OBJECTIVES: To analyse the efficacy and possible adverse effects of folate supplementation (folate occurring naturally in foods, provided as fortified foods or additional supplements such as tablets) in people with SCD.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register comprising references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches and handsearches of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings. We also conducted additional searches in both electronic databases and clinical trial registries.Date of last search of the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register: 17 November 2017.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised, placebo-controlled trials of folate supplementation for SCD.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Four review authors assessed We used the standard Cochrane-defined methodological procedures.Four review authors independently assessed the eligibility and risk of bias of the included trials and extracted and analysed the data included in the review. The quality of the evidence was assessed using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS: One trial, undertaken in 1983, was eligible for inclusion in the review. This was a double-blind placebo-controlled quasi-randomised triaI of supplementation of folic acid in people with SCD. A total of 117 children with homozygous sickle cell (SS) disease aged six months to four years of age participated over a one-year period (analysis was restricted to 115 children).Serum folate measures, obtained after trial entry at six and 12 months, were available in 80 of 115 (70%) participants. There were significant differences between the folic acid and placebo groups with regards to serum folate values above 18 µg/L and values below 5 µg/L (low-quality evidence). In the folic acid group, values above 18 µg/L were observed in 33 of 41 (81%) compared to six of 39 (15%) participants in the placebo (calcium lactate) group. Additionally, there were no participants in the folic acid group with serum folate levels below 5 µg/L, whereas in the placebo group, 15 of 39 (39%) participants had levels below this threshold. Haematological indices were measured in 100 of 115 (87%) participants at baseline and at one year. After adjusting for sex and age group, the investigators reported no significant differences between the trial groups with regards to total haemoglobin concentrations, either at baseline or at one year (low-quality evidence). It is important to note that none of the raw data for the outcomes listed above were available for analysis.The proportions of participants who experienced certain clinical events were analysed in all 115 participants, for which raw data were available. There were no statistically significant differences noted; however, the trial was not powered to investigate differences between the folic acid and placebo groups with regards to: minor infections, risk ratio (RR) 0.99 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85 to 1.15) (low-quality evidence); major infections, RR 0.89 (95% CI 0.47 to 1.66) (low-quality evidence); dactylitis, RR 0.67 (95% CI 0.35 to 1.27) (low-quality evidence); acute splenic sequestration, RR 1.07 (95% CI 0.44 to 2.57) (low-quality evidence); or episodes of pain, RR 1.16 (95% CI 0.70 to 1.92) (low-quality evidence). However, the investigators reported a higher proportion of repeat dactylitis episodes in the placebo group, with two or more attacks occurring in 10 of 56 participants compared to two of 59 in the folic acid group (P < 0.05).Growth, determined by height-for-age and weight-for-age, as well as height and growth velocity, was measured in 103 of the 115 participants (90%), for which raw data were not available. The investigators reported no significant differences in growth between the two groups.The trial had a high risk of bias with regards to random sequence generation and incomplete outcome data. There was an unclear risk of bias in relation to allocation concealment, outcome assessment, and selective reporting. Finally, There was a low risk of bias with regards to blinding of participants and personnel. Overall the quality of the evidence in the review was low.There were no trials identified for other eligible comparisons, namely: folate supplementation (fortified foods and physical supplementation with tablets) versus placebo; folate supplementation (naturally occurring in diet) versus placebo; folate supplementation (fortified foods and physical supplementation with tablets) versus folate supplementation (naturally occurring in diet).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: One doubIe-blind, placebo-controlled triaI on folic acid supplementation in children with SCD was included in the review. Overall, the trial presented mixed evidence on the review's outcomes. No trials in adults were identified. With the limited evidence provided, we conclude that, while it is possible that folic acid supplementation may increase serum folate levels, the effect of supplementation on anaemia and any symptoms of anaemia remains unclear.If further trials were conducted, these may add evidence regarding the efficacy of folate supplementation. Future trials should assess clinical outcomes such as folate concentration, haemoglobin concentration, adverse effects and benefits of the intervention, especially with regards to SCD-related morbidity. Such trials should include people with SCD of all ages and both sexes, in any setting. To investigate the effects of folate supplementation, trials should recruit more participants and be of longer duration, with long-term follow-up, than the trial currently included in this review. However, we do not envisage further trials of this intervention will be conducted, and hence the review will no longer be regularly updated.
METHODS: This multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 2b trial was done at 60 hospitals and clinics in 20 countries. Eligible study participants were aged between 12 and 75 years with a documented history of GPP as per the European Rare and Severe Psoriasis Expert Network criteria, with a history of at least two past GPP flares, and a GPP Physician Global Assessment (GPPGA) score of 0 or 1 at screening and random assignment. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) to receive subcutaneous placebo, subcutaneous low-dose spesolimab (300 mg loading dose followed by 150 mg every 12 weeks), subcutaneous medium-dose spesolimab (600 mg loading dose followed by 300 mg every 12 weeks), or subcutaneous high-dose spesolimab (600 mg loading dose followed by 300 mg every 4 weeks) over 48 weeks. The primary objective was to demonstrate a non-flat dose-response curve on the primary endpoint, time to first GPP flare.
FINDINGS: From June 8, 2020, to Nov 23, 2022, 157 patients were screened, of whom 123 were randomly assigned. 92 were assigned to receive spesolimab (30 high dose, 31 medium dose, and 31 low dose) and 31 to placebo. All patients were either Asian (79 [64%] of 123) or White (44 [36%]). Patient groups were similar in sex distribution (76 [62%] female and 47 [38%] male), age (mean 40·4 years, SD 15·8), and GPP Physician Global Assessment score. A non-flat dose-response relationship was established on the primary endpoint. By week 48, 35 patients had GPP flares; seven (23%) of 31 patients in the low-dose spesolimab group, nine (29%) of 31 patients in the medium-dose spesolimab group, three (10%) of 30 patients in the high-dose spesolimab group, and 16 (52%) of 31 patients in the placebo group. High-dose spesolimab was significantly superior versus placebo on the primary outcome of time to GPP flare (hazard ratio [HR]=0·16, 95% CI 0·05-0·54; p=0·0005) endpoint. HRs were 0·35 (95% CI 0·14-0·86, nominal p=0·0057) in the low-dose spesolimab group and 0·47 (0·21-1·06, p=0·027) in the medium-dose spesolimab group. We established a non-flat dose-response relationship for spesolimab compared with placebo, with statistically significant p values for each predefined model (linear p=0·0022, emax1 p=0·0024, emax2 p=0·0023, and exponential p=0·0034). Infection rates were similar across treatment arms; there were no deaths and no hypersensitivity reactions leading to discontinuation.
INTERPRETATION: High-dose spesolimab was superior to placebo in GPP flare prevention, significantly reducing the risk of a GPP flare and flare occurrence over 48 weeks. Given the chronic nature of GPP, a treatment for flare prevention is a significant shift in the clinical approach, and could ultimately lead to improvements in patient morbidity and quality of life.
FUNDING: Boehringer Ingelheim.
METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This 12-week randomised double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study aims to evaluate the efficacy of the standardised water extract of EL known as Physta in increasing the quality of life of perimenopausal and postmenopausal women. The study involves 150 women aged 40-55 years who score more than 61 on the Menopause-Specific Quality of Life (MENQOL) assessment. These participants will be randomised into three groups, receiving Physta at either 50 mg or 100 mg or a placebo. The outcomes measures include mood state, quality of life, fatigue, sleep quality, sexual function and pain score assessed using Profile of Mood State, MENQOL, Chalder Fatigue Scale, Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, Female Sexual Function Index and the Brief Pain Inventory questionnaires, respectively. The secondary outcome of the study includes full blood analysis, urine analysis, female reproductive hormone profiling, inflammatory and oxidative stress biomarkers analysis.
ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The research protocol of the study was reviewed and approved by the Research Ethics Committee of Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM/PPI/111/8/JEP-2021-898). The findings will be disseminated to participants, healthcare professionals and researchers via conference presentations and peer-reviewed publications.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12622001341718.
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: Randomised control trial.
SETTING: Medical outpatient and medical/surgical in-patient unit in single tertiary center.
PARTICIPANT: Patients aged ≥ 60 years who experience constipation and have multiple chronic medical conditions.
METHODS: Participants with constipation were blindly randomized into either a treatment (MCP® BCMC® strains) or a placebo group. The treatment was administered twice daily.
MEASUREMENT: Gastrointestinal symptoms and stool habits were assessed over a week during the intervention via the use of a questionnaire and stool diary.
RESULTS: Stool frequency was seen to be higher and the improvement in stool consistency was more significant in the treatment group than in the placebo group (p =<0.001). A significant improvement in symptoms was demonstrated in patients who received MCP® BCMC® strains,specifically with respect to straining (p = < 0.001) and a sensation of incomplete evacuation (p = < 0.001). reduction in anorectal blockage symptoms and the need for manual stool evacuation was also demonstrated, but this finding was not statistically significant. Significant adverse events were not observed.
CONCLUSIONS: An improvement in stool frequency and consistency was reported in elderly patients with chronic medical conditions following the administration of MCP® BCMC® strains.
METHODS AND ANALYSIS: REKOVER is a phase-IV, multicountry, multicentre, prospective, real-world observational study. A total of 750 postsurgical and non-surgical patients (male and female, aged 18-80 years) will be recruited from 13 tertiary-care hospitals (15 sites) in Singapore, Thailand, the Philippines and Malaysia. All patients prescribed with TRAM/DKP FDC and willing to participate in the study will be enrolled. The recruitment duration for each site will be 6 months. The severity of pain will be collected using Numeric Pain Rating Scale through the treatment period from day 1 to day 5, while satisfaction with the treatment will be evaluated using Patient Global Evaluation Scale at the end of treatment. Any adverse event reported during the study duration will be recorded for safety analysis (up to day 6). The study data will be entered into the ClaimIt portal and mobile application (app) (ObvioHealth, USA). All the inpatient data will be entered into the portal by the study site and for outpatient it will be done by patients through an app.
ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been approved by the local ethics committee from each study sites in Singapore, Thailand, the Philippines and Malaysia. Findings will be disseminated through local and global conference presentations, publications in peer-reviewed scientific journals and continuing medical education.
METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We are undertaking an international multicentre, double-blind, placebo-RCT to evaluate whether 12 months of erdosteine is beneficial for children and adults with bronchiectasis. We will recruit 194 children and adults with bronchiectasis to a parallel, superiority RCT at eight sites across Australia, Malaysia and Philippines. Our primary endpoint is the rate of exacerbations over 12 months. Our main secondary outcomes are QoL, exacerbation duration, time-to-next exacerbation, hospitalisations and lung function.
ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Human Research Ethics Committees (HREC) of Children's Health Queensland (for all Australian sites), University of Malaya Medical Centre (Malaysia) and St. Luke's Medical Centre (Philippines) approved the study. We will publish the results and share the outcomes with the academic and medical community, funding and relevant patient organisations.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12621000315819.
METHOD: A prospective, randomized, double-blinded controlled trial was conducted with 58 patients undergoing breast conserving surgery (BCS) and ALND, stratified into two groups: Group A (ALND + Haemoblock, n = 29) and Group B (ALND + placebo, n = 29). Postoperative drainage charts were monitored, with the primary endpoint being the time to drain removal, Additionally, patients were observed for surgical site infection (SSI).
RESULTS: Group A exhibited a marginally higher mean total drain output (398 +/- 205 vs. 326 +/- 198) compared to Group B, this difference did not attain statistical significance (p = 0.176). Equally, the mean time to drain removal demonstrated no discernible distinction between the two groups (6 +/- 3.0 vs. 6 +/- 3.0, Group A vs. Group B, p = 0.526). During follow up, nine patients in Group A required seroma aspiration (mean aspiration 31 +/- 73) as compared to Group B, 6 patients required aspiration (mean aspiration 12 +/- 36), p = 0.222). No notable disparity in SSI rates between the groups was identified.
CONCLUSION: In conclusion, the administration of Haemoblock did not manifest a discernible effect in mitigating seroma production, hastening drain removal, or influencing SSI rates following ALND. The study underscores the intricate and multifactorial nature of seroma formation, suggesting avenues for future research to explore combined interventions and protracted follow-up periods for a more comprehensive understanding.
METHODS: Parous women with favorable cervixes after amniotomy for labor induction were randomized to immediate titrated oxytocin or placebo intravenous infusion in a double-blind noninferiority trial. After 4 hours, study infusions were stopped, the women were assessed, and open-label oxytocin was started if required. Maternal satisfaction with the birth process was assessed with a 10-point visual numerical rating scale (lower score, greater satisfaction).
RESULTS: Vaginal delivery rates at 12 hours were 91 of 96 (94.8%) compared with 91 of 94 (96.8%) (relative risk 0.98, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.92-1.04, P=.72), and maternal satisfaction on a visual numerical rating scale (median [interquartile range]) was 3 [3-4] compared with 3 [3-5], P=.36 for immediate compared with delayed arm, respectively). Cesarean delivery, maternal fever, postpartum hemorrhage, uterine hyperactivity, and adverse neonatal outcome rates were similar between arms. The immediate oxytocin arm had a shorter amniotomy-to-delivery interval of 5.3±3.1 compared with 6.9±2.9 hours (P
METHODS: Women at their first hospitalization for hyperemesis gravidarum were approached when intravenous antiemetic therapy was needed. They were randomly assigned to receive 25 mg promethazine or 10 mg metoclopramide every 8 hours for 24 hours in a double-blind study. Primary outcomes were vomiting episodes by diary and well-being visual numerical rating scale score (10-point scale) in the 24-hour main study period. Participants also filled out an adverse-effects questionnaire at 24 hours and a nausea visual numerical rating scale score at recruitment and at 8, 16, and 24 hours.
RESULTS: A total of 73 and 76 women, randomized to metoclopramide and promethazine, respectively, were analyzed. Median vomiting episodes were one (range 0-26) compared with two (range 0-26) (P=.81), and well-being visual numerical rating scale scores were 8 (range 1-10) compared with 7 (range 2-10) (P=.24) for metoclopramide and promethazine, respectively. Repeat-measures analysis of variance of the nausea visual numerical rating scale scores showed no significant difference between study drugs (F score=0.842, P=.47). Reported drowsiness (58.6% compared with 83.6%, P=.001, number needed to treat to benefit [NNTb] 5), dizziness (34.3% compared with 71.2%, P