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 955 records · Page 53Linked to original sources
PubMed2004

Randomized, placebo-controlled trial of rofecoxib in the acute treatment of migraine.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the clinical profile of rofecoxib, a long-acting (approximately 17-hour half-life) selective cyclo-oxygenase-2 inhibitor, for the acute treatment of migraine. METHODS: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study was conducted. Patients age > or =18 treated a moderate or severe migraine headache with placebo (n = 182), rofecoxib 25 mg (n = 183), or rofecoxib 50 mg (n = 192). The primary efficacy measure was headache relief (mild or no pain) 2 hours after dose. RESULTS: The proportions of patients with migraine headache relief at 2 hours after dose were 34.3% for placebo, 54.0% for rofecoxib 25 mg (p < 0.001 vs placebo), and 56.7% for rofecoxib 50 mg (p < 0.001 vs placebo). Rofecoxib 25 and 50 mg were superior to placebo in providing pain freedom at 2 hours, 24-hour sustained headache relief, and 24-hour sustained pain freedom; in reducing photophobia, phonophobia, nausea (50 mg only), and functional disability at 2 hours after dose; and in improving some quality-of-life scores over 24 hours. More patients on rofecoxib 50 mg reported adverse events (39.6%) than patients on rofecoxib 25 mg (26.8%) or placebo (23.6%) regardless of drug relatedness; however, the incidences of drug-related adverse events were similar between treatment groups. These adverse events were generally mild or moderate in severity. The most commonly reported adverse events were dry mouth, dizziness, somnolence, nausea, dyspepsia, paresthesia, and asthenia, with similar incidences between treatment groups. CONCLUSION: Rofecoxib 25 and 50 mg were effective and generally well tolerated for the acute treatment of migraine attacks.

Acute Disease↗
PubMed1997

Sumatriptan for migraine attacks in children: a randomized placebo-controlled study. Do children with migraine respond to oral sumatriptan differently from adults?

Oral sumatriptan is an effective acute treatment for migraine in adults, but its efficacy in children is still undetermined. Twenty-three children, aged 8.3 to 16.4 years, took both sumatriptan and placebo in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover trial. The primary endpoint was a > or = 50% decrease in pain intensity on a 100-mm visual analogue scale at 2 hours. Other endpoints of efficacy were pain intensity difference (PID), showing pain relief at each time point; summed pain intensity differences (SPIDs), estimating overall pain relief; and preference. Two hours after sumatriptan, 7 of 23 reached the primary endpoint, and after placebo, 5 of 23 (difference 9%, 95% CI for difference, -21 to 38%; p = ns). Within 2 hours, the headache disappeared completely in 5 of 23 children after sumatriptan and in 2 of 23 children after placebo (p = ns). Median PIDs were slightly better for sumatriptan between 0.5 and 4 hours (p = ns). Median SPIDs increased almost identically up to 2 hours. Thereafter, median SPIDs for placebo remained practically constant, whereas for sumatriptan, the improvement continued. At 4 hours, the median SPID for sumatriptan was 2.4 times as high as for placebo. However, the maximum differences between median SPIDs at 4 hours (38.5, 95% CI, -75.8 to 57.5; Wilcoxon signed rank test, p = 0.4) or at any other point were not statistically significant. Of the 23 children, 13 preferred sumatriptan and 2 placebo (sign test, p = 0.004). The failure of this and previous controlled studies suggests that the response of children to sumatriptan may be different from adults.

