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 469 records · Page 26Linked to original sources
PubMed1993

Objective and subjective results of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial using cisapride to treat gastroparesis.

Cisapride, a relatively new gastrointestinal prokinetic agent, has been reported to increase gastric emptying and improve symptoms of gastroparesis. We investigated these effects of cisapride in patients with severe idiopathic and diabetic gastroparesis during an eight-week trial. The study design was a two-week single-blind placebo run in period to exclude placebo responders, followed by a six-week randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled treatment phase. Delayed gastric emptying of solids on radionuclide scan and a minimum symptom intensity score were inclusion criteria. Forty-three patients were entered: four placebo responders and one other patient were excluded, leaving 19 patients randomized to cisapride (20 mg per os three times a day before meals), and 19 patients to placebo. Seven individual symptoms of gastroparesis were scored in a daily diary and reviewed at two-week visits. Sixteen patients in the cisapride group were able to complete the trial compared to 12 on placebo. The gastric emptying study was repeated at the end of treatment or at the time of withdrawal for those who dropped out. Cisapride significantly increased solid gastric emptying relative to baseline (P = 0.005) whereas placebo did not (P > 0.10). Cisapride did not significantly improve any symptom of gastroparesis relative to baseline or to placebo. We conclude that in a population of severe, refractory gastroparetic patients cisapride significantly accelerates gastric emptying of a solid meal without significantly reducing symptoms during a short-term treatment trial compared to placebo. Further trials of cisapride in less advanced and "end-stage" gastroparetics than studied here or combining cisapride with other prokinetic agents or antiemetics, are warranted.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1992

Expected effect of caffeine on motor performance predicts the type of response to placebo.

Two experiments (N = 56) investigated the relationship between subjects' expectancies concerning the effect of caffeine on a motor skill, and the type of placebo response. Male subjects were assigned to four groups. Three groups expected to receive caffeine but received a placebo. Prior to the placebo, two of the groups received information about the effect of caffeine on a motor skill task which led one group E(+) to expect enhanced performance, and the other E(-) to expect impairment. The third placebo group received no information E(?). A control group E(0) received no beverage, so neither caffeine nor any effect on performance was expected. The expected type of effect predicted the type of placebo response displayed. Group E(+) displayed greater improvement under placebo than did group E(0), and group E(-) performed more poorly than those in group E(0). No placebo response was observed in group E(?). Placebo effects on mood were correlated with subjects' predictions about the effect of caffeine on mood. The role of expectancies in response to placebos and psychoactive drugs is discussed.

Adult↗
PubMed2002

The effect of 17beta-estradiol at doses of 0.5, 1 and 2 mg compared with placebo on early postmenopausal bone loss in hysterectomized women.

In a randomized double-masked placebo-controlled parallel-group trial 166 hysterectomized (+/- oophorectomy) perimenopausal and postmenopausal women aged 45-55 years with a follicle stimulating hormone level above 20 IU/l were treated with one daily dose of either 0.5 mg 17beta-estradiol (E2), 1 mg E2, 2 mg E2 or placebo for 2 years. Bone mineral density (BMD) and biochemical bone markers were determined. All three doses of E2 were significantly better than placebo with respect to change in BMD at the lumbar spine (L1-L4) (p<0.0001 for all pairwise comparisons) and hip (femoral neck, trochanter, Ward's triangle). The mean percentage change from baseline at the lumbar spine was -0.2%, 0.8% and 1.8% in the 0.5, 1 and 2 mg E2 groups respectively compared with -3.5% in the placebo group. Both 1 and 2 mg E2 were significantly better than placebo in increasing the BMD at the femoral neck (p<0.001), trochanter (p<0.01) and Ward's triangle (p<0.0001), while 0.5 mg E2 was significantly better than placebo at the femoral neck (p<0.001) and Ward's triangle (p<0.0001). The overall difference in mean percentage change in BMD at the femoral neck versus placebo (-0.2%) was 3.8% for 0.5 mg, 4.0% for 1 mg and 3.9% for 2 mg E2; the corresponding numbers for trochanter were 1.3%, 3.3% and 3.2%, respectively, and -2.2%,, 2.9, 2.9% and 4.0%, respectively, for Ward's triangle. More than half the women who received placebo presented with a decrease in BMD at the hip. The percentage of women in the 0.5 mg E2 group who maintained or increased BMD at the femoral neck, trochanter and Ward's triangle was 69%, 56% and 44%, respectively. For 1 mg E2 the numbers were 69%, 78% and 61% respectively, and for 2 mg E2 were 59%, 68% and 59% respectively. Osteocalcin, serum pyridinium crosslinks, urinary pyridinium cross-links and urinary hydroxyproline/creatinine decreased significantly (p<0.0001, p<0.05) in the 0.5, 1 and 2 mg E2 groups compared with the placebo group after 6 and 24 months of treatment.

Biomarkers↗
PubMed2000

Double blind study of tiapride versus haloperidol and placebo in agitation and aggressiveness in elderly patients with cognitive impairment.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study was to compare the efficacy and safety of tiapride versus haloperidol and placebo in the treatment of agitation and aggressiveness in elderly patients with mild or moderate mental impairment. METHOD: This international, multicentre, randomized, double blind, three parallel groups study compared efficacy and safety of a 21 -day regimen of tiapride 100-300 mg/day versus haloperidol 2-6 mg/day and placebo in 306 elderly patients with mild or moderate dementia according to DSM III R and behavioural troubles with the Multidimensional Observation Scale for the Elderly Subjects (MOSES) irritability/aggressiveness subscore ranging from 16 to 30. RESULTS: The percentage of responders (defined as patients with at least a 25% MOSES irritability/aggressiveness subscore decrease between the inclusion and the end of the treatment) was significantly greater in the tiapride (63%, P=0.04) and haloperidol (69%, P=0.004) groups than in the placebo group (49%), with no significant difference between the active drugs. Similar results were observed for the mean MOSES irritability/aggressiveness subscores on D7, D21 and at D(end) which were significantly smaller in the tiapride and haloperidol groups than in the placebo group. The decrease between D0 and D(end) was significantly greater in the tiapride (6.57, P=0.009) and haloperidol groups (6.75, P=0.005) than in the placebo group (4.71). The global improvement CGI was significantly better in the tiapride and haloperidol groups than in the placebo group (P=0.03 and P=0.02). No significant difference was observed between the two active drugs or among the three treatment groups for the Folstein's Mini Mental Status scale (MMS) total score, and there was no notable change during treatment. The number of patients with adverse events, assessed on the Udvalg Kliniske Undersogelser scale (UKU), and the number of UKU symptoms were smaller in the tiapride group (62 patients, 61%, 212 events) than in the haloperidol group (77 patients, 76%, 305 events) and identical to that observed in the placebo group (69 patients, 67%, 234 events). Of interest, the number of patients with at least one extrapyramidal symptom was significantly lower (P=0.003) in the tiapride group (16 patients, 16%) than in the haloperidol group (34 patients, 34%) and similar to that of the placebo group (18 patients, 17%); the difference observed between the haloperidol and placebo groups was significant (P=0.008). CONCLUSION: Tiapride is not different from haloperidol in the treatment of agitation and aggressiveness in elderly patients and better tolerated, in particular with significantly fewer extrapyramidal symptoms.

Aged↗
PubMed2006

Analgesic efficacy of perioperative celecoxib in ambulatory arthroscopic knee surgery: a double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

PURPOSE: To examine whether celecoxib, administered perioperatively, reduces opioid consumption and opioid-related adverse effects, and provides effective analgesia, in patients undergoing ambulatory arthroscopic knee meniscectomy. METHODS: Patients (> or = 18 years) with diagnosed knee meniscus disease were given celecoxib (400 mg; n = 99) or placebo (n = 101) 1 hour before they underwent arthroscopic knee surgery; this was followed by celecoxib (200 mg) or placebo given postoperatively at their first request for pain medication. Surgery was performed with patients under general anesthesia (fentanyl, 1 to 3 microg/kg plus 0.25% intra-articular bupivacaine, 10 to 20 mL) administered at the index joint. Every 4 to 6 hours, patients were allowed 1 to 2 tablets of hydrocodone bitartrate 5 mg/acetaminophen 500 mg (and optional opioids as needed). All efficacy analyses were conducted in the modified intent-to-treat population. RESULTS: In the 24 hours following surgery, total opioid consumption was significantly reduced in the celecoxib group (3.6 tablets) compared with the placebo group (4.6 tablets; P = .009). Celecoxib was associated with significant reductions in opioid consumption compared with placebo at 10 to 12 hours (P = .005) and at 12 to 24 hours (P = .012). The percentage of placebo-treated patients (41%) who required opioid analgesics was significantly greater than the percentage of celecoxib-treated patients who required opioids (22%; P = .008) at 10 to 12 hours. Adverse events (AEs) were experienced by more patients in the placebo group (37%) than in the celecoxib group (18%). Incidences of opioid-related events, such as central nervous system disorders (12% v 3%, respectively) and constipation (5% v 1%, respectively), were higher in placebo-treated patients than in those given celecoxib. CONCLUSIONS: Perioperative administration of celecoxib plus optional opioids reduces the use of opioids and the occurrence of opioid-related AEs compared with treatment with placebo plus optional opioids given to patients undergoing arthroscopic knee meniscectomy. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study.

Adult↗
PubMed2005

Treatment of symptomatic diabetic peripheral neuropathy with the protein kinase C beta-inhibitor ruboxistaurin mesylate during a 1-year, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the effects of ruboxistaurin (RBX) mesylate on nerve function and sensory symptoms in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) and diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN). METHODS: Patients were enrolled in a multinational, randomized, Phase II, double-blind, placebo-controlled parallel-group trial comparing 32 mg/d or 64 mg/d RBX with placebo for 1 year. DPN was identified by abnormal measurable vibration detection threshold (VDT) and verified by abnormal neurologic examination and nerve electrophysiology measures. Baseline patient characteristics (eg, sex, type of DM, age, body mass index, glycosylated hemoglobin, and duration of DM and DPN) were measured. The primary end point was the change in VDT. Secondary end point measures included effects of RBX versus placebo on Neuropathy Total Symptom Score-6 (NTSS-6), neurologic examination, electrophysiologic nerve conduction studies, Neuropathy Impairment Score, Clinical Global Impressions, and safety. A post-hoc analysis was performed on patients with less severe DPN (sural sensory nerve action potential > or =0.5 microV and NTSS-6 total score >6). RESULTS: Two hundred five patients were assessed: 66 were assigned to the RBX 32 mg/d group, 71 to the RBX 64 mg/d group, and 68 to the placebo group. The demographic and baseline characteristics of the treatment groups were well matched between the RBX 32 mg/d, RBX 64 mg/d, and placebo groups: mean (SD) age, 45.6 (8.41) years; 122 (60%) men, 83 (40%) women; 110 (54%) with type 1 DM, 95 (46%) with type 2 DM; mean (SD) duration of DPN, 3.4 (4.21) years. The RBX 32 mg/d group had slightly more patients with type 1 DM (P = 0.05). Eighty-three patients had clinically significant symptoms at baseline (defined as NTSS-6 total score >6: RBX 32 mg/d, n = 22; RBX 64 mg/d, n = 26; placebo, n = 35); 122 patients had NTSS-6 total scores < or =6. No treatment differences were observed for change in VDT. Among the 83 patients with significant symptoms at baseline, there was a reduction from baseline at 12 months in the NTSS-6 total score in the RBX 32 mg/d (P = NS) and RBX 64 mg/d (P = 0.015) groups compared with placebo. In a subgroup of patients with clinically significant symptoms and less severe DPN (n = 50), there was a significantly greater reduction in the NTSS-6 total score with RBX 64 mg/d (P = 0.006 vs placebo). Furthermore, in these patients, there was a statistically significant improvement in VDT for both RBX 32 mg/d (P = 0.012) and RBX 64 mg/d (P = 0.026) compared with placebo. CONCLUSIONS: RBX appeared to be well tolerated in the patients with DPN who participated in this study. Overall, changes in VDT and NTSS-6 total scores did not differ among treatment groups at end point. However, RBX treatment appeared to be of benefit for the subgroup of patients with less severe symptomatic DPN by relieving sensory symptoms and improving nerve fiber function, as indicated by reductions in VDT and NTSS-6 total score.

