scholarly journals Targeting Mitochondrial and Brain Injury Markers in Acquired Brain Injuries: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study with Melatonin

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bahareh Hakiminia ◽  
Babak Alikiaii ◽  
Fariborz Khorvash ◽  
Sarah Mousavi
Keyword(s):  
Brain Injury ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Brain Injuries ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Serum Levels ◽  
Controlled Study ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Reactive Protein ◽  
Secondary Endpoints ◽  
Hospital Stays

Purpose: Oxidative stress-induced mitochondrial damage is the main event in acquired brain injuries (ABI). This study aimed to evaluate the effects of melatonin, a mitochondria-targeted antioxidant, on mitochondrial and brain injury markers, and the clinical outcomes of patients with ABI. Methods: In this randomized controlled trial, intensive care unit (ICU) or neurology patients with ABI (n=60) received melatonin (21 mg/day) or placebo tablets, within the first 72 hours of injury onset for five days. As a primary endpoint, serum levels of malondialdehyde (MDA), S100B and C-reactive protein (CRP) were compared at baseline, and after five days’ intervention. Secondary endpoints included assessment of Glasgow Coma Scale and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (at the end of day 5), Rancho Los Amigos Revised Scale and modified Rankin Scale (at the end of month 3), the duration of mechanical ventilation, the lengths of ICU and hospital stays, and in-hospital and three-month mortality. Results: There were no significant effects of melatonin on the primary and secondary outcomes. However, the subgroup analysis showed a significant reduction in S100B in patients with non-traumatic brain injuries, receiving melatonin versus placebo (p: 0.016). Conclusion: This study showed that melatonin supplementation in the early phase of brain injury had no significant effects on the injury markers and clinical outcomes of patients with ABI. However, it reduced the level of S100B in the non-traumatic subgroup. Further larger-scale studies are needed to determine the effects of melatonin on the ABI and its subgroups.

scholarly journals When Basic Research Doesn't Translate to the Bedside—Lessons from the Magnesium Brain Trauma Study

2007 ◽  
Vol 7 (5) ◽  
pp. 133-135 ◽  
Author(s):  
John W. Miller ◽  
Raimondo D'Ambrosio
Keyword(s):  
Traumatic Brain Injury ◽  
Brain Injury ◽  
Severe Traumatic Brain Injury ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Brain Injuries ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Serum Magnesium ◽  
Trauma Centre ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Positive Effect

Magnesium Sulfate for Neuroprotection After Traumatic Brain Injury: A Randomised Controlled Trial. Temkin NR, Anderson GD, Winn HR, Ellenbogen RG, Britz GW, Schuster J, Lucas T, Newell DW, Mansfield PN, Machamer JE, Barber J, Dikmen SS. Lancet Neurol 2007;6(1):29–38. BACKGROUND: Traumatic brain injuries represent an important and costly health problem. Supplemental magnesium positively affects many of the processes involved in secondary injury after traumatic brain injury and consistently improves outcome in animal models. We aimed to test whether treatment with magnesium favourably affects outcome in head-injured patients. METHODS: In a double-blind trial, 499 patients aged 14 years or older admitted to a level 1 regional trauma centre between August, 1998, and October, 2004, with moderate or severe traumatic brain injury were randomly assigned one of two doses of magnesium or placebo within 8 h of injury and continuing for 5 days. Magnesium doses were targeted to achieve serum magnesium ranges of 1 0–1·85 mmol/L or 1·25–2·5 mmol/L. The primary outcome was a composite of mortality, seizures, functional measures, and neuropsychological tests assessed up to 6 months after injury. Analyses were done according to the intention-to-treat principle. This trial is registered with Clinicaltrials.gov, number NCT00004730. FINDINGS: Magnesium showed no significant positive effect on the composite primary outcome measure at the higher dose (mean = 55 average percentile ranking on magnesium vs. 52 on placebo, 95% CI for difference – 7 to 14; p = 0·70). Those randomly assigned magnesium at the lower dose did significantly worse than those assigned placebo (48 vs. 54, 95% CI −10·5 to −2; p = 0007). Furthermore, there was higher mortality with the higher magnesium dose than with placebo. Other major medical complications were similar between groups, except for a slight excess of pulmonary oedema and respiratory failure in the lower magnesium target group. No subgroups were identified in which magnesium had a significantly positive effect. INTERPRETATION: Continuous infusions of magnesium for 5 days given to patients within 8 h of moderate or severe traumatic brain injury were not neuroprotective and might even have a negative effect in the treatment of significant head injury.

