Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “PLACEBOS”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 217 records · Page 12Linked to original sources
PubMed1998

Sumatriptan injection reduces productivity loss during a migraine attack: results of a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of sumatriptan succinate injection compared with placebo on productivity loss during a migraine attack in the workplace. DESIGN: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group clinical trial. SETTING: Fifteen clinical centers in the United States. PATIENTS: One hundred thirty-five patients 18 years and older diagnosed as having migraine according to International Headache Society criteria. INTERVENTIONS: Patients self-administered sumatriptan injection (6 mg) or matching placebo to treat a moderate or severe migraine occurring within the first 4 hours of a minimum 8-hour work shift. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Mean productivity loss 2 hours after dosing and across the work shift; percentages of patients returning to normal work performance within 2 hours after dosing and across the work shift; percentages of patients experiencing headache relief (reduction of moderate or severe predose pain to mild or no pain) 1 and 2 hours after dosing. RESULTS: Mean productivity loss was significantly (P< or =.002) lower in the sumatriptan group compared with the placebo group both during the 2-hour postdose period (sumatriptan, 39 minutes; placebo, 54 minutes) and across the work shift (sumatriptan, 86 minutes; placebo, 168 minutes). Significantly (P<.001) greater percentages of patients in the sumatriptan group compared with the placebo group returned to normal work performance by 2 hours after dosing (sumatriptan, 52%; placebo, 9%) and across the work shift (sumatriptan, 66%; placebo, 18%). Significantly (P< or =.001) greater percentages of patients in the sumatriptan group compared with the placebo group experienced headache relief 1 hour after dosing (sumatriptan, 69%; placebo, 18%) and 2 hours after dosing (sumatriptan, 79%; placebo, 32%). CONCLUSION: Sumatriptan reduced migraine-associated productivity loss during a minimum 8-hour work shift by approximately 50% compared with placebo and alleviated headache in more than three fourths of patients.

Adult↗
PubMed1993

Prophylaxis of urinary tract infection in persons with recent spinal cord injury: a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole.

PURPOSE: To determine the efficacy of trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (TMP-SMX) for prophylaxis of urinary tract infection in persons with recent spinal cord injury, during the first 4 months of intermittent catheterization. PATIENTS AND METHODS: One hundred twenty-nine adults (112 men, 17 women) with recent acute spinal cord injury participated in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, and were studied for up to 16 weeks. Low-dose TMP-SMX (TMP 40 mg, SMX 200 mg) or placebo was given once daily. Clinical observations, urine cultures, and cultures of rectal and urethral swabs were made weekly. Subjects who developed breakthrough bacteriuria received conventional antimicrobial therapy and prophylaxis was continued. RESULTS: Sixty-six TMP-SMX recipients (57 men, 9 women) and 60 placebo recipients (52 men, 8 women) are evaluable for efficacy. Among male subjects, bacteriuria was present during 50% or more of study weeks in 30% of TMP-SMX recipients and in 56% of placebo recipients (p = 0.003). The interval to the onset of bacteriuria was prolonged in TMP-SMX recipients (p < 0.0001). TMP-SMX recipients without bacteriuria in any given week had a lower probability of having bacteriuria the subsequent week (0.26) than did placebo recipients (0.49) (p < 0.0001). At least 1 episode of definite symptomatic bacteriuria (bacteriuria and fever and at least 1 classical manifestation of urinary infection) occurred in 4 of 57 TMP-SMX-treated men and in 18 of 52 placebo-treated men (p < 0.0003). We observed similar trends in women, but differences did not reach statistical significance, perhaps because the number of females was small. Adverse events suspected to be due to medications were frequent in this population of patients with recent severe injuries and led to discontinuation of the study in 10% of the TMP-SMX group and 8% of the placebo group. Adverse events included neutropenia (TMP-SMX: two; placebo: three), pseudomembranous colitis (TMP-SMX: one), severe skin rash (TMP-SMX: two; placebo: one), and drug fever (TMP-SMX: one). The proportion of all episodes of bacteriuria that were due to TMP-SMX-resistant organisms was unexpectedly high in the placebo group (51%), and increased progressively according to year of enrollment in the study. By Year 3, all subjects in the placebo group had at least one episode of TMP-SMX-resistant bacteriuria. Gram-negative enteric bacilli resistant to TMP-SMX were recovered from rectal swabs (TMP-SMX 49%, placebo 42%) and urethral swabs (TMP-SMX 33%, placebo 26%) in similar proportions of subjects in the two study groups. CONCLUSIONS: Prophylaxis with TMP-SMX significantly reduces bacteriuria and symptomatic urinary tract infection in persons with recent acute spinal cord injury during bladder retraining using intermittent catheterization. However, adverse reactions attributable to TMP-SMX are common in this population. Colonization and breakthrough bacteriuria with TMP-SMX-resistant organisms are frequent and may seriously limit the usefulness of this strategy, particularly in an institutional setting.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2002

Comparison of the analgesic efficacy of rofecoxib and enteric-coated diclofenac sodium in the treatment of postoperative dental pain: a randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Rofecoxib is a selective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor indicated for the treatment of acute pain, with similar analgesic efficacy to ibuprofen and naproxen sodium. Diclofenac sodium is the most commonly prescribed nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug worldwide; it is effective for the treatment of pain as well as the signs and symptoms associated with the painful conditions of osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the analgesic efficacy and tolerability of a single dose of rofecoxib 50 mg, 3 doses of enteric-coated diclofenac sodium 50 mg, and placebo over 8-hour and 24-hour periods in patients with moderate to severe pain after oral surgery. METHODS: In this double-blind, placebo- and active comparator-controlled, parallel-group study, patients experiencing moderate to severe pain after the surgical extraction of > or = 2 third molars were randomized to receive a single dose of rofecoxib 50 mg, 3 doses of enteric-coated diclofenac sodium 50 mg (50 mg given every 8 hours), or placebo. Patients rated pain intensity, pain relief, and global assessments at prespecified times throughout the 24-hour period after initial dosing. Overall analgesic efficacy was determined by total pain relief over 8 hours (TOPAR8) and 24 hours (TOPAR24) and patient global assessments at 8 and 24 hours. Onset of analgesic effect was determined by using the 2-stopwatch method for confirmed perceptible pain relief. Peak analgesic effect was the maximum pain relief attained during the first 8 hours. The duration of analgesic effect was determined by median time to rescue analgesia use. RESULTS: A total of 305 patients were randomized to treatment: 121 received rofecoxib, 121 received diclofenac sodium, and 63 received placebo. The baseline demographics were similar among the groups. Overall, 61.3% experienced moderate pain and 38.7% experienced severe pain; 53.1% were female; and the mean age was 23.4 years. The overall analgesic efficacy, as assessed by TOPAR8, of a single dose of rofecoxib 50 mg was significantly greater than a single dose of enteric-coated diclofenac sodium 50 mg (20.5 vs 8.2) and placebo (20.5 vs 5.9). Patient global assessment at 8 hours was also significantly better for rofecoxib compared with enteric-coated diclofenac sodium and placebo. TOPAR24 was significantly greater for a single dose of rofecoxib 50 mg compared with 3 doses of enteric-coated diclofenac sodium 50 mg (64.1 vs 25.1) and placebo (64.1 vs 19.2). At 24 hours, the patient global assessment for rofecoxib was significantly better than that achieved with enteric-coated diclofenac sodium and placebo. The onset of analgesic effect was significantly more rapid for rofecoxib than for enteric-coated diclofenac sodium and placebo (median times: 31 minutes, >4 hours, and >4 hours, respectively). The peak analgesic effect was significantly greater for rofecoxib compared with enteric-coated diclofenac sodium (3.2 vs 1.5) and placebo (3.2 vs 1.1). The duration of analgesia was significantly longer for rofecoxib than enteric-coated diclofenac sodium (median times: >24 hours vs 1 hour and 37 minutes) and placebo (>24 hours vs 1 hour and 37 minutes). Enteric-coated diclofenac sodium was numerically greater than placebo for the key end points measuring overall efficacy (total pain relief and patient global assessment), but diclofenac sodium did not provide as much analgesic effect as expected for a drug effective for pain, osteoarthritis, and rheumatoid arthritis and did not differ significantly from placebo. Overall, both rofecoxib and enteric-coated diclofenac sodium were generally well tolerated, although the rofecoxib group had a significantly lower incidence of clinical and drug-related adverse events than the enteric-coated diclofenac sodium group. CONCLUSIONS: A single 50-mg dose of rofecoxib provided greater overall analgesic efficacy over 8 hours, more rapid onset of analgesia, greater maximum analgesic effect, and longer duration of effect than a single 50-mg dose of enteric-coated diclofenac sodium in patients with moderate to severe pain associated with oral surgery. Compared with 3 doses of enteric-coated diclofenac sodium 50 mg (50 mg every 8 hours), a single dose of rofecoxib 50 mg provided greater overall analgesic efficacy over 24 hours.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2004

Effects of olanzapine alone and olanzapine/fluoxetine combination on health-related quality of life in patients with bipolar depression: secondary analyses of a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Improving patients' health-related quality of life (HRQOL) could be a treatment goal for bipolar depression. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of these secondary analyses of a previous report were to determine the benefits of olanzapine alone and olanzapine-fluoxetine combination (OFC) for improving HRQOL in patients with bipolar depression using both a generic and a depression-specific HRQOL instrument, and to examine the association between the 2 HRQOL instruments and the construct validity of the depression-specific HRQOL instrument. METHODS: This was a double-blind, placebo-controlled, 83-site, international, randomized trial. Adults with bipolar I disorder, most recent episode depressed (according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition), were randomly assigned to receive olanzapine (6-20 mg/d), OFC (6/25, 12/25, or 12/50 mg/d), or placebo for 8 weeks. HRQOL improvement was calculated as last-observation-carried-forward changes in dimension and component summary scores on Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) and total score on the Quality of Life in Depression Scale (QLDS). RESULTS: Patients were assigned to receive olanzapine (n = 370), [corrected] OFC (n = 86), or placebo (n = 377) [corrected] for 8 weeks. Of 833 enrolled patients, 454 discontinued (olanzapine, 191/370 [51.6%] [corrected]OFC, 31/86 [36.0%]; and placebo, 232/377 [61.6%]) [corrected] Compared with placebo, olanzapine-treated patients exhibited greater improvements on SF-36 mental component summary (MCS) score ( P=0.002) and 3 of 8 SF-36 dimension scores (mental health [P=0.015], role-emotional [P=0.046], and social functioning [P=0.006). OFC-treated patients exhibited greater improvements on MCS score ( P<0.001) vs both placebo and olanzapine), 5 SF-36 dimension scores (general health perception (P<0.001) vs placebo; (P<0.001) vs olanzapinel, mental health [ P=0.001] vs both placebo and olanzapine], role-emotional [ P<0.001] vs placebo; [P=0.007] vs olanzapine], social functioning [ P=0.001] vs placebo; [P=0.032] vs olanzapine], and vitality [P=0.002] vs placebo; [P=0.011] vs olanzapine]), and QLDS total score ( P<0.001] vs both placebo and olanzapine). Changes in SF-36 scores of mental health, social functioning, role-emotional, and vitality were highly correlated to changes in the QLDS total score (all p < -0.5). CONCLUSIONS: Based on these analyses, patients with bipolar depression receiving olanzapine or OFC for 8 weeks had greater improvement in HRQOL than those receiving placebo. OFC treatment was associated with greater improvement in HRQOL than olanzapine alone. The correlation results support the construct validity of the QLDS.

Adult↗
PubMed2001

Placebo-controlled comparison of dolasetron and metoclopramide in preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing hysterectomy.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: In a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial, we compared the efficacy of dolasetron and metoclopramide in preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting in women undergoing hysterectomy. METHODS: Patients were allocated randomly to one of three groups: group A (n = 50) received 50 mg dolasetron orally, group B (n = 50) received 20 mg metoclopramide intravenously and placebo orally, group C (n = 50) received placebo orally. If patients complained of retching or vomiting, or if patients demanded an antiemetic, 1.25 mg droperidol was administrated intravenously. To quantify postoperative nausea and vomiting the following score was used: 0 = no nausea, 1 = nausea, 2 = retching, 3 = single vomiting, 4 = multiple vomiting. The Raatz test was used to analyse postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) scores. RESULTS: Dolasetron reduced the postoperative nausea and vomiting score significantly (P < 0.02 vs. metoclopramide; P < 0.0001 vs. placebo). Metoclopramide also reduced the postoperative nausea and vomiting score (P < 0.02 vs. placebo). Fisher's exact test showed a significant reduction of vomiting in the dolasetron group compared with metoclopramide-treated patients (P < 0.007) and placebo-treated patients (P < 0.000006) and a significantly lower rate of nausea in comparison to the placebo group (P < 0.009). There were no significant differences between the metoclopramide and the placebo groups (in Fisher's exact test). The use of postoperative droperidol per patient was significantly lower in the dolasetron group (P < 0.04 vs. metoclopramide; P < 0.0001 vs. placebo) than in the metoclopramide (P < 0.02 vs. placebo) and in the placebo groups. CONCLUSIONS: Oral dolasetron is more effective than either metoclopramide given intravenously or placebo for preventing vomiting after hysterectomy. It also was significantly superior to either metoclopramide or placebo concerning the PONV score and the need for droperidol rescue.

Antiemetics↗
PubMed1991

Mortality and morbidity in patients receiving encainide, flecainide, or placebo. The Cardiac Arrhythmia Suppression Trial.

BACKGROUND AND METHODS: In the Cardiac Arrhythmia Suppression Trial, designed to test the hypothesis that suppression of ventricular ectopy after a myocardial infarction reduces the incidence of sudden death, patients in whom ventricular ectopy could be suppressed with encainide, flecainide, or moricizine were randomly assigned to receive either active drug or placebo. The use of encainide and flecainide was discontinued because of excess mortality. We examined the mortality and morbidity after randomization to encainide or flecainide or their respective placebo. RESULTS: Of 1498 patients, 857 were assigned to receive encainide or its placebo (432 to active drug and 425 to placebo) and 641 were assigned to receive flecainide or its placebo (323 to active drug and 318 to placebo). After a mean follow-up of 10 months, 89 patients had died: 59 of arrhythmia (43 receiving drug vs. 16 receiving placebo; P = 0.0004), 22 of nonarrhythmic cardiac causes (17 receiving drug vs. 5 receiving placebo; P = 0.01), and 8 of noncardiac causes (3 receiving drug vs. 5 receiving placebo). Almost all cardiac deaths not due to arrhythmia were attributed to acute myocardial infarction with shock (11 patients receiving drug and 3 receiving placebo) or to chronic congestive heart failure (4 receiving drug and 2 receiving placebo). There were no differences between the patients receiving active drug and those receiving placebo in the incidence of nonlethal disqualifying ventricular tachycardia, proarrhythmia, syncope, need for a permanent pacemaker, congestive heart failure, recurrent myocardial infarction, angina, or need for coronary-artery bypass grafting or angioplasty. CONCLUSIONS: There was an excess of deaths due to arrhythmia and deaths due to shock after acute recurrent myocardial infarction in patients treated with encainide or flecainide. Nonlethal events, however, were equally distributed between the active-drug and placebo groups. The mechanisms underlying the excess mortality during treatment with encainide or flecainide remain unknown.

Actuarial Analysis↗
PubMed2004

Effectiveness of salmon calcitonin nasal spray in the treatment of lumbar canal stenosis: a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel group trial.

STUDY DESIGN: Double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study to assess the effectiveness of calcitonin nasal spray on symptoms and function in patients with lumbar canal stenosis. OBJECTIVE: To compare effectiveness of calcitonin administered by nasal spray with placebo in patients with clinically symptomatic lumbar canal stenosis. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Lumbar canal stenosis is the most common reason for spine surgery in individuals over 65 years of age. Nonoperative approaches have been not well studied and limited primarily to physical therapy exercises. Several small trials in the past have suggested that subcutaneous and intramuscular calcitonin is an effective nonsurgical option in treating the symptoms of spinal stenosis patients. Only three trials were randomized and placebo-controlled. METHODS: Fifty-five patients with clinical lumbar canal stenosis (pseudoclaudication), confirmatory MR imaging, and pain intensity index (VAS) of > or =6 were randomized to either placebo or intranasal calcitonin daily for 6 weeks, followed by an open label 6-week extension, during which all patients received active drug. Outcome parameters performed at baseline, 6 weeks, and 12 weeks, included pain intensity index, walking time and distance to pain, SF-36, and Oswestry disability index. RESULTS: Thirty-six patients received calcitonin, and 19 placebo. Eight (14.54%) calcitonin and 4 (7.27%) placebo patients withdrew from the study. The mean baseline pain score for calcitonin group was 7.8 and 7.5 for placebo. Comparisons at week 6 showed no statistically significant difference in the change in pain intensity (VAS) between calcitonin group (-2.9) and placebo (-2.4) (P = 0.4382) from baseline. There was no significant difference in walking time to pain (calcitonin -10.0 seconds; placebo +32.2 seconds; P = 0.5136). Walking distance to pain showed a mean improvement of +91.4 ft in the calcitonin group and +254.7 ft in the placebo group (P = 0.4948). No significant difference was observed in the SF-36 score between the treatment groups. Using a threshold of at least 50% reduction in pain from baseline to 6 weeks, 12 of 29 (41.37%) of calcitonin patients were considered responders versus 7 of 18 (38.88%) of placebo patients (P = 0.4238) CONCLUSIONS: In this first ever largest randomized placebo-controlled parallel group trial of nasal calcitonin in spinal stenosis, nasal calcitonin was not superior to placebo in treating the symptoms of spinal stenosis at 6 weeks. Based on this study, nasal calcitonin does not appear to have a role in nonoperative treatment of lumbar canal stenosis.

Administration, Intranasal↗
PubMed2005

Control of bleeding in children with Dengue hemorrhagic fever using recombinant activated factor VII: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

OBJECTIVES: We evaluated the efficacy and safety of recombinant activated factor VII (rFVIIa) in children aged < 18 years old with grade II or grade III Dengue hemorrhagic fever (DHF) who required blood component therapy for controlling bleeding episodes. STUDY DESIGN: Patients were randomized to the rFVIIa group or placebo group in a ratio of 2:1. rFVIIa or placebo (100 microg/kg body weight) was given by intravenous bolus injection. When bleeding was not effectively controlled, a second dose of rFVIIa or placebo (100 microg/kg) was given 30 min after the first dose. RESULTS: Nine and 16 patients received placebo and rFVIIa, respectively. The demographics, bleeding manifestations and grade of DHF were similar for the rFVIIa and placebo groups. Apart from petechiae and ecchymosis, one to four additional bleeding sites were found in each patient, including hematemesis (n = 15), epistaxis (n = 14), gum bleeding (n = 12), melena (n = 7), hypermenorrhea (n = 4), hematochezia (n = 2) and hematuria (n = 2). The mean total dose of rFVIIa (138.4 +/- 50.9 microg/kg) and placebo (145.4 +/- 53.7 microg/kg) were comparable. The efficacy of bleeding control at 2 h after the first dose was completely ceased (rFVIIa 75.0% versus placebo 44.4%), decreased (rFVIIa 18.7% versus placebo 11.2%), and unchanged or worsened (rFVIIa 6.3% versus placebo 44.4%). Some patients with active bleeding received platelet concentrates 3-12 h after the first dose of rFVIIa or placebo. The subsequent efficacy of bleeding control at 6, 12 and 24 h was comparable between the two groups. The cumulative use of red blood cells (rFVIIa 31.3% versus placebo 33.3%) and plasma (rFVIIa 25% versus placebo 22%) during the 24-h period was not significantly different between the two groups. In contrast, platelet concentrate requirement in the rFVIIa group (6.3%) was lower than the placebo (33.3%). No clinical evidence of thromboembolic complications or mortality as a result of bleeding was observed. CONCLUSION: rFVIIa appears to be a useful adjunctive treatment to blood component transfusion for controlling active bleeding in children with DHF especially when platelet concentrate is not readily available.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1991

Double-blind, dose-response, placebo-controlled multicenter study of nisoldipine. A new second-generation calcium channel blocker in angina pectoris.

BACKGROUND: Nisoldipine is a potent 1:4 dihydropyridine calcium channel antagonist, and doses of 5 or 10 mg administered either once or twice daily have been claimed to exert antianginal effects. There is, however, little information regarding the dose-response relation and whether the drug exerts any consistent effects throughout the dosing interval. In this placebo-controlled, parallel-design study, the dose-response relation of monotherapy with nisoldipine administered twice daily was studied in patients with stable angina pectoris. METHODS AND RESULTS: Two hundred thirty-one patients received single-blind placebo for 2 weeks; of these, 185 patients who reproducibly stopped treadmill exercise because of angina of moderate severity and had greater than or equal to 1 mm ST segment depression during exercise and experienced an average of three episodes of anginal attacks per week were randomized in a double-blind manner to one of the four treatment groups: placebo (n = 48), nisoldipine 2.5 mg (n = 47), nisoldipine 5 mg (n = 44), or nisoldipine 10 mg (n = 46). Nisoldipine or placebo was administered twice daily for 4 weeks and symptom-limited exercise tests were repeated at 2 and 10-14 hours after the double-blind medication. One hundred sixty-eight patients completed the study and 181 patients were valid for efficacy analysis. Compared with double-blind placebo, there were marginally significant trends toward increases for time to onset of angina for the 10-mg-b.i.d. group (83 versus 108 seconds, p = 0.08), time to 1 mm ST segment depression for the 5-mg-b.i.d. group (54 versus 83 seconds, p = 0.08), and total exercise time for the 5- (30 versus 50 seconds, p = 0.10) and 10-mg-b.i.d. (30 versus 58 seconds, p = 0.06) groups at 2 hours after the dose (peak effect) after 4 weeks of therapy. At 10-14 hours after the dose (trough effect), no differences between placebo and any of the nisoldipine doses on any of the exercise parameters were found after 4 weeks of therapy. A subset analysis of patients who stopped exercise within 10 minutes because of angina of moderate severity during single-blind placebo therapy (n = 123) revealed significant increase in total exercise duration and time to 1 mm ST segment depression at 2 hours after the dose in the 5- and 10-mg-b.i.d. dose groups compared with double-blind placebo (p less than 0.04). No significant trough effects, however, were observed even in this subgroup after any of the doses of nisoldipine. The frequency of anginal attacks decreased by 44%, 41%, 30%, and 41% after twice-daily therapy with 2.5 mg, 5 mg, 10 mg nisoldipine, and placebo groups, respectively (p = NS, nisoldipine versus placebo). The incidence of adverse events (minor and major) was 43.8% in the placebo group and 42.6%, 45.5%, and 56.5% in the nisoldipine 2.5-, 5-, and 10-mg-b.i.d. groups, respectively (p = NS compared with placebo). However, four patients developed unstable angina while on nisoldipine therapy (two in the 2.5-mg, one in the 5-mg, and one in the 10-mg-b.i.d. group) and two patients died suddenly in the nisoldipine 10-mg-b.i.d. group. CONCLUSIONS: Monotherapy with 2.5, 5, and 10 mg nisoldipine twice a day was not superior to placebo therapy in treating patients with angina pectoris, and the 10-mg-b.i.d. therapy resulted in a statistically insignificant but clinically important increase in the incidence of serious adverse events.

Adult↗
PubMed2003

Speed of onset and efficacy of zolmitriptan nasal spray in the acute treatment of migraine: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging study versus zolmitriptan tablet.

OBJECTIVE: Zolmitriptan oral tablet is highly effective and well tolerated in the acute treatment of migraine with and without aura in adults. A nasal spray formulation has now been developed. The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of fixed doses of zolmitriptan administered via a nasal spray with placebo and zolmitriptan oral tablet in the acute treatment of migraine. PATIENTS AND STUDY DESIGN: This was a randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, multicentre, dose-ranging study. 1547 patients aged 18-65 years with an established diagnosis of migraine with or without aura (as defined by International Headache Society criteria) who had at least a 1-year history of migraine and an age of onset <50 years were included. Patients were able to distinguish typical migraine from nonmigraine headaches and had experienced an average of one to six migraine headaches per month during the 2 months preceding the study. Patients were randomised to zolmitriptan (Zomig) The use of tradenames is for product identification purposes only and does not imply endorsement.) nasal spray (5.0, 2.5, 1.0 or 0.5 mg), zolmitriptan oral tablet (2.5mg) or placebo for the treatment of three moderate or severe migraine attacks. The primary outcome measure was headache response at 2 hours following treatment, defined as reduced intensity of migraine pain (using a scale of none, mild, moderate or severe) from severe or moderate at baseline to mild or no pain at 2 hours after treatment. Secondary outcome measures included early headache response at 15, 30 and 45 minutes and headache response at 1 and 4 hours postdose, as well as pain-free rates at 15, 30 and 45 minutes and 1, 2 and 4 hours postdose. Laboratory assessments, vital signs, 12-lead ECGs and nose and throat examinations were performed at screening and follow-up visits. Adverse events were recorded throughout the study using Coding Symbols for Thesaurus of Adverse Reaction Terms (COSTART) terminology. RESULTS: Each dose of zolmitriptan nasal spray produced a greater 2-hour headache response rate than placebo (70.3%, 58.6%, 54.8% and 41.5% for zolmitriptan nasal spray 5.0, 2.5, 1.0 and 0.5mg, compared with 30.6% for placebo [all p < 0.001 vs placebo]). The 2-hour headache response rate for zolmitriptan nasal spray 5.0mg was significantly higher than that of the zolmitriptan 2.5mg oral tablet (61.3%; p < 0.05), while comparisons of nasal spray 0.5, 1.0 and 2.5mg with zolmitriptan 2.5mg oral tablet were not statistically significant. The nasal spray 5.0 and 2.5mg showed a rapid onset of action, with a significant difference in headache response compared with placebo from 15 minutes through 4 hours after administration and a significant difference between the nasal spray 5.0mg and 2.5mg oral tablet from 15 minutes through to 2 hours (the other nasal spray doses were not statistically significant compared with 2.5mg oral tablet). Zolmitriptan nasal spray resulted in pain-free rates that were dose dependent. While all doses from 1.0 mg upwards produced significant pain-free outcomes from 30 minutes versus placebo, only the 5.0mg dose produced pain-free rates significantly superior to both placebo and the 2.5mg oral tablet. Zolmitriptan nasal spray was well tolerated, with the most common adverse events being unusual taste and paresthesia. The majority of adverse events were of short duration and mild or moderate intensity. Only ten patients were withdrawn from the trial because of adverse events. Serious adverse events were reported by nine patients after taking study medication, but none was considered to be causally related to study medication. Zolmitriptan was not associated with any clinically significant changes in laboratory test values or vital signs. CONCLUSION: All doses of zolmitriptan nasal spray produced significant 2-hour headache response rates compared with placebo. The 5.0 and 2.5mg doses were also significantly more effective than placebo for the majority of secondary efficacy measures. Zolmitriptan nasal spray 5.0mg provided a headache response statistically superior to both placebo and the 2.5mg tablet as early as 15 minutes after administration, while demonstrating pain-free outcomes significantly superior to placebo and the 2.5mg tablet as early as 30 minutes after administration. All doses of zolmitriptan nasal spray were well tolerated, resulting in an optimal therapeutic index and clinical recommendation for the 5.0mg dose.

Administration, Intranasal↗
PubMed1997

The powerful placebo effect: fact or fiction?

In 1955, Henry K. Beecher published the classic work entitled "The Powerful Placebo." Since that time, 40 years ago, the placebo effect has been considered a scientific fact. Beecher was the first scientist to quantify the placebo effect. He claimed that in 15 trials with different diseases, 35% of 1082 patients were satisfactorily relieved by a placebo alone. This publication is still the most frequently cited placebo reference. Recently Beecher's article was reanalyzed with surprising results: In contrast to his claim, no evidence was found of any placebo effect in any of the studies cited by him. There were many other factors that could account for the reported improvements in patients in these trials, but most likely there was no placebo effect whatsoever. False impressions of placebo effects can be produced in various ways. Spontaneous improvement, fluctuation of symptoms, regression to the mean, additional treatment, conditional switching of placebo treatment, scaling bias, irrelevant response variables, answers of politeness, experimental subordination, conditioned answers, neurotic or psychotic misjudgment, psychosomatic phenomena, misquotation, etc. These factors are still prevalent in modern placebo literature. The placebo topic seems to invite sloppy methodological thinking. Therefore awareness of Beecher's mistakes and misinterpretations is essential for an appropriate interpretation of current placebo literature.

Controlled Clinical Trials as Topic↗
PubMed2003

Placebo response in cluster headache trials: a review.

Probably because of its relative rarity as primary headache, there are few well-controlled clinical trials on cluster headache (CH) patients. Due to the severity of the pain, the placebo response in CH has been considered to be small. During the eighties the first double-blind, placebo-controlled trials were reported, and placebo responses demonstrated. Here we review the placebo response in CH trials in order to assess its magnitude and consider how future studies can be optimized. Six trials were identified with a double-blind, placebo-controlled, cross-over design testing treatments of acute CH. For those with a primary endpoint set to no or mild headache the placebo responses varied from 7 to 42%. In five of seven prophylactic trials, using a double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group design, the placebo was merely used to set a baseline for comparison. The placebo responses were reported in only two trials. Here the response varies from 14 to 43%, the lowest value was reported using the strict endpoint; cessation of headache attacks. We conclude that a placebo response exists in trials of drugs on CH patients. Furthermore, this placebo response is of the same magnitude as that seen in migraine studies. We recommend the use of IHS guidelines when designing new trials. The possibility of a genuine biological mechanism responsible for the placebo response is discussed.

Cluster Headache↗
PubMed1999

Placebos, drug effects, and study design: a clinician's guide.

OBJECTIVE: This article examines the role of placebos in evaluating the efficacy of psychiatric drugs. Also addressed are the identification of placebo effects on drugs, the relevance of active placebo, the need for placebo groups in psychotherapy studies, and ethical issues concerning the use of placebo. METHOD: Psychiatric drug treatment trials were reviewed. Emphasis was placed on studies with ambiguous outcomes, studies using an active placebo, and studies attempting to understand the role of placebo effects on patients receiving a drug. The concept of pattern analysis for identifying true drug effect is reviewed. RESULTS: Evidence that placebos are required to prevent a false conclusion about drug efficacy is presented. The public health implications of concluding that an ineffective drug is beneficial are examined. Active placebos do not appear necessary, and there is some evidence that the odds of identifying a patient who has improved as a result of true drug effect (as opposed to placebo effect) exceed chance with pattern analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Psychiatric disorders have a fluctuating course, psychiatry's phenomenologically based nosological system is inexact, and the interaction between these two leads to a large proportion of patients experiencing a placebo effect. It may be possible to identify patients receiving an antidepressant who improved as a result of a placebo effect. This is an educated guess that may be helpful in planning the treatment of patients who have a contraindication to continuing a psychopharmacological regimen.

Anxiety Disorders↗
PubMed1992

Placebo effect in cardiovascular clinical pharmacology.

A placebo is a pharmacologically inactive substance that can have a therapeutic effect if administered to a patient who believes that he or she is receiving an effective treatment. It is generally admitted that the placebo effect decreases blood pressure in 20% to 30%, when evaluated by casual sphygmomanometer or ambulatory systems. In order to evaluate the occurrence of a placebo effect in cardiovascular pharmacology, we analysed two studies. One study included ten mild-to-moderate hypertensive patients, and consisted of two submaximal exercise tests separated by a single oral administration of the placebo. The other study included six healthy volunteers, receiving an oral placebo during ten days. The placebo was in both case presented as an effective antihypertensive agent. Any change on blood pressure and heart rate, both at rest and during exercise, was observed before and three hours after the placebo. After ten days of placebo administration, no statistically significant change in blood pressure or heart rate was obtained. Nor was any statistical difference observed in catecholamine plasma levels, either three hours or ten days after oral administration of the placebo. The second study did not show any evidence of changes in lymphocytic beta-adrenoceptor density after ten days of placebo. The results of these pilot studies suggest that the use of a placebo group in cardiovascular clinical pharmacology should be reconsidered. The real occurrence and characteristics of a placebo effect should be evaluated by a complementary study.

Blood Pressure↗
PubMed1991

Lack of placebo effect in exercise response of hypertensive patients.

UNLABELLED: The administration of placebo (a pharmacologically inactive substance) is justified in clinical trials of antihypertensive drugs in order to exclude the placebo effect. The evaluation of antihypertensive treatments during exercise is an interesting end point, since aerobic exercise is part of antihypertensive treatment. The aim of this study is to determine the placebo effect on blood pressure, heart rate and catecholamine secretion profiles during exercise testing. METHOD: 10 patients with untreated mild to moderate essential hypertension participated in a single blind study consisting of two successive submaximal exercise tests (85% of maximal predicted heart rate), separated by a single oral administration of placebo. Blood pressure and heart rate were measured after 10 minutes of rest and at the end of each effort step (2 min, 20 Watts), both before and after placebo. Blood samples (5 ml) were collected at rest and during maximal exercise before and after placebo, in order to determine the effect of placebo on circulating catecholamines. RESULTS: There were no significant difference between the "control" and after placebo exercise tests, neither in blood pressure or heart rate profiles, nor in values of circulating catecholamines (noradrenaline at rest: 1.88 +/- 0.96, effort: 6.43 +/- 1.93 nm/l before placebo, 1.65 +/- 0.83 nm/l and 5.71 +/- 2.12 nm/l after placebo respectively [NS]). CONCLUSION: The placebo effect, which is generally determined from blood pressure at rest by sphygmomanometry, seems devoid of any influence on blood pressure, heart rate or catecholamine profiles during exercise in patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension. Thus, antihypertensive treatments can be evaluated during exercise by comparison to baseline cardiovascular parameters without need of a placebo group.