Adult↗
PubMed2006

Post hoc comparison of daily rates of nausea and vomiting with once- and twice-daily galantamine from a double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, 6-month study.

BACKGROUND: A once-daily extended-release galantamine(GAL-ER) formulation has been designed to improve tolerability compared with twice-daily immediate-release galantamine (GAL-IR). OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to conduct a post hoc analysis of the clinical presentation of nausea and vomiting with GAL-ER compared with GAL-IR in subjects with mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease (AD). METHODS: This is the report of a post hoc analysis of a large, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial of GAL-ER with GAL-IR as the active control in subjects with mild to moderate AD. Galantamine dose was titrated every 4 weeks by increments of 8 mg/d to a daily dose of 16 or 24 mg, based on tolerability. Daily rates of nausea and vomiting were compared for the GAL-ER and GAL-IR groups. AUCs of the daily percentage of subjects reporting nausea/vomiting during dose titration were calculated. Antiemetic use for nausea/vomiting was compared between GAL-ER and GAL-IR groups. RESULTS: Demographic characteristics were similar between the GAL-ER, GAL-IR, and placebo groups. Nausea was reported by 16.9% (54/319) of GAL-ER, 13.8% (45/326) of GAL-IR, and 5.0% (16/320) of placebo patients; vomiting was reported for 6.6% (21/319) of GAL-ER, 8.6% (28/326) of GAL-IR, and 2.2% (7/320) of placebo patients. The mean (SD) daily rate of nausea in the total population was 3.1 (13.43%) in the GAL-ER group and 5.2% (22.07%) in the GAL-IR group (P = NS); the mean (SD) daily rate of vomiting for the total population was 0.6% (4.14%) in the GAL-ER group and 1.6% (14.50%) in the GAL-IR group (P = NS). The mean (SD) daily rate of nausea or vomiting in the total population was 1.2 (8.46) and 0.4 (5.44) in the placebo group, respectively. For subjects reporting nausea, the mean (SD, SE) percentage of days with nausea was lower with GAL-ER than with GAL-IR (18.4% [28.22%, 5.31%] vs 38.0% [48.23%, 6.04%]; P = 0.014). AUC of the daily percentage of subjects reporting nausea/vomiting during dose titration was significantly higher in the GAL-IR group compared with the placebo group (320.9 vs 102.9; P = 0.01); there was no statistical difference between the GAL-ER group and placebo (171.1 vs 102.9; P = NS). Antiemetic use by subjects reporting nausea or vomiting was significantly lower in the GAL-ER group than the GAL-IR group (33.3% vs 53.4%; P = 0.028). CONCLUSIONS: In these subjects with AD, the daily percentage of subjects reporting nausea and vomiting, and the percentage of days with vomiting among subjects reporting vomiting, did not significantly differ between the GAL-ER and GAL-IR groups. However, GAL-ER was associated with a significantly lower percentage of days with nausea than GAL-IR among subjects reporting nausea. AUC of the daily percentage of subjects with nausea or vomiting during dose titration did not differ significantly between the GAL-ER and placebo groups but was significantly higher in the GAL-IR group than placebo. Subjects with nausea or vomiting who received GAL-ER reported significantly less antiemetic use than those treated with GAL-IR. These results suggest the need for additional studies to explore the potential differences in the tolerability of these formulations.

Aged↗
PubMed2006

Analgesic efficacy of the cyclooxygenase-inhibiting nitric oxide donor AZD3582 in postoperative dental pain: Comparison with naproxen and rofecoxib in two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies.