Administration, Oral↗
PubMed2000

Eletriptan in acute migraine: a double-blind, placebo-controlled comparison to sumatriptan. Eletriptan Steering Committee.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of oral eletriptan (20 mg, 40 mg, and 80 mg) with that of oral sumatriptan (100 mg) and placebo for the acute treatment of migraine. BACKGROUND: Eletriptan is a potent and selective agonist at human recombinant 5HT1B/1D receptors, with efficacy in animal models that predict antimigraine activity. In healthy volunteers, the pharmacokinetics of eletriptan are characterized by linear and rapid oral absorption. METHODS: Randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study conducted in 857 outpatients with a diagnosis of migraine according to the International Headache Society (IHS) criteria. Of these, 692 took study medication for one acute migraine attack and provided on-drug efficacy data. Subjects received either placebo, 100 mg of sumatriptan or 20 mg, 40 mg, or 80 mg of eletriptan for the treatment of an acute migraine attack. The primary endpoint was the percentage of patients with a headache response (improvement in pain intensity from moderate or severe to mild or none) at 2 hours after treatment. RESULTS: At the primary endpoint (2 hours after dosing), headache response rates were 24% (30/126) for placebo; 55% (63/115) for sumatriptan, 100 mg; 54% (70/129) for eletriptan, 20 mg; 65% (76/117) for eletriptan, 40 mg; and 77% (91/118) for eletriptan, 80 mg. There was a difference compared with placebo (p<0.001) for all doses of eletriptan, and at 2 hours there was a difference between sumatriptan, 100 mg, and eletriptan, 80 mg (p<0.001). Headache-free rates at 2 hours were superior to placebo (6%; p<0.001) for both the 80-mg dose of eletriptan (37%) and the 40-mg dose (29%), with the 80-mg dose also being superior to 100 mg of sumatriptan (23%; p<0.05). Eletriptan and sumatriptan were well tolerated, and the majority of adverse events were mild or moderate in intensity and transient. CONCLUSION: In this placebo-controlled trial, eletriptan, at selected doses, demonstrated superior efficacy, onset of action and patient acceptability in the acute treatment of migraine when compared with oral sumatriptan and placebo.

Acute Disease↗
PubMed2001

Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of albuterol in facioscapulohumeral dystrophy.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Animal and human studies suggest that beta(2)-adrenergic agonists exert anabolic effects on muscles, inducing and preventing atrophy after a variety of insults. Based on data from an open-label trial of albuterol in 15 patients with facioscapulohumeral dystrophy (FSHD), the authors conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of sustained-release albuterol in this disease. METHODS: Ninety patients were randomized to three groups: placebo; 8.0 mg albuterol twice daily; or 16.0 mg albuterol twice daily. Patients were treated for 1 year with assessments at baseline and weeks 13, 26, and 52. The primary outcome was the 52-week change in global strength by maximum voluntary isometric contraction testing (MVICT). Secondary outcomes included changes at 52 weeks in strength by manual muscle testing (MMT), grip strength, functional testing, and muscle mass assessed by dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA). RESULTS: Eighty-four patients completed the study. The mean changes in composite MVICT scores were not significantly different between the groups (mean +/- SD: placebo 0.20 +/- 0.91; low dose -0.04 +/- 0.84; high dose 0.08 +/- 0.98). Similarly, there were no differences in the mean MMT change (placebo 0.04 +/- 0.16; low dose -0.03 +/- 0.13; high dose 0.00 +/- 0.15). Grip improved in both treatment groups compared to placebo (placebo -0.53 +/- 4.13, low dose +1.90 +/- 3.34 [p = 0.02], high dose +1.70 +/- 4.13 [p = 0.03]). The high-dose group had a significant increase in lean mass by DEXA (+1.57 +/- 1.71 kg) compared to placebo (0.25 +/- 2.24; p = 0.007). Albuterol was well tolerated; side effects included cramps, tremors, insomnia, and nervousness. CONCLUSIONS: Although albuterol did not improve global strength or function in patients with FSHD, it did increase muscle mass and improve some measures of strength.

Adrenergic beta-Agonists↗
PubMed2006

Placebo effects of caffeine on cycling performance.

PURPOSE: The placebo effect-a change attributable only to an individual's belief in the efficacy of a treatment-might provide a worthwhile improvement in physical performance. Although sports scientists account for placebo effects by blinding subjects to treatments, little research has sought to quantify and explain the effect itself. The present study explored the placebo effect in laboratory cycling performance using quantitative and qualitative methods. METHOD: Six well-trained male cyclists undertook two baseline and three experimental 10-km time trials. Subjects were informed that in the experimental trials they would each receive a placebo, 4.5 mg.kg caffeine, and 9.0 mg.kg caffeine, randomly assigned. However, placebos were administered in all experimental conditions. Semistructured interviews were also conducted to explore subjects' experience of the effects of the capsules before and after revealing the deception. RESULTS: A likely trivial increase in mean power of 1.0% over baseline was associated with experimental trials (95% confidence limits, -1.4 to 3.6%), rising to a likely beneficial 2.2% increase in power associated with experimental trials in which subjects believed they had ingested caffeine (-0.8 to 5.4%). A dose-response relationship was evident in experimental trials, with subjects producing 1.4% less power than at baseline when they believed they had ingested a placebo (-4.6 to 1.9%), 1.3% more power than at baseline when they believed they had ingested 4.5 mg.kg caffeine (-1.4 to 4.1%), and 3.1% more power than at baseline when they believed they had ingested 9.0 mg.kg caffeine (-0.4 to 6.7%). All subjects reported caffeine-related symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Quantitative and qualitative data suggest that placebo effects are associated with the administration of caffeine and that these effects may directly or indirectly enhance performance in well-trained cyclists.

Adult↗
PubMed2003

Is the use of placebo controls ethically permissible in clinical trials of agents intended to reduce fractures in osteoporosis?

Substantial progress has been made in developing treatments that reduce the risk of fractures in osteoporosis. However, available treatments are only partially effective, they are not widely used, and there is need to search for more effective means of fracture prevention. Currently known effective means of reducing fractures were found using randomized placebo-controlled trials. The use of placebo controls in clinical trials has been a subject of significant controversy in recent years. The Declaration of Helsinki revision of October 2000 caused great concern among clinical investigators about the future use of placebo controls if known effective therapeutic agents are available. A working group of ethicists, clinical trial design experts, and clinical investigators examined the current state of knowledge of osteoporosis treatment and trials. They concluded that if placebo controls put subjects at substantial risk of serious outcomes, they are not ethically permissible. Placebo controls in osteoporosis trials with fracture as the measured outcome are permissible only under narrowly defined conditions. Placebo controls may be used if competent, well-informed patients refuse approved therapies for sound reasons, there is a reasonable basis for substantial disagreement or lack of consensus among professionals about whether approved treatments are better than placebos, or subjects are refractory to known effective agents. Active control trials are permissible and desirable if they can be designed and conducted in ways that overcome the interpretive difficulties often associated with such trials.

Clinical Trials as Topic↗
PubMed1994

N-acetylcysteine enhances recovery from acute lung injury in man. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effects of intravenous N-acetylcysteine (NAC) on the development of severe adult respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and mortality rate in patients with mild-to-moderate acute lung injury and to analyze the duration of ventilatory support and FIO2 required as well as the evolution of the lung injury score. SETTING: Three university hospital ICUs and one regional ICU in Switzerland. PATIENTS: Sixty-one adult patients presenting with mild-to-moderate acute lung injury and various predisposing factors for ARDS received either NAC, 40 mg/kg/d, or placebo intravenously for 3 days. MEASUREMENTS: Respiratory dysfunction was assessed daily according to the need for mechanical ventilation and FIO2, the evolution of the lung injury score, and the PaO2/FIO2 ratio. The cardiovascular state, liver function, and kidney function were also monitored. Data were collected at admission (day 0), during the first 3 days, and on the day of discharge from the ICU. RESULTS: The NAC and placebo groups (32 and 29 patients, respectively) were comparable at ICU admission for severity of illness assessed by the simplified acute physiology score (SAPS) (10.8 +/- 4.6 vs 10.9 +/- 4.8) and lung injury score (LIS) (1.39 +/- 0.95 vs 1.11 +/- 1.08) (mean +/- SD). Three patients in each group developed ARDS. The 1-month mortality rate was 22 percent for the NAC group and 35 percent for the placebo group (difference not statistically significant). At admission, 22 of 32 patients (69 percent) in the NAC group were mechanically ventilated compared with 22 of 29 (76 percent) in the placebo group. At the end of the treatment period (day 3), 5 of 29 (17 percent) in the NAC group and 12 of 25 (48 percent) in the placebo group were still receiving ventilatory support (p = 0.01), The FIO2 was 0.37 less than admission value (day 0) in the NAC group, and 0.20 less in the placebo group (p < 0.04); the oxygenation index (PaO2/FIO2) improved significantly (p < 0.05) from day 0 to day 3 only in the NAC-treated group. The LIS showed a significant regression (p = 0.003) in the NAC-treated group during the first 10 days of treatment: no change was observed in the placebo group. No adverse effects were observed during the treatment with NAC. CONCLUSIONS: Intravenous NAC treatment during 72 h improved systemic oxygenation and reduced the need for ventilatory support in patients presenting with mild-to-moderate acute lung injury subsequent to a variety of underlying diseases. Development of ARDS and mortality were not reduced significantly by this therapy.

Acetylcysteine↗
PubMed1984

Understanding placebos in dentistry.

The placebo effect is capable of relieving pain and affective disorders. The mechanism of placebo action is pharmacologic and psychologic, being related to the patient-practitioner relationship and the clinical treatment setting. The placebo effect also occurs with all active or real treatments. The effects of placebos in management of orofacial pain and MPD syndrome have been demonstrated. Placebo effects may account for a third to two-thirds of responses in mandibular dysfunction. Many treatments suggested for management of pain may be acting solely as placebos. Health professionals active in management of pain should understand and use the placebo effect to improve patient care.

Chronic Disease↗
PubMed2001

A randomized, placebo-controlled trial of antimicrobial treatment for children with clinically diagnosed acute sinusitis.

OBJECTIVE: Although antimicrobial treatment for children with acute sinusitis is used commonly, it is unclear whether it offers significant clinical benefit. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of antimicrobial treatments for acute sinusitis as they are used in community pediatric practice. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, placebo-controlled trial in 3 community pediatric practices in St Louis, Missouri. A total of 188 patients who were between the ages of 1 and 18 years and who had had 10 to 28 days of persistent sinus symptoms and a clinical diagnosis of acute sinusitis were randomized to receive 14 days of amoxicillin (40 mg/kg/d in 3 daily doses), amoxicillin-clavulanate (amoxicillin 45 mg/kg/d in 2 daily doses), or placebo. Change in sinus symptoms was assessed both by a quantitative symptom score (the S5 score) and subjectively by the parent. Secondary outcomes included adverse effects of treatment and recurrence or relapse of sinus symptoms. Outcomes were assessed by telephone interviews over a 2-month period. RESULTS: Of the 161 patients who were included in the analysis, 58 received amoxicillin, 48 received amoxicillin-clavulanate, and 55 received placebo. Day 14 improvement rates were 79%, 81%, and 79%, respectively. There were no differences in the 14-day change in S5 score among treatment groups. The rates of adverse events (amoxicillin, 19%; amoxicillin-clavulanate, 11%; placebo, 10%), relapse (amoxicillin, 12%; amoxicillin-clavulanate, 13%; placebo, 13%), and recurrence (amoxicillin, 9%; amoxicillin-clavulanate, 13%; placebo, 13%) of sinus symptoms were similar among treatment groups. CONCLUSION: Neither amoxicillin nor amoxicillin-clavulanate offered any clinical benefit compared with placebo for children with clinically diagnosed acute sinusitis.

Acute Disease↗
PubMed2002

A randomized, clinical trial of oral midazolam plus placebo versus oral midazolam plus oral transmucosal fentanyl for sedation during laceration repair.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether a combination of oral transmucosal fentanyl (Fentanyl Oralet, Abbott Laboratories, North Chicago, IL) plus oral midazolam has an acceptable safety profile and is more effective than oral midazolam alone for sedation during laceration repair in a pediatric emergency department (ED). METHODS: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, clinical trial. Patients between 2 and 8 years of age who weighed >10 kg and presented to the ED with a laceration in need of repair under sedation were eligible for inclusion. All patients received oral midazolam (0.5 mg/kg; maximum dose 10 mg) and either fentanyl (5-10 microg/kg) or placebo in oralet form. Data collected every 5 minutes included the following: heart rate, oxygen saturation, respiratory rate, pain as measured on a Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Pain Score (CHEOPS) scale (range: 4-13), and an activity scale (range: 1-5). Effectiveness of sedation was measured by CHEOPS and activity scores compared between the treatment groups. RESULTS: Fifty-one patients were randomized to receive oral midazolam plus fentanyl (N = 28) or oral midazolam plus placebo (N = 23). Age, weight, gender, or baseline pain and activity scores did not differ between the 2 groups. Seven patients in the fentanyl group vomited compared with 0 patients in the placebo group. Three patients in the fentanyl group and no patients in the placebo group had brief oxygen saturation below 93% on room air. The mean pain score within 5 minutes of the start of the procedure did not differ between the 2 groups (fentanyl group, 9.4 versus placebo group, 8.8). Mean activity scores within 5 minutes of the start of the procedure were also similar (fentanyl group, 4.3 versus placebo group, 4.3). CONCLUSIONS: The addition of oral transmucosal fentanyl to oral midazolam did not improve pain or activity scores in pediatric patients given sedation for laceration repair. Patients who received Fentanyl Oralet suffered significantly more side effects despite the relatively low doses administered in this study. Oral transmucosal fentanyl should not be used for procedural sedation in the ED.

Adjuvants, Anesthesia↗
PubMed2005

Reviving the old sermon of medicine with the placebo effect.

OBJECTIVE: The message of the importance of a caring doctor-patient relationship is now like an old sermon which does not impact anyone's mind or action. Observing the healing practice of the old time physicians, who valued their attitudes and relationship with their patients more than the actual interventions, this paper reviews the literature on their main therapeutic device--the placebo effect--as a novel way of delivering this old sermon of medicine to contemporary doctors. DISCUSSION: There are countless historical and contemporary examples of the impressive placebo effect and although contested by some, it seems real and significant. The classic conditioning theory and the expectation theory explain reasonably well the mechanisms of the placebo effect, especially in conjunction with each other. The underlying biochemical pathway, according to the limited current knowledge, involves endorphins for pain and dopamine for Parkinson's disease. Finally, human factors such as the doctor's positive attitudes and a good doctor-patient relationship seem to be more essential than the placebo itself in eliciting the placebo effect. CONCLUSIONS: Given the body of evidence supporting the existence of significant placebo effect and the importance of the doctor-patient relationship in determining it, the human factors of the medical treatment should be emphasised in order to maximise the placebo effect and consequently the overall therapeutic effect of the healing acts.

Attitude of Health Personnel↗
PubMed2005

Effect of information on reported adverse events in a placebo-controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: Although placebo controls are a standard measure in clinical trials the mechanisms underlying placebo effects are still not fully understood. We hypothesised that information about the likelihood of receiving placebo might influence the perception of adverse effects in volunteers participating in a clinical trial. METHODS: Healthy subjects received either nifedipine 20 mg or placebo in an adaptive two-stage crossover study. Sixty subjects were randomised to a group given either correct (50% chance) or misleading (100% chance) information about the likelihood of receiving the active drug. A sum of the severity scores from visual analogue scales over all individual adverse effects was defined as the primary endpoint. RESULTS: The analysis revealed no difference in the primary endpoint between the two groups. This lack of difference may in part be attributable to a conditioning effect as on the first study day higher symptom scores were reported by the participants than on the second study day. Furthermore, the day effect seemed to arise mainly when the first day treatment was the placebo. For the placebo the day effect was clearly significant (p = 0.012), with higher scores on the first day. A further explorative finding in patients given placebo was a tendency for higher scores in the group with the misleading information (p = 0.08). Nothing of that sort was found in the analysis for active treatment. The day effect collapsed and the factor information did not show any tendency of being a potential influence. CONCLUSIONS: In the present study we did not find a statistically significant effect of misleading information on reported adverse events. The large treatment and day effects observed made it difficult to detect a potential small information effect. However, this study excluded a strong and relevant effect of information on the frequency and severity of reported adverse events.

Adult↗
PubMed2006

Extended-release carbamazepine capsules as monotherapy in bipolar disorder : pooled results from two randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials.

OBJECTIVES: Recently, two large, 3-week, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials using nearly identical protocols demonstrated that monotherapy with carbamazepine extended-release capsules (CBZ-ERC) was effective for the treatment of acute mania in patients with bipolar I disorder. By pooling data from these two trials, a more highly powered analysis of the efficacy and safety of CBZ-ERC in bipolar I disorder could be conducted. METHODS: Efficacy was assessed with the Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS), the Clinical Global Impression (CGI)-Severity (CGI-S) scale, the CGI-Improvement (CGI-I) scale and the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS). A sub-analysis of the data based on manic versus mixed presentation was performed, as well as sub-analyses by age, sex and ethnicity. RESULTS: Of the 443 randomised patients in the pooled population, 240 completed the studies. Forty-two percent of CBZ-ERC-treated patients did not complete the studies, compared with 50% of placebo-treated patients (p=0.087). Ten percent of patients given CBZ-ERC withdrew because of lack of efficacy, compared with 22% of patients given placebo (p<0.001). At endpoint, CBZ-ERC compared with placebo was associated with significant improvements in mean YMRS total scores in patients experiencing both manic (p<0.0001) and mixed (p<0.01) episodes, using last-observation-carried-forward analyses. CGI-I and CGI-S scores also showed significant improvements from baseline for both manic and mixed patients at endpoint. In patients with mixed episodes, at endpoint there was a mean improvement in HDRS total score of 4.8 points with CBZ-ERC, compared with 2.3 points with placebo (p<0.05). Ninety percent of patients given CBZ-ERC experienced an adverse event, compared with 64% of those patients given placebo. Discontinuation because of adverse events occurred in 10.8% of patients taking CBZ-ERC, compared with 5.5% of patients taking placebo. CONCLUSIONS: These results confirm previous findings that CBZ-ERC is effective in the treatment of bipolar I disorder patients with either acute manic or mixed episodes. These data suggest that further randomised controlled studies are warranted to delineate the effect of CBZ-ERC on depressive symptoms in patients with bipolar disorder.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1984

Treatment of recurrent cyclical mastodynia in patients with fibrocystic breast disease. A double-blind placebo-controlled study--the Hjørring project.

Thirty premenopausal women with recurrent, pronounced cyclical mastodynia associated with mammographically confirmed fibrocystic disease were studied. All patients had long-standing symptoms, had undergone one previous course of treatment with danazol, and were recruited during long-term follow-up after original treatment, when cyclical mastodynia had again reached similar severity as before the original treatment (mean interval between treatments 9.5 +/- 3.9 (SD) months). Fifteen patients each were randomly allocated to double-blind treatment with either danazol or placebo. During the first month, 2 capsules a day (each containing danazol 100 mg or placebo) were given, thereafter one capsule a day up to 6 months. Danazol caused a marked and sustained decrease in mastodynia, according to the clinician's assessment and according to each patient's self-rating on a visual analogue scale. The response to danazol was fairly uniform and statistically significant (p less than 0.005 or less), whereas the response to placebo was inconsistent and not statistically significant (p greater than 0.10). Danazol proved significantly more effective than placebo (p less than 0.05 or less). Changes in palpatory and/or mammographic findings were also found more consistently after danazol treatment than after placebo. During treatment, there was a modest weight increase, which was statistically significant in the danazol group (p less than 0.01) but not in the placebo group. A greater frequency in menstrual irregularities was observed in the danazol group than in the placebo group, but not to an extent that would have caused 'unblinding' of the study.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Adult↗
PubMed2000

The placebo effect in asthma drug therapy trials: a meta-analysis.

A meta-analysis of randomized controlled asthma drug therapy trials published in the English literature from January 1991 to June 1995 was performed to estimate the magnitude and direction of the placebo effect in stable ambulatory asthmatic patients. Among placebo groups, the mean absolute increase in forced expiratory volume in 1 sec (FEV1), weighted for sample size and variance, was 0.11 L/min, and the mean percent increase in FEV1 was 4.81%. The corresponding placebo group changes in peak expiratory flow (PEF) were in an opposite direction to those of FEV1; there was a mean absolute decrease of 2.24 L/min, and a mean percent decrease of 4.21%. Changes for active treatment groups were greater in magnitude. However, there were no statistically significant differences in mean changes comparing the placebo groups to the treatment groups, for any of the outcome measures. Mean increases in PEF and FEV1 exceeded 10% in 5 of 33 placebo groups, as compared to 13 of 33 active treatment groups. In conclusion, in well-designed long-term drug therapy studies in stable asthmatics the pooled placebo effect is small but measurable, with FEV1 and PEF showing different directions of response. Moreover, a modest number of patients receiving placebo have changes in pulmonary function that might be interpreted as clinically significant.

Adult↗
PubMed2004

A putative placebo comparison of the SCOPE and LIFE trials.

The Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction in hypertension (LIFE) trial and the Study on Cognition and Prognosis in the Elderly (SCOPE) superficially produced comparable outcomes, with effects on stroke greater than those anticipated from blood pressure (BP) lowering alone. This, however, ignores important features of both studies. It ignores firstly the disparate comparator agents - atenolol in LIFE and predominantly hydrochlorthiazide in SCOPE, secondly the small, but potentially important BP differential between the treatment arms in SCOPE and finally the small, statistically non-significant increase in coronary heart disease (CHD) in both trials. This analysis compares the major cardiovascular outcomes in these trials with reference to placebo. Two alternative reference populations were employed to calculate the imputed placebo, firstly the MRC Trial in Elderly Hypertensives and secondly a meta-analysis of trials in the elderly, which included comparisons between diuretic- and b-blocker-based regimens. Overall, the choice of 'comparator placebo' did not substantially influence the derived results. Accounting for BP differences and based on the meta-analysis, both trials demonstrated statistically significant reductions in fatal/non-fatal stroke compared with placebo - relative risks (95% confidence intervals [CI]) of 0.53 (0.39, 0.73) and 0.56 (0.41, 0.76) for SCOPE and LIFE, respectively. For fatal/non-fatal MI, there were greater discrepancies between the studies, but with neither achieving statistical significance compared with placebo - relative risks of 0.85 (0.59, 1.24) and 1.08 (0.80, 1.46) for SCOPE and LIFE, respectively. This analysis clearly demonstrates that both candesartan in SCOPE and losartan in LIFE are associated with reductions in stroke events compared with placebo, greater than that observed in the well-established meta-analysis of placebo-controlled hypertensive trials. However, the CIs are such that it is not possible to suggest definitively that this is a benefit beyond BP reduction alone. Neither trial is sufficiently 'powered' to demonstrate a benefit in CHD outcomes, but with SCOPE there was a trend towards benefit with a point estimate compatible with the major meta-analysis.

Antihypertensive Agents↗
PubMed1997

A double-blind, placebo-controlled study comparing the effects of sertraline versus amitriptyline in the treatment of major depression.

BACKGROUND: This study was designed to compare the efficacy, safety, tolerability profiles, and effects on quality of life of the serotonin selective reuptake inhibitor antidepressant sertraline versus the nonselective tricyclic antidepressant amitriptyline and placebo in patients with major depression. METHOD: Outpatients with DSM-III-R major depression were randomly assigned to double-blind treatment for 8 weeks with sertraline (50-200 mg daily), amitriptyline (50-150 mg daily), or matching placebo. Assessments included the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression, Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale, Clinical Global Impressions-Severity of Illness scale, Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement scale, Global Assessment Scale, Profile of Mood States, Beck Depression Inventory, Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire, and Health-Related Quality of Life battery. RESULTS: All treatment groups demonstrated statistically significant improvement from baseline in depression ratings by Week 1 and thereafter. The antidepressant effects of amitriptyline and sertraline were significantly (p < .05) greater than placebo and did not differ significantly from each other. Sertraline was associated with significantly (p < .05) greater subjective (i.e., patient-rated) improvement in mood than amitriptyline or placebo. Both active drugs were associated with greater improvements than placebo on most quality of life measurements. On several items, sertraline, but not amitriptyline, was superior to placebo. There was a discernible effect of sertraline earlier than amitriptyline on most quality of life scales. Amitriptyline therapy was associated with significantly more treatment-related adverse events, and discontinuations due to treatment-related adverse events, in comparison to both sertraline and placebo therapy. CONCLUSION: Sertraline and amitriptyline each were effective treatments for major depression as assessed by both physician- and patient-rated scales. These results show that sertraline therapy is better tolerated than amitriptyline therapy. Quality of life was also improved by effective antidepressant treatment, with sertraline showing a tendency to produce greater improvements on quality of life measures.

1-Naphthylamine↗
PubMed2001

Testosterone replacement therapy for hypogonadal men with major depressive disorder: a randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Symptoms of male hypogonadism include low libido, fatigue, and dysphoria and are alleviated with testosterone replacement. The prevalence of major depressive disorder (MDD) in hypogonadal men is not known, nor is the antidepressant efficacy of testosterone replacement in depressed, hypogonadal men. METHOD: A 6-week double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial was conducted in 32 men with DSM-IV MDD and a low testosterone level, defined as total serum testosterone < or = 350 ng/dL. Patients were randomly assigned to receive weekly 1-mL intramuscular injections of either testosterone enanthate, 200 mg, or sesame seed oil (placebo). The primary outcome measure was the 24-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D). RESULTS: Thirty patients were randomly assigned to an intervention; 13 received testosterone, and 17 received placebo. Mean +/- SD age was 52+/-10 years, mean testosterone level was 266.1+/-50.6 ng/dL, and mean baseline HAM-D score was 21+/-8. All patients who received testosterone achieved normalization of their testosterone levels. The HAM-D scores decreased in both testosterone and placebo groups, and there were no significant between-group differences: reduction in group mean HAM-D score from baseline to endpoint was 10.1 in patients who received testosterone and 10.5 in those who received placebo. Response rate, defined as a 50% or greater reduction in HAM-D score, was 38.5% (5/13) for patients who received testosterone and 41.2% (7/17) for patients who received placebo. Patients receiving testosterone had a marginal but statistically significant improvement in sexual function (p = .02). CONCLUSION: In this clinical trial with depressed, hypogonadal men, antidepressant effects of testosterone replacement could not be differentiated from those of placebo.

Adult↗