A randomized, double-blind trial investigating the efficacy of caspofungin versus amphotericin B deoxycholate in the treatment of invasive candidiasis in neonates and infants younger than 3 months of age

2019 ◽  
Vol 75 (1) ◽  
pp. 215-220 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jason Kim ◽  
Firdose Lambey Nakwa ◽  
Fábio Araujo Motta ◽  
Hong Liu ◽  
Mary Beth Dorr ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Amphotericin B ◽  
Study Entry ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Once Daily ◽  
Invasive Candida Infection ◽  
Phase 2 Study ◽  
Amphotericin B Deoxycholate ◽  
Full Analysis ◽  
Neonates And Infants

Abstract Objectives Investigate the efficacy of caspofungin in participants <3 months of age with invasive Candida infection (ICI). Methods This multicentre, randomized, double-blind, comparator-controlled, Phase 2 study (protocol MK0991-064; NCT01945281) enrolled participants <3 months of age with culture-confirmed ICI within 96 h of study entry. Participants were randomly assigned 2:1 to once-daily intravenous 2 mg/kg caspofungin or intravenous 1 mg/kg amphotericin B deoxycholate (dAMB). The primary endpoint was fungal-free survival (FFS) 2 weeks after treatment in the full-analysis-set (FAS) population, defined as participants with culture-confirmed ICI who received ≥1 dose of therapy. Planned enrolment was 90 participants. Results Fifty-one participants were enrolled; 49 received treatment (caspofungin, n=33; dAMB, n=16); 2 additional participants did not have confirmed infections at study entry. The study was terminated after ∼ 3.5 years because of low enrolment. Forty-seven participants were included in the FAS population (caspofungin, n=31; dAMB, n=16). FFS rate at 2 weeks after treatment was 71.0% (22/31) in the caspofungin arm and 68.8% (11/16) in the dAMB arm [difference, stratified by weight, − 0.9% (95% CI, − 24.3%–27.7%)]. Adverse events developed in 84.8% (28/33) of participants in the caspofungin arm and 100% (16/16) in the dAMB arm. Conclusions Among neonates and infants with confirmed ICI, FFS at 2 weeks was similar in the caspofungin and dAMB treatment arms. A smaller proportion of participants who received caspofungin experienced adverse events.

scholarly journals Randomized Double-blind Placebo-controlled Proof-of-concept Trial of Resveratrol for Outpatient Treatment of Mild Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marvin R. McCreary ◽  
Patrick M. Schnell ◽  
Dale A. Rhoda
Keyword(s):  
Pulmonary Embolism ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Small Sample Size ◽  
Primary Outcome Measure ◽  
Small Sample ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Phase 2 Study ◽  
Clinically Significant ◽  
Low Incidence ◽  
To Receive

Abstract Resveratrol is a polyphenol that has been well studied and has demonstrated anti-viral and anti-inflammatory properties that might mitigate the effects of COVID-19. Outpatients (N=105) were recruited from central Ohio in late 2020. Participants were randomly assigned to receive placebo or resveratrol. Both groups received a single dose of Vitamin D3 which was used as an adjunct. The primary outcome measure was hospitalization within 21 days of symptom onset; secondary measures were ER visits, incidence of pneumonia and pulmonary embolism. Five patients chose not to participate after randomization. Twenty-one day outcome was determined of all one hundred participants (mean [SD] age 55.6 [8.8] years; 61% female) (or their surrogates). There were no clinically significant adverse events attributed to resveratrol. Outpatients in this phase 2 study treated with resveratrol had a lower incidence compared to placebo of: hospitalization (2% vs. 6%, RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.04-3.10), COVID-related ER visits (8% vs. 14%, RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.18-1.83), and pneumonia (8% vs. 16%, RR 0.5, 95% CI 0.16-1.55). One patient (2%) in each group developed pulmonary embolism (RR 1.00, 95% CI: 0.06-15.55). This underpowered study was limited by small sample size and low incidence of primary adverse events. A larger trial could determine efficacy.TRIAL REGISTRATIONS: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04400890 26/05/2020; FDA IND #150033 05/05/2020

Efficacy of Celecoxib in Treating Symptoms of Viral Pharyngitis: A Double-Blind, Randomized Study of Celecoxib versus Diclofenac

2002 ◽  
Vol 30 (2) ◽  
pp. 185-194 ◽  
Author(s):  
LLM Weckx ◽  
JE Ruiz ◽  
J Duperly ◽  
GA Martínez Mendizabal ◽  
MBG Rausis ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Randomized Study ◽  
Specific Inhibitor ◽  
Symptomatic Treatment ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Once Daily ◽  
Daily Group ◽  
Throat Pain

This study compared the efficacy and safety of the cyclooxygenase-2 specific inhibitor celecoxib with the conventional non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug diclofenac in the symptomatic treatment of viral pharyngitis. Adult patients from 27 study centers in Latin America were treated with oral doses of celecoxib 200 mg once daily or 200 mg twice daily, or diclofenac 75 mg twice daily for 5 days in a double-blind, randomized study. The primary efficacy assessment was ‘Throat Pain on Swallowing’ on day 3. In addition, secondary quality-of-life assessments were performed on days 3 and 5. All adverse events and treatment-emergent signs and symptoms were recorded. Data from 313 patients were evaluable for efficacy (105 celecoxib 200 mg once daily, 107 celecoxib 200 mg twice daily, 101 diclofenac 75 mg twice daily). The upper 95% confidence limits for the visual analog scale of ‘Throat Pain on Swallowing’ on day 3 for celecoxib 200 mg once daily relative to diclofenac 75 mg twice daily, and celecoxib 200 mg twice daily relative to diclofenac 75 mg twice daily were 9.26 and 7.83, respectively. All secondary efficacy and quality-of-life measures were clinically similar for the three treatment groups, and no statistically significant differences were detected. The incidences of treatment-emergent adverse events and withdrawals due to adverse events were similar for all groups, but numerically higher among patients taking diclofenac than celecoxib. More patients in the diclofenac group reported gastrointestinal complaints (7.3%) compared with those in the celecoxib groups (4.3% in the celecoxib 200 mg once-daily group and 3.4% in the celecoxib 200 mg twice-daily group). In conclusion, 5 days of treatment with celecoxib 200 mg once daily is as effective as diclofenac 75 mg twice daily in the symptomatic treatment of viral pharyngitis. Celecoxib 200 mg once daily is also as effective as celecoxib 200 mg twice daily in this condition.

Escitalopram versus risperidone for the treatment of behavioral and psychotic symptoms associated with Alzheimer's disease: a randomized double-blind pilot study

2011 ◽  
Vol 23 (9) ◽  
pp. 1515-1519 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yoram Barak ◽  
Igor Plopski ◽  
Shelly Tadger ◽  
Diana Paleacu
Keyword(s):  
Alzheimer’S Disease ◽  
Alzheimer's Disease ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Treated Group ◽  
Psychotic Symptoms ◽  
Completion Rates ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Once Daily ◽  
Risperidone Group

ABSTRACTBackground: Antipsychotics are frequently used to treat psychosis, aggression and agitation in patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD), but safety warnings abound. Escitalopram was investigated since citalopram has demonstrated some effectiveness in AD. We compared escitalopram and risperidone for psychotic symptoms and agitation associated with AD.Methods: Inpatients with AD, who had been hospitalized because of behavioral symptoms, were recruited to a six-week randomized, double-blind, controlled trial. Participants (n = 40) were randomized to once daily risperidone 1 mg or escitalopram 10 mg.Results: The NPI total score improved in both groups. Onset was earlier in the risperidone-treated group, but improvement did not significantly differ between groups by study end. Completion rates differed for escitalopram (75%) and risperidone (55%), mainly due to adverse events. There were no adverse events in the escitalopram group, while in the risperidone group two patients suffered severe extrapyramidal symptoms and four patients suffered acute physical illness necessitating transfer to general hospital.Conclusion: Escitalopram and risperidone did not differ in efficacy in reducing psychotic symptoms and agitation in patients with AD. Completion rates were higher for escitalopram-treated patients. Replication in larger trials with ambulatory patients is needed.

Randomized, Prospective Clinical Trial of rFVIIa for Secondary Prophylaxis in Hemophilia Patients with Inhibitors.

Blood ◽  
2006 ◽  
Vol 108 (11) ◽  
pp. 766-766 ◽  
Author(s):  
Barbara A. Konkle ◽  
Liselotte S. Ebbesen ◽  
Ute Friedrich ◽  
Raul P. Bianco ◽  
Toshko Lissitchkov ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Secondary Prophylaxis ◽  
Post Treatment ◽  
Factor Vii ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Once Daily ◽  
On Demand ◽  
Observation Period

Abstract Introduction: Hemophilia patients with inhibitors experience frequent bleeds and reduced quality of life (QoL). This trial evaluated whether once−daily prophylaxis therapy with activated recombinant factor VII (rFVIIa; 90 or 270 μg/kg) for 3 months can effectively reduce bleed frequency compared with on−demand therapy, without compromising safety. Methods: Thirty−eight hemophilia inhibitor patients with frequent bleeds entered a 3−month observation period where on−demand therapy was continued according to local practice. Twenty−two patients with a stable bleed frequency (≥4 bleeds/month) were randomized 1:1 to once−daily dosing with 90 or 270 μg/kg rFVIIa in a double−blind, parallel−group design. To maintain blinding, the same volume was administered in both groups. Patients then entered a 3−month post−treatment observation period, where on−demand therapy was resumed. Results: The number of bleeds per month was significantly reduced by 45% and 59% with 90 or 270 μg/kg rFVIIa prophylaxis, respectively, compared with the observation period (Fig.). Similar reductions were seen for all bleeds, irrespective of site or cause. The majority of this reduced bleeding frequency was maintained in the 3 month post−treatment period (27% and 50% reductions, respectively). There were no treatment− or dose−dependent patterns in the number or type of adverse events. No thromboembolic events or withdrawals due to adverse events or ineffective treatment were reported. The benefits of reducing bleeding frequency in this trial translated into improvements in QoL. Conclusions: These results support the concept of secondary rFVIIa prophylaxis in inhibitor patients with frequent bleeds. Clinically relevant reductions in number of bleeds and improvements in quality of life were observed during prophylaxis compared with conventional on−demand therapy without raising any safety concerns. Figure Figure

scholarly journals The novel bronchodilator navafenterol: a phase 2a, multi-centre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover trial in COPD

2021 ◽  
pp. 2100972
Author(s):  
Dave Singh ◽  
Jutta Beier ◽  
Carol Astbury ◽  
Maria G. Belvisi ◽  
Carla A. Da Silva ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Mean Difference ◽  
Beta Agonist ◽  
Fixed Dose Combination ◽  
Fixed Dose ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Once Daily ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Dose Combination ◽  
Severe Copd

BackgroundNavafenterol (AZD8871) belongs to a new class of bronchodilator, the single-molecule muscarinic antagonist and beta agonist (MABA), being developed for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy, pharmacokinetics and safety of navafenterol versus placebo and an active comparator treatment for moderate-to-severe COPD.MethodsThis phase 2a, randomised, multicentre (Germany and UK), double-blind, double-dummy, three-way complete crossover study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03645434) compared 2 weeks’ treatment of once-daily navafenterol 600 µg via inhalation with placebo and a fixed-dose combination bronchodilator (umeclidinium/vilanterol [UMEC/VI]; 62.5 µg/25 µg) in participants with moderate-to-severe COPD. The primary outcome was change from baseline in trough FEV1 on day 15. Secondary endpoints included: change from baseline in peak FEV1; change from baseline in breathlessness, cough and sputum scale (BCSS); change from baseline in COPD assessment tool (CAT); adverse events; and pharmacokinetics.ResultsSeventy-three participants were randomised. After 14 days, trough FEV1 was significantly improved with navafenterol compared with placebo (least-squares [LS] mean difference 0.202 L; p<0.0001). There was no significant difference in FEV1 between navafenterol and UMEC/VI (LS mean difference −0.046 L; p=0.075). COPD symptoms (CAT and BCSS) showed significantly greater improvements with both active treatments versus placebo (all p<0.005). Novel objective monitoring (VitaloJAK) showed that cough was reduced with both active treatments compared with placebo. Safety profiles were similar across the treatment groups and no serious adverse events were reported in the navafenterol treatment period.ConclusionOnce-daily navafenterol was well tolerated, improved lung function and reduced COPD-related symptoms, similar to an established once-daily fixed-dose combination bronchodilator.

A multicenter phase II study of donafenib in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e15682-e15682 ◽  
Author(s):  
Feng Bi ◽  
Meng Qiu ◽  
Xiaoli Chai ◽  
Junqi Niu ◽  
Yanhua Ding ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Therapeutic Option ◽  
Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Dose Escalation Study ◽  
Multikinase Inhibitor ◽  
Similar Treatment ◽  
Phase 2 Study ◽  
Secondary Endpoints ◽  
Full Analysis ◽  
Prior Systemic Therapy

e15682 Background: In an early dose-escalation study, Donafenib, a new oral multikinase inhibitor, showed antitumor activity and favorable tolerability in treatment of different type solid tumors including HCC at both 0.2g bid and 0.3g bid dose levels. This prospective study aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of Donafenib in the patients with advanced HCC. Methods: In this phase 2 study, patients with unresectable HCC, who had Child-Pugh class A liver function and received no prior systemic therapy were enrolled across 10 sites in China. All patients received oral Donafenib 0.2g bid or 0.3g bid for several 4-week cycles, based on 1:1 randomization ratio. The radiology assessment was done every 8 weeks. The primary end points were safety and tolerability; secondary endpoints were time to progression assessed by an independent radiology committ, ORR , DCR, and PK. Results: Between June 17, 2014, and May 4, 2015, total 106 patients were enrolled and included in the safety analyses. Of them, 52 received donafenib 0.2g bid and 54 received 0.3g bid. The most common adverse events that led to dose discontinuation or reductions were hand-foot skin reaction in 10 (9.4%) patients (2 vs 8), liver dysfunction in 4 (3.8%) patients (1 vs 3), and leukopenia in 2 (1.9%) patients (1 vs 1). Other reported AEs caused dose reductions were hypertension, thrombocytopenia, throat ache, and cough. The median duration maintained for the initial dose was 90 and 72 days, respectively. The full analysis set for TTP includes104 patients (51and 53, respectively) and the per-protocol analysis set for ORR and DCR includes 84 patients (40 and 44, respectively). Median TTP was 111 days in 0.2g group compared with 110 days in 0.3g group (HR 0.99, 95% CI [0.62, 1.60]). At the Week 16, there were no complete responses in both groups, but partial response was confirmed in 4 (4.8%) patients (2 vs 2); and stable disease was in 35 (41.7%) patients (17 vs 18). Conclusions: Donafenib 0.2g bid and 0.3g bid were well tolerated. Significant adverse events were reported more frequently in 0.3g group. Both regimens showed similar treatment responses for patients with HCC, while 0.2g bid seems to be an appropriate first line therapeutic option for the treatment of HCC. Clinical trial information: NCT02229071.

scholarly journals Review of Efficacy and Safety of Duloxetine 40 to 60 mg Once Daily in Patients with Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathic Pain

2012 ◽  
Vol 2012 ◽  
pp. 1-12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vladimir Skljarevski ◽  
Elijah P. Frakes ◽  
Doron Sagman ◽  
Sarah Lipsius ◽  
Alexandra N. Heinloth ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Neuropathic Pain ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Brief Pain Inventory ◽  
Primary Outcome Measure ◽  
Pain Severity ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Peripheral Neuropathic Pain ◽  
Once Daily

We summarize efficacy and safety findings from 4 double-blind, placebo-controlled, 12-week studies and 1 open-label, uncontrolled, 34-week maintenance-of-effect (MOE) study that examine duloxetine 40 and 60 mg once daily (QD) in patients with diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP). In all placebo-controlled studies, duloxetine showed significantly (P≤.01) greater reduction in pain severity (weekly mean of 24-hour average pain severity ratings, primary outcome measure) compared with placebo. In all placebo-controlled studies, duloxetine showed significantly (P≤.05) greater improvement on brief pain inventory-Interference ratings. Patient global impression of improvement ratings were superior to placebo (P≤.01) for duloxetine patients in all placebo-controlled studies. Response rates (based on 30% pain reduction) ranged from 57% to 68% for duloxetine and from 35% to 47% for placebo and were statistically significantly different (P≤.01) between treatment groups in 3 out of 4 studies. The open-label study showed maintenance of analgesic effect of duloxetine in DPNP. In the duloxetine groups, 4.3% to 14.9% of patients discontinued because of adverse events (placebo groups: 2.6% to 7.4%). Most commonly reported treatment-emergent adverse events were nausea, somnolence, and headache. Duloxetine 40 and 60 mg QD was efficacious and well tolerated in the management of DPNP.

scholarly journals A Randomized Phase 2 Study of VT-1161 for the Treatment of Acute Vulvovaginal Candidiasis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen R Brand ◽  
Jack D Sobel ◽  
Paul Nyirjesy ◽  
Mahmoud A Ghannoum ◽  
Robert J Schotzinger ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Vulvovaginal Candidiasis ◽  
Phase 2 ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Once Daily ◽  
Treatment Groups ◽  
Phase 2 Study ◽  
Dose Levels ◽  
To Receive

Abstract Background Acute vulvovaginal candidiasis (VVC) is common among women, but current azole antifungal treatments are often associated with safety and resistance issues. VT-1161 (oteseconazole) is an oral agent with increased selectivity for fungal CYP51. In this phase 2 clinical study, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of VT-1161 vs fluconazole in participants with moderate to severe acute VVC. Methods Participants presenting with an acute episode of VVC (n = 55) were randomized to receive VT-1161 300 mg once daily (q.d.) for 3 days, 600 mg q.d. for 3 days, or 600 mg twice daily (b.i.d.) for 3 days or to receive a single dose of fluconazole 150 mg (FDA-approved dose to treat acute VVC). Participants were followed for 6 months. The primary outcome was the proportion of participants with therapeutic (clinical and mycological) cure at day 28. Results A larger proportion of participants in the per-protocol population experienced therapeutic cure in the VT-1161 300 mg q.d. (75.0%), VT-1161 600 mg q.d. (85.7%), and VT-1161 600 mg b.i.d. (78.6%) groups vs the fluconazole group (62.5%); differences were not statistically significant. At 3 and 6 months, no participants in the VT-1161 groups vs 28.5% and 46.1% in the fluconazole group, respectively, had evidence of mycological recurrence. No serious adverse events or treatment-emergent adverse events leading to discontinuation were reported. Conclusions The majority of participants across all treatment groups achieved therapeutic cure at day 28. VT-1161 was well tolerated at all dose levels through 6 months of follow-up. Clinical Trials Registration NCT01891331.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document