Adult↗
PubMed1991

Magic or medicine? Clinical pharmacological basis of placebo medication.

A placebo may be a pharmacologically active or an inert substance, a procedure, or a patient-doctor interview. Placebos work best in symptoms or disease which vary over time and between patients. The placebo works best in behaviour disorders, somatic autonomic disorders like pain, and neurohumoral disorders like hypertension. However, placebo action is incompletely defined in its molecular pharmacology. The endogenous brain systems of opioid, antiopioid, and gamma-aminobutyric acid polypeptide transmitters and neuronal receptors account in part for placebo analgesia. Non-painful stress may be mediated through other neurohumoral systems. A separate neural system might control these subsystems. Confidence based on the doctor's empathy commonly evokes the placebo effect. How the symbolic input of thought or emotion is translated into neuronal events is unknown. Double-masked 'controlled' clinical trials use placebo to reduce bias; overuse of placebo here may harm some patients. Oral placebos for routine use include thiamine at low dose. Potent drugs like glucocorticoids cannot be justified as placebo in mild disease or non-disease. Both patient and doctor are usually unaware of the placebo effect during interviews. Doctors may increase placebo efficacy by improving interpersonal skills.

Humans↗
PubMed2002

Placebo-associated improvements in motor function: comparison of subjective and objective sections of the UPDRS in early Parkinson's disease.

The Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) is primarily composed of an investigator-derived objective rating of motor function and a patient-derived assessment of activities of daily living (ADL). Using a stringent definition of placebo effect, we examined the frequency, temporal development, and stability of improvements during placebo treatment over 6 months in a large placebo-controlled trial of deprenyl and tocopherol in early Parkinson's disease (DATATOP). One hundred ninety-nine subjects received placebo treatment in the randomized, multicenter, placebo-controlled DATATOP study. We compared the baseline UPDRS motor section scores with follow-up scores at 4, 13, and 26 weeks. Placebo-associated improvement was defined as an improvement over baseline score in motor UPDRS of at least 50% or a change in at least two motor items at any one visit by two or more points. Seventeen percent of the 185 subjects who qualified for analysis met the placebo response criteria. The group prevalence of response was steady (7% to 10%) at any one visit without a marked predominance of an early study effect. Older subjects with more motor impairment at baseline were most likely to show a placebo-associated improvement. ADL scores were low throughout the study, and ADL improvements did not identify the subjects with objectively defined placebo-associated improvement. Prominent improvements in investigator-derived objective measures of Parkinson's disease motor impairment occur during clinical trials, including one that was not aimed at showing improved short-term efficacy. Although the notion of placebo effect often implies patient-based perceptions, we found subjective changes to be infrequent in placebo-treated patients, suggesting that either: (1) the placebo effect was rater-driven; (2) the ADL questionnaire is insensitive to transient but objectively demonstrable motor changes; or (3) that the objective changes, albeit major, are within the realm of natural variation in the UPDRS motor scale from visit to visit.

Activities of Daily Living↗
PubMed2004

What does the public think of placebo use? The Canadian experience.

Part of the National Placebo Initiative in Canada included public consultations, based on the belief that the views of the public should inform Canadian policy development on what constitutes appropriate placebo use. Public consultations took place nationally in 2003. A deliberative dialogue approach was used, or a structured discussion format designed to facilitate the consideration of complex issues and build consensus. The placebo debate was characterized as having 3 distinct approaches and each were explored. The first approach "Maximize Patient Protection" identified the need for experts to determine appropriate placebo use and that placebos should only be allowed under very restricted conditions. The second approach "Maximize Medical Knowledge" identified that placebos give essential information about the safety and efficacy of new drugs, and are appropriate when the rights, safety and well-being of research participants are ensured. The third approach "Maximize Patient Autonomy" identified that the current system of regulating placebo use is paternalistic and that patients should be able to define what is in their best interests and have more leeway to determine for themselves if they wish to participate in a placebo-controlled trial. Advantages and disadvantages of each approach were considered and feedback on what constitutes appropriate placebo use was sought. The major findings were that: PCTs were considered a valuable and acceptable part of advancing medical knowledge, research using placebos must be valid and justifiable; a patient-centred approach needs to be fostered; patient autonomy (choice) should be a first consideration and take clear precedence in trials of low to medium risk, patient protection (or health) may need to "trump" patient autonomy at higher levels of risk and/or patient vulnerability; placebos are not a violation of the duty of care as duty of care is best met by identifying a choice for patients, whenever a choice is available. These consultations clearly were not designed to produce conclusive evidence, but rather to provide some useful insights into what the public may think about placebo use; additional studies are indicated.

Adolescent↗