Dataset Information

Safety and efficacy of pregabalin in adolescents with fibromyalgia: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial and a 6-month open-label extension study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Fibromyalgia (FM) is a common pain condition characterized by widespread musculoskeletal pain and tenderness. Pregabalin is an approved treatment for adults in the United States, but there are no approved treatments for adolescents with FM.

Methods

This was a 15-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study and 6-month open-label safety trial of flexible-dose pregabalin (75-450 mg/day) for the treatment of adolescents (12-17 years) with FM. Primary outcome was change in mean pain score at endpoint (scored from 0-10, with 24-h recall). Secondary outcomes included global assessments and measures of pain, sleep, and FM impact.

Results

A total of 107 subjects were randomized to treatment (54 pregabalin, 53 placebo) and 80 completed the study (44 pregabalin, 36 placebo). Improvement in mean pain score at endpoint with pregabalin versus placebo was not statistically significant, treatment difference (95 % CI), -0.66 (-1.51, 0.18), P = 0.121. There were significant improvements with pregabalin versus placebo in secondary outcomes of change in pain score by week (P < 0.05 for 10 of 15 weeks); change in pain score at week 15 (1-week recall), treatment difference (95 % CI), -0.87 (-1.68, -0.05), P = 0.037; and patient global impression of change, 53.1 % versus 29.5 % very much or much improved (P = 0.013). Trends toward improvement with pregabalin in other secondary outcomes measuring pain, sleep, and FM impact were not significant. Safety was consistent with the known profile of pregabalin in adults with FM.

Conclusion

Pregabalin did not significantly improve the mean pain score in adolescents with FM. There were significant improvements in secondary outcomes measuring pain and impression of change.

Trial registrations

NCT01020474 ; NCT01020526 .

SUBMITTER: Arnold LM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4967327 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Safety and efficacy of pregabalin in adolescents with fibromyalgia: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial and a 6-month open-label extension study.

Arnold Lesley M LM Schikler Kenneth N KN Bateman Lucinda L Khan Tahira T Pauer Lynne L Bhadra-Brown Pritha P Clair Andrew A Chew Marci L ML Scavone Joseph J

Pediatric rheumatology online journal 20160730 1

<h4>Background</h4>Fibromyalgia (FM) is a common pain condition characterized by widespread musculoskeletal pain and tenderness. Pregabalin is an approved treatment for adults in the United States, but there are no approved treatments for adolescents with FM.<h4>Methods</h4>This was a 15-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study and 6-month open-label safety trial of flexible-dose pregabalin (75-450 mg/day) for the treatment of adolescents (12-17 years) with FM. Primary outcome wa ...[more]

PMID: 27475753

Similar Datasets

Project description:Tinnitus is often triggered by cochlear damage and has been linked with aberrant patterns of neuronal activity. Acoustic Coordinated Reset (CR®) Neuromodulation is a sound therapy hypothesised to reduce tinnitus symptoms by desynchronising pathological brain activity using a portable acoustic device (the T30 neurostimulator). We report results of a pivotal trial to test the efficacy of this intervention. This two-centre, double-blind randomised controlled trial with long-term open-label extension, was undertaken between February 2012 and February 2014 in the UK. Participants were 100 adults with tinnitus as a primary complaint, recruited through hearing clinics and media advertisements. Intervention was the device programmed either with the proprietary sound sequence or placebo algorithm, fit by one of five trained audiologists. Minimisation software provided group allocation (1:1 randomisation), with groups matched for age, gender, hearing loss and tinnitus severity. Allocation was masked from participants and assessors during the trial. The primary measure of efficacy was change in tinnitus symptom severity between groups, measured using the Tinnitus Handicap Questionnaire at 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes were other measures of tinnitus symptom severity, health-related quality of life, and perceptual characteristics (pitch, loudness, bandwidth) at 12 weeks, and Tinnitus Handicap Questionnaire at 36 weeks (open-label extension). A statistician blinded to the allocation conducted an intention-to-treat analysis that employed linear regressions on minimisation variables, trial centre and intervention group, with multiple imputations for missing data. The study was registered on clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01541969). We screened 391 individuals and assigned interventions to 100 eligible participants. The primary outcome was not statistically significant between groups (mean group = -0.45, 95% CI -5.25 to 4.35; p = 0.85), nor were any of the secondary outcomes. Four adverse events occurred during the trial. Analysis of tinnitus symptom severity data collected across the 24-week open-label extension showed no statistically significant within-group changes after 12, 24, or 36 weeks treatment with the proprietary sound sequence. While individual participants may benefit from sound therapy, Acoustic CR® Neuromodulation did not lead to group-mean reductions on tinnitus symptom severity or other measures compared to placebo, or over time.

Project description:BackgroundIn the CALCIPHYX trial, we investigated hexasodium fytate, an inhibitor of vascular calcification, for the treatment of calcific uraemic arteriolopathy (calciphylaxis), a rare condition characterised by painful, non-healing skin lesions.MethodsIn this international, phase 3, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, adults with an ulcerated calciphylaxis lesion and pain visual analogue scale (VAS) score ≥50/100 were randomised 1:1 to hexasodium fytate 7 mg/kg or placebo intravenously during maintenance haemodialysis. Primary efficacy outcomes were an 8-item modification of the Bates-Jensen Wound Assessment Tool (BWAT-CUA) and Pain VAS in the intention-to-treat population. ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT04195906.FindingsOverall, 34/37 patients randomised to hexasodium fytate and 26/34 patients randomised to placebo completed the 12-week randomised treatment period. At Week 12, both groups (hexasodium fytate versus placebo) showed similar improvements in BWAT-CUA (mean [standard deviation (SD)], -5.3 [5.2] versus -6.0 [6.2]; least squares mean difference, 0.3 [96% confidence interval (CI): -2.5, 3.0]; p = 0.88) and Pain VAS (mean [SD], -19.5 [26.9] versus -32.2 [38.5]; least squares mean difference, 11.5 [96% CI: -4.8, 27.8]; p = 0.15). One patient randomised to placebo briefly received hexasodium fytate in error. Serious adverse events through Week 12 included: calciphylaxis-related events leading to hospitalisation (2/38 [5%] versus 11/33 [33%]) and death (1/38 [3%] versus 5/33 [15%]). During the subsequent 12 weeks of open-label hexasodium fytate and 4 weeks of follow-up, there were no additional calciphylaxis-related events leading to hospitalisation. Over the course of the entire trial, deaths were 2/38 [5%] for the hexasodium fytate group and 7/33 [21%] for the placebo group.InterpretationIn patients with calciphylaxis, BWAT-CUA and Pain VAS improved similarly in hexasodium fytate- and placebo-treated patients; over the course of the entire trial, there were fewer deaths and calciphylaxis-related events leading to hospitalisation in the hexasodium fytate group.FundingFunded by Sanifit, a CSL Vifor company.

Project description:IntroductionA post hoc analysis of a double-blind (DB) active control trial and an open-label extension (OLE) study was conducted to evaluate the long-term effects of lurasidone in patients with schizophrenia.MethodsIn the DB trial, patients were randomised to receive lurasidone or risperidone for 12 months. In OLE, all patients received lurasidone for an additional 6 months. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were evaluated. Efficacy assessments included relapse rate (DB trial only), and Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale, Clinical Global Impression-Severity scale, and Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale.ResultsIn the DB trial, patients with schizophrenia were randomised to lurasidone (n = 399) and risperidone (n = 190), of whom 129 and 84 continued into OLE, respectively. During the DB trial, incidence of TEAEs was similar for lurasidone (84.1%) and risperidone (84.2%). Lurasidone was associated with minimal changes in metabolic variables and prolactin levels, whereas risperidone was associated with clinically significant increases in prolactin and fasting glucose levels. The proportion of patients with metabolic syndrome was significantly lower in patients treated with lurasidone versus risperidone at the end of the DB trial (25.5% vs 40.4%; p = 0.0177). During OLE, patients switching from risperidone to lurasidone experienced a reduction in weight and prolactin levels; those continuing treatment with lurasidone experienced minimal changes in metabolic variables and prolactin. At the end of OLE, the proportion of patients with metabolic syndrome was no longer significantly different between groups (23.5% vs 31.5%; p = not significant). Efficacy outcomes were generally similar between groups during the DB trial, and were maintained during OLE.ConclusionLurasidone was generally well tolerated and effective in clinically stable schizophrenia patients over the long term. Lurasidone was also generally well tolerated and maintained effectiveness over 6 months in patients switching from risperidone. Patients switching from risperidone experienced improvements in metabolic parameters and prolactin levels. These findings confirm lurasidone's long-term effectiveness and favourable metabolic profile in patients with schizophrenia.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00641745.

