METHODS: In two randomised, double-blinded, cross-over or placebo-controlled (caffeine) studies, we measured sixty subjects in eight sessions (n = 30, Male: Female = 1:1 in each study).
RESULTS: We found caffeine increased motor cortex excitability in caffeine naïve subjects. The aftereffects in caffeine naïve subjects were enhanced and prolonged when combined with PAS 25. Caffeine also increased alertness and the motor evoked potentials (MEPs) were reduced under light deprivation in caffeine consumers both with and without caffeine. In caffeine consumers, the time of day had no effect on tACS-induced plasticity.
CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that caffeine should be avoided or controlled as confounding factor for brain stimulation protocols. It is also important to keep the brightness constant in all sessions and study groups should not be mixed with caffeine-naïve and caffeine consuming participants.
SIGNIFICANCE: Caffeine is one of the confounding factors in the plasticity induction studies and it induces different excitability effects in caffeine-naïve and caffeine-adapted subjects. This study was registered in the ClinicalTrials.gov with these registration IDs: 1) NCT03720665 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?cond=NCT03720665&term=&cntry=&state=&city=&dist= 2) NCT04011670 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?cond=&term=NCT04011670&cntry=&state=&city=&dist=.
METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Initially, during Phase I of the study, the serum level of IL-1β, IL-6 and TNF-α; ERP changes in the EEG and fecal microbiota content will be compared between 120 AUD patients and 120 healthy controls. Subsequently in Phase II of the study, 120 AUD patients will be randomized by stratified permuted block randomization into the probiotic, ACT and placebo groups in a 1:1:1 ratio. Participants in the probiotic and placebo groups will be administered one sachet per day of Lactobacillus spp. probiotic and placebo, respectively for 12 weeks. While those in the ACT group will receive one session per week of ACT for 8 weeks. Outcome measures will be administered at four timepoints, such as t0 = baseline assessment prior to intervention, t1 = 8 weeks after intervention began, t2 = 12 weeks after intervention and t3 = 24 weeks after intervention. Primary outcomes are the degrees of alcohol craving, alcohol withdrawal during abstinence and AUD. Secondary outcomes to be assessed are the severity of co-morbid depression and anxiety symptoms; the serum levels of IL-1β, IL-6 and TNF-α; changes in ERP and fecal microbiota content.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05830708 (ClinicalTrials.gov). Registered on April 25, 2023.
DESIGN: Double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter randomized trial.
SETTING: Tertiary care hospitals.
INTERVENTIONS: Cardiac surgery patients (n = 1,000) with postoperative myocardial dysfunction (defined as patients with intraaortic balloon pump and/or high-dose standard inotropic support) will be randomized to receive a continuous infusion of either levosimendan (0.05-0.2 μg/[kg min]) or placebo for 24-48 hours.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary end point will be 30-day mortality. Secondary end points will be mortality at 1 year, time on mechanical ventilation, acute kidney injury, decision to stop the study drug due to adverse events or to start open-label levosimendan, and length of intensive care unit and hospital stay. We will test the hypothesis that levosimendan reduces 30-day mortality in cardiac surgery patients with postoperative myocardial dysfunction.
CONCLUSIONS: This trial is planned to determine whether levosimendan could improve survival in patients with postoperative low cardiac output syndrome. The results of this double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized trial may provide important insights into the management of low cardiac output in cardiac surgery.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to investigate the effects of 3-month supplementation with oral probiotics on quality of life and inflammatory markers in women with primary dysmenorrhea.
DESIGN: Randomized placebo-controlled trial.
METHODS: A total of 72 patients (36 patients in each arm) were randomized to receive either oral sachets containing 5 billion colony-forming units each of Lactobacillus acidophilus BCMC (BCrobes Microbial Cells) 12130, Lactobacillus casei subsp BCMC 12313, Lactobacillus lactis BCMC 12451, Bifidobacterium bifidum BCMC 02290, Bifidobacterium longum BCMC 02120, and Bifidobacterium infantis BCMC 02129 each or placebo twice daily for 3 months. Main outcome measures were visual analog scale, verbal rating scale, physical and mental health scores using Short-Form 12-Item version 2 questionnaire, frequency of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug use, and changes in inflammatory markers (interleukin-6, interleukin-8, and tumor necrosis factor alpha) before and after treatment.
RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the quality of life scores between the probiotic and placebo groups. Both groups showed significant improvement in pain (visual analog scale) and severity (verbal rating scale) scores but the probiotic group had much lower nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug use (odds ratio: 0.69, 95% confidence interval: 0.26-1.83) and better mental health scores (mean change: 6.5, p = 0.03 versus 6.1, p = 0.08) than the placebo group. There was a significant confounding effect of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug use on quality of life scores. No significant difference was found in inflammatory cytokines.
CONCLUSION: Tested oral probiotics improved mental health and potentially reduced the use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs; however, there was no significant change in inflammatory markers. Further research with a larger sample size is needed to confirm the findings.
REGISTRATION: This study is registered under ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04119011).
METHODS: A double-blind quasi-experiment was carried out on NC (n = 43) and NCI (n = 33) groups. Participants in each group were randomly assigned into treatment and control programs groups. The treatment group underwent auditory-cognitive training, whereas the control group was assigned to watch documentary videos, three times per week, for 8 consecutive weeks. Study outcomes that included Montreal Cognitive Assessment, Malay Hearing in Noise Test, Dichotic Digit Test, Gaps in Noise Test and Pitch Pattern Sequence Test were measured at 4-week intervals at baseline, and weeks 4, 8 and 12.
RESULTS: Mixed design anova showed significant training effects in total Montreal Cognitive Assessment and Dichotic Digit Test in both groups, NC (P
Methods: Septic patient with hyperlactatemia and metabolic acidosis were randomized to receive either high SID fl uid or Hartmann's solution during initial fl uid resuscitation. The primary outcome measures the pH and bicarbonate levels difference pre- and post- resuscitation.
Results: One hundred and sixty-two patients underwent randomization, 81 were assigned each to receive high SID fluid or Hartmann's solution. Both groups had similar baseline characteristics. High SID group received 23.5 mL/kg and the Hartmann's group received 22.7 mL/kg (p = 0.360). High SID fluid increased the mean (± SD) pH by 0.107 (± 0.09) vs. Hartmann's solution by 0.014 (± 0.12), p ≤ 0.001. Mean bicarbonate level increased signifi cantly in high SID group compared to Hartmann's (4.30 ± 3.76 vs. 1.25 ± 3.33, p ≤ 0.001). High SID group had higher post resuscitation lactate clearance than Hartmann's group (25.4 ± 28.3% vs. 12.0 ± 34.1%, p = 0.009). Shorter hospital stay was observed in highSID group 8.04 ± 5.96 days vs. Hartmann's group 12.18 ± 12.41 days (p = 0.048). Both groups showed no difference in incidence of pulmonary oedema, acute kidney injury and mortality.
Conclusions: Initial resuscitation using high SID fluid in selected septic patient improves pH and bicarbonate levels. The high SID group had better post resuscitation lactate clearance and shorter hospital stay.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighty patients for laparoscopic surgery with at least one of the determined risks (nonsmoker, female, previous PONV/motion sickness, or postoperative opioid use) were randomized into either an active or sham group. At the end of surgery, Reletex electrical acustimulation was placed at the P6 acupoint. The active group had grade 3 strength and the sham group had inactivated electrodes covered by silicone. It was worn for 24 h following surgery. PONV scores were recorded.
RESULTS: The active group had significantly shorter durations of surgery and lower PONV incidence over 24 h (35.1% versus 64.9%, P = 0.024) and this was attributed to the lower incidence of nausea (31.4% versus 68.6%, P = 0.006). The overall incidence of vomiting was not significantly different between the groups, but it was higher in the sham group of patients with PONV risk score 3 (23.9%, P = 0.049).
CONCLUSION: In patients at high risk for PONV, P6 acupoint electrical stimulation lowers the PONV incidence by reducing the nausea component. However, this reduction in nausea is not related to increasing PONV risk scores.
DESIGN: In this phase III, double-blind, multicentre study, patients with endoscopically confirmed EO were randomised 1:1 to receive vonoprazan 20 mg or lansoprazole 30 mg, once daily for up to 8 weeks. The primary endpoint was EO healing rate at 8 weeks. The secondary endpoints were EO healing rates at 2 and 4 weeks. Safety endpoints included treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs).
RESULTS: In the vonoprazan (n=238) and lansoprazole (n=230) arms, 8-week EO healing rates were 92.4% and 91.3%, respectively (difference 1.1% (95% CI -3.822% to 6.087%)). The respective 2-week EO healing rates were 75.0% and 67.8% (difference 7.2% (95% CI -1.054% to 15.371%)), and the respective 4-week EO healing rates were 85.3% and 83.5% (difference 1.8% (95% CI -4.763% to 8.395%)). In patients with baseline Los Angeles classification grade C/D, 2-week, 4-week and 8-week EO healing rates were higher with vonoprazan versus lansoprazole (2 weeks: 62.2% vs 51.5%, difference 10.6% (95% CI -5.708% to 27.002%); 4 weeks: 73.3% vs 67.2%, difference 6.2% (95% CI -8.884 to 21.223); and 8 weeks: 84.0% vs 80.6%, difference 3.4% (95% CI -9.187% to 15.993%)). Overall, EO healing rates appeared higher with vonoprazan versus lansoprazole. TEAE rates were 38.1% and 36.6% in the vonoprazan and lansoprazole group, respectively.
CONCLUSION: Our findings demonstrate the non-inferior efficacy of vonoprazan versus lansoprazole in terms of EO healing rate at 8 weeks in this population. Safety outcomes were similar in the two treatment arms.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02388724.
METHODS: Randomised patients (N = 900) received monthly subcutaneous injections of placebo, erenumab 70 mg, or 140 mg (3:3:2) for 3 months. Primary endpoint was change from baseline in monthly migraine days at Month 3. Other endpoints included achievement of ≥50%, ≥75%, and 100% reduction in monthly migraine days, change in monthly acute migraine-specific medication treatment days, patient-reported outcomes, and safety assessment.
RESULTS: At baseline, mean (standard deviation) age was 37.5 (9.9) years, 81.9% were women, and monthly migraine days was 8.2 (2.8). At Month 3, change from baseline in monthly migraine days (primary endpoint) was -3.1, -4.2, and -4.8 days for placebo, erenumab 70 mg, and erenumab 140 mg, respectively, with a statistically significant difference for erenumab versus placebo (P = 0.002 [70 mg], P
METHODS: We performed a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of consecutive adults with biopsy-proven NASH and a NAFLD activity score (NAS) of 4 or more at a tertiary care hospital in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, from November 2012 through August 2014. Patients were randomly assigned to groups given silymarin (700 mg; n = 49 patients) or placebo (n = 50 patients) 3 times daily for 48 weeks. After this 48-week period, liver biopsies were repeated. The primary efficacy outcome was a decrease of 30% or more in NAS; findings from 48-week liver biopsies were compared with those from the baseline biopsy. Secondary outcomes included changes in steatosis, lobular inflammation, hepatocyte ballooning, NAS and fibrosis score, and anthropometric measurements, as well as glycemic, lipid, and liver profiles and liver stiffness measurements.
RESULTS: The percentage of patients achieving the primary efficacy outcome did not differ significantly between the groups (32.7% in the silymarin group vs 26.0% in the placebo group; P = .467). A significantly higher proportion of patients in the silymarin group had reductions in fibrosis based on histology (reductions of 1 point or more; 22.4%) than did the placebo group (6.0%; P = .023), and based on liver stiffness measurements (decrease of 30% or more; 24.2%) than did the placebo group (2.3%; P = .002). The silymarin group also had significant reductions in mean aspartate aminotransferase to platelet ratio index (reduction of 0.14, P = .011 compared with baseline), fibrosis-4 score (reduction of 0.20, P = .041 compared with baseline), and NAFLD fibrosis score (reduction of 0.30, P < .001 compared with baseline); these changes were not observed in the placebo group (reduction of 0.07, P = .154; increase of 0.18, P = .389; and reduction of 0.05, P = .845, respectively). There was no significant difference between groups in number of adverse events; adverse events that occurred were not attributed to silymarin.
CONCLUSIONS: In a randomized trial of 99 patients, we found that silymarin (700 mg, given 3 times daily for 48 weeks) did not reduce NAS scores by 30% or more in a significantly larger proportion of patients with NASH than placebo. Silymarin may reduce liver fibrosis but this remains to be confirmed in a larger trial. It appears to be safe and well tolerated. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02006498.