OBJECTIVE: This study assessed the analgesic efficacy of single doses of 4-(nitrooxy)butyl-(2S)-2-(6-methoxy-2-naphthyl) propanoate (AZD3582) in acute postoperative dental pain after the removal of an impacted mandibular third molar (ie, wisdom tooth). METHODS: Two randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind studies were performed. In a dose-finding study, 242 patients were randomized to AZD3582 375, 750, 1500, or 2250 mg (n = 41, 37, 42, and 41, respectively); naproxen 500 mg (n = 39); or placebo (n = 42). In a comparator study, 282 patients were randomized to AZD3582 500 mg (n = 78) or 750 mg (n = 83), rofecoxib 50 mg (n = 80), or placebo (n = 41). Primary outcomes included time to rescue medication, time to pain relief, and mean pain intensity difference (MPID), as well as safety profile. Pain was rated on a visual analog scale. RESULTS: In the dose-finding study, 52% (126/242) were women; the mean (SD) age was 25.1 (4) years, mean weight was 69.0 kg, and the mean (SD) body mass index (BMI) was 23.7 (3) kg/m2. In the comparator study, 58% (164/282) were women; the mean (SD) age was 27 (6.4) years, mean weight was 71 kg, and mean (SD) BMI was 24.2 (3) kg/m2. In the dose-finding study, the AZD3582 750-, 1500-, and 2250-mg groups were superior to placebo in the primary variables "time to rescue medication (0-8 hours)" (hazard ratios [HRs] [95% CIs], 0.17 [0.07-0.42], P < 0.003; 0.23 [0.11-0.50], P < 0.001; and 0.15 [0.06-0.36], P < 0.001, respectively), "time to meaningful pain relief" (HRs [95% CIs], 3.42 [1.87-6.25], P < 0.003; 2.49 [1.37-4.50], P < 0.003; and 3.07 [1.70-5.55], P < 0.001, respectively), and MPID (analysis of covariance [ANCOVA] least squares mean [LSM] differences [95% CIs], 25.8 [17.3-34.4], P < 0.003; 20.4 [12.1-28.7], P < 0.003; and 29.3 [20.9-37.6], P < 0.001, respectively). AZD3582 and naproxen did not show any statistically significant differences for the 3 primary variables, except that naproxen was superior to the AZD3582 375-mg dose for the variables time to meaningful pain relief (HR difference, 0.48 [95% CI, 0.29-0.78], P < 0.004) and MPID (difference in ANCOVA LSM, -10.2, [95% CI, -18.2 to -2.2], P < 0.012). The median times to meaningful pain relief were 115 minutes for AZD3582 375 mg, 66 minutes for 750 mg, 85 minutes for 1500 mg, 81 minutes for 2250 mg, and 162 minutes for placebo (P = NS, P = 0.003, P < 0.003, and P < 0.001, respectively). The median time to first rescue medication was 144 minutes for placebo, and <50% of the subjects on any of the AZD3582 doses or naproxen took rescue medication within 8 hours after dosing. In the comparator study, AZD3582 750 mg was superior to placebo in "time to rescue medication (0-24 hours)" (HR [95% CI], 0.4 [0.3-0.6], P < 0.001), "time to confirmed perceptible pain relief" (2.1 [1.1-3.8], P = 0.02), and MPID (11.9 [4.2-19.5], P = 0.002). However, inferiority of AZD3582 to rofecoxib for MPID could not be excluded (tolerance limit of 10 mm; P = NS for noninferiority testing). The median times to confirmed perceptible pain relief were 45 minutes for AZD3582 500 mg, 40 minutes for 750 mg, and 37 minutes for rofecoxib. The median times to first rescue medication were 218 minutes for AZD3582 500 mg, 365 minutes for 750 mg, 635 minutes for rofecoxib, and 90 minutes for placebo. Overall, AZD3582 was well tolerated. However, an effect on orthostatic blood pressure could not be excluded because there seemed to be more subjects with dizziness and orthostatic blood pressure reduction who were administered AZD3582 > or =750 mg. The proportions of patients with vertigo and decreased orthostatic blood pressure each group were as follows: AZD3582 500 mg, 6%; AZD3582 750 mg, 12%; rofecoxib, 3%; and placebo, 5%. CONCLUSIONS: AZD3582 750 mg had similar analgesic efficacy as equimolar doses of naproxen, but noninferiority to rofecoxib was not demonstrated.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2004

Duloxetine in the acute and long-term treatment of major depressive disorder: a placebo- and paroxetine-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Duloxetine is a balanced and potent dual reuptake inhibitor of serotonin (5-HT) and norepinephrine (NE) that has previously been shown to be effective in the acute treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD). This placebo-controlled study assesses the safety and efficacy of duloxetine (80 or 120 mg/day) and paroxetine (20 mg QD) during an initial 8-week acute phase and subsequent 6-month continuation phase treatment of MDD. METHOD: In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, adult outpatients (age >or= 18 years) meeting DSM-IV criteria for MDD received placebo (n = 93), duloxetine 80 mg/day (40 mg BID; n = 95), duloxetine 120 mg/day (60 mg BID; n = 93), or paroxetine (20 mg QD; n = 86) for 8 weeks. Patients who had a >or= 30% reduction from baseline in HAMD(17) total score during the acute phase were allowed to continue on the same (blinded) treatment for a 6-month continuation phase. Efficacy measures included the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAMD(17)) total score, HAMD(17) subscales, the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAMA), Visual Analog Scales (VAS) for pain, the Clinical Global Impression of Severity (CGI-S) and Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) scales, the 28-item Somatic Symptom Inventory (SSI), and the Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS). Safety and tolerability were assessed using treatment-emergent adverse events, discontinuations due to adverse events, vital signs, ECGs, laboratory tests, and the Arizona Sexual Experiences Scale (ASEX). RESULTS: During the acute phase, patients receiving duloxetine 80 mg/day, duloxetine 120 mg/day, or paroxetine 20 mg QD had significantly greater reductions in HAMD(17) total score compared with placebo. Both duloxetine (80 and 120 mg/day) and paroxetine treatment groups had significantly greater improvement, compared with placebo, in MADRS, HAMA, CGI-S, and PGI-I scales. Estimated probabilities of remission at week 8 for patients receiving duloxetine 80 mg/day (51%), duloxetine 120 mg/day (58%), and paroxetine (47%) were significantly greater compared with those receiving placebo (30%). The rate of discontinuation due to adverse events among duloxetine-treated patients (80 and 120 mg/day) did not differ significantly from the rate in the placebo group. Treatment-emergent adverse events reported significantly more frequently by duloxetine-treated patients than by patients receiving placebo were constipation (80 and 120 mg/day), increased sweating (120 mg/day), and somnolence (120 mg/day). The incidence of acute treatment-emergent sexual dysfunction in duloxetine- and paroxetine-treated patients was 46.5% and 62.8%, respectively. During the 6-month continuation phase, duloxetine (80 and 120 mg/day) and paroxetine treatment groups demonstrated significant improvement in HAMD(17) total score. Treatment-emergent adverse events occurring most frequently in each active treatment group during the continuation phase were viral infection (duloxetine 80 mg/day), diarrhea (duloxetine 120 mg/day), and headache (paroxetine 20 mg QD). CONCLUSION: These data support previous findings that duloxetine is safe, efficacious, and well tolerated in the acute treatment of MDD. Furthermore, these data provide the first demonstration under double-blind, placebo-controlled conditions that the efficacy and tolerability of duloxetine are maintained during chronic treatment.

Adult↗
PubMed2004

Randomized placebo-controlled trial comparing desloratadine and montelukast in monotherapy and desloratadine plus montelukast in combined therapy for chronic idiopathic urticaria.

BACKGROUND: H 1 -receptor antagonists are considered to be particularly effective in reducing pruritus, and they are therefore recommended as first-line treatment in patients with chronic idiopathic urticaria (CIU). Recently, antileukotriene receptors have been used in patients with CIU, either administered as monotherapy or combined with H 1 -receptor antagonists. OBJECTIVE: We compared the clinical efficacy of 5 mg of desloratadine administered once daily either as monotherapy or combined with a leukotriene antagonist, 10 mg of montelukast daily, and 10 mg of montelukast administered daily as monotherapy for the treatment of patients affected by CIU with placebo. METHODS: One hundred sixty patients aged 18 to 69 years (mean +/- SD, 43.9 +/- 13.4 years) with a history of moderate CIU were selected. A randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study design was used. Patients were treated with 5 mg of desloratadine once daily (n = 40), 10 mg of montelukast once daily (n = 40), 5 mg of desloratadine (n = 40) in the morning plus montelukast in the evening, or matched placebo (n = 40). Assessment of treatment efficacy was based on scores of daily cutaneous symptoms evaluated reflectively and instantaneously. RESULTS: Only the group treated with desloratadine as monotherapy or as combined therapy concluded the whole study. Twenty-seven of the 40 patients in the montelukast group and 35 of the 40 patients in the placebo group discontinued the treatment. As reflective evaluation, all groups showed significant differences compared with the placebo group in terms of total symptom score, number of hives, and size of largest hive. In addition to the pruritus, only the groups treated with desloratadine as monotherapy or combined therapy showed significant differences compared with those receiving placebo, whereas there were no differences between the montelukast and placebo groups. Finally, no differences were found between the desloratadine group and the desloratadine plus montelukast group. The instantaneous evaluation demonstrated similar results regarding the desloratadine group and the desloratadine plus montelukast group versus the placebo group, whereas there were no significant differences between the group treated with montelukast alone and the placebo group for pruritus and size of largest hive. No differences were found between the group treated with desloratadine alone and the desloratadine plus montelukast group. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this comparative study demonstrate that desloratadine is highly effective for the treatment of patients affected by CIU. In addition, the regular combined therapy of desloratadine plus montelukast does not seem to offer a substantial advantage with respect to desloratadine as monotherapy in patients affected by moderate CIU.

Acetates↗
PubMed2006

A double-blind comparison of risperidone, quetiapine and placebo in patients with schizophrenia experiencing an acute exacerbation requiring hospitalization.

OBJECTIVE: This study compared the effects of atypical antipsychotics (risperidone or quetiapine) with placebo and with each other in recently exacerbated patients with schizophrenia requiring hospitalization. METHODS: This international, randomized, double-blind study included a 2-week monotherapy phase followed by a 4-week additive therapy phase. Recently exacerbated patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder (DSM-IV) were randomized (2:2:1) to risperidone (n = 153), quetiapine (n = 156), or placebo (n = 73). Target doses were 4 or 6 mg/day of risperidone and 400 or 600 mg/day of quetiapine by day 5, with the ability to increase to 600 or 800 mg/day of quetiapine on day 8. The main outcome measures were the total Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) and need for additional psychotropic medications. RESULTS: Monotherapy Phase: The combined atypical antipsychotic group (n = 308) reached borderline superiority to placebo (n = 71) at the 2-week endpoint on mean change in total PANSS score (-24.1 +/- 1.2 and -20.2 +/- 2.0, respectively; p = 0.067). The change in the atypical group was driven by the improvement with risperidone (-27.7 +/- 1.5 vs. -20.2 +/- 2.0 with placebo, p < 0.01; and vs. -20.5 +/- 1.5 with quetiapine, p < 0.01); the improvement with quetiapine was similar to placebo, p = 0.879. Results were similar on other efficacy endpoints. Additive Therapy Phase: Additional psychotropics were prescribed to fewer (p < 0.01) risperidone (36%) than quetiapine (53%) or placebo patients (59%). The overall discontinuation rate was 18%, 26%, and 38%, respectively. Risperidone, compared with placebo, was associated with more parkinsonism, akathisia, plasma prolactin changes, and weight gain; while quetiapine was associated with more somnolence, sedation, dizziness, constipation, tachycardia, thyroid dysregulation, and weight gain. CONCLUSION: While the combined atypical antipsychotic group did not experience greater improvements than the placebo group, risperidone, but not quetiapine, was significantly superior in all measured domains to placebo in the management of recently exacerbated hospitalized patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder, with no unexpected tolerability findings.

Acute Disease↗
PubMed1995

A randomized double-blind comparison of placebo, etodolac, and naproxen on gastrointestinal injury and prostaglandin production.

BACKGROUND: NSAIDs frequently cause gastrointestinal injury and increase the risk of ulcer complications. We compared an NSAID suggested to cause less gastric injury (etodolac) with a standard NSAID (naproxen) and a placebo in a 4-week double-blind trial assessing the effects on gastroduodenal injury, symptoms, and prostaglandin production in healthy volunteers. METHODS: Fifty-two healthy volunteers not taking NSAIDs, alcohol, antibiotics, bismuth, or anti-ulcer drugs: placebo, etodolac 400 mg, or naproxen 500 mg b.i.d. for 4 weeks. Endoscopies with biopsies were repeated at weeks 1 and 4. The number and dimensions of ulcers and erosions were recorded to quantitate injury. RESULTS: At week 1 the mean number and area of gastric ulcers per subject were greater with naproxen than placebo or etodolac (area: naproxen, 7.4 mm2; placebo, 0.6 mm2, p = 0.02 vs naproxen; etodolac, 2.1 mm2, p = 0.06 vs naproxen). Ulcer scores at week 4 were low and comparable in the three groups. The mean number and area of gastric erosions per subject were greatest with naproxen at both weeks 1 and 4 (week 4 area: naproxen, 58.3 mm2; placebo, 29.0 mm2; etodolac, 13.9 mm2, p < 0.02, naproxen vs placebo and vs etodolac). Placebo injury was presumably due to biopsies at prior endoscopy. Gastric mucosal prostaglandin E2 production did not change significantly from baseline after 1 or 4 weeks of treatment with placebo or etodolac, but did decrease significantly with naproxen (week 0, 1689; week 1, 479; week 4, 577 pg/mg protein). Gastrointestinal symptoms were present in only 1 (5%) of 20 visits in which endoscopy showed no erosions or ulcers vs 21 (26%) of 82 visits in which a mucosal defect was identified (p = 0.666). CONCLUSION: Gastric injury with 4 weeks of etodolac is comparable to that seen with placebo and significantly less than that occurring with naproxen, presumably due to the fact that etodolac does not suppress gastric mucosal prostaglandin production, whereas naproxen leads to a significant reduction.

Adult↗
PubMed2003

Alfuzosin treatment for chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome: a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, pilot study.

OBJECTIVES: To perform a prospective, placebo-controlled study to examine the long-term efficacy of alfuzosin compared with placebo and standard therapy in patients with chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS), because alpha-blockers have been suggested for the treatment of CP/CPPS. METHODS: One hundred twenty consecutive men diagnosed with CP/CPPS were prospectively screened and then asked to participate in a prostatitis treatment trial. Patients who agreed to be randomized were subsequently randomized to alfuzosin 5 mg twice daily or placebo and patients who agreed to participate but not be randomized were entered into a control or standard (except alpha-blockers) therapy group. Patients were prospectively treated for 6 months and then followed up for an additional 6 months. The change from baseline in the total and domain scores of the validated Finnish version of the National Institutes of Health Chronic Prostatitis Symptom Index (NIH-CPSI) was the primary outcome parameter for this study. RESULTS: Seventy subjects agreed to participate in the study. The data from 66 patients were available for evaluation (17 in the alfuzosin, 20 in the placebo, and 29 in the control/standard group). At the end of 6 months of active therapy, the alfuzosin group had had a statistically significant decrease in total NIH-CPSI score compared with the placebo and control/standard groups (9.9, 3.8, and 4.3 decrease, respectively, P = 0.01). A statistically significant improvement occurred in the pain score in the alfuzosin group at 6 months compared with the placebo and control/standard groups (P = 0.01), but not in the voiding or quality-of-life score among the three groups. Of the patients in the alfuzosin group, 65% had a greater than 33% improvement in the mean NIH-CPSI total score compared with 24% and 32% of the placebo and control/standard groups, respectively (P = 0.02). At 12 months (6 months after the alfuzosin/placebo treatment was discontinued), the symptom scores in all domains of the NIH-CPSI showed deterioration compared with original baseline score in the alfuzosin and placebo groups but not in the control/standard group (NIH-CPSI score 3.5, 0.1, and 5.6 points below baseline, respectively). Gastrointestinal symptoms and a decrease in ejaculate volume were noted by 1 and 4 patients, respectively, in the alfuzosin group. No patients dropped out of the study because of an adverse event. CONCLUSIONS: Six months of alfuzosin therapy for CP/CPPS is safe and well tolerated and results in a modest, but statistically significant, improvement in the NIH-CPSI, particularly in the pain domain, compared with placebo and standard/traditional treatment. The beneficial effect is only apparent after several months of treatment and disappears when treatment is discontinued.