Project description:BackgroundResults from a phase 2a study indicated that treatment with the novel α7 nicotinic acetylcholine receptor agonist ABT-126 25 mg once daily (QD) was associated with a trend for improvement in cognition in subjects with mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's dementia (AD). A phase 2b program was designed to evaluate a broader dose range of ABT-126 as monotherapy in subjects with mild-to-moderate AD. The program consisted of a double-blind, placebo and active controlled study of ABT-126 (dose range 25-75 mg) and an open-label extension study (75 mg).MethodsThe randomized double-blind study enrolled 438 subjects (Mini-Mental Status Examination score of 10-24, inclusive) not currently taking acetylcholinesterase inhibitors or memantine. Subjects received 24 weeks of ABT-126 25 mg QD (n = 77), ABT-126 50 mg QD (n = 108), ABT-126 75 mg QD (n = 73), donepezil 10 mg QD (n = 76), or placebo (n = 104). The primary endpoint was the change from baseline to week 24 in the 11-item Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive subscale (ADAS-Cog) total score. Subjects completing the double-blind study could enroll in the 28-week open-label extension study. Adverse events (AEs) and other safety parameters were monitored in both studies.ResultsA total of 367 patients (83.8 %) completed the double-blind study and 349 (79.7 %) entered the open-label study. Compared with placebo, donepezil significantly improved ADAS-Cog 11-item total scores from baseline to week 24 (-2.29 ± 0.95; one-sided P = 0.008). No ABT-126 dose demonstrated a statistically significant improvement vs placebo at week 24 in the ADAS-Cog total score: ABT-126 25 mg, -0.47 ± 0.94 (P = 0.309); ABT-126 50 mg, -0.87 ± 0.85 (P = 0.153); and ABT-126 75 mg, -1.08 ± 0.94 (P = 0.127). Rates of serious AEs and discontinuations due to AEs were similar across treatment groups. The most frequently reported AEs in both studies were constipation, fall, and headache. No clinically meaningful changes were observed in other parameters.ConclusionsIn the double-blind trial, donepezil significantly improved ADAS-Cog scores but no statistically significant improvement was seen with any ABT-126 dose. ABT-126 had an acceptable safety profile in subjects with mild-to-moderate AD in both studies.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT01527916 , Registered 3 February 2012 (randomized trial). ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01676935 . Registered 29 August 2012 (open-label extension study).

Project description:BackgroundThere is increasing evidence suggesting that open-label placebo (OLP) is an effective treatment for several medical conditions defined by self-report. However, little is known about patients' experiences with OLP, and no studies have directly compared patients' experiences in double-blind placebo (DBP) conditions.MethodsThis study was nested in a large randomized-controlled trial comparing the effects of OLP and DBP treatments in individuals with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). We randomly selected 33 participants for interviews concerning their experiences in the parent trial. The data were qualitatively analyzed using an iterative immersion/crystallization approach. We then compared the qualitative interview data to the quantitative IBS severity data assessed during the parent trial, using a mixed methods approach.ResultsTwo prominent interview themes were identified: (1) the participants' feelings about their treatment allocation and (2) their reflections about the treatment. Both OLP and DBP participants mentioned hope and curiosity as major feelings driving them to engage with their treatment. However, while DBP participants tended to be more enthusiastic about their allocation, OLP participants were more ambivalent. Furthermore, OLP participants reflected more on their treatment, often involving noticeable cognitive and emotional processes of self-reflection. They offered a variety of explanations for their symptom improvement and were significantly less likely to attribute it to the treatment itself than DBP participants (Χ2 [3] = 8.28; p = .041). Similarly, the participants' retrospective narratives of symptom improvement were significantly correlated with their corresponding quantitative IBS severity scores only in DBP (p's ≤ .006) but not in OLP (p's ≥ .637).ConclusionOLP and DBP participants share feelings of hope, uncertainty and curiosity but differ in the extent of conscious reflection. The counter-intuitive OLP prompts more self-examination, ambivalent feelings and active engagement compared to DBP. At the same time, OLP participants are more reluctant to attribute symptom improvement to their treatment. Our findings substantially add to the emerging picture of factors that distinguish OLP and DBP and their potential mechanisms.

Project description:Study objectivesEsmirtazapine (1.5-4.5 mg) has demonstrated short-term sleep-promoting effects in nonelderly outpatients with chronic insomnia. This phase 3, randomized, double-blind study (NCT00631657) and its open-label extension (NCT00750919) investigated efficacy and safety of long-term esmirtazapine treatment in adult outpatients with chronic insomnia.MethodsParticipants were randomized to receive esmirtazapine 4.5 mg or placebo for 6 months; those receiving esmirtazapine were then rerandomized to esmirtazapine or placebo for an additional 7 days. Participants could enter the 6-month open-label extension with esmirtazapine 4.5 mg. The primary objective of the double-blind study was to assess long-term efficacy of esmirtazapine vs placebo on self-reported total sleep time. Assessing long-term safety and tolerability were secondary and primary objectives of the double-blind and extension studies, respectively.ResultsOverall, 457 participants received treatment in the double-blind study (esmirtazapine, n = 342; placebo, n = 115) and 184 participants (prior esmirtazapine, n = 136; prior placebo, n = 48) received esmirtazapine in the extension. In the double-blind study, a 48.7-minute increase in average nightly total sleep time was observed for esmirtazapine vs placebo (95% confidence interval, 35.0-62.5; P < .0001) at months 4-6. There was no evidence of residual effects on next-day alertness or daytime functioning and no evidence of rebound insomnia or withdrawal symptoms upon treatment discontinuation. Esmirtazapine was generally well tolerated; somnolence and weight gain were the most common adverse events.ConclusionsEsmirtazapine improved sleep duration vs placebo over at least 6 months. There was no evidence of next-day residual effects or of withdrawal symptoms or rebound insomnia following abrupt treatment discontinuation.Clinical trial registrationRegistry: ClinicalTrials.gov; Name: A 6-Month Efficacy and Safety Study of Org 50081 in Adult Patients With Chronic Primary Insomnia (21106/P05701/MK-8265-002); URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00631657; Identifier: NCT00631657; and Registry: ClinicalTrials.gov; Name: Twenty-Six Week Extension Trial of Org 50081 (Esmirtazapine) in Outpatients With Chronic Primary Insomnia (176003/P05721/MK-8265-007); URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00750919); Identifier: NCT00750919.

Project description:ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of asenapine in adolescents with schizophrenia.MethodsIn an 8 week, randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled trial, subjects (12-17 years of age) meeting Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th ed., Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR) criteria for schizophrenia were randomized 1:1:1 to placebo, asenapine 2.5 mg b.i.d., or asenapine 5 mg b.i.d. Subjects who completed the 8 week acute study could participate in a 26 week flexible-dose asenapine-only open-label extension (OLE).ResultsA similar percentage of subjects completed treatment on day 56 (2.5 mg b.i.d. (n=98): 83%; 5 mg b.i.d. [n=106]: 79%; placebo [n=102]: 79%). In the mixed model for repeated measures analysis of the primary end-point (with Hochberg correction for multiplicity), least squares (LS) mean differences between asenapine and placebo on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score at day 56 were not significant (-4.8 for 2.5 mg b.i.d., p=0.070; -5.6 for 5 mg b.i.d., p=0.064). Significant improvement in the Clinical Global Impressions-Severity score was observed in the 5 mg b.i.d. group versus placebo on day 56 (LS mean -0.3, p=0.024). In the acute phase, ≥7% weight gain and the composite event of somnolence, sedation, and hypersomnia were more common in both asenapine groups than in the placebo group. Akathisia, fasting glucose elevation, and extrapyramidal syndrome were more common in the 5 mg b.i.d. group than in the placebo group. There were no unexpected adverse events in the OLE, and PANSS total scores decreased by -16.1 points in the group previously treated with placebo (n=62) and by -11.2 points in the continuous asenapine group (n=131) from OLE baseline to week 26.ConclusionsAlthough improvements in PANSS total score at day 56 of the acute phase were numerically greater for both asenapine 2.5 and 5 mg b.i.d. than for placebo and were maintained in the OLE, the primary end-point did not achieve statistical significance in the acute phase. No new or unexpected safety concerns were detected during the acute phase or after an additional 26 weeks of asenapine treatment in the adolescent population with schizophrenia.Clinical trials registryNCT01190254 and NCT1190267 at ClinicalTrials.gov.

Dataset Information

Safety and efficacy of pregabalin in adolescents with fibromyalgia: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial and a 6-month open-label extension study.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Trial registrations

Publications

Safety and efficacy of pregabalin in adolescents with fibromyalgia: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial and a 6-month open-label extension study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets