is a novel acute migraine treatment that stimulates upper arm peripheral nerves to induce conditioned pain modulation - an endogenous analgesic mechanism in which conditioning stimulation inhibits pain in remote body regions. A recent pilot study showed that REN can significantly reduce headache. We have conducted a randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled study to further evaluate the efficacy and safety of REN for the acute treatment of migraine. METHODS:This was a randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled, multicenter study conducted at 7 sites in the United States and 5 sites in Israel. Two hundred and fifty-two adults meeting the International Classification of Headache Disorders criteria for migraine with 2-8 migraine headaches per month were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to active or sham stimulation. A smartphone-controlled wireless device was applied for 30-45 minutes on the upper arm within 1 hour of attack onset; electrical stimulation was at a perceptible but non-painful intensity level. Migraine pain levels were recorded at baseline, 2, and 48 hours post-treatment. Most bothersome symptoms (MBS) were also recorded. The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of participants achieving pain relief at 2 hours post-treatment (improvement from severe or moderate pain to mild or none, or from mild pain to none). Relief of MBS and pain-free at 2 hours were key secondary endpoints. RESULTS:Active stimulation was more effective than sham stimulation in achieving pain relief (66.7% [66/99] vs 38.8% [40/103]; therapeutic gain of 27.9% [CI95% , 15.6-40.2]; P < .0001), pain-free (37.4% vs 18.4%, P = .003), and MBS relief (46.3% vs 22.2%, P = .0008) at 2 hours post-treatment. The pain relief and pain-free superiority of the active treatment was sustained 48 hours post-treatment. The incidence of device-related adverse events was low and similar between treatment groups (4.8% [6/126] vs 2.4% [3/126], P = .499). CONCLUSIONS:REN provides superior clinically meaningful relief of migraine pain and MBS compared to placebo, offering a safe and effective non-pharmacological alternative for acute migraine treatment.
| S-EPMC6767146 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background/aimsThere is insufficient quality data to recommend the use of herbs for the treatment of acute bronchitis. Small number of randomized trials of plant extracts for this purpose were determined to be low quality and there are concerns for the safety. HL301 is a combined product of seven medicinal plants. In the present study, we tried to evaluate the efficacy and safety of HL301 for the treatment of acute bronchitis with a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial design.MethodsA total of 166 patients with acute bronchitis were randomized to receive placebo or HL301 (600 mg/day) for 7 days. The primary endpoint was change in bronchitis severity score (BSS) from baseline visit (visit 2) to the end of treatment (visit 3). Other efficacy variables were the change of each component of the BSS (cough, sputum, dyspnea, chest pain, and crackle) with treatment, response rate, improvement rate, satisfaction rate and number of rescue medications taken.ResultsChanges in the BSS from visit 2 to visit 3 were higher in the HL301 group than in the placebo group both in the full analysis set (4.57 ± 1.82 vs. 3.15 ± 3.08, p < 0.01) and in the per protocol set (4.62 ± 1.81 vs. 3.30 ± 3.03, p < 0.01). Four BSS components (cough, sputum, dyspnea, and chest pain) improved more with HL301 treatment than with placebo treatment. Participants treated with HL301 showed higher response, improvement, and satisfaction rates and less use of rescue medication than the placebo group.ConclusionHL301 (600 mg/day) was effective and safe for symptomatic treatment of acute bronchitis.
| S-EPMC6960049 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The use of antiemetics for vomiting in acute gastroenteritis in children is still a matter of debate. We conducted a double-blind randomized trial to evaluate whether a single oral dose of ondansetron vs domperidone or placebo improves outcomes in children with gastroenteritis. After failure of initial oral rehydration administration, children aged 1-6 years admitted for gastroenteritis to the pediatric emergency departments of 15 hospitals in Italy were randomized to receive one oral dose of ondansetron (0.15 mg/kg) or domperidone (0.5 mg/kg) or placebo. The primary outcome was the percentage of children receiving nasogastric or intravenous rehydration. A p value of 0.014 was used to indicate statistical significance (and 98.6% CI were calculated) as a result of having carried out two interim analyses. 1,313 children were eligible for the first attempt with oral rehydration solution, which was successful for 832 (63.4%); 356 underwent randomization (the parents of 125 children did not give consent): 118 to placebo, 119 to domperidone, and 119 to ondansetron. Fourteen (11.8%) needed intravenous rehydration in the ondansetron group vs 30 (25.2%) and 34 (28.8%) in the domperidone and placebo groups, respectively. Ondansetron reduced the risk of intravenous rehydration by over 50%, both vs placebo (RR 0.41, 98.6% CI 0.20-0.83) and domperidone (RR 0.47, 98.6% CI 0.23-0.97). No differences for adverse events were seen among groups. In a context of emergency care, 6 out of 10 children aged 1-6 years with vomiting due to gastroenteritis and without severe dehydration can be managed effectively with administration of oral rehydration solution alone. In children who fail oral rehydration, a single oral dose of ondansetron reduces the need for intravenous rehydration and the percentage of children who continue to vomit, thereby facilitating the success of oral rehydration. Domperidone was not effective for the symptomatic treatment of vomiting during acute gastroenteritis.
| S-EPMC5120790 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSafe, effective, oral therapies are needed for acute treatment of migraine. This clinical trial assessed the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of celecoxib oral solution (ELYXYB) in a single migraine attack associated with moderate-to-severe pain.MethodsThis was a phase III, randomized (1:1), double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, conducted at 41 US centers from December 2016 to October 2017. Adults with episodic migraine (with or without aura) for ≥1 year were treated with a single 4.8 mL dose of 120-mg celecoxib oral solution or placebo. Co-primary endpoints were the proportion of patients who were pain-free and free from the most bothersome migraine symptom (MBS) at 2 hours post-dose. The MBS was identified at screening from among nausea, photophobia, or phonophobia.ResultsSix hundred thirty-one patients were randomized (celecoxib oral solution, n=316; placebo, n=315; mean age 41 years, range 18-75; 84.3% female). One study site met prespecified outlier criteria (defined as a treatment effect estimate that was at least twice as large as all other sites) and was excluded from efficacy analyses. This site had a mean 2-hour pain freedom placebo response rate of 75% vs a combined mean of 23.5% for all other sites. In subsequent analysis, 2-hour post-dose pain freedom response rates were significantly higher in the celecoxib oral solution group vs placebo (32.8%, [27.2%, 38.8%]) vs 23.5%, [18.5%, 29.2%]; P=0.020). For 2-hour post-dose MBS freedom, response rates were significantly higher in the celecoxib oral solution group vs placebo (58.1% [51.4%, 64.5%] vs 43.9% [37.2%, 50.7%]; P=0.003). A total of 10.7% (31/289) of patients treated with celecoxib oral solution and 9.9% (28/283) of placebo-treated patients reported a treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE). Study drug-related TEAEs were reported by 7.3% (21/289) and 7.4% (21/283) of celecoxib oral solution and placebo patients, respectively; the most common were nausea (celecoxib oral solution: 1.4% [4/289] vs placebo: 1.8% [5/283]) and dysgeusia (celecoxib oral solution: 1.7% [5/289] vs placebo: 1.1% [3/283]). No serious TEAEs, deaths, or drug-related TEAEs leading to withdrawal were reported.ConclusionCelecoxib oral solution is a safe, effective COX-2-selective nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug for the treatment of acute migraine. In this analysis, celecoxib oral solution was significantly more effective than placebo and was also associated with a low rate of gastric TEAEs. Celecoxib oral solution may provide a convenient, alternate option to currently available treatments.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03009019; registered January 4, 2017; retrospectively registered, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03009019.
