Dataset Information

Tetrodotoxin for Moderate to Severe Cancer-Related Pain: A Multicentre, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Parallel-Design Trial.

ABSTRACT: This study evaluated subcutaneous injections of tetrodotoxin (TTX) for the treatment of moderate to severe, inadequately controlled cancer-related pain.Eligible patients were randomized to receive TTX (30??g) or placebo subcutaneously twice daily for four consecutive days. Efficacy was assessed using pain and composite endpoints (including pain and quality of life measures), and safety was evaluated using standard measures.165 patients were enrolled at 19 sites in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, with 149 patients in the primary analysis "intent-to-treat" population. The primary analysis supports a clinical benefit of TTX over placebo based on the pain endpoint alone with a clinically significant estimated effect size of 16.2% (p = 0.0460). The p value was nominally statistically significant after prespecified (Bonferroni Holm) adjustment for the two primary endpoints but not at the prespecified two-sided 5% level. The mean duration of analgesic response was 56.7 days (TTX) and 9.9 days (placebo). Most common adverse events were nausea, dizziness, and oral numbness or tingling and were generally mild to moderate and transient.Although underpowered, this study demonstrates a clinically important analgesic signal. TTX may provide clinically meaningful analgesia for patients who have persistent moderate to severe cancer pain despite best analgesic care. This clinical study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00725114).

SUBMITTER: Hagen NA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5438848 | biostudies-literature | 2017

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Tetrodotoxin for Moderate to Severe Cancer-Related Pain: A Multicentre, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Parallel-Design Trial.

Hagen Neil A NA Cantin Lyne L Constant John J Haller Tina T Blaise Gilbert G Ong-Lam May M du Souich Patrick P Korz Walter W Lapointe Bernard B

Pain research & management 20170507

<h4>Objective</h4>This study evaluated subcutaneous injections of tetrodotoxin (TTX) for the treatment of moderate to severe, inadequately controlled cancer-related pain.<h4>Methods</h4>Eligible patients were randomized to receive TTX (30 <i>μ</i>g) or placebo subcutaneously twice daily for four consecutive days. Efficacy was assessed using pain and composite endpoints (including pain and quality of life measures), and safety was evaluated using standard measures.<h4>Results</h4>165 patients wer ...[more]

PMID: 28555092

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Co-crystal of tramadol-celecoxib (CTC), containing equimolar quantities of the active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) tramadol and celecoxib (100 mg CTC?=?44 mg rac-tramadol hydrochloride and 56 mg celecoxib), is a novel API-API co-crystal for the treatment of pain. We aimed to establish the effective dose of CTC for treating acute pain following oral surgery. METHODS:A dose-finding, double-blind, randomised, placebo- and active-controlled, multicentre (nine Spanish hospitals), phase II study (EudraCT number: 2011-002778-21) was performed in male and female patients aged???18 years experiencing moderate to severe pain following extraction of two or more impacted third molars requiring bone removal. Eligible patients were randomised via a computer-generated list to receive one of six single-dose treatments (CTC 50, 100, 150, 200 mg; tramadol 100 mg; and placebo). The primary efficacy endpoint was the sum of pain intensity difference (SPID) over 8 h assessed in the per-protocol population. RESULTS:Between 10 February 2012 and 13 February 2013, 334 patients were randomised and received study treatment: 50 mg (n?=?55), 100 mg (n?=?53), 150 mg (n?=?57), or 200 mg (n?=?57) of CTC, 100 mg tramadol (n?=?58), or placebo (n?=?54). CTC 100, 150, and 200 mg showed significantly higher efficacy compared with placebo and/or tramadol in all measures: SPID (0-8 h) (mean [standard deviation]): -?90 (234), -?139 (227), -?173 (224), 71 (213), and 22 (228), respectively. The proportion of patients experiencing treatment-emergent adverse events was lower in the 50 (12.7% [n?=?7]), 100 (11.3% [n?=?6]), and 150 (15.8% [n?=?9]) mg CTC groups, and similar in the 200 mg (29.8% [n?=?17]) CTC group, compared with the tramadol group (29.3% [n?=?17]), with nausea, dizziness, and vomiting the most frequent events. CONCLUSION:Significant improvement in the benefit-risk ratio was observed for CTC (doses???100 mg) over tramadol and placebo in the treatment of acute pain following oral surgery. FUNDING:Laboratorios del Dr. Esteve, S.A.U.

Project description:BackgroundNo specific antiviral drug has been proven effective for treatment of patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Remdesivir (GS-5734), a nucleoside analogue prodrug, has inhibitory effects on pathogenic animal and human coronaviruses, including severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in vitro, and inhibits Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus, SARS-CoV-1, and SARS-CoV-2 replication in animal models.MethodsWe did a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre trial at ten hospitals in Hubei, China. Eligible patients were adults (aged ?18 years) admitted to hospital with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, with an interval from symptom onset to enrolment of 12 days or less, oxygen saturation of 94% or less on room air or a ratio of arterial oxygen partial pressure to fractional inspired oxygen of 300 mm Hg or less, and radiologically confirmed pneumonia. Patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to intravenous remdesivir (200 mg on day 1 followed by 100 mg on days 2-10 in single daily infusions) or the same volume of placebo infusions for 10 days. Patients were permitted concomitant use of lopinavir-ritonavir, interferons, and corticosteroids. The primary endpoint was time to clinical improvement up to day 28, defined as the time (in days) from randomisation to the point of a decline of two levels on a six-point ordinal scale of clinical status (from 1=discharged to 6=death) or discharged alive from hospital, whichever came first. Primary analysis was done in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population and safety analysis was done in all patients who started their assigned treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04257656.FindingsBetween Feb 6, 2020, and March 12, 2020, 237 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to a treatment group (158 to remdesivir and 79 to placebo); one patient in the placebo group who withdrew after randomisation was not included in the ITT population. Remdesivir use was not associated with a difference in time to clinical improvement (hazard ratio 1·23 [95% CI 0·87-1·75]). Although not statistically significant, patients receiving remdesivir had a numerically faster time to clinical improvement than those receiving placebo among patients with symptom duration of 10 days or less (hazard ratio 1·52 [0·95-2·43]). Adverse events were reported in 102 (66%) of 155 remdesivir recipients versus 50 (64%) of 78 placebo recipients. Remdesivir was stopped early because of adverse events in 18 (12%) patients versus four (5%) patients who stopped placebo early.InterpretationIn this study of adult patients admitted to hospital for severe COVID-19, remdesivir was not associated with statistically significant clinical benefits. However, the numerical reduction in time to clinical improvement in those treated earlier requires confirmation in larger studies.FundingChinese Academy of Medical Sciences Emergency Project of COVID-19, National Key Research and Development Program of China, the Beijing Science and Technology Project.

Project description:BackgroundAcute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a major complication of COVID-19 and is associated with high mortality and morbidity. We aimed to assess whether intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIG) could improve outcomes by reducing inflammation-mediated lung injury.MethodsIn this multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, done at 43 centres in France, we randomly assigned patients (1:1) receiving invasive mechanical ventilation for up to 72 h with PCR confirmed COVID-19 and associated moderate-to-severe ARDS to receive either IVIG (2 g/kg over 4 days) or placebo. Random assignment was done with a web-based system and was stratified according to the participating centre and the duration of invasive mechanical ventilation before inclusion in the trial (<12 h, 12-24 h, and >24-72 h), and treatment was administered within the first 96 h of invasive mechanical ventilation. To minimise the risk of adverse events, the IVIG administration was divided into four perfusions of 0·5 g/kg each administered over at least 8 hours. Patients in the placebo group received an equivalent volume of sodium chloride 0·9% (10 mL/kg) over the same period. The primary outcome was the number of ventilation-free days by day 28, assessed according to the intention-to-treat principle. This trial was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04350580.FindingsBetween April 3, and October 20, 2020, 146 patients (43 [29%] women) were eligible for inclusion and randomly assigned: 69 (47%) patients to the IVIG group and 77 (53%) to the placebo group. The intention-to-treat analysis showed no statistical difference in the median number of ventilation-free days at day 28 between the IVIG group (0·0 [IQR 0·0-8·0]) and the placebo group (0·0 [0·0-6·0]; difference estimate 0·0 [0·0-0·0]; p=0·21). Serious adverse events were more frequent in the IVIG group (78 events in 22 [32%] patients) than in the placebo group (47 events in 15 [20%] patients; p=0·089).InterpretationIn patients with COVID-19 who received invasive mechanical ventilation for moderate-to-severe ARDS, IVIG did not improve clinical outcomes at day 28 and tended to be associated with an increased frequency of serious adverse events, although not significant. The effect of IVIGs on earlier disease stages of COVID-19 should be assessed in future trials.FundingProgramme Hospitalier de Recherche Clinique.

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.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:To compare efficacy/safety of oral tramadol 75?mg/dexketoprofen 25?mg (TRAM/DKP) and TRAM 75?mg/paracetamol 650?mg (TRAM/paracetamol) in moderate to severe pain following surgical removal of impacted lower third molar. DESIGN:Multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase IIIb study. PARTICIPANTS:Healthy adult patients scheduled for surgical extraction of at least one fully/partially impacted lower third molar requiring bone manipulation. 654 patients were randomised and 653 were eligible for analysis. INTERVENTIONS:Surgery was performed under local anaesthetic. No sedation was permitted. Patients rated pain intensity (PI) using an 11-Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) (0 no pain; 10 worst pain). Participants experiencing moderate/severe pain (?4) within 4?hours of surgery were randomised (2:2:1 ratio) to a single oral dose of TRAM/DKP 75/25?mg, TRAM/paracetamol 75/650?mg or placebo. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:Efficacy was based patients' electronic diaries. Analgesia and pain were recorded as follows: pain relief (PAR) on a 5-point Verbal Rating Scale (0='no relief', 1='a little (perceptible) relief', 2='some (meaningful) relief', 3='lot of relief', 4='complete relief') at the predefined postdose time points t15 min, t30 min, t1 hour, t1.5 hour, t2 hour, t4 hour, t6 hour and t8 hour and PI on the 11-point NRS at t0 and at the same predefined postdose time points. Onset of analgesia documented using double stopwatch method over a 2-hour period. Primary endpoint was total pain relief over 6?hours (TOTPAR6). Rescue medication was available during the treatment period. RESULTS:TRAM/DKP was superior to TRAM/paracetamol and placebo at the primary endpoint TOTPAR6 (p<0.0001). Mean (SD) TOTPAR6 in the TRAM/DKP group was 13 (6.97), while those in the active control and placebo groups were 9.2 (7.65) and 1.9 (3.89), respectively. Superiority of TRAM/DKP over active comparator and placebo was observed at all secondary endpoints. Incidence of adverse events was comparable between active groups. CONCLUSIONS:TRAM/DKP (75/25?mg) is effective and superior to TRAM/paracetamol (75/650?mg) in relieving moderate to severe acute pain following surgical removal of impacted lower third molar, with a faster onset of action, greater and durable analgesia, together with a favourable safety profile. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:EudraCT 2015-004152-22 and NCT02777970.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Dupilumab, a fully human anti-IL-4Rα monoclonal antibody, inhibits signaling of both interleukin (IL)-4 and IL-13, which are key drivers of type 2-mediated inflammation. Dupilumab is approved in the EU, USA, and other countries for the treatment of adults with inadequately controlled moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis. Following positive phase 2 results in asthma, the phase 3 Liberty Asthma QUEST trial was initiated to provide further evidence for dupilumab efficacy and safety in patients with uncontrolled, moderate-to-severe asthma. METHODS:Liberty Asthma QUEST is a phase 3, multinational, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial (NCT02414854) in patients with persistent asthma who are receiving continuous treatment with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) plus one or two other asthma controller medicines. A total of 1902 patients (aged ≥ 12 years) were randomized in a 2:2:1:1 ratio to receive 52 weeks of add-on therapy with subcutaneously administered dupilumab 200 or 300 mg every 2 weeks or matched placebo. The study consisted of a 4 ± 1-week screening period, 52-week randomized treatment period, and 12-week post-treatment follow-up period. All patients continued to receive their prescribed ICS plus up to two additional controller medications. The primary efficacy endpoints were annualized rate of severe exacerbation events during the 52-week treatment period and absolute change from baseline in pre-bronchodilator FEV1 at week 12. CONCLUSION:Uncontrolled asthma patients with persistent symptoms represent a population of significant unmet need, for whom new treatments are required. Patients with severe asthma are at high risk of asthma exacerbations, and face an accelerated decline in lung function and impaired quality of life. QUEST examines the efficacy of dupilumab in this at-risk patient population; it is the largest placebo-controlled study in uncontrolled, moderate-to-severe asthma with a biologic agent to date, and the only phase 3 study of a biologic therapy of asthma that enrolled patients irrespective of baseline type 2 inflammatory biomarker levels. FUNDING:Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. CLINICAL TRIALS. GOV IDENTIFIER:NCT02414854.

Project description:IntroductionThis study is part of the registrational program for intravenously administered (IV) tramadol in the USA and compared the analgesic benefit and tolerability of two doses of IV tramadol (50 mg and 25 mg) to placebo in adult patients undergoing bunionectomy, an orthopedic surgical model.MethodsThis was a phase 3, multicenter, double-blind, three-arm, randomized, placebo-controlled, multiple-dose, parallel-group trial to evaluate IV tramadol in the management of postoperative pain following bunionectomy. Eligible patients were randomized (1:1:1 ratio) to IV tramadol 50 mg, 25 mg, or placebo. Primary endpoint was summary of pain intensity differences over 48 h (SPID48). Key secondary endpoints included SPID24, total consumption of rescue analgesia, and patient global assessment of efficacy (PGA). Safety assessments included treatment emergent adverse events (TEAEs), clinical laboratory tests, vital signs, and electrocardiograms (ECGs). Assessment of the dose-response was an important objective of the study.ResultsThe study established a dose response, with IV tramadol 50 mg demonstrating statistically significant benefit (p < 0.05) over placebo for primary and all key secondary efficacy endpoints, whereas tramadol 25 mg demonstrated intermediate results between the 50 mg and placebo arms. IV tramadol 50 mg was well tolerated; most common TEAEs were nausea and vomiting; and there were no meaningful differences among treatments for vital signs, ECG, and laboratory assessments. The largest proportion of patients completed tramadol 50 mg (98.6%) compared to tramadol 25 mg (91.8%) and placebo (88.2%).ConclusionIV tramadol 50 mg was effective and well tolerated as treatment for postoperative pain following bunionectomy surgery, while IV tramadol 25 mg, although well tolerated, was judged an ineffective dose for the treatment of pain in this setting. IV tramadol 50 mg was further developed in the registrational program for the USA.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT03290378.

Dataset Information

Tetrodotoxin for Moderate to Severe Cancer-Related Pain: A Multicentre, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Parallel-Design Trial.

Publications

Tetrodotoxin for Moderate to Severe Cancer-Related Pain: A Multicentre, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Parallel-Design Trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets