scholarly journals Comparison of Once‐Daily versus Twice‐Daily Combination Antiretroviral Therapy in Treatment‐Naive Patients: Results of AIDS Clinical Trials Group (ACTG) A5073, a 48‐Week Randomized Controlled Trial

2010 ◽  
Vol 50 (7) ◽  
pp. 1041-1052 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles Flexner ◽  
Camlin Tierney ◽  
Robert Gross ◽  
Adriana Andrade ◽  
Christina Lalama ◽  
...  
2013 ◽  
Vol 2013 ◽  
pp. 1-9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dongsheng Huang ◽  
Rassamee Sangthong ◽  
Edward McNeil ◽  
Virasakdi Chongsuvivatwong ◽  
Weibin Zheng ◽  
...  

Background. Suboptimal adherence to antiretroviral therapy (ART) is still pervasive. The effect of using a mobile phone call intervention to improve patient adherence is currently not known.Objective. This study aims to investigate the effects of a phone call intervention on adherence to ART and quality of life (QOL) of treatment-naive and treatment-experienced patients.Methods. A randomized controlled trial was conducted in the three largest public hospitals. Adherence was measured by self-completed questionnaires. QOL was assessed by the WHOQOL-HIV BREF. Outcomes were assessed at day 15, at 1, 2, and 3 months after start of treatment for treatment-naive patients and at 3 months after study enrollment for treatment-experienced patients.Results. A total of 103 treatment-naive and 93 treatment-experienced HIV/AIDS patients were consecutively recruited. Results show that a phone call intervention could maintain high self-reported adherence among both treatment-naive and treatment-experienced patients. After three months, significant QOL improvements were observed in domains of physical health(P=0.003), level of independence(P=0.018), environment(P=0.002), and spirituality/religion/personal beliefs(P=0.021)among treatment-naive patients.Conclusion. A mobile phone call intervention to patients could maintain high adherence rates although no statistically significant differences were found. A phone call could improve some domains of QOL among treatment-naive patients.


Diabetes ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 67 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 104-LB ◽  
Author(s):  
SERGE JABBOUR ◽  
CRISTIAN GUJA ◽  
ELISE HARDY ◽  
SUDIPTA BHATTACHARYA ◽  
PETER K. OHMAN ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 149-161
Author(s):  
Rebecca Panconesi ◽  
Mauricio Flores Carvalho ◽  
Matteo Mueller ◽  
Philipp Dutkowski ◽  
Paolo Muiesan ◽  
...  

Although machine perfusion is a hot topic today, we are just at the beginning of understanding the underlying mechanisms of protection. Recently, the first randomized controlled trial reported a significant reduction of ischemic cholangiopathies after transplantation of livers donated after circulatory death, provided the grafts were treated with an endischemic hypothermic oxygenated perfusion (HOPE). This approach has been known for more than fifty years, and was initially mainly used to preserve kidneys before implantation. Today there is an increasing interest in this and other dynamic preservation technologies and various centers have tested different approaches in clinical trials and cohort studies. Based on this, there is a need for uniform perfusion settings (perfusion route and duration), and the development of general guidelines regarding the duration of cold storage in context of the overall donor risk is also required to better compare various trial results. This article will highlight how cold perfusion protects organs mechanistically, and target such technical challenges with the perfusion setting. Finally, the options for viability testing during hypothermic perfusion will be discussed.


2021 ◽  
pp. 174077452110085
Author(s):  
Anastasiya Chirkova ◽  
Alexander Petrenko ◽  
Pavel Vasilyev

Background/aims Current research largely tends to ignore the drug-testing model that was developed in the “Second World” as an explicit alternative to the randomized controlled trial. This system can be described as “socialist pharmapolitics,” accounting for the specific features of state socialism that influenced the development and testing of experimental drugs. The clinical trials model employed in the “Second World” was heavily influenced by the Soviet Union, which was by far the most influential player in the socialist bloc during the Cold War. Based on extensive archival research, this article presents an empirical case of a late Soviet clinical trial as a pragmatic alternative to the randomized controlled trial model. It accounts for the divergences between the official model prescribed by the Soviet authorities and the messy realities of healthcare practice. It further outlines different factors that ultimately shaped how clinical trials were organized in Soviet institutions “on the ground.” Accordingly, this article presents a “real-life” history of “socialist pharmapolitics” and outlines the problems that this system faced in practice. Methods Archival research was conducted at the Russian State Archive of Scientific and Technical Documentation in Moscow. Archival files include scientific, technical, and registration documentation such as biochemical, pharmacological, and clinical descriptions of the experimental drug Meldonium, letters between various hospitals, research institutes and the Soviet regulatory body, as well as 26 reports of completed clinical trials. Manual content analysis was used for the interpretation of results. Results This article presents an empirical case of a late Soviet clinical trial as a pragmatic alternative to the randomized controlled trial model. It demonstrates some key differences from the randomized controlled trial model. This article also highlights some of the discrepancies between the model that was officially prescribed by the Soviet authorities and the realities of experimental drug testing in the Soviet Union in the late 1980s and early 1990s. In particular, it notes some elements of randomization, double-blinding, and the use of placebo that were present in Meldonium trials despite being formally denounced by Soviet bioethics. Conclusion The Soviet model for testing experimental drugs differed from the Western one substantially in a number of respects. This difference was not only proclaimed officially by the Soviet authorities, but was for the most part enforced in clinical trials in practice. At the same time, our research demonstrates that there were important differences between the official model and the clinical realities on the ground.


Trials ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kim Thestrup Foss ◽  
Jesper Kjærgaard ◽  
Lone Graff Stensballe ◽  
Gorm Greisen

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document