Dataset Information

Efficacy and safety of rifampicin for multiple system atrophy: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

ABSTRACT: No available treatments slow or halt progression of multiple system atrophy, which is a rare, progressive, fatal neurological disorder. In a mouse model of multiple system atrophy, rifampicin inhibited formation of ?-synuclein fibrils, the neuropathological hallmark of the disease. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of rifampicin in patients with multiple system atrophy.In this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial we recruited participants aged 30-80 years with possible or probable multiple system atrophy from ten US medical centres. Eligible participants were randomly assigned (1:1) via computer-generated permuted block randomisation to rifampicin 300 mg twice daily or matching placebo (50 mg riboflavin capsules), stratified by subtype (parkinsonian vs cerebellar), with a block size of four. The primary outcome was rate of change (slope analysis) from baseline to 12 months in Unified Multiple System Atrophy Rating Scale (UMSARS) I score, analysed in all participants with at least one post-baseline measurement. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01287221.Between April 22, 2011, and April 19, 2012, we randomly assigned 100 participants (50 to rifampicin and 50 to placebo). Four participants in the rifampicin group and five in the placebo group withdrew from study prematurely. Results of the preplanned interim analysis (n=15 in each group) of the primary endpoint showed that futility criteria had been met, and the trial was stopped (the mean rate of change [slope analysis] of UMSARS I score was 0.62 points [SD 0.85] per month in the rifampicin group vs 0.47 points [0.48] per month in the placebo group; futility p=0.032; efficacy p=0.76). At the time of study termination, 49 participants in the rifampicin group and 50 in the placebo group had follow-up data and were included in the final analysis. The primary endpoint was 0.5 points (SD 0.7) per month for rifampicin and 0.5 points (0.5) per month for placebo (difference 0.0, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.24; p=0.82). Three (6%) of 50 participants in the rifampicin group and 12 (24%) of 50 in the placebo group had one or more serious adverse events; none was thought to be related to treatment.Our results show that rifampicin does not slow or halt progression of multiple system atrophy. Despite the negative result, the trial does provide information that could be useful in the design of future studies assessing potential disease modifying therapies in patients with multiple system atrophy.National Institutes of Health, Mayo Clinic Center for Translational Science Activities, and Mayo Funds.

SUBMITTER: Low PA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4030757 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Efficacy and safety of rifampicin for multiple system atrophy: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

Low Phillip A PA Robertson David D Gilman Sid S Kaufmann Horacio H Singer Wolfgang W Biaggioni Italo I Freeman Roy R Perlman Susan S Hauser Robert A RA Cheshire William W Lessig Stephanie S Vernino Steven S Mandrekar Jay J Dupont William D WD Chelimsky Thomas T Galpern Wendy R WR

The Lancet. Neurology 20140205 3

<h4>Background</h4>No available treatments slow or halt progression of multiple system atrophy, which is a rare, progressive, fatal neurological disorder. In a mouse model of multiple system atrophy, rifampicin inhibited formation of α-synuclein fibrils, the neuropathological hallmark of the disease. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of rifampicin in patients with multiple system atrophy.<h4>Methods</h4>In this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial we recruited participants ...[more]

PMID: 24507091

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMethylphenidate, modafinil, and amantadine are commonly prescribed medications for alleviating fatigue in multiple sclerosis; however, the evidence supporting their efficacy is sparse and conflicting. Our goal was to compare the efficacy of these three medications with each other and placebo in patients with multiple sclerosis fatigue.MethodsIn this randomised, placebo-controlled, four-sequence, four-period, crossover, double-blind trial, patients with multiple sclerosis who reported fatigue and had a Modified Fatigue Impact Scale (MFIS) score of more than 33 were recruited at two academic multiple sclerosis centres in the USA. Participants received oral amantadine (up to 100 mg twice daily), modafinil (up to 100 mg twice daily), methylphenidate (up to 10 mg twice daily), or placebo, each given for up to 6 weeks. All patients were intended to receive all four study medications, in turn, in one of four different sequences with 2-week washout periods between medications. A biostatistician prepared a concealed allocation schedule, stratified by site, randomly assigning a sequence of medications in approximately a 1:1:1:1 ratio, in blocks of eight, to a consecutive series of numbers. The statistician and pharmacists had no role in assessing the participants or collecting data, and the participants, caregivers, and assessors were masked to allocation. The primary outcome measure was the MFIS measured while taking the highest tolerated dose at week 5 of each medication period, analysed by use of a linear mixed-effect regression model. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03185065 and is closed.FindingsBetween Oct 4, 2017, and Feb 27, 2019, of 169 patients screened, 141 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to one of four medication administration sequences: 35 (25%) patients to the amantadine, placebo, modafinil, and methylphenidate sequence; 34 (24%) patients to the placebo, methylphenidate, amantadine, and modafinil sequence; 35 (25%) patients to the modafinil, amantadine, methylphenidate, and placebo sequence; and 37 (26%) patients to the methylphenidate, modafinil, placebo, and amantadine sequence. Data from 136 participants were available for the intention-to-treat analysis of the primary outcome. The estimated mean values of MFIS total scores at baseline and the maximal tolerated dose were as follows: 51·3 (95% CI 49·0-53·6) at baseline, 40·6 (38·2-43·1) with placebo, 41·3 (38·8-43·7) with amantadine, 39·0 (36·6-41·4) with modafinil, and 38·6 (36·2-41·0) with methylphenidate (p=0·20 for the overall medication effect in the linear mixed-effect regression model). As compared with placebo (38 [31%] of 124 patients), higher proportions of participants reported adverse events while taking amantadine (49 [39%] of 127 patients), modafinil (50 [40%] of 125 patients), and methylphenidate (51 [40%] of 129 patients). Three serious adverse events occurred during the study (pulmonary embolism and myocarditis while taking amantadine, and a multiple sclerosis exacerbation requiring hospital admission while taking modafinil).InterpretationAmantadine, modafinil, and methylphenidate were not superior to placebo in improving multiple sclerosis fatigue and caused more frequent adverse events. The results of this study do not support an indiscriminate use of amantadine, modafinil, or methylphenidate for the treatment of fatigue in multiple sclerosis.FundingPatient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.

Project description:BackgroundStaphylococcus aureus bacteraemia is a common cause of severe community-acquired and hospital-acquired infection worldwide. We tested the hypothesis that adjunctive rifampicin would reduce bacteriologically confirmed treatment failure or disease recurrence, or death, by enhancing early S aureus killing, sterilising infected foci and blood faster, and reducing risks of dissemination and metastatic infection.MethodsIn this multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, adults (≥18 years) with S aureus bacteraemia who had received ≤96 h of active antibiotic therapy were recruited from 29 UK hospitals. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via a computer-generated sequential randomisation list to receive 2 weeks of adjunctive rifampicin (600 mg or 900 mg per day according to weight, oral or intravenous) versus identical placebo, together with standard antibiotic therapy. Randomisation was stratified by centre. Patients, investigators, and those caring for the patients were masked to group allocation. The primary outcome was time to bacteriologically confirmed treatment failure or disease recurrence, or death (all-cause), from randomisation to 12 weeks, adjudicated by an independent review committee masked to the treatment. Analysis was intention to treat. This trial was registered, number ISRCTN37666216, and is closed to new participants.FindingsBetween Dec 10, 2012, and Oct 25, 2016, 758 eligible participants were randomly assigned: 370 to rifampicin and 388 to placebo. 485 (64%) participants had community-acquired S aureus infections, and 132 (17%) had nosocomial S aureus infections. 47 (6%) had meticillin-resistant infections. 301 (40%) participants had an initial deep infection focus. Standard antibiotics were given for 29 (IQR 18-45) days; 619 (82%) participants received flucloxacillin. By week 12, 62 (17%) of participants who received rifampicin versus 71 (18%) who received placebo experienced treatment failure or disease recurrence, or died (absolute risk difference -1·4%, 95% CI -7·0 to 4·3; hazard ratio 0·96, 0·68-1·35, p=0·81). From randomisation to 12 weeks, no evidence of differences in serious (p=0·17) or grade 3-4 (p=0·36) adverse events were observed; however, 63 (17%) participants in the rifampicin group versus 39 (10%) in the placebo group had antibiotic or trial drug-modifying adverse events (p=0·004), and 24 (6%) versus six (2%) had drug interactions (p=0·0005).InterpretationAdjunctive rifampicin provided no overall benefit over standard antibiotic therapy in adults with S aureus bacteraemia.FundingUK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment.

Project description:BackgroundFunctional constipation (FC) is an intractable disease that carries large financial burden as well as emotional and physical stress. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of the newly developed smartphone-controlled vibrating capsule (VC) in patients with FC.MethodsFrom December 2018 to February 2020, we did a multicenter, blinded, placebo-controlled randomised trial in six top general hospitals in China focusing on patients aged 18 to 80 with FC. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive VCs or placebo treatment for six weeks (two capsules per week) after a two-week baseline period. The primary outcome was the responder rate, defined as the proportion of patients with an increase of at least one complete spontaneous bowel movement (CSBM) per week during treatment compared to baseline in the full analysis set. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT04671264, and is completed.Findings107 patients aged from 18 to 74 were randomly assigned to receive VC (n = 53) or placebo treatment (n = 54). The responder rate in the VC group was significantly higher than that in the placebo group (64·2% vs. 35·8%; difference, 27·7% [95% CI, 10·4-45·1]; P = 0·005). More patients in the VC group reported weekly CSBMs ≥ 1 for at least four weeks during treatment (difference, 22·7% [95% CI, 8-46]; P = 0·022) and follow-up period (difference, 17.3% [95% CI, 0-35]; P = 0·048). The mean Patient Assessment of Constipation-Symptoms score and Patient Assessment of Constipation-Quality of Life score differed significantly from the baseline in both groups (all P < 0·0001). The most common adverse event associated with VC was abdominal discomfort (3·7%).InterpretationVCs can promote defecation, as well as ameliorating symptoms and improving the quality of life in patients with FC with sustained efficacy. VC appears to be a potential alternative physical treatment for FC with the exact mechanism and parameters warranting further investigation.FundingThe study was supported by "One hundred leading scientists for 21st century" of Health Department of Shanghai Municipal Government (to ZL, No.2017BR005).

Project description:BackgroundGlutamate excitotoxicity might contribute to the pathophysiology of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. In animal models, decreased excitatory aminoacid transporter 2 (EAAT2) overexpression delays disease onset and prolongs survival, and ceftriaxone increases EAAT2 activity. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of ceftriaxone for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis in a combined phase 1, 2, and 3 clinical trial.MethodsThis three-stage randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was done at 59 clinical sites in the USA and Canada between Sept 4, 2006, and July 30, 2012. Eligible adult patients had amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, a vital capacity of more than 60% of that predicted for age and height, and symptom duration of less than 3 years. In stages 1 (pharmacokinetics) and 2 (safety), participants were randomly allocated (2:1) to ceftriaxone (2 g or 4 g per day) or placebo. In stage 3 (efficacy), participants assigned to ceftriaxone in stage 2 received 4 g ceftriaxone, participants assigned to placebo in stage 2 received placebo, and new participants were randomly assigned (2:1) to 4 g ceftriaxone or placebo. Participants, family members, and site staff were masked to treatment assignment. Randomisation was done by a computerised randomisation sequence with permuted blocks of 3. Participants received 2 g ceftriaxone or placebo twice daily through a central venous catheter administered at home by a trained caregiver. To minimise biliary side-effects, participants assigned to ceftriaxone also received 300 mg ursodeoxycholic acid twice daily and those assigned to placebo received matched placebo capsules. The coprimary efficacy outcomes were survival and functional decline, measured as the slope of Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Functional Rating Scale-Revised (ALSFRS-R) scores. Analyses were by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00349622.FindingsStage 3 included 66 participants from stages 1 and 2 and 448 new participants. In total, 340 participants were randomly allocated to ceftriaxone and 173 to placebo. During stages 1 and 2, mean ALSFRS-R declined more slowly in participants who received 4 g ceftriaxone than in those on placebo (difference 0·51 units per month, 95% CI 0·02 to 1·00; p=0·0416), but in stage 3 functional decline between the treatment groups did not differ (0·09, -0·06 to 0·24; p=0·2370). No significant differences in survival between the groups were recorded in stage 3 (HR 0·90, 95% CI 0·71 to 1·15; p=0·4146). Gastrointestinal adverse events and hepatobiliary adverse events were more common in the ceftriaxone group than in the placebo group (gastrointestinal, 245 of 340 [72%] ceftriaxone vs 97 of 173 [56%] placebo, p=0·0004; hepatobiliary, 211 [62%] vs 19 [11%], p<0·0001). Significantly more participants who received ceftriaxone had serious hepatobiliary serious adverse events (41 participants [12%]) than did those who received placebo (0 participants).InterpretationDespite promising stage 2 data, stage 3 of this trial of ceftriaxone in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis did not show clinical efficacy. The adaptive design allowed for seamless transition from one phase to another, and central venous catheter use in the home setting was shown to be feasible.FundingNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke.

Project description:BackgroundDrugs modifying angiotensin II signalling could reduce Alzheimer's disease pathology, thus decreasing the rate of disease progression. We investigated whether the angiotensin II receptor antagonist losartan, compared with placebo, could reduce brain volume loss, as a measure of disease progression, in clinically diagnosed mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's disease.MethodsIn this double-blind, multicentre, randomised controlled trial, eligible patients aged 55 years or older, previously untreated with angiotensin II drugs and diagnosed (National Institute of Neurological and Communicative Disorders and Stroke and the Alzheimer's Disease and Related Disorders Association criteria) with mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's disease, and who had capacity to consent, were recruited from 23 UK National Health Service hospital trusts. After undergoing a 4-week, open-label phase of active treatment then washout, participants were randomly assigned (1:1) oral over-encapsulated preparations of either 100 mg losartan (after an initial two-dose titration stage) or matched placebo daily for 12 months. Randomisation, minimised by age and baseline medial temporal lobe atrophy score, was undertaken online or via pin-access service by telephone. Participants, their study companions, and study personnel were masked to group assignment. The primary outcome, analysed by the intention-to-treat principle (ie, participants analysed in the group to which they were randomised, without imputation for missing data), was change in whole brain volume between baseline and 12 months, measured using volumetric MRI and determined by boundary shift interval (BSI) analysis. The trial is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Register (ISRCTN93682878) and the European Union Drug Regulating Authorities Clinical Trials Database (EudraCT 2012-003641-15), and is completed.FindingsBetween July 22, 2014, and May 17, 2018, 261 participants entered the open-label phase. 211 were randomly assigned losartan (n=105) or placebo (n=106). Of 197 (93%) participants who completed the study, 171 (81%) had complete primary outcome data. The mean brain volume (BSI) reduction was 19·1 mL (SD 10·3) in the losartan group and 20·0 mL (10·8) in the placebo group. The difference in total volume reduction between groups was -2·29 mL (95% CI -6·46 to 0·89; p=0·14). The number of adverse events was low (22 in the losartan group and 20 in the placebo group) with no differences between treatment groups. There was one treatment-related death per treatment group.Interpretation12 months of treatment with losartan was well tolerated but was not effective in reducing the rate of brain atrophy in individuals with clinically diagnosed mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's disease. Further research is needed to assess the potential therapeutic benefit from earlier treatment in patients with milder cognitive impairment or from longer treatment periods.FundingEfficacy and Mechanism Evaluation Programme (UK Medical Research Council and National Institute for Health Research).

Project description:BackgroundNon-antiviral therapeutic options are required for the treatment of hospitalised patients with COVID-19. CD24Fc is an immunomodulator with potential to reduce the exaggerated inflammatory response to tissue injuries. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of CD24Fc in hospitalised adults with COVID-19 receiving oxygen support.MethodsWe conducted a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study at nine medical centres in the USA. Hospitalised patients (age ≥18 years) with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection who were receiving oxygen support and standard of care were randomly assigned (1:1) by site-stratified block randomisation to receive a single intravenous infusion of CD24Fc 480 mg or placebo. The study funder, investigators, and patients were masked to treatment group assignment. The primary endpoint was time to clinical improvement over 28 days, defined as time that elapsed between a baseline National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases ordinal scale score of 2-4 and reaching a score of 5 or higher or hospital discharge. The prespecified primary interim analysis was done when 146 participants reached the time to clinical improvement endpoint. Efficacy was assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in the as-treated population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04317040.FindingsBetween April 24 and Sept 22, 2020, 243 hospitalised patients were assessed for eligibility and 234 were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive CD24Fc (n=116) or placebo (n=118). The prespecified interim analysis was done when 146 participants reached the time to clinical improvement endpoint among 197 randomised participants. In the interim analysis, the 28-day clinical improvement rate was 82% (81 of 99) for CD24Fc versus 66% (65 of 98) for placebo; median time to clinical improvement was 6·0 days (95% CI 5·0-8·0) in the CD24Fc group versus 10·0 days (7·0-15·0) in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR] 1·61, 95% CI 1·16-2·23; log-rank p=0·0028, which crossed the prespecified efficacy boundary [α=0·0147]). 37 participants were randomly assigned after the interim analysis data cutoff date; among the 234 randomised participants, median time to clinical improvement was 6·0 days (95% CI 5·0-9·0) in the CD24Fc group versus 10·5 days (7·0-15·0) in the placebo group (HR 1·40, 95% CI 1·02-1·92; log-rank p=0·037). The proportion of participants with disease progression within 28 days was 19% (22 of 116) in the CD24Fc group versus 31% (36 of 118) in the placebo group (HR 0·56, 95% CI 0·33-0·95; unadjusted p=0·031). The incidences of adverse events and serious adverse events were similar in both groups. No treatment-related adverse events were observed.InterpretationCD24Fc is generally well tolerated and accelerates clinical improvement of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 who are receiving oxygen support. These data suggest that targeting inflammation in response to tissue injuries might provide a therapeutic option for patients hospitalised with COVID-19.FundingMerck & Co, National Cancer Institute, OncoImmune.

Dataset Information

Efficacy and safety of rifampicin for multiple system atrophy: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

Publications

Efficacy and safety of rifampicin for multiple system atrophy: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets