High versus low energy administration in the early phase of acute pancreatitis (GOULASH trial): protocol of a multicentre randomised double-blind clinical trial.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Introduction
Acute pancreatitis (AP) is an inflammatory disease with no specific treatment. Mitochondrial injury followed by ATP depletion in both acinar and ductal cells is a recently discovered early event in its pathogenesis. Importantly, preclinical research has shown that intracellular ATP delivery restores the physiological function of the cells and protects from cell injury, suggesting that restoration of energy levels in the pancreas is therapeutically beneficial. Despite several high quality experimental observations in this area, no randomised trials have been conducted to date to address the requirements for energy intake in the early phase of AP.Methods/design
This is a randomised controlled two-arm double-blind multicentre trial. Patients with AP will be randomly assigned to groups A (30 kcal/kg/day energy administration starting within 24 hours of hospital admission) or B (low energy administration during the first 72 hours of hospital admission). Energy will be delivered by nasoenteric tube feeding with additional intravenous glucose supplementation or total parenteral nutrition if necessary. A combination of multiorgan failure for more than 48 hours and mortality is defined as the primary endpoint, whereas several secondary endpoints such as length of hospitalisation or pain will be determined to elucidate more detailed differences between the groups. The general feasibility, safety and quality checks required for high quality evidence will be adhered to.Ethics and dissemination
The study has been approved by the relevant organisation, the Scientific and Research Ethics Committee of the Hungarian Medical Research Council (55961-2/2016/EKU). This study will provide evidence as to whether early high energy nutritional support is beneficial in the clinical management of AP. The results of this trial will be published in an open access way and disseminated among medical doctors.Trial registration
The trial has been registered at the ISRCTN (ISRTCN 63827758).
SUBMITTER: Marta K
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5722094 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundNo phase 3 trial has yet shown improved survival for patients with pleural or peritoneal malignant mesothelioma who have progressed following platinum-based chemotherapy. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of nivolumab, an anti-PD-1 antibody, in these patients.MethodsThis was a multicentre, placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel group, randomised, phase 3 trial done in 24 hospitals in the UK. Adult patients (aged ≥18 years) with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, with histologically confirmed pleural or peritoneal mesothelioma, who had received previous first-line platinum-based chemotherapy and had radiological evidence of disease progression, were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive nivolumab at a flat dose of 240 mg every 2 weeks over 30 min intravenously or placebo until disease progression or a maximum of 12 months. The randomisation sequence was generated within an interactive web response system (Alea); patients were stratified according to epithelioid versus non-epithelioid histology and were assigned in random block sizes of 3 and 6. Participants and treating clinicians were masked to group allocation. The co-primary endpoints were investigator-assessed progression-free survival and overall survival, analysed according to the treatment policy estimand (an equivalent of the intention-to-treat principle). All patients who were randomly assigned were included in the safety population, reported according to group allocation. This trial is registered with Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03063450.FindingsBetween May 10, 2017, and March 30, 2020, 332 patients were recruited, of whom 221 (67%) were randomly assigned to the nivolumab group and 111 (33%) were assigned to the placebo group). Median follow-up was 11·6 months (IQR 7·2-16·8). Median progression-free survival was 3·0 months (95% CI 2·8-4·1) in the nivolumab group versus 1·8 months (1·4-2·6) in the placebo group (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·67 [95% CI 0·53-0·85; p=0·0012). Median overall survival was 10·2 months (95% CI 8·5-12·1) in the nivolumab group versus 6·9 months (5·0-8·0) in the placebo group (adjusted HR 0·69 [95% CI 0·52-0·91]; p=0·0090). The most frequently reported grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse events were diarrhoea (six [3%] of 221 in the nivolumab group vs two [2%] of 111 in the placebo group) and infusion-related reaction (six [3%] vs none). Serious adverse events occurred in 90 (41%) patients in the nivolumab group and 49 (44%) patients in the placebo group. There were no treatment-related deaths in either group.InterpretationNivolumab represents a treatment that might be beneficial to patients with malignant mesothelioma who have progressed on first-line therapy.FundingStand up to Cancer-Cancer Research UK and Bristol Myers Squibb.
| S-EPMC8560642 | biostudies-literature
Project description:A systematic assessment of potential disease-modifying compounds for Parkinson's disease concluded that pioglitazone could hold promise for the treatment of patients with this disease. We assessed the effect of pioglitazone on the progression of Parkinson's disease in a multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, futility clinical trial.Participants with the diagnosis of early Parkinson's disease on a stable regimen of 1 mg/day rasagiline or 10 mg/day selegiline were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to 15 mg/day pioglitazone, 45 mg/day pioglitazone, or placebo. Investigators were masked to the treatment assignment. Only the statistical centre and the central pharmacy knew the treatment name associated with the randomisation number. The primary outcome was the change in the total Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) score between the baseline and 44 weeks, analysed by intention to treat. The primary null hypothesis for each dose group was that the mean change in UPDRS was 3 points less than the mean change in the placebo group. The alternative hypothesis (of futility) was that pioglitazone is not meaningfully different from placebo. We rejected the null if there was significant evidence of futility at the one-sided alpha level of 0·10. The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01280123.210 patients from 35 sites in the USA were enrolled between May 10, 2011, and July 31, 2013. The primary analysis included 72 patients in the 15 mg group, 67 in the 45 mg group, and 71 in the placebo group. The mean total UPDRS change at 44 weeks was 4·42 (95% CI 2·55-6·28) for 15 mg pioglitazone, 5·13 (95% CI 3·17-7·08) for 45 mg pioglitazone, and 6·25 (95% CI 4·35-8·15) for placebo (higher change scores are worse). The mean difference between the 15 mg and placebo groups was -1·83 (80% CI -3·56 to -0·10) and the null hypothesis could not be rejected (p=0·19). The mean difference between the 45 mg and placebo groups was -1·12 (80% CI -2·93 to 0·69) and the null hypothesis was rejected in favour of futility (p=0·09). Planned sensitivity analyses of the primary outcome, using last value carried forward (LVCF) to handle missing data and using the completers' only sample, suggested that the 15 mg dose is also futile (p=0·09 for LVCF, p=0·09 for completers) but failed to reject the null hypothesis for the 45 mg dose (p=0·12 for LVCF, p=0·19 for completers). Six serious adverse events occurred in the 15 mg group, nine in the 45 mg group, and three in the placebo group; none were thought to be definitely or probably related to the study interventions.These findings suggest that pioglitazone at the doses studied here is unlikely to modify progression in early Parkinson's disease. Further study of pioglitazone in a larger trial in patients with Parkinson's disease is not recommended.National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke.
| S-EPMC4574625 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeInfected pancreatic necrosis (IPN) is a highly morbid complication of acute necrotising pancreatitis (ANP). Since there is evidence of early-onset immunosuppression in acute pancreatitis, immune enhancement may be a therapeutic option. This trial aimed to evaluate whether early immune-enhancing Thymosin alpha 1 (Tα1) treatment reduces the incidence of IPN in patients with predicted severe ANP.MethodsWe conducted a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial involving ANP patients with an Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) score ≥ 8 and a computed tomography (CT) severity score ≥ 5 admitted within 7 days of the advent of symptoms. Enrolled patients were assigned to receive a subcutaneous injection of Tα1 1.6 mg every 12 h for the first 7 days and 1.6 mg once a day for the subsequent 7 days or matching placebos (normal saline). The primary outcome was the development of IPN during the index admission.ResultsA total of 508 patients were randomised, of whom 254 were assigned to receive Tα1 and 254 placebo. The vast majority of the participants required admission to the intensive care unit (ICU) (479/508, 94.3%). During the index admission, 40/254(15.7%) patients in the Tα1 group developed IPN compared with 46/254 patients (18.1%) in the placebo group (difference -2.4% [95% CI - 7.4 to 5.1%]; p = 0.48). The results were similar across four predefined subgroups. There was no difference in other major complications, including new-onset organ failure (10.6% vs. 15%), bleeding (6.3% vs. 3.5%), and gastrointestinal fistula (2% vs. 2.4%).ConclusionThe immune-enhancing Tα1 treatment of patients with predicted severe ANP did not reduce the incidence of IPN during the index admission.
| S-EPMC9205279 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the efficacy and safety of oral levosimendan in patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). This phase II, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover, three-period study with 6 months open-label follow-up enrolled adults with ALS and sitting slow vital capacity (SVC) 60%-90 % of predicted from 11 sites in four countries. METHODS:Patients received levosimendan 1?mg daily, 1?mg two times a day or placebo during three 14-day crossover periods and levosimendan 1-2?mg daily during open-label follow-up. Primary endpoint was sitting SVC; secondary endpoints included supine SVC, ALS Functional Rating Scale-Revised (ALSFRS-R), tolerability and safety. RESULTS:Of 66 patients randomised, 59 contributed to the double-blind results and 50 entered open-label follow-up. Sitting SVC was not significantly different between the treatments. In post hoc analysis using period-wise baselines, supine SVC favoured levosimendan over placebo, estimated mean differences from baseline being -3.62% on placebo, +0.77% on levosimendan 1?mg daily (p=0.018) and +2.38% on 1?mg two times a day (p=0.001). Headache occurred in 16.7% of patients during levosimendan 1?mg daily (p=0.030), 28.6% during 1?mg two times a day (p=0.002) and 3.3% during placebo. The respective frequencies for increased heart rate were 5.1% (p=0.337), 18.5% (p=0.018) and 1.7%. No significant differences between the treatments were seen for other adverse events. CONCLUSIONS:Levosimendan did not achieve the primary endpoint of improving sitting SVC in ALS. Headache and increased heart rate were increased on levosimendan, although it was otherwise well tolerated. A phase III study to evaluate the longer term effects of oral levosimendan in ALS is ongoing.
| S-EPMC6817985 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundImmune-mediated necrotizing myopathy (IMNM) is an autoimmune myopathy characterised by proximal muscle weakness, high creatine kinase (CK) values, and autoantibodies recognizing 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl-CoA reductase (HMGCR) or the signal recognition particle (SRP). There are currently no approved therapies for IMNM and many patients experience active disease despite off-label treatment with intravenous immunoglobulin, glucocorticoids, and immunosuppressants. Detection of complement-activating anti-HMGCR and anti-SRP autoantibodies and the presence of complement deposition on the sarcolemma of non-necrotic myofibers led to the hypothesis that complement activation may be pathogenic in IMNM, therefore zilucoplan, a complement component 5 (C5) inhibitor, could be a potential therapy.MethodsIMNM01, a phase 2, multicenter, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study (NCT04025632) at 15 sites (four countries) evaluated efficacy, safety, and tolerability of zilucoplan in adult participants with anti-HMGCR or anti-SRP autoantibody-positive IMNM. Participants were randomised 1:1 to receive daily subcutaneous zilucoplan (0·3mg/kg) or placebo for eight weeks; with optional enrolment in the study open-label extension. Primary efficacy endpoint was percent change from baseline to Week 8 in CK levels. Secondary endpoints included safety.FindingsBetween 07 November 2019 and 07 January 2021, 27 participants (13 female and 14 male) received zilucoplan (n=12) or placebo (n=15) and completed the 8-week main study. At Week 8 there were no clinically relevant or statistically significant differences, despite target engagement based on mode of action, between treatment arms in mean percent change (standard deviation) of CK levels versus baseline (-9·86% [26·06] versus -20·72% [31·22] in zilucoplan [n=10] and placebo arms [n=14], p=0·46, respectively) and no clinically relevant improvement over time within the treatment arm. There were no unexpected adverse safety or tolerability findings. Treatment emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and serious TEAEs were reported in n=9 (75·0%) vs n=13 (86·7%) and n=0 (0%) and n=3 (20·0%) participants, respectively. The most frequent TEAEs were headache (n=4 in both groups [33·3% and 26·7%, respectively]) and nausea (n=3 in both groups [25·0% and 20·0%, respectively]).InterpretationC5 inhibition does not appear to be an effective treatment modality for IMNM. Rather than driving myofiber necrosis, complement activation may be secondary to muscle injury.FundingStudy funded by Ra Pharmaceuticals (now part of UCB Pharma).
| S-EPMC10009502 | biostudies-literature
Project description:INTRODUCTION:Psoriasis vulgaris is a common skin disease that is characterised by persistent localised erythematous scaly plaques. Yinxieling is a Chinese herbal formula for psoriasis that has been used for more than 20 years in China. To facilitate application, PSORI-CM01 was developed based on the optimisation and simplification of Yinxieling tablets performed in a previous study and in clinical practice. However, the scientific evidence regarding whether PSORI-CM01 is more effective for psoriasis than the original Yinxieling remains insufficient. Therefore, we designed a randomised clinical trial to investigate the effect, safety and cost-effectiveness of PSORI-CM01 granules compared with those of Yinxieling tablets for the treatment of patients with psoriasis. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:This ongoing study is a two-arm parallel, randomised, double-blind, double-dummy clinical trial. Five hundred and fifty-six participants with psoriasis will be recruited and then randomly allocated into two groups in a 1:1 ratio. Participants in PSORI-CM01 group will receive a 5.5?g granule of PSORI-CM01 two times daily and five placebo tablets three times daily for 12 weeks. The participants in the Yinxieling group will receive five Yinxieling tablets three times daily and a placebo granule two times daily for 12 weeks. The primary outcome is the reduction of the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index. The secondary outcomes include relapse rate, Visual Analogue Scale scores, body surface area and the Dermatology Life Quality Index. Cost-effectiveness analysis will be performed from a health and community care provider perspective. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:This research protocol had been reviewed and approved by the institutional review boards of three trial centres (Guangdong Provincial Hospital of Chinese Medicine (B2014-026-01), Affiliated Hospital of Tianjin Chinese Medicine Academy (2014-KY-001) and Third Hospital of Hangzhou (B2014-026-01)). The findings will be disseminated to the public through conference presentations and open-access journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR-TRC-14005185); Pre-results.
| S-EPMC5695474 | biostudies-other
Project description:BACKGROUND:Influenza continues to have a substantial socioeconomic and health impact despite a long established vaccination programme and approved antivirals. Preclinical data suggest that combining antivirals might be more effective than administering oseltamivir alone in the treatment of influenza. METHODS:We did a randomised, double-blind, multicentre phase 2 trial of a combination of oseltamivir, amantadine, and ribavirin versus oseltamivir monotherapy with matching placebo for the treatment of influenza in 50 sites, consisting of academic medical centre clinics, emergency rooms, and private physician offices in the USA, Thailand, Mexico, Argentina, and Australia. Participants who were aged at least 18 years with influenza and were at increased risk of complications were randomly assigned (1:1) by an online computer-generated randomisation system to receive either oseltamivir (75 mg), amantadine (100 mg), and ribavirin (600 mg) combination therapy or oseltamivir monotherapy twice daily for 5 days, given orally, and participants were followed up for 28 days. Blinded treatment kits were used to achieve masking of patients and staff. The primary endpoint was the percentage of participants with virus detectable by PCR in nasopharyngeal swab at day 3, and was assessed in participants who were randomised, had influenza infection confirmed by the central laboratory on a baseline nasopharyngeal sample, and had received at least one dose of study drug. Safety assessment was done in all patients in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01227967. FINDINGS:Between March 1, 2011, and April 29, 2016, 633 participants were randomly assigned to receive combination antiviral therapy (n=316) or monotherapy (n=317). Seven participants were excluded from analysis: three were not properly randomised, three withdrew from the study, and one was lost to follow-up. The primary analysis included 394 participants, excluding 47 in the pilot phase, 172 without confirmed influenza, and 13 without an endpoint sample. 80 (40·0%) of 200 participants in the combination group had detectable virus at day 3 compared with 97 (50·0%) of 194 (mean difference 10·0, 95% CI 0·2-19·8, p=0·046) in the monotherapy group. The most common adverse events were gastrointestinal-related disorders, primarily nausea (65 [12%] of 556 reported adverse events in the combination group vs 63 [11%] of 585 reported adverse events in the monotherapy group), diarrhoea (56 [10%] of 556 vs 64 [11%] of 585), and vomiting (39 [7%] of 556 vs 23 [4%] of 585). There was no benefit in multiple clinical secondary endpoints, such as median duration of symptoms (4·5 days in the combination group vs 4·0 days in the monotherapy group; p=0·21). One death occurred in the study in an elderly participant in the monotherapy group who died of cardiovascular failure 13 days after randomisation, judged by the site investigator as not related to study intervention. INTERPRETATION:Although combination treatment showed a significant decrease in viral shedding at day 3 relative to monotherapy, this difference was not associated with improved clinical benefit. More work is needed to understand why there was no clinical benefit when a difference in virological outcome was identified. FUNDING:National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, USA.
| S-EPMC5777222 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Navafenterol (AZD8871) belongs to a new class of bronchodilator, the single-molecule muscarinic antagonist and β-agonist, developed for the treatment of COPD. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy, pharmacokinetics and safety of navafenterol versus placebo and an active comparator treatment for moderate-to-severe COPD. This phase 2a, randomised, multicentre (Germany and UK), double-blind, double-dummy, three-way complete crossover study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03645434) compared 2 weeks' treatment of once-daily navafenterol 600 µg via inhalation with placebo and a fixed-dose combination bronchodilator (umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI); 62.5 µg/25 µg) in participants with moderate-to-severe COPD. The primary outcome was change from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) on day 15. Secondary end-points included change from baseline in peak FEV1; change from baseline in Breathlessness, Cough and Sputum Scale (BCSS); change from baseline in COPD Assessment Tool (CAT); adverse events; and pharmacokinetics. 73 participants were randomised. After 14 days, trough FEV1 was significantly improved with navafenterol compared with placebo (least-squares (LS) mean difference 0.202 L; p<0.0001). There was no significant difference in FEV1 between navafenterol and UMEC/VI (LS mean difference -0.046 L; p=0.075). COPD symptoms (CAT and BCSS) showed significantly greater improvements with both active treatments versus placebo (all p<0.005). Novel objective monitoring (VitaloJAK) showed that cough was reduced with both active treatments compared with placebo. Safety profiles were similar across the treatment groups and no serious adverse events were reported in the navafenterol treatment period. Once-daily navafenterol was well tolerated, improved lung function and reduced COPD-related symptoms, similar to an established once-daily fixed-dose combination bronchodilator.
| S-EPMC8989052 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionPre-emptive inhaled antibiotics may be effective to reduce the occurrence of ventilator-associated pneumonia among critically ill patients. Meta-analysis of small sample size trials showed a favourable signal. Inhaled antibiotics are associated with a reduced emergence of antibiotic resistant bacteria. The aim of this trial is to evaluate the benefit of a 3-day course of inhaled antibiotics among patients undergoing invasive mechanical ventilation for more than 3 days on the occurrence of ventilator-associated pneumonia.Methods and analysisAcademic, investigator-initiated, parallel two group arms, double-blind, multicentre superiority randomised controlled trial. Patients invasively ventilated more than 3 days will be randomised to receive 20 mg/kg inhaled amikacin daily for 3 days or inhaled placebo (0.9% Sodium Chloride). Occurrence of ventilator-associated pneumonia will be recorded based on a standardised diagnostic framework from randomisation to day 28 and adjudicated by a centralised blinded committee.Ethics and disseminationThe protocol and amendments have been approved by the regional ethics review board and French competent authorities (Comité de protection des personnes Ouest I, No.2016-R29). All patients will be included after informed consent according to French law. Results will be disseminated in international scientific journals.Trial registration numbersEudraCT 2016-001054-17 and NCT03149640.
| S-EPMC8442072 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThis multinational, multicentre, prospective, randomised, double blind, parallel group, non-inferiority study compared the efficacy and safety of moxifloxacin monotherapy with ofloxacin plus metronidazole in women with uncomplicated pelvic inflammatory disease.MethodsWomen from hospitals throughout 13 countries received a 14 day course of either oral moxifloxacin, 400 mg once daily (n = 384), or oral ofloxacin, 400 mg twice daily plus oral metronidazole, 500 mg twice daily (n = 365).ResultsOf the 741 patients in the intent to treat (ITT) population, 564 (74.2%) were valid for the per protocol (PP) analyses; 112 (19.9%) of these were included in the microbiologically valid population (MBV). Clinical resolution rates in the PP population at the test of cure visit (TOC, 5-24 days post-therapy, primary efficacy end point) were 90.2% (248/275) for moxifloxacin and 90.7% (262/289) for ofloxacin plus metronidazole (95% CI: -5.7% to 4.0%). At follow up (28-42 days post-therapy), resolution rates in the PP population were 85.8% (236/275) and 87.9% (254/289) for moxifloxacin and comparator, respectively (95% CI: -8.0% to 3.1%). Bacteriological success rates in the MBV population at TOC were 87.5% (49/56) for moxifloxacin and 82.1% (46/56) for comparator (95% CI: -8.3% to 18.8%). Against Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae, bacteriological success rates with moxifloxacin were 88.5% (23/26) and 100% (13/13) and for comparator 85.7% (18/21) and 81.8% (18/22), respectively. Drug related adverse events occurred less frequently with moxifloxacin (22.5% (85/378)) versus the comparator (30.9% (112/363)) (p = 0.01).ConclusionIn uncomplicated PID, once daily moxifloxacin monotherapy was clinically and bacteriologically as efficacious as twice daily ofloxacin plus metronidazole therapy and was associated with fewer drug related adverse events.
| S-EPMC2563874 | biostudies-literature