Dataset Information

The Efficacy and Safety of the Shouzu Ning Decoction Treatment Versus Halometasone Plus Celecoxib Treatment in Patients With Grade 2 HFSR: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To compare the effects of the Shouzu Ning Decoction (SND) and Halometasone plus Celecoxib (Hal/Cxb) as therapy in patients with grade 2 hand-foot skin reaction (HFSR).

Materials and methods

Fifty patients with grade 2 HFSR participated in a randomized, single-center, open-label study. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive the SND or Hal/Cxb treatment, twice daily for 4 weeks, followed by 4 weeks of post-treatment follow-up. The primary endpoint was clinical remission of HFSR at the end of the fourth week (W4). The secondary endpoints were recurrence rate, quality of life (QoL), pain intensity, and safety.

Results

In this study, 46 patients successfully completed the study, and 4 patients were excluded. There was no statistically significant difference between the 2 groups on demographic and baseline clinical characteristics. In the SND group, 56.52% of patients showed clinical remission at W4, which was significantly superior to that achieved in the Hal/Cxb group (26.09%, P = .036). In addition, the HF-QoL score was statistically lower in the SND group compared to the Hal/Cxb group at W2 (P = .007), W3 (P = .005), and W4 (P = .005), respectively. In line with this, the inter-group difference in NRS score was statistically significant (P = .004).

Conclusion

In the present study, SND treatment has been observed to be effective and well tolerated for patients with grade 2 HFSR. Thus, SND treatment could be considered a suitable option for HFSR patients.

Trial registration

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, ChiCTR1900027518. Registered on 17 Nov 2019.

SUBMITTER: Shou L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10126634 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Jan-Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The Efficacy and Safety of the Shouzu Ning Decoction Treatment Versus Halometasone Plus Celecoxib Treatment in Patients With Grade 2 HFSR: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Shou Liumei L Shao Tianyu T Chen Jialu J Zhang Yao Y Shu Qijin Q Shu Qijin Q

Integrative cancer therapies 20230101

<h4>Objectives</h4>To compare the effects of the Shouzu Ning Decoction (SND) and Halometasone plus Celecoxib (Hal/Cxb) as therapy in patients with grade 2 hand-foot skin reaction (HFSR).<h4>Materials and methods</h4>Fifty patients with grade 2 HFSR participated in a randomized, single-center, open-label study. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive the SND or Hal/Cxb treatment, twice daily for 4 weeks, followed by 4 weeks of post-treatment follow-up. The primary endpoint was c ...[more]

PMID: 37082777

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe aim of this study will be to investigate the therapeutic effect and safety of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) along with symptomatic slow-acting drugs for the treatment of osteoarthritis (SYSADOA), JOINS tablets, for degenerative knee osteoarthritis (OA) treatment and to determine the analgesic and anti-inflammatory effects of the combination therapy. In addition, we will investigate whether JOINS treatment alone after NSAID and JOINS combination treatment is effective in relieving and maintaining knee OA symptoms.MethodsThis study will be a prospective, randomized, double-blind endpoint study design. All patients will be randomly assigned to either intervention (celecoxib+JOINS) or control (celecoxib+placebo) groups. In Part 1, the intervention group will be administered celecoxib once a day and JOINS three times a day for a total of 12 weeks. In the control group, celecoxib will be administered once a day and JOINS placebo three times a day for a total of 12 weeks. In Part 2, JOINS alone and JOINS placebo alone will be administered for an additional 24 weeks in both groups, respectively. The primary endpoint will be the amount of change during the 12 weeks as assessed using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index total score compared with baseline. The secondary endpoint will be the amount of change at 1, 4, 12, 24, and 36 weeks from the baseline for pain visual analog scale, Brief Pain Inventory, Short Form Health Survey-36 and biomarkers.ResultsThe trial was registered with Clinical-Trials.gov (NCT04718649). The clinical trial was also registered on Clinical Research Information Service (CRIS) with the trial registration number KCT0005742.ConclusionsThe combination treatment of the most commonly used SYSADOA drug, JOINS, and selective COX-2 inhibitor celecoxib as the representative NSAID for knee OA treatment, can be compared with celecoxib alone treatment to determine the safety or therapeutic effect.

Project description:BackgroundLenvatinib and atezolizumab plus bevacizumab(A + B) have been used for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) as first-line therapy. Real-world studies comparison of efficacy and safety in these two regimens are limited, we therefore conduct this study to investigate these issues.MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed patients received lenvatinib (n = 46) and A + B (n = 46) as first-line systemic therapy for unresectable HCC in a tertiary medical center. Objective response rate (ORR), progression free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were evaluated according to modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (mRECIST). Inverse probability weighting (IPW) was performed for baseline clinical features balance.ResultsA total of 92 patients with median age of 63.8 year-old, 78.3% male, 85.9% viral hepatitis infected, 67.4% BCLC stage C were enrolled. The median treatment and follow-up duration were 4.7 months and 9.4 months, respectively. There was no significant difference in ORR (26.1% vs. 41.3%, p = 0.1226), PFS (5.9 vs. 5.3 months, p = 0.4066), and OS (not reached vs. not reached, p = 0.7128) between the lenvatinib and A + B groups. After IPW, the results of survival and response rate were also compared. Subgroup analysis suggested that using lenvatinib was not inferior to A + B in regards of PFS, including those with elder, Child-Pugh class B, beyond up-to-seven, or portal vein invasion VP4 patients. Among the lenvatinib treated patients, multivariate analysis showed patients elder than 65-year-old was an independent predictor associated with shorter PFS (adjust HR: 2.085[0.914-4.753], p = 0.0213). The incidence rates of adverse events were similar between two groups (76 vs. 63%, p = 0.1740). Both of two regimens had similarly few impact on liver function by comparison of baseline, third month, and sixth month albumin-bilirubin index and Child-Pugh score.ConclusionsThe efficacy and safety of lenvatinib are similar to A + B as a first-line systemic therapy for unresectable HCC.

