scholarly journals Protocol of a Randomized Controlled Study of the PneumRx Endobronchial Coil System versus Standard-of-Care Medical Management in the Treatment of Subjects with Severe Emphysema (ELEVATE)

Respiration ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 98 (6) ◽  
pp. 512-520 ◽  
Author(s):  
Felix J.F. Herth ◽  
Dirk-Jan Slebos ◽  
Pallav L. Shah ◽  
Martin Hetzel ◽  
Gerald Schmid-Bindert ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Medical Management ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Randomized Controlled Study ◽  
Controlled Study ◽  
Severe Emphysema ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Coil System ◽  
System Versus

Phase III randomized controlled study of daratumumab, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (DVd) versus bortezomib and dexamethasone (Vd) in patients (pts) with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM): CASTOR study.

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. LBA4-LBA4 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antonio Palumbo ◽  
Asher Alban Akmal Chanan-Khan ◽  
Katja Weisel ◽  
Ajay K. Nooka ◽  
Tamas Masszi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Safety Profile ◽  
Sensory Neuropathy ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Randomized Controlled Study ◽  
Controlled Study ◽  
Prior Therapy ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Line Of Therapy

LBA4 Background: Daratumumab (D), a human anti-CD38 IgGκ mAb, induces deep and durable responses with a favorable safety profile in RRMM pts. We report a pre-specified interim analysis of the first randomized controlled study of D (CASTOR; NCT02136134). Methods: Pts with ≥1 prior line of therapy were randomized (1:1) to 8 cycles (q3w) of bortezomib (V)/dexamethasone (d) (V: 1.3 mg/m2sc on Days 1, 4, 8, 11; d: 20 mg po on Days 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12) ± D (16 mg/kg iv qw in Cycles 1-3, Day 1 of Cycles 4-8, then q4w until progression). Primary endpoint was PFS. Results: 498 pts (DVd, 251; Vd, 247) were randomized. Baseline demographics and disease characteristics were well balanced. Pts received a median of 2 prior lines of therapy (range 1-10). 66% received prior V; 76% received prior IMiD; 48% received prior PI and IMiD; 33% were IMiD-refractory; 32% were refractory to last line of prior therapy. With median follow-up of 7.4 months, D significantly improved median PFS (61% reduction in risk of progression) and TTP for DVd vs Vd (Table). D significantly increased ORR (83% vs 63%, P <0.0001), and doubled rates of ≥VGPR (59% vs 29%, P <0.0001), and ≥CR (19% vs 9%, P= 0.0012) for DVd vs Vd, respectively; median duration of response was NR vs 7.9 months, respectively. Most common (>25%) AEs (DVd/Vd) were thrombocytopenia (59%/44%), peripheral sensory neuropathy (47%/ 38%), diarrhea (32%/22%) and anemia (26%/31%). Most common grade 3/4 AEs (>10%) were thrombocytopenia (45%/33%), anemia (14%/16%), neutropenia (13%/4%). 7%/9% of pts discontinued due to a TEAE. D-associated infusion-related reactions (45% of pts) mostly occurred during the first infusion; most were grade 1/2 (grade 3/4, 9%/0%). Conclusions: D significantly improved PFS, TTP, and ORR in combination with Vd vs Vd alone. DVd doubled both VGPR and sCR/CR rates vs Vd alone. Safety of DVd is consistent with the known safety profile of D and Vd. The addition of D to Vd should be considered a new standard of care for RRMM pts currently receiving Vd alone. Clinical trial information: NCT02136134. [Table: see text]

A randomized controlled study comparing 600 versus 1200 μg oral misoprostol for medical management of incomplete abortion

Contraception ◽  
2005 ◽  
Vol 72 (6) ◽  
pp. 438-442 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thi Nhu Ngoc Nguyen ◽  
Jennifer Blum ◽  
Jill Durocher ◽  
Tran Thien Vinh Quan ◽  
Beverly Winikoff
Keyword(s):  
Medical Management ◽  
Randomized Controlled Study ◽  
Controlled Study ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Incomplete Abortion ◽  
Oral Misoprostol

scholarly journals Tofacitinib versus standard of care treatment in patients with COVID-19: a multicenter non-randomized controlled study

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sergey Moiseev ◽  
Nikolay Bulanov ◽  
Anastasiia Zykova ◽  
Michail Brovko ◽  
Pavel Novikov ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Oxygen Saturation ◽  
Cox Regression ◽  
Invasive Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Randomized Controlled Study ◽  
Controlled Study ◽  
Cox Regression Analysis ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Standard Of Care Treatment

This non-randomized controlled study aimed to assess the efficacy of tofacitinib in reducing the risk of invasive mechanical ventilation or death in patients with COVID-19. Patients with COVID-19 associated with reduced oxygen saturation, increased C-reactive protein (≥50 mg/L), and/or persisting fever were recruited. Tofacitinib was administered in addition to standard of care therapy. Study outcomes were evaluated separately in the groups of patients with oxygen saturation at rest ≤93% and >93%. Hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using Cox regression analysis adjusted for inverse propensity score weighting. Overall, 384 patients with COVID-19 (212 males; median age 60 years) were included in our study and were treated with tofactinib (n=131) or standard of care alone (n=253). The percentages of patients who started mechanical ventilation or died during hospitalization in the tofacitinib and control groups were 12.5% (9/72) vs. 14.1% (26/185) among patients who required respiratory support (HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.33-2.56), and 1.7% (1/59) vs. 4.4% (3/68) in those with normal oxygen saturation (HR 0.83; 95 CI 0.07-9.44). Tofacitinib did not reduce the risk of invasive mechanical ventilation or death in patients with COVID-19, although the analysis of these outcomes favored tofacitinib.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document