Development of a Single-Shot Live-Attenuated Chikungunya Vaccine: A Phase 1 Randomized Clinical Trial in Healthy Adults

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nina Wressnigg ◽  
Romana Hochreiter ◽  
Oliver Zoihsl ◽  
Andrea Fritzer ◽  
Nicole Bézay ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trial ◽  
Phase 1 ◽  
Healthy Adults ◽  
Single Shot

No difference between manual and different power toothbrushes with and without specific instructions in young, oral healthy adults—results of a randomized clinical trial

2017 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
pp. 1147-1155 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gerhard Schmalz ◽  
Katharina Kiehl ◽  
Jan Schmickler ◽  
Sven Rinke ◽  
Jana Schmidt ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trial ◽  
Healthy Adults

scholarly journals DNA vaccine priming for seasonal influenza vaccine in children and adolescents 6 to 17 years of age: A phase 1 randomized clinical trial

PLoS ONE ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 13 (11) ◽  
pp. e0206837 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katherine V. Houser ◽  
Galina V. Yamshchikov ◽  
Abbie R. Bellamy ◽  
Jeanine May ◽  
Mary E. Enama ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Influenza Vaccine ◽  
Children And Adolescents ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trial ◽  
Dna Vaccine ◽  
Seasonal Influenza ◽  
Phase 1 ◽  
Seasonal Influenza Vaccine

scholarly journals Assessing the safety and immunogenicity of recombinant vesicular stomatitis virus Ebola vaccine in healthy adults: a randomized clinical trial

2017 ◽  
Vol 189 (24) ◽  
pp. E819-E827 ◽  
Author(s):  
May S. ElSherif ◽  
Catherine Brown ◽  
Donna MacKinnon-Cameron ◽  
Li Li ◽  
Trina Racine ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trial ◽  
Vesicular Stomatitis Virus ◽  
Healthy Adults ◽  
Vesicular Stomatitis

Single-shot live-attenuated chikungunya vaccine in healthy adults: a phase 1, randomised controlled trial

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (10) ◽  
pp. 1193-1203 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nina Wressnigg ◽  
Romana Hochreiter ◽  
Oliver Zoihsl ◽  
Andrea Fritzer ◽  
Nicole Bézay ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Phase 1 ◽  
Healthy Adults ◽  
Single Shot ◽  
Randomised Controlled

scholarly journals Frankel 2 appliance versus the Modified Twin Block appliance for Phase 1 treatment of Class II division 1 malocclusion in children and adolescents: A randomized clinical trial

2019 ◽  
Vol 90 (2) ◽  
pp. 202-208 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ciara Campbell ◽  
Declan Millett ◽  
Niamh Kelly ◽  
Marie Cooke ◽  
Michael Cronin
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Children And Adolescents ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trial ◽  
Treatment Duration ◽  
Phase 1 ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
Parent Perspectives ◽  
Twin Block ◽  
Division 1 ◽  
Class Ii Division 1

ABSTRACT Objective: To compare Phase 1 treatment, using the Frankel 2 (FR2) or the modified Twin Block (MTB), for Class II division 1 malocclusion in children and adolescents with respect to: treatment duration, number of appliance breakages, occlusal outcome, and patient and parent perspectives. Materials and Methods: Sixty participants with a Class II division 1 malocclusion were randomly assigned to either the FR2 or MTB appliance in a two-armed parallel randomized clinical trial with an allocation ratio of 1 to 1. Time to achieve a Class I incisor relationship was the primary outcome. The number of appliance breakages was recorded. The Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) index was used to evaluate pre- and post-treatment occlusal outcome on study models. Participants completed the child OHRQoL (oral health-related quality of life), Piers-Harris, Standard Continuum of Aesthetic Need (SCAN), and Oral Aesthetic Subjective Impact Score (OASIS) questionnaires pre- and post-treatment; parents completed a SCAN questionnaire. Results: Forty-two participants completed treatment (FR2: 20; MTB: 22). Multiple imputation was used to impute missing data for noncompleters. Mean treatment duration was similar for the two appliances (FR2: 376 days [SD 101]; MTB: 340 days [SD 102]; P = .41). There were no significant differences in mean number of appliance breakages (FR2: 0.3 SD 0.7; MTB: 0.4 SD 0.8; P = .67 or mean PAR score P = .48). Patient and parent perspectives did not differ between appliances (P > .05). Conclusions: Phase 1 treatment duration, number of appliance breakages, occlusal outcome, and patient and parent perspectives were similar in 11–14 year olds with Class II division 1 malocclusion treated using the FR2 or MTB appliance.

scholarly journals A Phase IIA Randomized Clinical Trial of a Multiclade HIV-1 DNA Prime Followed by a Multiclade rAd5 HIV-1 Vaccine Boost in Healthy Adults (HVTN204)

PLoS ONE ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 6 (8) ◽  
pp. e21225 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gavin J. Churchyard ◽  
Cecilia Morgan ◽  
Elizabeth Adams ◽  
John Hural ◽  
Barney S. Graham ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trial ◽  
Healthy Adults ◽  
Hiv 1

Randomized Clinical Trial of Balance-Based Torso Weighting for Improving Upright Mobility in People with Multiple Sclerosis

2009 ◽  
Vol 23 (8) ◽  
pp. 784-791 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gail L. Widener ◽  
Diane D. Allen ◽  
Cynthia Gibson-Horn
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Sclerosis ◽  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Body Weight ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trial ◽  
Phase 1 ◽  
Gait Velocity ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Phase 2 ◽  
Timed Up And Go ◽  
Standard Weight

Background. Torso weighting has sometimes been effective for improving upright mobility in people with multiple sclerosis, but parameters for weighting have been inconsistent. Objective. To determine whether balance-based torso weighting (BBTW) has immediate effects on upright mobility in people with multiple sclerosis. Methods. This was a 2-phase randomized clinical trial. In phase 1, 36 participants were randomly assigned to experimental and control groups. In phase 2, the control group was subsequently randomized into 2 groups with alternate weight-placement. Tests of upright mobility included: timed up and go (TUG), sharpened Romberg, 360-degree turns, 25-foot walk, and computerized platform posturography. Participants were tested at baseline and again with weights placed according to group membership. In both phases, a physical therapist assessed balance for the BBTW group and then placed weights to decrease balance loss. In phase 1, the control group had no weights placed. In phase 2, the alternate treatment group received standard weight placement of 1.5% body weight. Results. People with BBTW showed a significant improvement in the 25-foot walk ( P = .01) over those with no weight, and the TUG ( P = .01) over those with standard weight placement. BBTW participants received an average of 0.5 kg, less than 1.5% of any participant’s body weight. Conclusion. BBTW can have immediate advantages over a nonweighted condition for gait velocity and over a standardized weighted condition for a functional activity in people with multiple sclerosis (MS) who are ambulatory but have balance and mobility abnormalities.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document