Project description:BackgroundWhen combined with ceftazidime, the novel non-β-lactam β-lactamase inhibitor avibactam provides a carbapenem alternative against multidrug-resistant infections. Efficacy and safety of ceftazidime-avibactam plus metronidazole were compared with meropenem in 1066 men and women with complicated intra-abdominal infections from 2 identical, randomized, double-blind phase 3 studies (NCT01499290 and NCT01500239).MethodsThe primary end point was clinical cure at test-of-cure visit 28-35 days after randomization, assessed by noninferiority of ceftazidime-avibactam plus metronidazole to meropenem in the microbiologically modified intention-to-treat (mMITT) population (in accordance with US Food and Drug Administration guidance), and the modified intention-to-treat and clinically evaluable populations (European Medicines Agency guidance). Noninferiority was considered met if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for between-group difference was greater than the prespecified noninferiority margin of -12.5%.ResultsCeftazidime-avibactam plus metronidazole was noninferior to meropenem across all primary analysis populations. Clinical cure rates with ceftazidime-avibactam plus metronidazole and meropenem, respectively, were as follows: mMITT population, 81.6% and 85.1% (between-group difference, -3.5%; 95% confidence interval -8.64 to 1.58); modified intention-to-treat, 82.5% and 84.9% (-2.4%; -6.90 to 2.10); and clinically evaluable, 91.7% and 92.5% (-0.8%; -4.61 to 2.89). The clinical cure rate with ceftazidime-avibactam plus metronidazole for ceftazidime-resistant infections was comparable to that with meropenem (mMITT population, 83.0% and 85.9%, respectively) and similar to the regimen's own efficacy against ceftazidime-susceptible infections (82.0%). Adverse events were similar between groups.ConclusionsCeftazidime-avibactam plus metronidazole was noninferior to meropenem in the treatment of complicated intra-abdominal infections. Efficacy was similar against infections caused by ceftazidime-susceptible and ceftazidime-resistant pathogens. The safety profile of ceftazidime-avibactam plus metronidazole was consistent with that previously observed with ceftazidime alone.Clinical trials registrationNCT01499290 and NCT01500239.

Project description:PurposePatients with advanced renal cell carcinoma with sarcomatoid features (sRCC) have poor prognoses and suboptimal outcomes with targeted therapy. This post hoc analysis of the phase III CheckMate 214 trial analyzed the efficacy of nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO+IPI) versus sunitinib in patients with sRCC.Patients and methodsPatients with sRCC were identified via independent central pathology review of archival tumor tissue or histologic classification per local pathology report. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive nivolumab (3 mg/kg) plus ipilimumab (1 mg/kg) every 3 weeks (four doses) then nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks, or sunitinib 50 mg orally every day (4 weeks; 6-week cycles). Outcomes in patients with sRCC were not prespecified. Endpoints in patients with sRCC and International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium intermediate/poor-risk disease included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) per independent radiology review, and objective response rate (ORR) per RECIST v1.1. Safety outcomes used descriptive statistics.ResultsOf 1,096 randomized patients in CheckMate 214, 139 patients with sRCC and intermediate/poor-risk disease and six with favorable-risk disease were identified. With 42 months' minimum follow-up in patients with sRCC and intermediate/poor-risk disease, median OS [95% confidence interval (CI)] favored NIVO+IPI [not reached (NR) (25.2-not estimable [NE]); n = 74] versus sunitinib [14.2 months (9.3-22.9); n = 65; HR, 0.45 (95% CI, 0.3-0.7; P = 0.0004)]; PFS benefits with NIVO+IPI were similarly observed [median 26.5 vs. 5.1 months; HR, 0.54 (95% CI, 0.33-0.86; P = 0.0093)]. Confirmed ORR was 60.8% with NIVO+IPI versus 23.1% with sunitinib, with complete response rates of 18.9% versus 3.1%, respectively. No new safety signals emerged.ConclusionsNIVO+IPI showed unprecedented long-term survival, response, and complete response benefits versus sunitinib in previously untreated patients with sRCC and intermediate/poor-risk disease, supporting the use of first-line NIVO+IPI for this population.See related commentary by Hwang et al., p. 5.

Dataset Information

The Efficacy and Safety of the Shouzu Ning Decoction Treatment Versus Halometasone Plus Celecoxib Treatment in Patients With Grade 2 HFSR: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Objectives

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusion

Trial registration

Publications

The Efficacy and Safety of the Shouzu Ning Decoction Treatment Versus Halometasone Plus Celecoxib Treatment in Patients With Grade 2 HFSR: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets