Dataset Information

Effectiveness of oral phloroglucinol as a premedication for unsedated esophagogastroduodenoscopy: A prospective, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, randomized trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Anti-spasmodic agents are commonly injected during esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) to improve visualization of the gastric mucosa by inhibiting gastrointestinal (GI) peristalsis. The availability of oral anti-spasmodic agents would increase convenience. In this study, we evaluated the effectiveness of oral phloroglucinol (Flospan®) as a premedication for unsedated EGD.

Methods

A prospective, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, randomized controlled trial was conducted in a tertiary hospital. Individuals scheduled to undergo unsedated EGD were randomly assigned to receive either oral phloroglucinol or matching placebo 15 min before EGD. The primary outcome was the rate of complete gastric peristalsis suppression. Outcomes were assessed by independent investigators according to the classification of gastric peristalsis and ease of intragastric observation at the beginning (Period A) and end (Period B) of EGD.

Results

Overall, 71 phloroglucinol-treated and 71 placebo-treated participants (n = 142 total) were included. The phloroglucinol group showed significantly higher proportions of participants with complete gastric peristalsis suppression than the placebo group (22.5% vs. 9.9%, P = 0.040). The ease of intragastric observation was significantly better in the phloroglucinol group than in the placebo group at Periods A (P < 0.001) and B (P = 0.005). Patients in both groups had comparable adverse events and showed willingness to take the premedication at their next examination.

Conclusions

Oral phloroglucinol significantly suppressed gastrointestinal peristalsis during unsedated EGD compared with placebo (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03342118).

SUBMITTER: Jung H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8336830 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundChildren with persistent hearing loss due to otitis media with effusion are commonly managed by surgical intervention. A safe, cheap, and effective medical treatment would enhance treatment options. Underpowered, poor-quality trials have found short-term benefit from oral steroids. We aimed to investigate whether a short course of oral steroids would achieve acceptable hearing in children with persistent otitis media with effusion and hearing loss.MethodsIn this individually randomised, parallel, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial we recruited children aged 2-8 years with symptoms attributable to otitis media with effusion for at least 3 months and with confirmed bilateral hearing loss. Participants were recruited from 20 ear, nose, and throat (ENT), paediatric audiology, and audiovestibular medicine outpatient departments in England and Wales. Participants were randomly allocated (1:1) to sequentially numbered identical prednisolone (oral steroid) or placebo packs by use of computer-generated random permuted block sizes stratified by site and child's age. The primary outcome was audiometry-confirmed acceptable hearing at 5 weeks. All analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN Registry, number ISRCTN49798431.FindingsBetween March 20, 2014, and April 5, 2016, 1018 children were screened, of whom 389 were randomised. 200 were assigned to receive oral steroids and 189 to receive placebo. Hearing at 5 weeks was assessed in 183 children in the oral steroid group and in 180 in the placebo group. Acceptable hearing was observed in 73 (40%) children in the oral steroid group and in 59 (33%) in the placebo group (absolute difference 7% [95% CI -3 to 17], number needed to treat 14; adjusted odds ratio 1·36 [95% CI 0·88-2·11]; p=0·16). There was no evidence of any significant differences in adverse events or quality-of-life measures between the groups.InterpretationOtitis media with effusion in children with documented hearing loss and attributable symptoms for at least 3 months has a high rate of spontaneous resolution. A short course of oral prednisolone is not an effective treatment for most children aged 2-8 years with persistent otitis media with effusion, but is well tolerated. One in 14 children might achieve improved hearing but not quality of life. Discussions about watchful waiting and other interventions will be supported by this evidence.FundingNational Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Intraoperative systemic esmolol has been shown to reduce postsurgical pain. Nonetheless, it is unknown whether the use of intraoperative systemic esmolol can improve patient-reported postsurgical quality of recovery. The main objective of the current investigation was to evaluate the effect of intraoperative esmolol on postsurgical quality of recovery. We hypothesized that patients receiving intraoperative esmolol would report better quality of postsurgical recovery than the ones receiving saline. METHODS:The study was a prospective randomized double-blinded, placebo-controlled, clinical trial. Healthy female subjects undergoing outpatient hysteroscopic surgery under general anesthesia were randomized to receive intravenous esmolol administered at a rate of 0.5?mg/kg bolus followed by an infusion of 5 to 15??g/kg/min or the same volume of saline. The primary outcome was the Quality of Recovery 40 (QOR-40) questionnaire at 24?hours after surgery. Other data collected included postoperative opioid consumption and pain scores. Data were analyzed using group t tests and the Wilcoxon exact test. RESULTS:Seventy subjects were randomized and 58 completed the study. There was not a clinically significant difference in the global QoR-40 scores between the esmolol and saline groups at 24?hours, median (interquartile range) of 179 (171-190) and 182 (173-189), respectively, P?=?.82. In addition, immediate post-surgical data in the post-anesthesia care unit did not show a benefit of using esmolol compared to saline in regard to pain scores, morphine consumption, and postoperative nausea and vomiting. CONCLUSIONS:Despite current evidence in the literature that intraoperative esmolol improves postsurgical pain, we did not detect a beneficial effect of intraoperative esmolol on patient-reported quality of recovery after ambulatory surgery. Our results confirm the concept that the use of patient-centered outcomes rather than commonly used outcomes (e.g., pain scores and opioid consumption) can change the practice of perioperative medicine.

Project description:BackgroundIvermectin which was widely considered as a potential treatment for COVID-19, showed uncertain clinical benefit in many clinical trials. Performing large-scale clinical trials to evaluate the effectiveness of this drug in the midst of the pandemic, while difficult, has been urgently needed.MethodsWe performed two large multicenter randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials evaluating the effectiveness of ivermectin in treating inpatients and outpatients with COVID-19 infection. The intervention group received ivermectin, 0.4mg/kg of body weight per day for 3 days. In the control group, placebo tablets were used for 3 days.ResultsData for 609 inpatients and 549 outpatients were analyzed. In hospitalized patients, complete recovery was significantly higher in the ivermectin group (37%) compared to placebo group (28%; RR, 1.32 [95% CI, 1.04-1.66]; p-value = 0.02). On the other hand, the length of hospital stay was significantly longer in the ivermectin group with a mean of 7.98 ± 4.4 days compared to the placebo receiving group with a mean of 7.16 ± 3.2 days (RR, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.15-1.45]; p-value = 0.02). In outpatients, the mean duration of fever was significantly shorter (2.02 ± 0.11 days) in the ivermectin group versus (2.41 ± 0.13 days) placebo group with p value = 0.020. On the day seventh of treatment, fever (p-value = 0.040), cough (p-value = 0.019), and weakness (p-value = 0.002) were significantly higher in the placebo group compared to the ivermectin group. Among all outpatients, 7% in ivermectin group and 5% in placebo group needed to be hospitalized (RR, 1.36 [95% CI, 0.65-2.84]; p-value = 0.41). Also, the result of RT-PCR on day five after treatment was negative for 26% of patients in the ivermectin group versus 32% in the placebo group (RR, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.60-1.09]; p-value = 0.16).ConclusionOur data showed, ivermectin, compared with placebo, did not have a significant potential effect on clinical improvement, reduced admission in ICU, need for invasive ventilation, and death in hospitalized patients; likewise, no evidence was found to support the prescription of ivermectin on recovery, reduced hospitalization and increased negative RT-PCR assay for SARS-CoV-2 5 days after treatment in outpatients. Our findings do not support the use of ivermectin to treat mild to severe forms of COVID-19.Clinical trial registrationwww.irct.ir IRCT20111224008507N5 and IRCT20111224008507N4.