BAY 2253651 for the treatment of obstructive sleep apnoea: a multicentre, double-blind, randomised controlled trial (SANDMAN).
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Gaisl T
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8607905 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) is characterised by a loss of neuromuscular tone of the upper airway dilator muscles while asleep. This study investigated the effectiveness of transcutaneous electrical stimulation in patients with OSA.This was a randomised, sham-controlled crossover trial using transcutaneous electrical stimulation of the upper airway dilator muscles in patients with confirmed OSA. Patients were randomly assigned to one night of sham stimulation and one night of active treatment. The primary outcome was the 4% oxygen desaturation index, responders were defined as patients with a reduction >25% in the oxygen desaturation index when compared with sham stimulation and/or with an index <5/hour in the active treatment night.In 36 patients (age mean 50.8 (SD 11.2) years, male/female 30/6, body mass index median 29.6 (IQR 26.9-34.9) kg/m(2), Epworth Sleepiness Scale 10.5 (4.6) points, oxygen desaturation index median 25.7 (16.0-49.1)/hour, apnoea-hypopnoea index median 28.1 (19.0-57.0)/hour) the primary outcome measure improved when comparing sham stimulation (median 26.9 (17.5-39.5)/hour) with active treatment (median 19.5 (11.6-40.0)/hour; p=0.026), a modest reduction of the mean by 4.1 (95% CI -0.6 to 8.9)/hour. Secondary outcome parameters of patients' perception indicated that stimulation was well tolerated. Responders (47.2%) were predominantly from the mild-to-moderate OSA category. In this subgroup, the oxygen desaturation index was reduced by 10.0 (95% CI 3.9 to 16.0)/hour (p<0.001) and the apnoea-hypopnoea index was reduced by 9.1 (95% CI 2.0 to 16.2)/hour (p=0.004).Transcutaneous electrical stimulation of the pharyngeal dilators during a single night in patients with OSA improves upper airway obstruction and is well tolerated.NCT01661712.
| S-EPMC5036236 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesMany clinical studies have indicated that obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA), the most common chronic sleep disorder, may affect neurocognitive function, and that treatment for continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) has some neurocognitive protective effects against the adverse effects of OSA. However, the effects of CPAP treatment on neurocognitive architecture and function remain unclear. Therefore, this multicentre trial was designed to investigate whether and when neurocognitive architecture and function in patients with OSA can be improved by CPAP treatment and to explore the role of gut microbiota in improving neurocognitive function during treatment.Methods/designThis study will be a multicentre, randomised, controlled trial with allocation concealment and assessor blinding. A total of 148 eligible patients with moderate to severe OSA will be enrolled from five sleep centres and randomised to receive CPAP with best supportive care (BSC) intervention or BSC intervention alone. Cognitive function, structure and function of brain regions, gut microbiota, metabolites, biochemical variables, electrocardiography, echocardiography, pulmonary function and arterial stiffness will be assessed at baseline before randomisation and at 3, 6 and 12 months.Ethics and disseminationThis study has been approved by the Medical Ethics Committee of Shanghai Jiao Tong University Affiliated Sixth People's Hospital (approval number 2015-79). The results from this study will be published in peer-reviewed journals and at relevant conferences.Trial registration numberNCT02886156; pre-results.
| S-EPMC5729992 | biostudies-literature
Project description:(1) Background: osteopathic manipulation of the sphenopalatine ganglia (SPG) blocks the action of postganglionic sensory fibres. This neuromodulation can reduce nasal obstruction and enhance upper airway stability. We investigated the manipulation of the SPG in 31 patients with obstructive sleep apnoea syndrome (OSAS); (2) Methods: Randomised, controlled, double-blind, crossover study. Participants received active (AM), then sham manipulation (SM), or vice versa. The primary endpoint was apnoea-hypopnoea index (AHI). Secondary endpoints were variation of nasal obstruction evaluated by peak nasal inspiratory flow (PNIF) and upper airways stability evaluated by awake critical closing pressure [awake Pcrit]), at 30 min and 24 h. Schirmer's test and pain were assessed immediately post-manipulation. Tactile/gustatory/olfactory/auditory/nociceptive/visual sensations were recorded. Adverse events were collected throughout. (3) Results: SPG manipulation did not reduce AHI (p = 0.670). PNIF increased post-AM but not post-SM at 30 min (AM-SM: 18 [10; 38] L/min, p = 0.0001) and 24 h (23 [10; 30] L/min, p = 0.001). There was no significant difference on awake Pcrit (AM-SM) at 30 min or 24 h). Sensations were more commonly reported post-AM (100% of patients) than post-SM (37%). Few adverse events and no serious adverse events were reported. (4) Conclusions: SPG manipulation is not supported as a treatment for OSAS but reduced nasal obstruction. This effect remains to be confirmed in a larger sample before using this approach to reduce nasal congestion in CPAP-treated patients or in mild OSAS.
| S-EPMC8745154 | biostudies-literature
Project description:INTRODUCTION:Polyneuropathy, organomegaly, endocrinopathy, M-protein and skin changes (POEMS) syndrome is a fatal systemic disorder associated with plasma cell dyscrasia and the overproduction of the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF). Recently, the prognosis of POEMS was substantially improved by introduction of therapeutic intervention for myeloma. However, no randomised clinical trial has been performed because of the rarity and severity of the disease. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:The Japanese POEMS syndrome with Thalidomide (J-POST) Trial is a phase II/III multicentre, double-blinded, randomised, controlled trial that aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a 24-week treatment with thalidomide in POEMS syndrome, with an additional 48-week open-label safety study. Adults with POEMS syndrome who have no indication for transplantation are assessed for eligibility at 12 tertiary neurology centres in Japan. Patients who satisfy the eligibility criteria are randomised (1:1) to receive thalidomide (100-300?mg daily) plus dexamethasone (12?mg/m(2) on days 1-4 of a 28-day cycle) or placebo plus dexamethasone. Both treatments were administered for 24?weeks (six cycles; randomised comparative study period). Patients who complete the randomised study period or show subacute deterioration during the randomised period participate in the subsequent 48-week open-label safety study (long-term safety period). The primary end point of the study is the reduction rate of serum VEGF levels at 24?weeks. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:The protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board of each hospital. The trial was notified and registered at the Pharmaceutical and Medical Devices Agency, Japan (No. 22-1716). The J-POST Trial is currently ongoing and is due to finish in August 2015. The findings of this trial will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations and will also be disseminated to participants. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:UMIN000004179 and JMA-IIA00046.
| S-EPMC4289734 | biostudies-other
Project description:Memantine has been used off-label to treat frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTD). A previous 26-week open-label study suggested a transient, modest benefit on neuropsychiatric symptoms as measured by the neuropsychiatric inventory (NPI). We aimed to determine whether memantine is an effective treatment for FTD.We did a randomised, parallel group, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of 20 mg memantine taken orally daily for 26 weeks in patients with FTD. Participants met Neary criteria for behavioural variant FTD (bvFTD) or semantic dementia and had characteristic brain atrophy. Use of acetylcholinesterase inhibitors was prohibited. Individuals were randomly assigned to receive either memantine or matched placebo tablets (1:1) in blocks of two and four patients. All patients and study personnel were masked to treatment assignment. Primary endpoints were the change in total NPI score and clinical global impression of change (CGIC) score after 26 weeks and were analysed by intention to treat. This study is registered with Clinicaltrials.gov, number NCT00545974.Of 100 patients screened, 81 were randomly assigned to receive memantine (39 patients) or placebo (42 patients). Five (6%) patients discontinued, and 76 completed the 26-week treatment. Enrolment numbers were lower than planned because of many patients' preference to take memantine or cholinesterase inhibitors off-label rather than participate in a clinical trial. Memantine treatment had no effect on either the NPI (mean difference 2·2, 95% CI -3·9 to 8·3, p=0·47) or CGIC (mean difference 0·0, -0·4 to 0·4, p=0·90) after 26 weeks of treatment. Memantine was generally well tolerated; however, patients in the memantine group had more frequent cognitive adverse events (six patients) than those in the placebo group (one).Memantine treatment showed no benefit in patients with FTD. These data do not support memantine use in FTD.Forest Research Institute.
| S-EPMC3756890 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC7190303 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC5820409 | 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:BACKGROUND:To investigate the effect of BC1036 on health-related quality of life (QOL) in subjects with persistent cough. The secondary objective was to investigate the effect of BC1036 on subjective cough severity. METHODS:This was a randomised, multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study in 289 subjects with persistent cough. Subjects received BC1036 or placebo twice daily for 14 days. The primary endpoint comprised cough-related QOL assessed using the validated Leicester Cough Questionnaire (LCQ) at Day 14. Secondary endpoints comprised the LCQ scores at Day 7 and Day 28, cough severity VAS scores at each visit and pulmonary function tests. RESULTS:At baseline, mean total LCQ score in the BC1036 group was lower (i.e., worse QOL) than placebo (P<0.001), indicating significant between-group heterogeneity. Mean baseline-adjusted change in LCQ score at Day 14 was greater for BC1036 [mean (SD) 2.4±3.5] compared to placebo [mean (SD) score 2.2±3.0], but did not reach statistical significance (P=0.60). Mean cough severity VAS score decreased to a greater extent in the BC1036 group compared to placebo, but again the results were not statistically significant (-12.2±23.28 in BC1036 group and -11.0±21.34 in placebo group at Day 14, P=0.688). There was no significant change in pulmonary function measurements. The adverse event (AE) profile was similar in both groups. CONCLUSIONS:This study showed that BC1036 was well tolerated and, although the primary endpoint did not achieve statistical significance, the magnitude of improvement was greater with BC1036 compared to placebo with respect to improving QOL and reducing cough severity. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01656668.
| S-EPMC5542984 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC7527829 | biostudies-literature