scholarly journals Shenmayizhi Formula Combined with Ginkgo Extract Tablets for the Treatment of Vascular Dementia: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Controlled Trial

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 ◽  
pp. 1-11
Author(s):  
Huiqin Zhang ◽  
Yu Cao ◽  
Hui Pei ◽  
Huichan Wang ◽  
Lina Ma ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Chinese Medicine ◽  
Vascular Dementia ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Neuron Specific Enolase ◽  
Serum Levels ◽  
Controlled Study ◽  
Vascular Endothelial ◽  
Symptom Scale ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Ginkgo Extract

Shenmayizhi formula (SMYZF) has been shown to have an effect on vascular dementia (VaD) in previous studies. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether a combination of SMYZF with Ginkgo extract tablets improves mild-to-moderate VaD. In this 12-week, randomized, double-blind, controlled study, we randomly assigned 196 patients with VaD (aged 50–85 years) to either the SMYZF group (n = 98) or the Ginkgo group (n = 98). All patients received Ginkgo extract tablets as a basic treatment, while the SMYZF group also received SMYZF treatment. We evaluated the participants at baseline and after 12 weeks of the intervention for the following: the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS), activities of daily living (ADL), Chinese Medicine Symptom Scale (CM-SS) scores, serum endothelin-1 (ET-1), nitric oxide (NO), vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), von Willebrand factor (vWF), neuron-specific enolase (NSE), brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF), and homocysteine (Hcy) serum levels. Both interventions significantly increased MMSE scores and decreased NIHSS, ADL, and CM-SS scores. The SMYZF group showed greater improvement in MMSE, NIHSS, and CM-SS scores. Both groups showed a significant decrease in serum ET-1 and an increase in serum VEGF. Furthermore, serum NO increased, and vWF decreased significantly in the SMYZF group. Changes in serum ET-1 and NO were greater in the SMYZF group. Both groups showed a significant increase in serum BDNF and a decrease in serum NSE and Hcy. Improvement in serum NSE and BDNF was greater in the SMYZF group. SMYZF combined with Ginkgo extract tablets improved vascular endothelial and cognitive functions, as well as the syndromes diagnosed based on the traditional Chinese medicine in patients with VaD.

scholarly journals An Integrative Neuro-Psychotherapy Treatment to Foster the Adjustment in Acquired Brain Injury Patients—A Randomized Controlled Study

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (6) ◽  
pp. 1684
Author(s):  
Antoine Urech ◽  
Tobias Krieger ◽  
Eveline Frischknecht ◽  
Franziska Stalder-Lüthy ◽  
Martin grosse Holtforth ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Depressive Symptoms ◽  
Brain Injury ◽  
Brain Injuries ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Acquired Brain Injury ◽  
Post Treatment ◽  
Controlled Study ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Treatment Standard

Adjustment disorders (AjD) with depressive symptoms following an acquired brain injury (ABI) is a common phenomenon. Although brain injuries are increasing more and more, research on psychological therapies is comparably scarce. The present study compared, by means of a randomized controlled trial (RCT), a newly developed integrative treatment (Standard PLUS) to a standard neuropsychological treatment (Standard). Primary outcomes were depressive symptoms assessed with the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II) at post-treatment and 6-month follow-up assessment. In total, 25 patients (80% after a stroke) were randomized to one of the two conditions. Intention-to-treat analyses showed that the two groups did not significantly differ either at post-treatment nor at follow-up assessment regarding depressive symptoms. Both treatments showed large within-group effect sizes on depressive symptoms. Regarding secondary outcomes, patients in the Standard PLUS condition reported more emotion regulation skills at post-assessment than in the control condition. However, this difference was not present anymore at follow-up assessment. Both treatments showed medium to large within-group effects sizes on most measures for patients suffering from an AjD after ABI. More research with larger samples is needed to investigate who profits from which intervention.

Double-blind placebo-controlled trial of etanercept in the prevention of work disability in ankylosing spondylitis: Table 1

2010 ◽  
Vol 69 (11) ◽  
pp. 1926-1928 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nick Barkham ◽  
Laura C Coates ◽  
Helen Keen ◽  
Elizabeth Hensor ◽  
Alexander Fraser ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Placebo Group ◽  
Ankylosing Spondylitis ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Job Loss ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Controlled Study ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Treatment Groups ◽  
Gait Parameters ◽  
Significant Difference

ObjectivesEtanercept has been shown to be rapidly effective in suppressing disease activity in ankylosing spondylitis (AS). The aim of this study was to determine whether etanercept improves work instability as measured by the Ankylosing Spondylitis Work Instability Scale (AS-WIS).MethodForty patients with active AS who were in work but were work unstable were recruited. Patients were randomised to receive 25 mg etanercept or placebo twice weekly for 12 weeks. The primary outcome was change in AS-WIS at week 12. The AS-WIS is a patient-derived outcome measure which allows stratification of the risk of job loss. Secondary outcomes included clinical outcomes and gait parameters.ResultsThe mean improvement in AS-WIS score at week 12 was 2.75 in the etanercept group and 0.68 in the placebo group (p=0.125). The risk of job loss decreased for 11 (55%) of the etanercept group compared with 7 (35%) in the placebo group. Conversely, the risk of job loss increased in 3 (15%) of the placebo group compared with 1 (5%) in the etanercept group. There was no statistically significant difference between treatment groups in change in WIS categories (Mann–Whitney U test=0.153, p=0.160). Significant improvement with etanercept was seen at week 12 in clinical outcomes and gait parameters. Etanercept was well tolerated, with no dropouts due to adverse events.ConclusionThis small study confirms the efficacy of etanercept on clinical outcome measures in patients with AS and suggests an effect on work instability which needs to be replicated in a larger controlled study.

scholarly journals Nebulized heparin and salbutamol versus salbutamol alone in acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease requiring mechanical ventilation: a double-blind randomized controlled trial

2020 ◽  
Vol 73 (6) ◽  
pp. 509-517 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tarek Mohamed Ashoor ◽  
Ahmad Mahmoud Hasseb ◽  
Ibrahim Mamdouh Esmat
Keyword(s):  
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease ◽  
Pulmonary Disease ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Controlled Study ◽  
Chronic Obstructive ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Obstructive Pulmonary Disease ◽  
Mechanically Ventilated ◽  
Reactive Protein ◽  
Nebulized Salbutamol

BackgroundNebulized heparin has been effectively used in the management of many pulmonary diseases. However, its effect on mechanically ventilated patients with acute exacerbation chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) has never been studied. This study aimed to assess the efficacy of nebulized heparin and salbutamol to increase ventilator-free days (VFD) in mechanically ventilated AECOPD patients and the effect of nebulized heparin on respiratory and coagulation functions.MethodsIn this double-blind controlled study, 60 mechanically ventilated adult patients with AECOPD were randomly allocated into two groups; heparin and salbutamol (HS) group and salbutamol only (S) group. In the HS group, patients received nebulized heparin (25,000 IU) and salbutamol (5 mg) every 6 hours. Patients in the S group received nebulized salbutamol only (5 mg). The treatment was continued while patients remained ventilated for a maximum of 14 days. The primary outcome was VFDs at day 14. PaCO2, PaO2/FiO2 ratio, number of nebulizations withheld, C-reactive protein (CRP) titer and activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT) were secondary outcomes.ResultsPatients in the HS group had significantly more VFDs (4.7 [3.3]) compared with those in the S group (2.4 [2.6]), P = 0.007. PaCO2 levels, PaO2/FiO2, the decrease in the CRP level and the increase in the APTT from the baseline were comparable in both groups.ConclusionsThe co-administration of nebulized heparin and salbutamol, compared with salbutamol alone, significantly increased (VFDs) among mechanically ventilated AECOPD patients without increasing bleeding risks.

485 Efficacy and Safety of Once- and Twice-Nightly Dosing of Lower-Sodium Oxybate in Adults With Idiopathic Hypersomnia

SLEEP ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 44 (Supplement_2) ◽  
pp. A191-A192
Author(s):  
Isabelle Arnulf ◽  
Anne Marie Morse ◽  
Patricia Chandler ◽  
Rupa Parvataneni ◽  
Dan Chen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Sodium Oxybate ◽  
Mean Difference ◽  
Controlled Study ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Patient Global Impression ◽  
Idiopathic Hypersomnia ◽  
Secondary Endpoints ◽  
Global Impression Of Change

Abstract Introduction Idiopathic hypersomnia (IH) is a rare central hypersomnolence disorder. In a randomized, controlled study of lower-sodium oxybate (LXB; Xywav™) in adults with IH (NCT03533114), significant differences for LXB compared with placebo were observed in Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS; primary efficacy endpoint), self-reported Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIc), and IH Severity Scale (IHSS; key secondary endpoints). In this clinical study, investigators were permitted to initiate LXB dosing on a once-nightly or twice-nightly regimen. Methods Eligible participants aged 18–75 years began LXB treatment, administered once or twice nightly during an open-label treatment/titration and optimization period (OLTTOP; 10–14 weeks); dose amount/regimen could be adjusted during this period. Participants next entered a 2-week, open-label, stable-dose period (SDP), then were randomized to placebo or to continue LXB treatment during a 2-week, double-blind, randomized withdrawal period (DBRWP). P values are nominal for this exploratory analysis. Results Of 154 enrolled participants, 40 (26%) initiated LXB treatment on a once-nightly regimen. In the efficacy population (n=115), 27 participants were on a once-nightly regimen during SDP (48.1% of whom initiated treatment once nightly during OLTTOP) and 88 participants were on a twice-nightly regimen during SDP (86.4% of whom initiated treatment twice nightly during OLTTOP). During SDP, median (min, max) LXB total dose was 4.5 (2.5, 6) g/night (once-nightly group) and 7.5 (4.5, 9) g/night (twice-nightly group). ESS scores worsened in participants randomized to placebo vs those continuing LXB in the once-nightly group (n=11 and n=15, respectively; LS mean difference [95% CI]: −4.93 [−7.41, −2.46]; P=0.0004) and twice-nightly group (n=47 and n=41, respectively; LS mean difference [95% CI]: −7.44 [−9.15, −5.72]; P<0.0001). Worsening was also observed in PGIc (once-nightly: 81.8% [placebo] vs 26.7% [LXB]; P=0.0077; twice-nightly: 89.4% [placebo] vs 19.5% [LXB]; P<0.0001) and IHSS score (estimated median difference [95% CI], once-nightly: −9.00 [−16.0, −3.0]; P=0.0028; twice-nightly: −12.00 [−15.0, −8.0]; P<0.0001). Common adverse events included nausea (21.4%), headache (16.2%), anxiety (14.9%), dizziness (11.7%), insomnia (11.7%), and vomiting (10.4%). Conclusion The efficacy and safety of LXB in IH were demonstrated for both once-nightly and twice-nightly regimens. The majority of participants initiated and remained on a twice-nightly regimen. Support (if any) Jazz Pharmaceuticals

scholarly journals Randomized, controlled trial of lasmiditan over four migraine attacks: Findings from the CENTURION study

Cephalalgia ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 41 (3) ◽  
pp. 294-304 ◽  
Author(s):  
Messoud Ashina ◽  
Uwe Reuter ◽  
Timothy Smith ◽  
Judith Krikke-Workel ◽  
Suzanne R Klise ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Study Drug ◽  
Statistical Testing ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Treatment Groups ◽  
Primary Endpoints ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Secondary Endpoints ◽  
Common Teaes

Background We present findings from the multicenter, double-blind Phase 3 study, CENTURION. This study was designed to assess the efficacy of and consistency of response to lasmiditan in the acute treatment of migraine across four attacks. Methods Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to one of three treatment groups – lasmiditan 200 mg; lasmiditan 100 mg; or a control group that received placebo for three attacks and lasmiditan 50 mg for either the third or fourth attack. The primary endpoints were pain freedom at 2 h (first attack) and pain freedom at 2 h in ≥2/3 attacks. Secondary endpoints included pain relief, sustained pain freedom and disability freedom. Statistical testing used a logistic regression model and graphical methodology to control for multiplicity. Results Overall, 1471 patients treated ≥1 migraine attack with the study drug. Both primary endpoints were met for lasmiditan 100 mg and 200 mg ( p < 0.001). All gated secondary endpoints were met. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) was highest during the first attack. The most common TEAEs with lasmiditan were dizziness, paresthesia, fatigue, and nausea; these were generally mild or moderate in severity. Conclusions These results confirm the early and sustained efficacy of lasmiditan 100 mg and 200 mg and demonstrate consistency of response across multiple attacks. Trial Registration Number: NCT03670810

Optimizing chair time in infusion centers using intravenous cetirizine premedication for the prevention of hypersensitivity infusion reactions.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e13508-e13508
Author(s):  
Julio Antonio Peguero ◽  
Ahmed Ayad ◽  
Stacia Young-Wesenberg ◽  
Teresa Yang ◽  
Janine North ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Quality Care ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Acute Urticaria ◽  
Number Of Patients ◽  
Study Results ◽  
Secondary Endpoints ◽  
Infusion Reactions ◽  
Anti Cd20

e13508 Background: Oncology infusion centers are increasingly focused on improving operational efficiencies and patient satisfaction, while maintaining quality care. One key component is optimizing chair time, which has been especially important for patient safety during the COVID-19 pandemic to reduce risk of transmission. Many infusions require antihistamine premedication to reduce the risk of hypersensitivity infusion reactions (IRs). The two IV options are IV diphenhydramine and IV cetirizine, which have a quicker onset than oral options and can be administered IV push. In treating acute urticaria, IV cetirizine was shown to be comparable to IV diphenhydramine, with fewer side effects, and it may be effective for preventing IRs with improved chair time. Methods: A randomized, double-blind phase 2 study evaluating premedication with single dose IV cetirizine 10 mg versus IV diphenhydramine 50 mg was conducted in 34 patients receiving paclitaxel, rituximab, its biosimilar or obinutuzumab (first cycle, retreatment after 6 months or with persistent IRs). The primary objective was the incidence of IRs after premedication. Secondary endpoints included sedation due to antihistamines and time to readiness for discharge. Sedation was reported by patients on a scale of 0-4 (0 = none to 4 = extremely severe). No formal statistical analyses were planned given the exploratory nature of the study. Results: Adults primarily with cancer (n = 31 [91%]) were enrolled during the COVID-19 pandemic, from March 25 to November 23, 2020. The median age was 65 and 67 years in the IV cetirizine and diphenhydramine groups, respectively. The number of patients with IRs was 2/17 (11.8%) with IV cetirizine versus 3/17 (17.6%) with IV diphenhydramine. The mean sedation score in the IV cetirizine group compared to the IV diphenhydramine group was lower at all time points, including at discharge (0.1 vs 0.4, respectively). Mean time to discharge was 24 minutes less with IV cetirizine (4.3 hours [1.5]) versus IV diphenhydramine (4.7 hours [1.2]). This difference was greater (30 minutes less) in those ≥65 years of age (4.4 [1.3] vs 4.9 [1.0] hours). Regardless of whether patients received paclitaxel (n = 9) or an anti-CD20 (n = 25), patients had less chair time when premedicated with IV cetirizine. There were fewer treatment-related adverse events (AEs) with IV cetirizine (2 events) than with IV diphenhydramine (4 events). Conclusions: This was the first randomized, controlled trial evaluating IV antihistamine premedication for IRs and chair time. It was shown that IV cetirizine can prevent IRs, with less sedation, fewer related AEs and reduced chair time compared to IV diphenhydramine. This improves infusion center operations and patient experience. Clinical trial information: NCT04189588.

Continuous bilateral thoracic paravertebral blockade for analgesia after cardiac surgery: a randomised, controlled trial

Perfusion ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 32 (7) ◽  
pp. 591-597 ◽  
Author(s):  
Geoff G. Lockwood ◽  
Leilani Cabreros ◽  
Dorota Banach ◽  
Prakash P. Punjabi
Keyword(s):  
Cardiac Surgery ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Morphine Consumption ◽  
Controlled Study ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Clinical Trial Registration ◽  
Subcutaneous Infusion ◽  
Randomised Controlled Study ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Background: Continuous bilateral thoracic paravertebral blockade has been used for analgesia after cardiac surgery, but its efficacy has never been formally tested. Method: Fifty adult patients were enrolled in a double-blind, randomised, controlled study of continuous bilateral thoracic paravertebral infusion of 0.5% lidocaine (1 mg.kg-1.hr-1) for analgesia after coronary surgery. Control patients received a subcutaneous infusion of lidocaine at the same rate through catheters inserted at the same locations as the study group. The primary outcome was morphine consumption at 48 hours using patient-controlled analgesia (PCA). Secondary outcomes included pain, respiratory function, nausea and vomiting. Serum lidocaine concentrations were measured on the first two post-operative days. Results: There was no difference in morphine consumption or in any other outcome measure between the groups. Serum lidocaine concentrations increased during the study, with a maximum of 5.9 mg.l-1. There were no adverse events as a consequence of the study. Conclusion: Bilateral paravertebral infusion of lidocaine confers no advantage over systemic lidocaine infusion after cardiac surgery. Clinical trial registration: ISRCTN13424423 ( https://www.isrctn.com )

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document