| S-EPMC8382884 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn some randomized trials successful laparoscopic cholecystectomy for cholecystitis is associated with an earlier recovery and shorter hospital stay when compared with open cholecystectomy. Other studies did not confirm these results and showed that the potential advantages of laparoscopic cholecystectomy for cholecystitis can be offset by a high conversion rate to open surgery. Moreover in these studies a similar postoperative programme to optimize recovery comparing laparoscopic and open approaches was not standardized. These studies also do not report all eligible patients and are not double blinded.DesignThe present study project is a prospective, randomized investigation. The study will be performed in the Department of General, Emergency and Transplant Surgery St Orsola-Malpighi University Hospital (Bologna, Italy), a large teaching institutions, with the participation of all surgeons who accept to be involved in (and together with other selected centers). The patients will be divided in two groups: in the first group the patient will be submitted to laparoscopic cholecystectomy within 72 hours after the diagnosis while in the second group will be submitted to laparotomic cholecystectomy within 72 hours after the diagnosis.Trial registrationTRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER ISRCTN27929536 - The ACTIVE (Acute Cholecystitis Trial Invasive Versus Endoscopic) study. A multicentre randomised, double-blind, controlled trial of laparoscopic versus open surgery for acute cholecystitis in adults.
| S-EPMC2244597 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of galcanezumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody that selectively binds to calcitonin gene-related peptide, in the preventive treatment of chronic migraine.MethodsA phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of LY2951742 in patients with chronic migraine (Evaluation of Galcanezumab in the Prevention of Chronic Migraine [REGAIN]) was a phase 3 study with a 3-month double-blind, placebo-controlled treatment phase and a 9-month open-label extension. Eligible patients 18 to 65 years of age with chronic migraine were randomized 2:1:1 to monthly subcutaneous injections of placebo (n = 558), galcanezumab 120 mg (with a 240-mg loading dose, n = 278), or galcanezumab 240 mg (n = 277). The primary endpoint was the overall mean change from baseline in the number of monthly migraine headache days (MHDs) during the 3-month double-blind treatment phase.ResultsMean number of monthly MHDs at baseline was 19.4 for the total sample. Both galcanezumab dose groups demonstrated greater overall mean reduction in the number of monthly MHDs compared to placebo (placebo -2.7, galcanezumab 120 mg -4.8, galcanezumab 240 mg -4.6) (p < 0.001 for each dose compared to placebo). There were no clinically meaningful differences between galcanezumab doses and placebo on any safety or tolerability outcome except for a higher incidence of treatment-emergent injection-site reaction (p < 0.01), injection-site erythema (p < 0.001), injection-site pruritus (p < 0.01), and sinusitis (p < 0.05) in the galcanezumab 240-mg group relative to placebo.ConclusionsBoth doses of galcanezumab were superior to placebo in reducing the number of monthly MHDs. Galcanezumab appears efficacious, safe, and well tolerated for the preventive treatment of chronic migraine.Clinicaltrialsgov identifierNCT02614261.Classification of evidenceThis interventional study provides Class I evidence that galcanezumab is superior to placebo in the reduction of the number of monthly MHDs.
| S-EPMC6329331 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundEchinacea has antiviral activity against influenza viruses in vitro and has traditionally been used for treatment of colds and flu.ObjectivesThis randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, multicenter, controlled clinical trial compared a new echinacea formulation with the neuraminidase inhibitor oseltamivir, the gold standard treatment for influenza.MethodsFollowing informed consent, 473 patients with early influenza symptoms (≤48 hours) were recruited in primary care in the Czech Republic and randomized to either 5 days of oseltamivir followed by 5 days of placebo, or 10 days of an Echinacea purpurea-based formulation called Echinaforce Hotdrink (A. Vogel Bioforce AG, Roggwil, Switzerland). The proportion of recovered patients (influenza symptoms rated as absent or mild in the evening) was analyzed for noninferiority between treatment groups using a generalized Wilcoxon test with significance level α = 0.05 (2-sided) and using a CI approach in the per-protocol sample.ResultsRecovery from illness was comparable in the 2 treatment groups at 1.5% versus 4.1% after 1 day, 50.2% versus 48.8% after 5 days, and 90.1% versus 84.8% after 10 days of treatment with Echinaforce Hotdrink and oseltamivir, respectively. Noninferiority was demonstrated for each day and overall (95% CI, 0.487-0.5265 by generalized Wilcoxon test). Very similar results were obtained in the group with virologically confirmed influenza virus infections and in a retrospective analysis during the peak influenza period. The incidence of complications was lower with Echinaforce Hotdrink than with oseltamivir (2.46% vs 6.45%; P = 0.076) and fewer adverse events (particularly nausea and vomiting) were observed with Echinaforce Hotdrink.ConclusionsEchinaforce Hotdrink is as effective as oseltamivir in the early treatment of clinically diagnosed and virologically confirmed influenza virus infections with a reduced risk of complications and adverse events. It appears to be an attractive treatment option, particularly suitable for self-care. Clinical trial identifier: Eudra-CT: 2010-021571-88. (Curr Ther Res Clin Exp. 2015; 77:66-72).
