Dataset Information

Melatonin to prevent delirium in patients with advanced cancer: a double blind, parallel, randomized, controlled, feasibility trial.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Delirium is highly problematic in palliative care (PC). Preliminary data indicate a potential role for melatonin to prevent delirium, but no randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are reported in PC. METHODS:Patients aged ?18?years, with advanced cancer, admitted to an inpatient Palliative Care Unit (PCU), having a Palliative Performance Scale rating???30%, and for whom consent was obtained, were included in the study. Patients with delirium on admission were excluded. The main study objectives were to assess the feasibility issues of conducting a double-blind RCT of exogenous melatonin to prevent delirium in PC: recruitment, retention, procedural acceptability, appropriateness of outcome measures, and preliminary efficacy and safety data. Study participants were randomized in a double-blind, parallel designed study to receive daily melatonin 3?mg or placebo orally at 21:00 over 28?days or less if incident delirium, death, discharge or withdrawal occurred earlier. Delirium was diagnosed using the Confusion Assessment Method. Efficacy endpoints in the melatonin and placebo groups were compared using time-to-event analysis: days from study entry to onset of incident delirium. RESULTS:Over 16?months, 60/616 (9.7%; 95% CI: 7.5-12.4%) screened subjects were enrolled. The respective melatonin (n =?30) vs placebo (n =?30) outcomes were: incident delirium in 11/30 (36.7%; 95%CI: 19.9-56.1%) vs 10/30 (33%; 95% CI: 17.3-52.8%); early discharge (6 vs 5); withdrawal (6 vs 3); death (0 vs 1); and 7 (23%) vs 11 (37%) reached the 28-day end point. The 25th percentile time-to-event were 9 and 18?days (log rank, ?2 =?0.62, p =?0.43) in melatonin and placebo groups, respectively. No serious trial medication-related adverse effects occurred and the core study procedures were acceptable. Compared to those who remained delirium-free during their study participation, those who developed delirium (n =?21) had poorer functional (p =?0.036) and cognitive performance (p =?0.013), and in particular, poorer attentional capacity (p =?0.003) at study entry. CONCLUSIONS:A larger double-blind RCT is feasible, but both subject accrual and withdrawal rates signal a need for multisite collaboration. The apparent trend for shorter time to incident delirium in the melatonin group bodes for careful monitoring in a larger trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Registered on July 21st 2014 with ClinicalTrials.gov : NCT02200172 .

SUBMITTER: Lawlor PG

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7579814 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Melatonin to prevent delirium in patients with advanced cancer: a double blind, parallel, randomized, controlled, feasibility trial.

Lawlor Peter G PG McNamara-Kilian Marie T MT MacDonald Alistair R AR Momoli Franco F Tierney Sallyanne S Lacaze-Masmonteil Nathalie N Dasgupta Monidipa M Agar Meera M Pereira Jose L JL Currow David C DC Bush Shirley H SH

BMC palliative care 20201021 1

<h4>Background</h4>Delirium is highly problematic in palliative care (PC). Preliminary data indicate a potential role for melatonin to prevent delirium, but no randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are reported in PC.<h4>Methods</h4>Patients aged ≥18 years, with advanced cancer, admitted to an inpatient Palliative Care Unit (PCU), having a Palliative Performance Scale rating ≥ 30%, and for whom consent was obtained, were included in the study. Patients with delirium on admission were excluded. The ...[more]

PMID: 33087111

Similar Datasets

Project description:Hops are the main components of beer that provide flavor and bitterness. Iso-α-acids, the bitter components of beer, have been reported to reduce body fat in humans, but the bitterness induced by effective doses of iso-α-acids precludes their acceptance as a nutrient. The matured hop bitter acids (MHBA) of oxidized hops appear to have a more pleasant bitterness compared to the sharper bitterness of iso-α-acids. While there has been little information concerning the identity of the MHBA compounds and their physiological effects, MHBA was recently found to be primarily composed of oxides derived from α-acids, and structurally similar to iso-α-acids. Here, we investigated the effects of matured hop extract (MHE) containing MHBA on reducing abdominal body fat in healthy subjects with a body mass index (BMI) of 25 to below 30 kg/m(2), classified as "obese level 1" in Japan or as "overweight" by the WHO.A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled parallel group study.Two hundred subjects (male and female aged 20 to below 65 years with a BMI of 25 or more and less than 30 kg/m(2)) were randomly assigned to two groups. During a 12-week ingestion period, the subjects in each group ingested daily 350 mL of test-beverage, either containing MHE (with 35 mg MHBA), i.e. the namely active beverage, or a placebo beverage without MHE. The primary endpoint was reduction of the abdominal fat area as determined by CT scanning after continual ingestion of MHE for 12 weeks.Compared to the placebo group, a significant reduction was observed in the visceral fat area after 8 and 12 w, and in the total fat area after 12 w in the active group. There was also a concomitant decrease in body fat ratio in the active group compared to the placebo group. No adverse events related to the test beverages or clinically relevant abnormal changes in the circulatory, blood and urine parameters were observed in either group.The present study suggests that continual ingestion of MHE safely reduces body fat, particularly the abdominal visceral fat of healthy overweight subjects.UMIN-CTR UMIN000014185.

Project description:BackgroundVaping cessation is virtually unexplored. The efficacy and safety of varenicline for vaping cessation has not been studied and rigorous research is required to advance best practice and outcomes for people who use electronic cigarettes (EC) and want to quit. The objective is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of varenicline (1 mg BID, administered for 12 weeks, with follow-up to week 24) combined with vaping cessation counseling in exclusive daily EC users intending to quit vaping.MethodsDesign: Double-blind, randomized, parallel-group, placebo-controlled trial.SettingThe study took place at a University-run smoking cessation center.ParticipantsPeople who exclusively use ECs daily and intend to quit vaping.InterventionA total of 140 subjects were randomized to either varenicline (1 mg, administered twice daily for 12 weeks) plus counseling or placebo treatment (administered twice daily, for 12 weeks) plus counseling. The trial consisted of a 12-week treatment phase followed by a 12-week follow-up, nontreatment phase.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary efficacy endpoint of the study was biochemically validated continuous abstinence rate (CAR) at weeks 4 to 12. Secondary efficacy end points were CAR at weeks 4 to 24 and 7-day point prevalence of vaping abstinence at weeks 12 and 24.ResultsCAR was significantly higher for varenicline vs placebo at each interval: weeks 4-12, 40.0% and 20.0%, respectively (OR = 2.67, 95% CI = [1.25-5.68], P = 0.011); weeks 4-24, 34.3% for varenicline with counseling and 17.2% for placebo with counseling (OR = 2.52, 95% CI = [1.14-5.58], P = 0.0224). The 7-day point prevalence of vaping abstinence was also higher for the varenicline than placebo at each time point. Serious adverse events were infrequent in both groups and not treatment-related.ConclusionsThe findings of the present RCT indicate that inclusion of varenicline in a vaping cessation program for people who use electronic cigarettes and intending to quit may result in prolonged abstinence. These positive findings establish a benchmark of intervention effectiveness, may support the use of varenicline combined with counseling in vaping cessation programs, and may also help guiding future recommendations by health authorities and healthcare providers.Trial registrationThe study has been registered in EUDRACT with Trial registration ID: 2016-000339-42.

Project description:BackgroundDelirium is a common disorder among hospitalized older patients and results in increased morbidity and mortality. The prevention of delirium is still challenging in older patient care. The role of antipsychotics in delirium prevention has been limited. Therefore, we conducted a trial to investigate the efficacy of quetiapine use to prevent delirium in hospitalized older medical patients.MethodsThis study was a randomized double-blind controlled trial conducted at Ramathibodi Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand. Patients aged ≥65 years hospitalized in the internal medicine service were randomized to quetiapine 12.5 mg or placebo once daily at bedtime for a maximum 7-day duration. The primary end point was delirium incidence. Secondary end points were delirium duration, length of hospital stay, ICU admission, rehospitalization and mortality within 30 and 90 days.ResultsA total of 122 patients were enrolled in the study. Eight (6.6%) left the trial before receiving the first dose of the intervention, whereas 114 (93.4%) were included in an intention-to-treat analysis allocated to the quetiapine or placebo group (n = 57 each). The delirium incidence rates in the quetiapine and placebo groups were 14.0 and 8.8% (OR = 1.698, 95% CI 0.520-5.545, P = 0.381), respectively. Other endpoints in the quetiapine and placebo groups were the median length of hospital stay, 6 (4-8) days versus 5 (4-8) days (P = 0.133), respectively; delirium duration, 4 (2.3-6.5) versus 3 (1.5-4.0) days (P = 0.557), respectively; ICU admission, 3 (5.3%) patients from both groups (P = 1.000); and mortality in the quetiapine and placebo groups, 1 (1.8%) versus 2 (3.5%) at 30 days (P = 0.566) and 7 (12.3%) versus 9 (15.8%) days at 90 days (P = 0.591). There were no significant differences in other outcomes. None of the participants reported adverse events.ConclusionsQuetiapine prophylaxis did not reduce delirium incidence in hospitalized older medical patients. The use of quetiapine to prevent delirium in this population group should not be recommended.Trial registrationThis trial was retrospectively registered with the Thai clinical trials registry (TCTR) at clinicaltrials.in.th (TCTR20190927001) on September 26, 2019.

Project description:BackgroundExperimental evidence has indicated the benefits of statins for the treatment of postoperative delirium. Previously, clinical trials did not reach definite conclusions on the effects of statins on delirium. Some clinical trials have indicated that statins reduce postoperative delirium and improve outcomes, while some studies have reported negative results.AimTo evaluate whether perioperative rosuvastatin treatment reduces the incidence of delirium and improves clinical outcomes.MethodsThis randomized, double-blind, and placebo-controlled trial was conducted in a single center in Jiangsu, China. This study enrolled patients aged greater than 60 years who received general anesthesia during elective operations and provided informed consent. A computer-generated randomization sequence (in a 1:1 ratio) was used to randomly assign patients to receive either rosuvastatin (40 mg/d) or placebo. Participants, care providers, and investigators were all masked to group assignments. The primary endpoint was the incidence of delirium, which was assessed twice daily with the Confusion Assessment Method during the first 7 postoperative days. Analyses were performed on intention-to-treat and safety populations.ResultsBetween January 1, 2017 and January 1, 2020, 3512 patients were assessed. A total of 821 patients were randomly assigned to receive either placebo (n = 411) or rosuvastatin (n = 410). The incidence of postoperative delirium was significantly lower in the rosuvastatin group [23 (5.6%) of 410 patients] than in the placebo group {42 (13.5%) of 411 patients [odds ratios (OR) = 0.522, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.308-0.885; P < 0.05]}. No significant difference in 30-d all-cause mortality (6.1% vs 8.7%, OR = 0.67, 95%CI: 0.39-1.2, P = 0.147) was observed between the two groups. Rosuvastatin decreased the hospitalization time (13.8 ± 2.5 vs 14.2 ± 2.8, P = 0.03) and hospitalization expenses (9.3 ± 2.5 vs 9.8 ± 2.9, P = 0.007). No significant differences in abnormal liver enzymes (9.0% vs 7.1%, OR = 1.307, 95%CI: 0.787-2.169, P = 0.30) or rhabdomyolysis (0.73% vs 0.24%, OR = 3.020, 95%CI: 0.31-29.2, P = 0.37) were observed between the two groups.ConclusionThe current study suggests that perioperative rosuvastatin treatment reduces the incidence of delirium after an elective operation under general anesthesia. However, the evidence does not reveal that rosuvastatin improves clinical outcomes. The therapy is safe. Further investigation is necessary to fully understand the potential usefulness of rosuvastatin in elderly patients.

Dataset Information

Melatonin to prevent delirium in patients with advanced cancer: a double blind, parallel, randomized, controlled, feasibility trial.

Publications

Melatonin to prevent delirium in patients with advanced cancer: a double blind, parallel, randomized, controlled, feasibility trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets