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 1,189 records · Page 66Linked to original sources
PubMed2002

A 1-year, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of ziprasidone 40, 80 and 160 mg/day in chronic schizophrenia: the Ziprasidone Extended Use in Schizophrenia (ZEUS) study.

We evaluated relapse in patients with stable, chronic schizophrenia over a 1-year period; inpatients were randomized to ziprasidone 40 mg/day (n = 72), 80 mg/day (n = 68), 160 mg/day (n = 67) or placebo (n = 71). The probability of relapse (Kaplan-Meier) at 1 year was significantly lower in the ziprasidone 40, 80, and 160 mg/day groups (43%, 35% and 36%, respectively) compared to placebo (77%; P = 0.002, P < 0.001 and P < 0.001, respectively). In those patients who remained on treatment for at least 6 months, only 9% subsequently relapsed on ziprasidone compared to 42% on placebo (P = 0.001). All three doses of ziprasidone were significantly superior to placebo on Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) efficacy variables (all P < 0.05). Ziprasidone was associated with a significantly greater mean improvement in the PANSS negative symptom subscale compared to placebo (P < 0.05). Discontinuation due to adverse events was similar with ziprasidone and placebo. Ziprasidone treatment was indistinguishable from placebo in assessments of movement disorders and was not associated with weight gain or cardiovascular abnormalities. These results demonstrate that ziprasidone was effective in reducing the frequency of relapse and was associated with long-term improvement in negative symptoms. Ziprasidone was well tolerated in this population of patients with chronic, stable schizophrenia.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1998

Albendazole therapy in children with focal seizures and single small enhancing computerized tomographic lesions: a randomized, placebo-controlled, double blind trial.

BACKGROUND: Single small enhancing computerized tomographic (CT) lesions (SSECTLs) are common in children with focal seizures. These are considered to represent solitary cysticercus granulomas. Controversy exists regarding their treatment. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of albendazole in cases of focal seizures with SSECTLs. DESIGN: Randomized, placebo-controlled, double blind trial. SETTING: Pediatric service of Nehru Hospital, PGIMER, an urban tertiary care teaching hospital. SUBJECTS: 63 children between 2 and 12 years of age with focal seizures for <3 months and SSECTLs. INTERVENTION: All children were randomly assigned to receive either albendazole (15 mg/kg/ day) or placebo for 28 days. CT scan was done at 1 and 3 months after beginning treatment. Codes opened after 6 months of inclusion in the study showed that 31 had received albendazole and 32 had received placebo. All children were followed up for at least 15 months. RESULTS: Disappearance of lesions on CT scan was noted in 41% of albendazole vs. 16.2% of placebo patients after 1 month of follow-up (P < 0.05) and 64.5% of albendazole- vs. 37.5% of placebo-treated patients after 3 months of follow-up (P < 0.05). During the first 4 weeks of therapy seizure recurrence was seen in 9.7% of albendazole vs. 3.2% of placebo-treated children (odds ratio, 3.32; 95% confidence interval, 0.33 to 33.8). After 4 weeks seizure recurrence was seen in 31.3% of placebo-treated children vs. 12.9% of albendazole-treated children (odds ratio, 3.07; 95% confidence interval, 1.18 to 11.15). CONCLUSIONS: Albendazole therapy results in significantly faster and increased resolution of solitary cysticercus lesions (SSECTLs) and appears to reduce the risk of late seizure recurrences.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2003

Intraoperative ketorolac and eye pain after viteoretinal surgery: a prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled study.

PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy of one intraoperative dose of intravenous ketorolac tromethamine to saline placebo in controlling postoperative eye pain, nausea, and sedation following vitreoretinal surgery. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial. METHODS: One hundred fourteen vitreoretinal surgical patients were randomized over a 7-month period to a single intraoperative intravenous dose of ketorolac tromethamine or placebo. All patients underwent surgery with intravenous sedation and retrobulbar anesthetic injection and had access to a standard postoperative analgesic regimen. After 2 and 5 hours, eye pain, nausea, and sedation levels were recorded using a standard visual analog scale. Analgesic requirements were tabulated. RESULTS: Patients given ketorolac were significantly less likely to have postoperative eye pain than were placebo-treated patients (P = 0.0043). Fewer ketorolac patients required postoperative analgesia than placebo patients did (P < 0.0001). Four ketorolac patients (7%) required a narcotic compared to 11 placebo patients (20%) (P < 0.0001). Fewer ketorolac patients experienced nausea and sedation than placebo patients did, but this difference was not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Ketorolac tromethamine is an effective nonnarcotic choice for postoperative pain control following vitreoretinal surgery. Pain control is particularly important in this group of patients, whose compliance with postoperative procedures and positioning may significantly affect surgical outcome.

Aged↗
PubMed1996

Chronic cervical zygapophysial joint pain after whiplash. A placebo-controlled prevalence study.

STUDY DESIGN: The authors developed a diagnostic double-blindfolded survey using placebo-controlled local anesthetic blocks. OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence of cervical zygapophysial joint pain among patients with chronic neck pain (more than 3 months' duration) after whiplash injury. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The prevalence of cervical zygapophysial joint pain after whiplash has been studied by means of comparative local anesthetic blocks. The concern is that such blocks may be compromised by placebo responses and that prevalence estimates based on such blocks may exaggerate the importance of this condition. METHODS: Sixty-eight consecutive patients referred for chronic neck pain after whiplash were studied. Patients with dominant headache were first screened with the use of comparative blocks of the C2-C3 zygapophysial joint. Patients who had positive responses concluded investigations. Those who did not experience pain relief together with the patients with dominant neck pain proceeded to undergo placebo-controlled local anesthetic blocks. Two different local anesthetics and a placebo injection of normal saline were administered in random order and under double-blindfolded conditions. A positive diagnosis was made if the patient's pain was completely and reproducibly relieved by each local anesthetic but not by the placebo injection. RESULTS: Among patients with dominant headache, comparative blocks revealed that the prevalence of C2-C3 zygapophysial joint pain was 50%. Among those without C2-C3 zygapophysial joint pain, placebo-controlled blocks revealed the prevalence of lower cervical zygapophysial joint pain to be 49%. Overall, the prevalence of cervical zygapophysial joint pain (C2-C3 or below) was 60% (95% confidence interval, 46%, 73%). CONCLUSION: Cervical zygapophysial joint pain is common among patients with chronic neck pain after whiplash. This nosologic entity has survived challenge with placebo-controlled, diagnostic investigations and has proven to be of major clinical importance.

Accidents, Traffic↗
PubMed1995

Safety and efficacy of thymopentin in zidovudine (AZT)-treated asymptomatic HIV-infected subjects with 200-500 CD4 cells/mm3: a double-blind placebo-controlled trial.

Thymopentin, 50 mg subcutaneously (s.c.) 3 times per week, was evaluated in a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of zidovudine (AZT)-treated asymptomatic human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected subjects with 200-500 CD4 cells/mm3 at entry. The 352 subjects were prestratified by prior AZT use into stratum I (235 subjects, > 6 months AZT at entry) and stratum II (117 subjects, < or = 6 months AZT at entry). Clinical end points, CD4 cell counts, serum p24, serum immune complex dissociated (ICD) p24, and safety variables were evaluated through 48 weeks, using an intent-to-treat analysis. The two strata were analyzed individually because they yielded different clinical outcomes, with a statistically significant treatment-by-stratum interaction. In stratum I (mean, 16 months AZT at entry) two AIDS or death events occurred in thymopentin and 10 in placebo recipients (p = 0.024; relative risk (RR) estimate, 4.9 [95% confidence limit (CI), 1.1 to 22.2]). There were three AIDS-related complex (ARC), AIDS, or death events in thymopentin and 18 in placebo recipients [p = 0.001; RR estimate, 5.9 (95% CI, 1.7 to 20.0)]. In stratum II (mean, 3 months AZT at entry), four AIDS or death events occurred in thymopentin and none in placebo recipients (p = 0.11), and four ARC, AIDS, or death events occurred in thymopentin and two in placebo recipients (p = 0.79). The treatment groups did not differ significantly with respect to changes in CD4 counts or p24 antigen levels or with respect to clinical adverse experiences or laboratory abnormalities. Thus, AZT-experienced placebo-treated subjects had relatively high progression rates to AIDS or death and to ARC, AIDS, or death, and these rates were reduced by thymopentin treatment. In contrast, placebo-treated subjects with little prior AZT experience had low progression rates; these were not significantly changed by thymopentin treatment. There was no increase in the incidence of adverse reactions with thymopentin.

Adult↗
PubMed1998

Comparative efficacy and safety of once-daily versus twice-daily loratadine-pseudoephedrine combinations versus placebo in seasonal allergic rhinitis.

The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of Claritin-D 24 Hour (once daily) with that of Claritin-D 12 Hour (twice daily) and placebo in the treatment of patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR). In this double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter study, 469 patients with moderate-to-severe SAR symptoms were treated for 2 weeks with one of the following: Claritin-D 24 Hour (a combination tablet formulation of loratadine 10 mg in the coating and pseudoephedrine sulfate 240 mg in an extended-release core), Claritin-D 12 Hour (a combination tablet formulation of loratadine 5 mg in the tablet coating and 120 mg pseudoephedrine sulfate, 60 mg in the coating and 60 mg in the core), or placebo. Claritin-D 24 Hour and Claritin-D 12 Hour were consistently superior to placebo (P < 0.01) in reducing total, nasal, and nonnasal symptom scores. Patients in the Claritin-D 24 Hour and Claritin-D 12 Hour groups also had significantly greater (P </= 0.05) relief of rhinorrhea and nasal stuffiness as compared with placebo. Insomnia was reported significantly more often (P < 0.01) in Claritin-D 12 Hour (15%) patients compared with Claritin-D 24 Hour (4%) and placebo (2%) patients. Dry mouth was reported significantly more often (P < 0.05) in Claritin-D 24 Hour (13%) and Claritin-D 12 Hour (13%) groups compared with placebo (4%). Claritin-D 24 Hour has efficacy comparable to Claritin-D 12 Hour in relieving allergic rhinitis symptoms while producing significantly less insomnia.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1998

Low-dose combination treatment for hypertension versus single-drug treatment-bisoprolol/hydrochlorothiazide versus amlodipine, enalapril, and placebo: combined analysis of comparative studies.

To assess the efficacy and safety of 2.5, 5, and 10 mg bisoprolol/6. 25 mg hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ), 2.5, 5, and 10 mg amlodipine; and 5, 10, 20, and 40 mg enalapril in subjects (n = 541) with a sitting diastolic blood pressure of 95 to 114 mm Hg, data from two comparative studies were pooled. All drugs were titrated to a diastolic blood pressure 90 mm Hg or less. Both studies were double-blind, randomized, parallel dose escalation trials with similar designs and included three active treatments. The second study also had a placebo group. The mean change from baseline of systolic and diastolic blood pressure for placebo (n = 79) was -0. 1/-2.2 mm Hg; amlodipine (n = 154), -12.4/-10.3 mm Hg; enalapril (n = 155), -9.4/-8.2 mm Hg; and bisoprolol/HCTZ (n = 155), -14.0/-12.0. Overall efficacy analyses documented a statistically significant decrease in sitting diastolic blood pressure for bisoprolol/6.25 mg HCTZ compared with placebo, amlodipine, and enalapril. There was a significant reduction in sitting systolic blood pressure for bisoprolol/6.25 mg HCTZ compared with placebo and enalapril but not amlodipine. Also, there was a significant decrease in sitting heart rate for bisoprolol/6.25 mg HCTZ (-6.2 beats/min) compared with placebo (+0.1 beats/min), amlodipine (+1.2 beats/min), and enalapril (+0.5 beats/min). The control rate (diastolic blood pressure < or = 90 mm Hg) for bisoprolol/6.25 mg HCTZ (66.5%) was significantly better than for placebo (21.8%) and enalapril (47.1%) but not amlodipine (58.4%). Of those patients achieving and maintaining control, 49% of the bisoprolol/6.25 mg HCTZ subjects were on the lowest two doses compared with 30% of the amlodipine and 26% of the enalapril subjects. Percentages of patients reporting at least one drug-related adverse event through week 12 were 27%, 24%, 28%, and 25% for placebo, bisoprolol/6.25 mg HCTZ, amlodipine, and enalapril (not significant). Lower doses of two drugs in fixed combination can provide as good or better blood pressure control compared with higher doses of a single drug with similar tolerability and safety.

Amlodipine↗
PubMed2003

Efficacy and safety of rofecoxib in patients with chronic low back pain: results from two 4-week, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, double-blind trials.

STUDY DESIGN: Two replicate, 4-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, trials of rofecoxib 25 and 50 mg versus placebo for chronic low back pain. OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy and safety of two doses of rofecoxib compared to placebo in the treatment of chronic low back pain. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Although nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are commonly prescribed for chronic low back pain, their efficacy is unproven and toxicity can be serious. These studies evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of rofecoxib, a selective COX-2 inhibitor, in the treatment of chronic low back pain. METHODS: Patients with chronic low back pain were randomized 1:1:1 to rofecoxib 25 mg, 50 mg, or placebo once daily. Primary endpoint: Low Back Pain Intensity. Secondary endpoints: Pain Bothersomeness, Global Assessments of Response to Therapy, Global Assessment of Disease Status, Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, SF-12 Health Survey, Use of Rescue Acetaminophen, and Discontinuations Due to Lack of Efficacy. RESULTS: Combining both studies, 690 patients were randomized to placebo (N = 228), rofecoxib 25 mg (N = 233), or rofecoxib 50 mg (N = 229). Mean (+/- SD) age was 53.4 (+/- 12.9) years, pain duration 12.1 (+/- 11.8) years, 62.3% female. Both rofecoxib groups improved significantly. Mean differences from placebo in pain intensity were -13.50 mm, -13.81 mm (25, 50 mg doses) respectively (P < 0.001). Both regimens were superior to placebo in eight of nine secondary endpoints. Fifty mg provided no advantage over 25 mg. Both rofecoxib regimens were well tolerated, although 25 mg had a slightly better safety profile. CONCLUSIONS: Rofecoxib significantly reduced chronic low back pain in adults and was well tolerated.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2004

Relapse prevention in pediatric patients with ADHD treated with atomoxetine: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

OBJECTIVE: Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is typically treated over extended periods; however, few placebo-controlled, long-term studies of efficacy have been reported. METHOD: In a global multicenter study, children and adolescents who responded to an initial 12-week, open-label period of treatment with atomoxetine, a nonstimulant treatment for ADHD, were randomized to continued atomoxetine treatment or placebo for 9 months under double-blind conditions. RESULTS: A total of 416 patients completed acute atomoxetine treatment and were randomized. At end point, atomoxetine was superior to placebo in preventing relapse defined as a return to 90% of baseline symptom severity (proportion relapsing: atomoxetine 65 of 292 [22.3%], placebo 47 of 124 [37.9%], p =.002). The proportion of patients with a 50% worsening in symptoms post-randomization was also lower on atomoxetine (atomoxetine 83 of 292 [28.4%], placebo 59 of 124 [47.6%], p <.001). Compared with patients in the placebo group, atomoxetine-treated patients had superior psychosocial functioning at end point. Discontinuations for adverse events were low in both groups, and tolerability was similar to that observed in acute treatment trials. CONCLUSIONS: In patients who responded favorably to 12 weeks of initial treatment, atomoxetine was superior to placebo in maintaining response for the ensuing 9 months. This result supports the value of maintenance treatment with atomoxetine in patients with ADHD who respond to initial treatment.

Atomoxetine Hydrochloride↗
PubMed2006

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of modafinil film-coated tablets in children and adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of modafinil in children and adolescents, ages 7 to 17, with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). METHOD: In this 9-week, double-blind, flexible-dose study, patients were randomized to once-daily modafinil (170-425 mg) or placebo. Assessments included ADHD Rating Scale-IV (ADHD-RS-IV) School and Home Versions and Clinical Global Impression of Improvement (CGI-I) scale. RESULTS: Two hundred patients were randomized. Modafinil produced significant reductions in ADHD-RS-IV total scores at school (n = 128; mean change +/- SD: -17.5 +/- 13.1 points) compared with placebo (n = 66; -9.7 +/- 10.3 points; p < .0001). Similarly, modafinil reduced ADHD-RS-IV total scores at home compared with placebo (-17.6 +/- 13.3 versus -7.5 +/- 11.8 points; p < .0001). Fifty-two percent of patients randomized to modafinil and 18% of those randomized to placebo met prestudy criteria for responder on the CGI-I (p < .0001). Randomization to modafinil was associated with significantly more insomnia, headache, decreased appetite, and weight loss than randomization to placebo, but discontinuation attributed to adverse events did not differ statistically between treatment groups (modafinil, 5%; placebo, 6%). CONCLUSION: Modafinil was well tolerated and reduced ADHD symptoms at school and home compared with placebo.

Adolescent↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Efficacy and safety of a special extract of Rheum rhaponticum (ERr 731) in perimenopausal women with climacteric complaints: a 12-week randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the efficacy and safety of the special extract ERr 731 from the roots of Rheum rhaponticum compared to placebo in perimenopausal women with climacteric complaints. DESIGN: A multicenter, prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, clinical trial in which 109 women with climacteric complaints received either one enteric-coated tablet of ERr 731 (n = 54) or placebo (n = 55) daily for 12 weeks. Primary outcome criterion for efficacy was the change in Menopause Rating Scale II (MRS II) total score after 12 weeks. Other efficacy assessments analyzed number and severity of hot flushes, menopause-specific quality of life, number of bleeding/spotting days, and treatment outcome. RESULTS: By 12 weeks, the MRS II total score and each MRS II symptom significantly decreased in the ERr 731 group compared to the placebo group (P < 0.0001). After 4 weeks, ERr 731 also significantly decreased the number and severity of hot flushes (P < 0.0001). After 12 weeks, the overall menopause-specific quality of life was significantly better in women treated with ERr 731 compared with placebo (P < 0.05). Treatment outcome assessed by investigators and participants was better in the ERr 731 group, and ERr 731 was better tolerated than placebo. There were no differences in gynecological findings including endometrial biopsies, bleeding, weight, blood pressure, pulse, and laboratory safety parameters between the treatment groups. No adverse events were classified as being related to the investigational medication. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to placebo, ERr 731 significantly reduces the occurrence and severity of climacteric complaints in perimenopause. It is also safe and well tolerated.

Body Mass Index↗
PubMed2004

A double-blind placebo-controlled study of controlled release fluvoxamine for the treatment of generalized social anxiety disorder.

This was a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled multicenter study to assess the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of fluvoxamine in a controlled release (CR) formulation for treatment of generalized social anxiety disorder (GSAD). A total of 300 subjects with GSAD were randomly assigned to receive either fluvoxamine CR (N = 149) or placebo (N = 151) for 12 weeks. Mean changes from baseline to end point in Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale (LSAS), Clinical Global Impression Severity of Illness Scale (CGI-S), Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS), as well as the mean end point scores in Clinical Global Impression Improvement Scale (CGI-I) and Patient Global Impression of Improvement Scale (PGI) were compared between the fluvoxamine CR and placebo treatment groups. Arizona Sexual Experience Scale (ASEX), adverse event, and other safety parameters were also assessed. The results demonstrated that fluvoxamine CR was significantly superior to placebo in decreasing LSAS total score (primary measure) starting at week 4. At end point, there was a mean change from baseline of -36.1 +/- 2.7 (37% reduction) in the LSAS total score in the fluvoxamine CR group compared with -27.3 +/- 2.4 (28% reduction) in the placebo group (P = 0.020 for mean change). Fluvoxamine CR was also significantly superior to placebo in SDS, CGI-S, CGI-I at end point (secondary measures). When compared with placebo, fluvoxamine CR did not cause any significant weight gain or clinically significant sexual dysfunction as measured by ASEX. In summary, fluvoxamine CR is an efficacious, safe, and well-tolerated treatment of generalized social anxiety disorder.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2004

A placebo-controlled study of nefazodone for the treatment of chronic posttraumatic stress disorder: a preliminary study.

Nefazodone is a unique serotonergic antidepressant that acts as both a presynaptic serotonin reuptake inhibitor and a postsynaptic 5-hydroxytryptamine 2A receptor antagonist. Based on the positive results of open-label trials of nefazodone, including one from our group, we tested nefazodone's efficacy in the treatment of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) under placebo-controlled conditions. Forty-one patients with chronic PTSD, predominantly male combat veterans, were enrolled in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled 12-week trial of nefazodone. The primary outcome measure was the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale. Fifteen patients were randomized to placebo and 26 were randomized to nefazodone. In a repeated-measures analysis of variance with last observation carried forward, patients on nefazodone showed a significant improvement in the percentage change of Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale Total score from baseline compared with those on placebo (P = 0.04; effect size = 0.6). Sample size was not powered to test group differences in the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale criterion B, C, or D subscale. However, the criterion D subscale showed significant improvement in patients treated with nefazodone compared with those treated with placebo (P = 0.007). In addition, the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression showed significant improvement compared with placebo (P = 0.008). The nefazodone group also reported an improvement on the PTSD Checklist (self-report scale; P = 0.08) and the Clinician-Administered Dissociative States Scale (P = 0.06). This pilot study supports the efficacy of nefazodone for the treatment of PTSD. However, larger placebo-controlled studies in more diverse patient population are warranted.

Adult↗
PubMed2004

Testosterone versus fluoxetine for depression and fatigue in HIV/AIDS: a placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: While testosterone's ameliorative effects on depressive disorders and fatigue in HIV-positive patients have been suggested in the literature, no placebo-controlled trial selecting for depressive disorders and including a standard antidepressant has been conducted. Accordingly, this double-blind trial was designed to determine whether testosterone, as well as fluoxetine, is superior to placebo for depression, fatigue, or both. METHOD: One hundred twenty-three men with HIV/AIDS with a Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition depressive disorder entered the 8-week trial and were randomized to testosterone (up to 400 mg IM testosterone cypionate biweekly), fluoxetine (up to 60 mg/d), or double placebo. Outcome variables were the Clinical Global Impressions Scale for mood and for fatigue, the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression, and the Chalder Fatigue Scale. RESULTS: Ninety men completed the trial. In intention-to-treat analyses, mood response rates were 54%, 47%, and 44% for fluoxetine, testosterone, and placebo, respectively. Among completers, mood response rates were 70%, 57%, and 53%, respectively; in neither analysis were differences between treatments statistically significant. In contrast, testosterone was superior to fluoxetine and placebo for completers regarding fatigue. In intention-to-treat analysis, response rates were 39%, 56%, and 42% for fluoxetine, testosterone, and placebo, respectively, and for study completers, 41%, 63%, and 52%, respectively, (P < 0.05), CONCLUSION: While over 50% of patients treated with testosterone reported improved mood, this rate was not statistically superior to placebo. Thus, our findings do not support prescription of testosterone as a first-line treatment for depressive disorders in HIV-positive men. However, if validated in additional studies, testosterone may be a useful option for medically ill men experiencing significant fatigue as well as depression.

Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome↗
PubMed2005

Aripiprazole for the treatment of psychosis in patients with Alzheimer's disease: a randomized, placebo-controlled study.

This study compared the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of aripiprazole, a novel antipsychotic, with placebo in patients with psychosis associated with Alzheimer's Disease (AD). This 10-week, double-blind, multicenter study randomized 208 outpatients (mean age, 81.5 years) with AD-associated psychosis to aripiprazole (n = 106) or placebo (n = 102). The initial aripiprazole dose of 2 mg/d was titrated upwards (5, 10, or 15 mg/d) according to efficacy and tolerability. Evaluations included Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI) Psychosis subscale and Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), adverse event (AE) reports, extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS) rating scales, and body weight. Overall, 172 patients (83%) completed the study. Mean aripiprazole dose at end point was 10.0 mg/d. The NPI Psychosis subscale score showed improvements in both groups (aripiprazole, -6.55; placebo, -5.52; P = 0.17 at end point). Aripiprazole-treated patients showed significantly greater improvements from baseline in BPRS Psychosis and BPRS Core subscale scores at end point compared with placebo. AEs were generally mild to moderate in severity and included (aripiprazole vs. placebo): urinary tract infection (8% vs. 12%), accidental injury (8% vs. 5%), somnolence (8% vs. 1%), and bronchitis (6% vs. 3%). Somnolence was mild and not associated with falls or accidental injury. There were no significant differences from placebo in EPS scores, or clinically significant ECG abnormalities, vital signs, or weight. In conclusion, aripiprazole showed similar improvements to placebo in psychotic symptoms as assessed by NPI Psychosis subscale scores, but significantly greater effects on BPRS Core and Psychosis assessments in community-living AD patients with psychosis. Aripiprazole was safe and well tolerated in this patient population.

Aged↗
PubMed2003

Duloxetine versus placebo for the treatment of North American women with stress urinary incontinence.

PURPOSE: Duloxetine, a selective serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor, increases rhabdosphincter contractility via the stimulation of pudendal motor neuron alpha-1 adrenergic and 5-hydroxytryptamine-2 receptors. In this first phase 3 study we assessed the efficacy and safety of duloxetine in women with stress urinary incontinence (SUI). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 683 North American women 22 to 84 years old were enrolled in this double-blind, placebo controlled study. The case definition included a predominant symptom of SUI with a weekly incontinence episode frequency (IEF) of 7 or greater, the absence of predominant symptoms of urge incontinence, normal diurnal and nocturnal frequency, a bladder capacity of 400 ml or greater, and a positive cough stress test and stress pad test. After a 2-week placebo lead-in period subjects were randomly assigned to receive placebo (339) or 80 mg duloxetine daily (344) as 40 mg twice daily for 12 weeks. Primary outcome variables included IEF and an incontinence quality of life questionnaire. Van Elteren's test was used to analyze percent changes in IEF with a stratification variable of weekly baseline IEF (less than 14 and 14 or greater). ANCOVA was used to analyze incontinence quality of life scores. RESULTS: Mean baseline IEF was 18 weekly and 436 subjects (64%) had a baseline IEF of 14 or greater. There was a significant decrease in IEF with duloxetine compared with placebo (50% vs 27%, p <0.001) with comparably significant improvements in quality of life (11.0 vs 6.8, p <0.001). Of subjects on duloxetine 51% had a 50% to 100% decrease in IEF compared with 34% of those on placebo (p <0.001). These improvements with duloxetine were associated with a significant increases in the voiding interval compared with placebo (20 vs 2 minutes, p <0.001) and they were observed across the spectrum of incontinence severity. The discontinuation rate for adverse events was 4% for placebo and 24% for duloxetine (p <0.001) with nausea the most common reason for discontinuation (6.4%). Nausea, which was also the most common side effect, tended to be mild to moderate and transient, usually resolving after 1 week to 1 month. Of the 78 women who experienced treatment emergent nausea while taking duloxetine 58 (74%) completed the trial. CONCLUSIONS: These phase 3 data are consistent with phase 2 data and they provide further evidence for the safety and efficacy of duloxetine as a pharmacological agent for the treatment of women with SUI.

Adult↗
PubMed1996

Sucralfate gel versus placebo in patients with non-erosive gastro-oesophageal reflux disease.

BACKGROUND: Gastro-oesophageal reflux disease, a term used to refer to chest symptoms that result from reflux of gastric acid into the oesophagus, occur at least daily in 7% and every 3 days in 33% of the population. METHODS: One hundred and forty-one patients with moderate to severe gastro-oesophageal reflux symptoms occurring at least three times per week (but no oesophageal erosions or ulcers at endoscopy) were treated in this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study at six trial centres. Treatment was given for 6 weeks and consisted of daily doses of either 1 g sucralfate gel b.d. or placebo. The evaluation of efficacy was based on data of 139 patients. RESULTS: The responder rate at Day 42 was statistically significantly higher for the patients treated with sucralfate (71%) than for the placebo patients (29%) (P < 0.0001, Fisher's exact test). The overall response of the non-ulcer dyspepsia and gastro-oesophageal reflux disease symptoms was better for sucralfate gel than for placebo with 45% of patients treated with sucralfate gel being considered as having a 'good' or 'excellent' overall response compared with 22% of the patients who received placebo (P < 0.0001, Wilcoxon test). Only a few adverse experiences were reported by 10% of sucralfate patients and 7% of placebo patients. CONCLUSION: In this trial, we demonstrated a statistically significant superiority of sucralfate gel at a dosage of 1 g b.d. compared to placebo in the treatment of patients with gastro-oesophageal reflux disease. Sucralfate gel was well tolerated.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2004

Evaluation of an injection depot formulation of buprenorphine: placebo comparison.

AIMS: Buprenorphine is a mu-opioid partial agonist that is marketed in a sublingual formulation as a treatment for opioid dependence. A microcapsule depot sustained-release formulation has been developed which may offer effective treatment of opioid dependence while also minimizing risks of illicit diversion or patient non-compliance. The present study examined the efficacy of depot buprenorphine in suppressing the opioid withdrawal syndrome and in attenuating the effects of exogenous opioid challenge. DESIGN: A placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomized trial. SETTING: A closed residential research facility. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 15 opioid-dependent participants were enrolled into the 6-week study. INTERVENTION: Fifteen participants were randomized to receive a single subcutaneous depot injection containing buprenorphine (58 mg) or placebo. Two participants, both of whom received placebo, terminated participation after depot administration. Thirteen participants (six buprenorphine, seven placebo) completed the 6-week study and were assessed throughout the study for signs and symptoms of opioid withdrawal and for response to weekly subcutaneous challenges with 3 mg hydromorphone. MEASUREMENT: Subjective, physiological and observer-rated indices of opioid withdrawal and opioid agonist effects. FINDINGS: Depot buprenorphine provided more effective relief from opioid withdrawal than placebo, as evidenced by significantly fewer buprenorphine participants requiring supplemental medications for withdrawal suppression after depot administration compared to participants receiving placebo. In the weekly hydromorphone challenge sessions, depot buprenorphine significantly reduced opioid response on measures of subjective effects and pupillary diameter. CONCLUSIONS: Results from this double-blind, placebo-controlled study indicate that depot buprenorphine is effective in providing both withdrawal suppression and opioid blockade. Future studies examining additional doses and repeated dosing regimens with depot buprenorphine are warranted.

Adult↗