| S-EPMC4528044 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the efficacy and safety of eptinezumab, a humanized anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibody, in the preventive treatment of episodic migraine. METHODS:The PRevention Of Migraine via Intravenous ALD403 Safety and Efficacy-1 (PROMISE-1) study was a phase 3, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study. Adults with episodic migraine were randomized to eptinezumab 30?mg, 100?mg, 300?mg, or placebo for up to four intravenous (IV) doses administered every 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in monthly migraine days (MMDs) over weeks 1-12. RESULTS:A total of 888 patients received treatment across 84 study sites. Mean MMDs at baseline was ?8.6 across treatment groups. Eptinezumab 100?mg and 300?mg met the primary endpoint, significantly reducing MMDs across weeks 1-12 compared with placebo (30?mg, -4.0; 100?mg, -3.9, p?=?0.0182; 300?mg, -4.3; placebo, -3.2, p?=?0.0001). Treatment-emergent adverse events were reported by 58.4% (30?mg), 63.2% (100?mg), 57.6% (300?mg), and 59.5% (placebo) of patients. Treatment-emergent adverse events reported by ?2% of eptinezumab-treated patients at an incidence greater than placebo included: upper respiratory tract infection (30?mg, 11.4%; 100?mg, 9.9%; 300?mg, 10.3%; placebo, 7.2%), and fatigue (30?mg, 2.3%; 100?mg, 3.6%; 300?mg, 3.6%; placebo, <1%). CONCLUSION:Eptinezumab (100?mg or 300?mg) significantly reduced migraine frequency, was well tolerated, and had an acceptable safety profile when used for the preventive treatment of migraine in adults with episodic migraine. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02559895.
| S-EPMC7066477 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo determine the effect of erenumab, a human monoclonal antibody targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor, on health-related quality of life (HRQoL), headache impact, and disability in patients with chronic migraine (CM).MethodsIn this double-blind, placebo-controlled study, 667 adults with CM were randomized (3:2:2) to placebo or erenumab (70 or 140 mg monthly). Exploratory endpoints included migraine-specific HRQoL (Migraine-Specific Quality-of-Life Questionnaire [MSQ]), headache impact (Headache Impact Test-6 [HIT-6]), migraine-related disability (Migraine Disability Assessment [MIDAS] test), and pain interference (Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System [PROMIS] Pain Interference Scale short form 6b).ResultsImprovements were observed for all endpoints in both erenumab groups at month 3, with greater changes relative to placebo observed at month 1 for many outcomes. All 3 MSQ domains were improved from baseline with treatment differences for both doses exceeding minimally important differences established for MSQ-role function-restrictive (≥3.2) and MSQ-emotional functioning (≥7.5) and for MSQ-role function-preventive (≥4.5) for erenumab 140 mg. Changes from baseline in HIT-6 scores at month 3 were -5.6 for both doses vs -3.1 for placebo. MIDAS scores at month 3 improved by -19.4 days for 70 mg and -19.8 days for 140 mg vs -7.5 days for placebo. Individual-level minimally important difference was achieved by larger proportions of erenumab-treated participants than placebo for all MSQ domains and HIT-6. Lower proportions of erenumab-treated participants had MIDAS scores of severe (≥21) or very severe (≥41) or PROMIS scores ≥60 at month 3.ConclusionsErenumab-treated patients with CM experienced clinically relevant improvements across a broad range of patient-reported outcomes.Clinicaltrialsgov identifierNCT02066415.Classification of evidenceThis study provides Class II evidence that for patients with CM, erenumab treatment improves HRQoL, headache impact, and disability.
| S-EPMC6537129 | biostudies-literature