Project description:ImportanceOral mucositis causes substantial morbidity during head and neck radiotherapy. In a randomized study, doxepin mouthwash was shown to reduce oral mucositis-related pain. A common mouthwash comprising diphenhydramine-lidocaine-antacid is also widely used.ObjectiveTo evaluate the effect of doxepin mouthwash or diphenhydramine-lidocaine-antacid mouthwash for the treatment of oral mucositis-related pain.Design, setting, and participantsA phase 3 randomized trial was conducted from November 1, 2014, to May 16, 2016, at 30 US institutions and included 275 patients who underwent definitive head and neck radiotherapy, had an oral mucositis pain score of 4 points or greater (scale, 0-10), and were followed up for a maximum of 28 days.InterventionsNinety-two patients were randomized to doxepin mouthwash (25 mg/5 mL water); 91 patients to diphenhydramine-lidocaine-antacid; and 92 patients to placebo.Main outcome and measuresThe primary end point was total oral mucositis pain reduction (defined by the area under the curve and adjusted for baseline pain score) during the 4 hours after a single dose of doxepin mouthwash or diphenhydramine-lidocaine-antacid mouthwash compared with a single dose of placebo. The minimal clinically important difference was a 3.5-point change. The secondary end points included drowsiness, unpleasant taste, and stinging or burning. All scales ranged from 0 (best) to 10 (worst).ResultsAmong the 275 patients randomized (median age, 61 years; 58 [21%] women), 227 (83%) completed treatment per protocol. Mucositis pain during the first 4 hours decreased by 11.6 points in the doxepin mouthwash group, by 11.7 points in the diphenhydramine-lidocaine-antacid mouthwash group, and by 8.7 points in the placebo group. The between-group difference was 2.9 points (95% CI, 0.2-6.0; P = .02) for doxepin mouthwash vs placebo and 3.0 points (95% CI, 0.1-5.9; P = .004) for diphenhydramine-lidocaine-antacid mouthwash vs placebo. More drowsiness was reported with doxepin mouthwash vs placebo (by 1.5 points [95% CI, 0-4.0]; P = .03), unpleasant taste (by 1.5 points [95% CI, 0-3.0]; P = .002), and stinging or burning (by 4.0 points [95% CI, 2.5-5.0]; P < .001). Maximum grade 3 adverse events for the doxepin mouthwash occurred in 3 patients (4%); diphenhydramine-lidocaine-antacid mouthwash, 3 (4%); and placebo, 2 (2%). Fatigue was reported by 5 patients (6%) in the doxepin mouthwash group and no patients in the diphenhydramine-lidocaine-antacid mouthwash group.Conclusions and relevanceAmong patients undergoing head and neck radiotherapy, the use of doxepin mouthwash or diphenhydramine-lidocaine-antacid mouthwash vs placebo significantly reduced oral mucositis pain during the first 4 hours after administration; however, the effect size was less than the minimal clinically important difference. Further research is needed to assess longer-term efficacy and safety for both mouthwashes.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02229539.

Project description:ImportanceAdenomyosis is a common chronic gynecological disorder, and its treatment is an unmet need. New therapies need to be developed. Mifepristone is being tested for adenomyosis treatment.ObjectiveTo determine whether mifepristone is effective and safe for adenomyosis treatment.Design, setting, and participantsThis multicenter, placebo-controlled, double-blind randomized clinical trial was conducted in 10 hospitals in China. In total, 134 patients with adenomyosis pain symptoms were enrolled. Trial enrollment began in May 2018 and was completed in April 2019, and analyses were conducted from October 2019 to February 2020.InterventionsParticipants were randomized 1:1 to receive mifepristone 10 mg or placebo orally once a day for 12 weeks.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary end point was the change in adenomyosis-associated dysmenorrhea intensity, evaluated by the visual analog scale (VAS) after 12 weeks of treatment. Secondary end points included the change in menstrual blood loss, increased level of hemoglobin in patients with anemia, CA125 level, platelet count, and uterine volume after 12 weeks of treatment. Safety was assessed according to adverse events, vital signs, gynecological examinations, and laboratory evaluations.ResultsIn total, 134 patients with adenomyosis and dysmenorrhea were randomly assigned, and 126 patients were included in the efficacy analysis, including 61 patients (mean [SD] age, 40.2 [4.6] years) randomized to receive mifepristone and 65 patients (mean [SD] age, 41.7 [5.0] years) randomized to received the placebo. The characteristics of the included patients at baseline were similar between groups. The mean (SD) change in VAS score was -6.63 (1.92) in the mifepristone group and -0.95 (1.75) in the placebo group (P < .001). The total remission rates for dysmenorrhea in the mifepristone group were significantly better than those in the placebo group (effective remission: 56 patients [91.8%] vs 15 patients [23.1%]; complete remission: 54 patients [88.5%] vs 4 patients [6.2%]). All the secondary end points showed significant improvements after mifepristone treatment for menstrual blood loss, hemoglobin (mean [SD] change from baseline: 2.13 [1.38] g/dL vs 0.48 [0.97] g/dL; P < .001), CA125 (mean [SD] change from baseline: -62.23 [76.99] U/mL vs 26.89 [118.70] U/mL; P < .001), platelet count (mean [SD] change from baseline: -28.87 [54.30]×103/µL vs 2.06 [41.78]×103/µL; P < .001), and uterine volume (mean [SD] change from baseline: -29.32 [39.34] cm3 vs 18.39 [66.46] cm3; P < .001). Safety analysis revealed no significant difference between groups, and no serious adverse events were reported.Conclusions and relevanceThis randomized clinical trial showed that mifepristone could be a new option for treating patients with adenomyosis, based on its efficacy and acceptable tolerability.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03520439.

Project description:ImportanceTimely analgesia is critical for children with injuries presenting to the emergency department, yet pain control efforts are often inadequate. Intranasal administration of pain medications provides rapid analgesia with minimal discomfort. Opioids are historically used for significant pain from traumatic injuries but have concerning adverse effects. Intranasal ketamine may provide an effective alternative.ObjectiveTo determine whether intranasal ketamine is noninferior to intranasal fentanyl for pain reduction in children presenting with acute extremity injuries.Design, setting, and participantsThe Pain Reduction With Intranasal Medications for Extremity Injuries (PRIME) trial was a double-blind, randomized, active-control, noninferiority trial in a pediatric, tertiary, level 1 trauma center. Participants were children aged 8 to 17 years presenting to the emergency department with moderate to severe pain due to traumatic limb injuries between March 2016 and February 2017. Analyses were intention to treat and began in May 2017.InterventionsIntranasal ketamine (1.5 mg/kg) or intranasal fentanyl (2 µg/kg).Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was reduction in visual analog scale pain score 30 minutes after intervention. The noninferiority margin for this outcome was 10.ResultsOf 90 children enrolled, 45 (50%) were allocated to ketamine (mean [SD] age, 11.8 [2.6] years; 26 boys [59%]) and 45 (50%) to fentanyl (mean [SD] age, 12.2 [2.3] years; 31 boys [74%]). Thirty minutes after medication, the mean visual analog scale reduction was 30.6 mm (95% CI, 25.4-35.8) for ketamine and 31.9 mm (95% CI, 26.6-37.2) for fentanyl. Ketamine was noninferior to fentanyl for pain reduction based on a 1-sided test of group difference less than the noninferiority margin, as the CIs crossed 0 but did not cross the prespecified noninferiority margin (difference in mean pain reduction between groups, 1.3; 90% CI, -6.2 to 8.7). The risk of adverse events was higher in the ketamine group (relative risk, 2.5; 95% CI, 1.5-4.0), but all events were minor and transient. Rescue analgesia was similar between groups (relative risk, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.5-1.6).Conclusions and relevanceKetamine provides effective analgesia that is noninferior to fentanyl, although participants who received ketamine had an increase in adverse events that were minor and transient. Intranasal ketamine may be an appropriate alternative to intranasal fentanyl for pain associated with acute extremity injuries. Ketamine should be considered for pediatric pain management in the emergency setting, especially when opioids are associated with increased risk.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02778880.

Project description:ImportanceChronic back pain (CBP) is a leading cause of disability, and treatment is often ineffective. Approximately 85% of cases are primary CBP, for which peripheral etiology cannot be identified, and maintenance factors include fear, avoidance, and beliefs that pain indicates injury.ObjectiveTo test whether a psychological treatment (pain reprocessing therapy [PRT]) aiming to shift patients' beliefs about the causes and threat value of pain provides substantial and durable pain relief from primary CBP and to investigate treatment mechanisms.Design, setting, and participantsThis randomized clinical trial with longitudinal functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and 1-year follow-up assessment was conducted in a university research setting from November 2017 to August 2018, with 1-year follow-up completed by November 2019. Clinical and fMRI data were analyzed from January 2019 to August 2020. The study compared PRT with an open-label placebo treatment and with usual care in a community sample.InterventionsParticipants randomized to PRT participated in 1 telehealth session with a physician and 8 psychological treatment sessions over 4 weeks. Treatment aimed to help patients reconceptualize their pain as due to nondangerous brain activity rather than peripheral tissue injury, using a combination of cognitive, somatic, and exposure-based techniques. Participants randomized to placebo received an open-label subcutaneous saline injection in the back; participants randomized to usual care continued their routine, ongoing care.Main outcomes and measuresOne-week mean back pain intensity score (0 to 10) at posttreatment, pain beliefs, and fMRI measures of evoked pain and resting connectivity.ResultsAt baseline, 151 adults (54% female; mean [SD] age, 41.1 [15.6] years) reported mean (SD) pain of low to moderate severity (mean [SD] pain intensity, 4.10 [1.26] of 10; mean [SD] disability, 23.34 [10.12] of 100) and mean (SD) pain duration of 10.0 (8.9) years. Large group differences in pain were observed at posttreatment, with a mean (SD) pain score of 1.18 (1.24) in the PRT group, 2.84 (1.64) in the placebo group, and 3.13 (1.45) in the usual care group. Hedges g was -1.14 for PRT vs placebo and -1.74 for PRT vs usual care (P < .001). Of 151 total participants, 33 of 50 participants (66%) randomized to PRT were pain-free or nearly pain-free at posttreatment (reporting a pain intensity score of 0 or 1 of 10), compared with 10 of 51 participants (20%) randomized to placebo and 5 of 50 participants (10%) randomized to usual care. Treatment effects were maintained at 1-year follow-up, with a mean (SD) pain score of 1.51 (1.59) in the PRT group, 2.79 (1.78) in the placebo group, and 3.00 (1.77) in the usual care group. Hedges g was -0.70 for PRT vs placebo (P = .001) and -1.05 for PRT vs usual care (P < .001) at 1-year follow-up. Longitudinal fMRI showed (1) reduced responses to evoked back pain in the anterior midcingulate and the anterior prefrontal cortex for PRT vs placebo; (2) reduced responses in the anterior insula for PRT vs usual care; (3) increased resting connectivity from the anterior prefrontal cortex and the anterior insula to the primary somatosensory cortex for PRT vs both control groups; and (4) increased connectivity from the anterior midcingulate to the precuneus for PRT vs usual care.Conclusions and relevancePsychological treatment centered on changing patients' beliefs about the causes and threat value of pain may provide substantial and durable pain relief for people with CBP.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03294148.

Project description:ImportanceIntravenous acetaminophen is a commonly prescribed analgesic for the prevention and treatment of postsurgical pain. Its efficacy in the context of endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) has yielded mixed results.ObjectiveTo compare the efficacy of perioperative intravenous acetaminophen (IVAPAP) with that of placebo in improving early postoperative pain after endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS).Design, setting, and participantsA prospective, randomized clinical trial including 62 patients undergoing ESS for chronic rhinosinusitis in a single tertiary referral hospital.InterventionsParticipants were randomized to receive 1 g of IVAPAP or 100 mL of placebo consisting of saline infusions immediately before the start of surgery and 4 hours after the initial dose.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was postoperative pain measured by visual analog scale (VAS) scores up to 24 hours after surgery by blinded observers. Secondary endpoints included postoperative opioid (intravenous and oral) use and adverse events in the 24-hour postoperative period.ResultsOf the 62 enrolled adult participants, 60 were randomized (31 to IVAPAP intervention and 29 to placebo). The mean (SD) age of participants was 53.7 (14.7) years and 35 (58%) of the participants were men and 25 (42%) were women. Within the first hour, mean pain scores were reduced in the IVAPAP group compared with the control group, reaching a maximum difference of 7.7 mm on a VAS scale favoring the treatment group with a true difference possibly as high as 22 mm, and the data are compatible with a clinically meaningful difference. At 12- and 24-hours, average pain scores were less in the placebo group and the data are compatible with a clinically meaningful difference of 5.8 (-5.2 to 16.8) and 8.2 (-1.9 to 18.4), respectively, favoring the placebo group. However, at all time points the CIs included the null value and were wide, thus preventing definitive conclusions. Inspection of the secondary outcomes favored IVAPAP, but the wide range of the CIs and inclusion of the null value prevent definitive conclusions.Conclusions and relevanceThe results of this study are inconclusive. The data suggest that perioperative intravenous acetaminophen may reduce immediate postoperative pain and opioid requirements compared with placebo and these differences could be clinically meaningful. Unfortunately, the imprecision of the estimates prevents definitive conclusion. Use of IVAPAP does not seem to increase adverse events.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01608308.

Project description:ImportanceMyasthenia gravis (MG) is caused by autoantibodies that disrupt the neuromuscular junction. The neonatal fragment crystallizable receptor (FcRn) antagonists, efgartigimod and rozanolixizumab, reduce immunoglobulin G (IgG) level in the circulation and alleviate symptoms in patients with generalized MG.ObjectiveTo examine the efficacy and safety profile of batoclimab, a monoclonal IgG1 antibody, in patients with generalized MG.Design, setting, and participantsThis was a multicenter randomized clinical trial conducted from September 15, 2021, to June 29, 2022, at 27 centers in China. Adult patients 18 years or older with generalized MG were screened, and those who were antibody positive were enrolled.InterventionEligible patients received batoclimab or matching placebo in addition to standard of care. Each treatment cycle consisted of 6 weekly subcutaneous injections of batoclimab, 680 mg, or matching placebo followed by 4 weeks of observation. A second treatment cycle was conducted in patients who required continuing treatment.Main outcome and measureThe primary outcome was sustained improvement, as defined by a 3-point or greater reduction in the Myasthenia Gravis Activities of Daily Living (MG-ADL) score from baseline for 4 or more consecutive weeks in the first cycle in individuals who were positive for acetylcholine receptor or muscle-specific kinase antibodies.ResultsA total of 178 adult patients with generalized MG were screened, 132 were randomly assigned, 131 tested positive for antibodies, and 1 tested negative for antibodies. A total of 132 patients (mean [SE] age, 43.8 [13.6] years; 88 women [67.2%]) were enrolled. The rate of sustained MG-ADL improvement in the first cycle in antibody-positive patients was 31.3% (20 of 64) in the placebo group vs 58.2% (39 of 67) in the batoclimab group (odds ratio, 3.45; 95% CI, 1.62-7.35; P = .001). The MG-ADL score diverged between the 2 groups as early as week 2. The mean (SE) maximum difference in MG-ADL score reduction occurred 1 week after the last dose (day 43, 1.7 [0.3] in the placebo group vs 3.6 [0.3] in the batoclimab group; group difference, -1.9; 95% CI, -2.8 to -1.0; nominal P < .001). The rates of treatment-related and severe treatment-emergent adverse events in patients were 36.9% (24 of 65) and 7.7% (5 of 65) in the placebo group vs 70.1% (47 of 67) and 3.0% (2 of 67) in the batoclimab group, respectively.Conclusions and relevanceBatoclimab increased the rate of sustained MG-ADL improvement and was well tolerated in adult patients with generalized MG. Clinical effects and the extent of IgG reduction were similar to those previously reported for efgartigimod and rozanolixizumab. Future studies of large sample size are needed to further understand the safety profile of batoclimab.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05039190.

Dataset Information

Oral Ketamine vs Placebo in Patients With Cancer-Related Neuropathic Pain: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Publications

Oral Ketamine vs Placebo in Patients With Cancer-Related Neuropathic Pain: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets