METHODS AND DESIGN: TICH-2 is a pragmatic, phase III, prospective, double-blind, randomised placebo-controlled trial. Two thousand adult (aged ≥ 18 years) patients with an acute SICH, within 8 h of stroke onset, will be randomised to receive TXA or the placebo control. The primary outcome is ordinal shift of modified Rankin Scale score at day 90. Analyses will be performed using intention-to-treat.
RESULTS: This paper and its attached appendices describe the statistical analysis plan (SAP) for the trial and were developed and published prior to database lock and unblinding to treatment allocation. The SAP includes details of analyses to be undertaken and unpopulated tables which will be reported in the primary and key secondary publications. The database will be locked in early 2018, ready for publication of the results later in the same year.
DISCUSSION: The SAP details the analyses that will be done to avoid bias arising from prior knowledge of the study findings. The trial will determine whether TXA can improve outcome after SICH, which currently has no definitive therapy.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN registry, ID: ISRCTN93732214 . Registered on 17 January 2013.
METHODS: A hundred and twenty ASA 1-3 adults were randomly reversed with 1 mg/kg sugammadex prior to extubation followed by another 1 mg/kg immediately after extubation (staggered group), single dose of 2 mg/kg sugammadex (single bolus group) or neostigmine 0.02 mg/kg with glycopyrrolate (neostigmine group).
RESULTS: We found 70% of patients (n = 28) reversed with single boluses of sugammadex had Grade 3 emergence cough compared to 12.5% (n = 5) in the staggered sugammadex group and 17.5% (n = 7) in the neostigmine group (p
Methods: This double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial involved fifty subjects with sleep complaints. Subjects with a Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) score between 6 and 15 were randomized to receive either IQP-AO-101 or placebo for 6 weeks, following a run-in period of one week. Sleep parameters were assessed at baseline and after 1, 4, and 6 weeks using the modified Athens Insomnia Scale (mAIS). Subjects were also instructed to wear an activity tracker and keep a sleep diary during the study. Other questionnaires administered were the Frankfurt Attention Inventory (FAIR-2) and the Profile of Mood States (POMS-65). Blood samples for safety laboratory parameters were taken before and at the end of the study.
Results: After 6 weeks, subjects who consumed IQP-AO-101 reported significant improvements in mAIS scores compared with placebo, including mAIS total score (11.76 ± 6.85 vs 4.00 ± 4.80; p < 0.001); night parameters composite score (5.20 ± 3.80 vs 2.04 ± 3.16; p = 0.001); and day parameters composite score (6.56 ± 4.10 vs 1.96 ± 2.65; p < 0.001). All individual parameters (Items 1 to 8) were also significantly improved from baseline after 6 weeks of IQP-AO-101 intake. Analysis of variance with baseline values as covariates showed statistically significant improvements across all individual parameters for IQP-AO-101 when compared to placebo. The measurements using the activity tracker, sleep diary, FAIR-2, and POMS did not reveal any significant differences between groups. No adverse effects related to the intake of IQP-AO-101 were reported. Tolerability was rated as very good by all the subjects and by the investigator for all cases.
Conclusions: In this study, IQP-AO-101 was well tolerated and efficacious for promoting sleep and enhancing daytime performance in subjects with moderate sleep disturbances.
Clinical Trial Registration: This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, no. NCT03114696.
METHODS: We performed a 3 × 2 partial factorial double-blind trial of 17,598 participants with stable cardiovascular disease and peripheral artery disease randomly assigned to groups given pantoprazole (40 mg daily, n = 8791) or placebo (n = 8807). Participants were also randomly assigned to groups that received rivaroxaban (2.5 mg twice daily) with aspirin (100 mg once daily), rivaroxaban (5 mg twice daily), or aspirin (100 mg) alone. We collected data on development of pneumonia, Clostridium difficile infection, other enteric infections, fractures, gastric atrophy, chronic kidney disease, diabetes, chronic obstructive lung disease, dementia, cardiovascular disease, cancer, hospitalizations, and all-cause mortality every 6 months. Patients were followed up for a median of 3.01 years, with 53,152 patient-years of follow-up.
RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference between the pantoprazole and placebo groups in safety events except for enteric infections (1.4% vs 1.0% in the placebo group; odds ratio, 1.33; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.75). For all other safety outcomes, proportions were similar between groups except for C difficile infection, which was approximately twice as common in the pantoprazole vs the placebo group, although there were only 13 events, so this difference was not statistically significant.
CONCLUSIONS: In a large placebo-controlled randomized trial, we found that pantoprazole is not associated with any adverse event when used for 3 years, with the possible exception of an increased risk of enteric infections. ClinicalTrials.gov Number: NCT01776424.
METHODS: Data were pooled from 2 multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, 14-week treatment studies of mirogabalin conducted at ∼350 study sites (Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Malaysia, and Thailand). Eligible patients in both studies were randomized in a 2:1:1:1 ratio, stratified according to a baseline average daily pain score (ADPS) of <6 or ≥6, to placebo, mirogabalin 15-mg once daily (QD), mirogabalin 10-mg twice daily (BID), or mirogabalin 15-mg BID treatment groups. Safety was assessed based on treatment-emergent adverse events identified from the adverse events collected throughout both studies. The primary efficacy end point of both studies was the change from baseline in ADPS at week 14.
FINDINGS: In total, 1587 patients (824 with diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain; 763 with post-herpetic neuralgia) who received at least 1 dose of study drug were analyzed (633 received placebo, 954 treated with mirogabalin). Treatment-emergent adverse events included somnolence (3.8%, 10.8%, 14.5%, and 19.1%) and dizziness (2.7%, 5.7%, 9.1%, and 13.1%) in patients receiving placebo, mirogabalin 15 mg QD, mirogabalin 10 mg BID, and mirogabalin 15 mg BID, respectively. In patients treated with mirogabalin 15 mg QD, 2 (0.6%) of 316 patients discontinued due to somnolence. In the mirogabalin 10-mg BID group, somnolence, edema, and peripheral edema each resulted in 3 (0.9%) of 318 patient discontinuations. In the mirogabalin 15-mg BID group, 6 (1.9%) of 320 patients discontinued due to dizziness and 3 (0.9%) due to somnolence. At week 14, mirogabalin 10 mg BID and 15 mg BID statistically significantly improved ADPS versus placebo, with least squares mean changes (95% CI) of -0.31 (-0.55, -0.08) and -0.63 (-0.86, -0.40). Post hoc analysis showed a statistically significant difference 2 days after administration in the mirogabalin 10-mg and 15-mg BID groups compared with placebo. Female sex, age ≥65 years, and baseline weight <60 kg may influence the safety of mirogabalin, particularly regarding the incidence of somnolence and dizziness, but had no notable impact on efficacy. ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT02318706 and NCT02318719.
IMPLICATIONS: This pooled analysis showed that mirogabalin was efficacious and well-tolerated by Asian patients with peripheral neuropathic pain.
METHODS: In three double-blind phase 3 studies, patients receiving HEC or MEC were randomized 1:1 to receive oral rolapitant 180 mg or placebo prior to chemotherapy plus 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone therapy. Patients completed the FLIE questionnaire on day 6 of cycle 1. Endpoints included FLIE total score, nausea and vomiting domain scores, and the proportion of patients with no impact on daily life (total score >108 [range 18-126]). We performed a prespecified analysis of the MEC/anthracycline-cyclophosphamide (AC) study and a post hoc analysis of two pooled cisplatin-based HEC studies.
RESULTS: In the pooled HEC studies, rolapitant significantly improved the FLIE total score (114.5 vs 109.3, p
METHODS: In this double-blind trial, we randomly assigned 27,395 participants with stable atherosclerotic vascular disease to receive rivaroxaban (2.5 mg twice daily) plus aspirin (100 mg once daily), rivaroxaban (5 mg twice daily), or aspirin (100 mg once daily). The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death, stroke, or myocardial infarction. The study was stopped for superiority of the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group after a mean follow-up of 23 months.
RESULTS: The primary outcome occurred in fewer patients in the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group than in the aspirin-alone group (379 patients [4.1%] vs. 496 patients [5.4%]; hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.66 to 0.86; P<0.001; z=-4.126), but major bleeding events occurred in more patients in the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group (288 patients [3.1%] vs. 170 patients [1.9%]; hazard ratio, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.40 to 2.05; P<0.001). There was no significant difference in intracranial or fatal bleeding between these two groups. There were 313 deaths (3.4%) in the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group as compared with 378 (4.1%) in the aspirin-alone group (hazard ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.96; P=0.01; threshold P value for significance, 0.0025). The primary outcome did not occur in significantly fewer patients in the rivaroxaban-alone group than in the aspirin-alone group, but major bleeding events occurred in more patients in the rivaroxaban-alone group.
CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with stable atherosclerotic vascular disease, those assigned to rivaroxaban (2.5 mg twice daily) plus aspirin had better cardiovascular outcomes and more major bleeding events than those assigned to aspirin alone. Rivaroxaban (5 mg twice daily) alone did not result in better cardiovascular outcomes than aspirin alone and resulted in more major bleeding events. (Funded by Bayer; COMPASS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01776424 .).
METHODS: We randomly allocated 180 older patients with significant morbidity (ASA physical status 3) ≥75 yr old to reversal of rocuronium with either SUG or NEO. Adverse events in the recovery room and pulmonary complications (defined by a 5-point [0-4; 0=best to 4=worst] outcome score) on postoperative Days 1, 3, and 7 were compared between groups.
RESULTS: Data from 168 patients aged 80 (4) yr were analysed; SUG vs NEO resulted in a reduced probability (0.052 vs 0.122) of increased pulmonary outcome score (impaired outcome) on postoperative Day 7, but not on Days 1 and 3. More patients in the NEO group were diagnosed with radiographically confirmed pneumonia (9.6% vs 2.4%; P=0.046). The NEO group showed a non-significant trend towards longer hospital length of stay across all individual centres (combined 9 vs 7.5 days), with a significant difference in Malaysia (6 vs 4 days; P=0.011).
CONCLUSIONS: Reversal of rocuronium neuromuscular block with SUG resulted in a small, but possibly clinically relevant improvement in pulmonary outcome in a select cohort of high-risk older patients.
CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ACTRN12614000108617.
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.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Participants with an estimated glomerular filtration rate of 30 to <90 mL/min/1.73 m2 and urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio of >300-5,000 mg/g were randomized to 100 mg of canagliflozin or a placebo. The effects of canagliflozin treatment on pre-specified efficacy and safety outcomes were examined using Cox proportional hazards regression between participants from EA countries (China, Japan, Malaysia, the Philippines, South Korea and Taiwan) and the remaining participants.
RESULTS: Of 4,401 participants, 604 (13.7%) were from EA countries; 301 and 303 were assigned to the canagliflozin and placebo groups, respectively. Canagliflozin lowered the risk of primary outcome (composite of end-stage kidney disease, doubling of serum creatinine level, or renal or cardiovascular death) in EA participants (hazard ratio 0.54, 95% confidence interval 0.35-0.84). The effects of canagliflozin on renal and cardiovascular outcomes in EA participants were generally similar to those of the remaining participants. Safety outcomes were similar between the EA and non-EA participants.
CONCLUSIONS: In the CREDENCE trial, the risk of renal and cardiovascular events was safely reduced in participants from EA countries at high risk of renal events.