Adrenergic alpha-Antagonists↗
PubMed1998

Multicentre randomised placebo-controlled trial of inhaled fluticasone propionate in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. International COPD Study Group.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of inhaled corticosteroids in the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) remains controversial because of a lack of placebo-controlled studies. We compared the effect of inhaled fluticasone propionate with placebo in the treatment of patients with COPD. METHODS: We used a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled design. We enrolled from 13 European countries, New Zealand, and South Africa, 281 outpatient current or ex-smokers, aged between 50 and 75 years. They had a forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) of between 35% and 90% of predicted normal values, a ratio of FEV1 to forced vital capacity of 70% or less and bronchodilator reversibility of less than 15%, as well as a history of chronic bronchitis. Patients were randomly assigned fluticasone propionate 500 microg (n=142) or placebo (n=139) twice daily via a metered-dose inhaler for 6 months. The main outcome measures were the number of patients who had at least one exacerbation by the end of treatment, the number and severity of exacerbations, clinic lung function, diary card symptoms and peak expiratory flow and 6 min walking distance. FINDINGS: 51 (37%) patients in the placebo group compared with 45 (32%) in the fluticasone propionate group had had at least one exacerbation by the end of treatment (p=0.449). Significantly more patients had moderate or severe exacerbations in the placebo group than in the fluticasone propionate group (86% vs 60%, p<0.001). Diary-card and clinic morning peak expiratory flows improved significantly in the fluticasone propionate group (p<0.001, p=0.048, respectively), as did clinic FEV1 (p<0.001), forced vital capacity (p<0.001), and mid-expiratory flow (p=0.01). Symptom scores for median daily cough and sputum volume were significantly lower with fluticasone propionate treatment than with placebo (p=0.004 and p=0.016, respectively). At the end of treatment, patients on fluticasone propionate had increased their 6 min walking distance significantly more than those on placebo (p=0.032). Fluticasone propionate was tolerated as well as placebo, with few adverse effects and without a clinically important effect on mean serum cortisol concentration. INTERPRETATION: Fluticasone propionate may be of clinical benefit in patients with COPD over at least 6 months. Inhaled corticosteroids may have an important role in the long-term treatment of COPD.

Administration, Inhalation↗
PubMed2003

Efficacy and safety profile of glimepiride in Mexican American Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a randomized, placebo-controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Mexican Americans, the fastest growing ethnic group in the United States, have a 2- to 3-fold higher prevalence of type 2 diabetes mellitus relative to the non-Hispanic white population. It is estimated that 10% of Mexican Americans >or=20 years of age have diabetes. OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of glimepiride, a long-acting sulfonylurea, as an adjunct to diet/exercise in Mexican Americans with type 2 diabetes mellitus. METHODS: This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Mexican Americans with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes, defined as a fasting plasma glucose (FPG) level between 120 mg/dL and 225 mg/dL and glycated hemoglobin (HbA(1c)) values between 8.0% and 10.5%, after >or=3 months of diet/exercise were enrolled. Patients were randomized in a 2:1 ratio (using the lowest available treatment assignment number when eligibility was established) to receive 14 weeks of glimepiride or matching placebo once daily with continued diet/exercise. The starting glimepiride dose was 1 mg, with titration to 2 mg and 4 mg for FPG levels >120 mg/dL. The primary efficacy variable was change in HbA(1c) from baseline to study end point. Secondary efficacy variables were HbA(1c) response (rated as excellent, good, or marginal) and changes in FPG, fasting insulin, fibrinogen, and plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 (PAI-1) levels from baseline to study end point. The tolerability of glimepiride in this study population was determined by evaluating adverse events, hypoglycemic episodes, and physical examination as well as laboratory findings. All analyses were performed on an intent-to-treat basis. A per-protocol analysis also was conducted to support the primary efficacy analysis. RESULTS: Seventy patients were randomized to treatment with glimepiride (n = 48) or placebo ((n = 22). The glimepiride and placebo groups were similar with respect to mean (SE) age (48.4 [11.7] and 50.7 [10.0] years, respectively) and sex (56.3% [27/48] and 50.0% [11/22] were male, respectively). However, the glimepiride group had a higher mean body weight (83.3 [17.0] vs 76.3 [18.5] kg) and a significantly higher mean fasting insulin level (23.8 [17.7] vs 17.8 [19.7] microU/mL; P = 0.031). The mean (SE) HbA(1c) values at study end point were 7.8% (0.2%) and 9.9% (0.7%) in patients receiving glimepiride and placebo, respectively. The adjusted mean difference in HbA(1c) reduction from baseline to end point was statistically significant in favor of glimepiride (-1.8% [0.4%]; P < 0.001). More pronounced HbA(1c) impairment at baseline was associated with greater glimepiride-placebo differences in HbA(1c) reduction. Glimepiride-treated patients also achieved a significantly greater improvement in FPG, with an adjusted mean (SE) treatment difference of -46.7 (16.7) mg/dL (P = 0.007). Glimepiride did not appear to affect fibrinogen and PAI-1 levels but was associated with significantly greater mean increases in fasting insulin (10.2 vs -2.1 microU/mL; P = 0.002) and body weight (2.3 vs 2.1 kg; P < 0.001) compared with placebo. Glimepiride was well tolerated, with an adverse-event profile similar to that of placebo. CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate that once-daily glimepiride plus diet/exercise was effective in Mexican Americans with type 2 diabetes whose disease was inadequately controlled with diet/exercise alone. It appeared to be well tolerated in the population studied. More weight gain was seen with glimepiride compared with placebo. Given the high prevalence of type 2 diabetes among Mexican Americans, further clinical studies of glimepiride and other glucose-lowering therapies are needed in this ethnic subset.

Adult↗
PubMedDate not supplied

The efficacy and safety of valsartan compared with placebo in the treatment of patients with essential hypertension.

A multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-masked, parallel-group study was performed to compare the efficacy and safety of valsartan 20, 80, 160, and 320 mg with placebo in the treatment of patients with essential hypertension. A total of 736 adults with uncomplicated essential hypertension stages 1 to 3 were randomized to receive placebo or valsartan 20, 80, 160, or 320 mg daily for 8 weeks. Assessments were made at baseline, after 4 and 8 weeks of treatment, and 2 to 3 days after stopping treatment. The primary efficacy variable was change from baseline in mean sitting diastolic blood pressure (MSDBP). Other variables included change from baseline in mean sitting systolic blood pressure (MSSBP) and responder rates (ie, MSDBP < 90 mm Hg or decrease of > or = 10 mm Hg from baseline). All doses of valsartan produced statistically significant reductions in both MSDBP and MSSBP at end point compared with placebo. A dose-response effect was seen, although the incremental reduction in blood pressure with doses of valsartan > 80 mg was relatively small. Statistically significant differences in responder rates at end point were seen for doses of valsartan of 80 mg and above compared with placebo, whereas the responder rates for valsartan 20 mg was not significantly different from that for placebo. Safety and tolerability variables included data on adverse experiences, rebound hypertension, and clinical laboratory evaluations. Tolerability was good, with headache being the most common complaint and occurring most frequently in placebo patients. The incidence of dizziness was similar among the placebo (5.4%) and valsartan 20-mg to 160-mg groups (2.1% to 3.4%); there was an increase in the incidence of dizziness in the 320-mg group (9.3%). No cases of symptomatic orthostatic hypotension occurred. Analysis of rebound showed that 11.6% of patients receiving placebo and 16.6% receiving valsartan had an increase in MSDBP to baseline levels or above 2 to 3 days after stopping treatment. No clinically significant adverse experiences were noted after stopping treatment. There were no clinically or statistically significant changes in laboratory values during treatment. Thus valsartan proved to be both effective and safe in reducing blood pressure in adults with essential hypertension. The optimal dose range is 80 to 160 mg, given once daily.

Adult↗
PubMed1998

A double-masked, placebo-controlled evaluation of 0.5% loteprednol etabonate in the treatment of postoperative inflammation. The Loteprednol Etabonate Postoperative Inflammation Study Group 2.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of loteprednol etabonate (LE) 0.5% to placebo (vehicle) in controlling the anterior chamber cell and flare reaction in patients undergoing cataract surgery with intraocular lens (IOL) implantation. DESIGN: Randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled, parallel group multicenter study. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 203 patients undergoing elective cataract removal and posterior chamber intraocular lens implantation who, on the day after surgery, exhibited a minimum anterior chamber inflammation score (ACI, sum of cell and flare reaction) rating of 3 (0-9 scale). INTERVENTION: All patients received either LE 0.5% or placebo (vehicle) four times daily in the eye that was operated on for up to 14 days after surgery. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Resolution of ACI by final, on-treatment visit was measured. RESULTS: The proportion of patients with ACI resolved by the final visit was 56 (55%) of 102 in the LE group and 28 (28%) of 100 in the placebo group (P < 0.001). For all the individual components of ACI (cell and flare), as well as other signs and symptoms, the resolution rate and mean change from baseline favored LE. Expanding the efficacy criterion to include patients with mild inflammation at final visit, the efficacy of LE was 95 (93%) of 102 in contrast to 65 (65%) of 100 for placebo. Among the 39 patients who did not complete the study, the majority were discontinued for inadequate anti-inflammatory effect: 25 (25%) of 101 placebo patients and 5 (5%) of 102 of LE patients. The difference in the treatment failure rates, as well the difference in the time course of failures, was both clinically meaningful and statistically significant in favor of LE (P < 0.001). Both treatments were well-tolerated. No clinically significant elevations in intraocular pressure (> or = 10 mmHg) were seen in the LE treatment group. One patient in the placebo treatment group met this criterion. CONCLUSIONS: Loteprednol etabonate showed a clinically meaningful reduction in the signs and symptoms of postoperative anterior chamber inflammation when compared with that of placebo and had an acceptable safety profile compared with placebo.

Adult↗
PubMed1997

Treatment with N-acetylcysteine during acute respiratory distress syndrome: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical study.

PURPOSE: Intravenous N-acetylcysteine (NAC) has been reported to improve systemic oxygenation and reduce the need for ventilatory support in patients with an acute lung injury. In the more serious form, namely established adult respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) (PaO2/FIO2 < or = 200 mm Hg), we tested the hypothesis that treatment with intravenous NAC may be beneficial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Respiratory dysfunction was graded daily according to the need for mechanical ventilation and FIO2 and to the evolution of the lung injury score (LIS) and the PaO2/FIO2 ratio in 42 patients with established ARDS receiving either NAC 190 mg/kg/day or placebo as a continuous intravenous infusion over the first 3 days of their clinical course. RESULTS: NAC and placebo groups (22 and 20 patients, respectively) were comparable for demographic characteristics, ARDS categories, severity of illness (simplified acute physiology score [SAPS II]) LIS and PaO2/FIO2 ratio. Mortality rate was 32% for the NAC and 25% for the placebo group (difference not significant). At admission (day 1), 91% of patients in the NAC and 95% in the placebo group required ventilatory support; at days 2, 3, 5, and 7 after admission, the percentage of patients receiving ventilatory support was not significantly reduced for both groups in comparison with day 1. Moreover, there were no differences between the two groups at the same observation days. In both groups, the FIO2 was significantly lower and the PaO2/FIO2 ratio was significantly higher than the initial values during the evolution (FiO2 at day 3, P < .01 for NAC and P < .05 for placebo; PaO2/FIO2 at day 3: P < .01 for NAC and P < .02 for placebo), but this improvement was similar for both groups and, moreover, the between-group comparison was never significantly different at the various collection days. The LIS decreased significantly in NAC group between days 1 and 3 (2.23 +/- 0.62 v 1.76 +/- 0.17; P < .05), whereas no changes were observed in the placebo group; at day 5, there was a significant difference between the two groups (1.53 +/- 0.21 for the NAC v 2.15 +/- 0.19 for the placebo group; P < .05). In the prevalent sepsis category (10 patients in the NAC and 9 in the placebo group), the mortality rate, the need of ventilatory support, the intensive care unit stay, and the PaO2/FIO2 evolution did not differ significantly in both subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: In this relatively small group of patients presenting with an established ARDS subsequent to a variety of underlying diseases, intravenous NAC treatment during 72 hours neither improved systemic oxygenation nor reduced the need for ventilatory support.

Acetylcysteine↗