Efficacy of low level laser therapy associated with exercises in knee osteoarthritis: a randomized double-blind study

Objectives: To estimate the effects of low level laser therapy in combination with a programme of exercises on pain, functionality, range of motion, muscular strength and quality of life in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee. Design: A randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial with sequential allocation of patients to different treatment groups. Setting: Special Rehabilitation Services. Subjects: Forty participants with knee osteoarthritis, 2-4 osteoarthritis degree, aged between 50 and 75 years and both genders. Intervention: Participants were randomized into one of two groups: the laser group (low level laser therapy dose of 3 J and exercises) or placebo group (placebo laser and exercises). Main measures: Pain was assessed using a visual analogue scale (VAS), functionality using the Lequesne questionnaire, range of motion with a universal goniometer, muscular strength using a dynamometer, and activity using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis (WOMAC) questionnaire at three time points: (T1) baseline, (T2) after the end of laser therapy (three weeks) and (T3) the end of the exercises (11 weeks). Results: When comparing groups, significant differences in the activity were also found (P = 0.03). No other significant differences (P > 0.05) were observed in other variables. In intragroup analysis, participants in the laser group had significant improvement, relative to baseline, on pain (P = 0.001), range of motion (P = 0.01), functionality (P = 0.001) and activity (P < 0.001). No significant improvement was seen in the placebo group. Conclusion: Our findings suggest that low level laser therapy when associated with exercises is effective in yielding pain relief, function and activity on patients with osteoarthritis of the knees.

Metronidazole Immediate Release Formulations: A Fasting Randomized Open-Label Crossover Bioequivalence Study in Healthy Volunteers

Metronidazole is a BCS (Biopharmaceutics Classification System) class 1 drug, traditionally considered the choice drug in the infections treatment caused by protozoa and anaerobic microorganisms. This study aimed to evaluate bioequivalence between 2 different marketed 250 mg metronidazole immediate release tablets. A randomized, open-label, 2 x 2 crossover study was performed in healthy Brazilian volunteers under fasting conditions with a 7-day washout period. The formulations were administered as single oral dose and blood was sampled over 48 h. Metronidazole plasma concentrations were determined by a liquid chromatography mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) method. The plasma concentration vs. time profile was generated for each volunteer and the pharmacokinetic parameters C-max, T-max, AUC(0-t), AUC(0-infinity), k(e), and t(1/2) were calculated using a noncompartmental model. Bioequivalence between pharmaceutical formulations was determined by calculating 90% CIs (Confidence Intervall) for the ratios of C-max, AUC(0-t), and AUC(0-infinity) values for test and reference using log-transformed data. 22 healthy volunteers (11 men, 11 women; mean (SD) age, 28 (6.5) years [range, 21-45 years]; mean (SD) weight, 66 (9.3) kg [range, 51-81 kg]; mean (SD) height, 169 (6.5) cm [range, 156-186 cm]) were enrolled in and completed the study. The 90% CIs for C-max (0.92-1.06), AUC(0-t) (0.97-1.02), and AUC(0-infinity) (0.97-1.03) values for the test and reference products fitted in the interval of 0.80-1.25 proposed by most regulatory agencies, including the Brazilian agency ANVISA. No clinically significant adverse effects were reported. After pharmacokinetics analysis, it concluded that test 250 mg metronidazole formulation is bioequivalent to the reference product according to the Brazilian agency requirements.

Cediranib Plus FOLFOX/CAPOX Versus Placebo Plus FOLFOX/CAPOX in Patients With Previously Untreated Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Phase III Study (HORIZON II)

Purpose Cediranib is a highly potent inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) signaling with activity against all three VEGF receptors. HORIZON II [Cediranib (AZD2171, RECENTIN) in Addition to Chemotherapy Versus Placebo Plus Chemotherapy in Patients With Untreated Metastatic Colorectal Cancer] assessed infusional fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin/capecitabine and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX/CAPOX) with or without cediranib in patients with previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Patients and Methods Eligible patients were initially randomly assigned 1:1:1 to receive cediranib (20 or 30 mg per day) or placebo plus FOLFOX/CAPOX. In an early analysis of this and two other cediranib studies (HORIZON I [Cediranib Plus FOLFOX6 Versus Bevacizumab Plus FOLFOX6 in Patients With Previously Treated Metastatic Colorectal Cancer] and HORIZON III [Cediranib Plus FOLFOX6 Versus Bevacizumab Plus FOLFOX6 in Patients With Untreated Metastatic Colorectal Cancer]), the 20-mg dose met the predefined criteria for continuation. Subsequent patients were randomly assigned 2: 1 to the cediranib 20 mg or placebo arms. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were coprimary end points. Results In all, 860 patients received cediranib 20 mg (n = 502) or placebo (n = 358). The addition of cediranib to FOLFOX/CAPOX resulted in PFS prolongation (hazard ratio [HR], 0.84; 95% CI, 0.73 to 0.98; P = .0121; median PFS, 8.6 months for cediranib v 8.3 months for placebo) but had no impact on OS (HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.12; P = .5707; median OS, 19.7 months for cediranib v 18.9 months for placebo). There were no significant differences in the secondary end points of objective response rate, duration of response, or liver resection rate. Median chemotherapy dose-intensity was decreased by approximately 10% in patients treated with cediranib. Adverse events (AEs) associated with cediranib were manageable. Conclusion Addition of cediranib 20 mg to FOLFOX/CAPOX resulted in a modest PFS prolongation, but no significant difference in OS. The cediranib AE profile was consistent with those from previous studies. Because of the lack of improvement in OS, cediranib plus an oxaliplatin-based regimen cannot be recommended as a treatment for patients with mCRC. J Clin Oncol 30:3596-3603. (C) 2012 by American Society of Clinical Oncology

Stability of dental implants after irradiation with an 830-nm low-level laser: a double-blind randomized clinical study

Little is known about the benefits of low-level laser therapy (LLLT) on improvement of stability of dental implants. The aim of this randomized clinical study was to assess the LLLT effect on implants stability by means of resonance frequency analysis (RFA). Thirty implants were distributed bilaterally in the posterior mandible of eight patients. At the experimental side, the implants were submitted to LLLT (830 nm, 86 mW, 92.1 J/cm(2), 0.25 J, 3 s/point, at 20 points), and on the control side, the irradiation was simulated (placebo). The first irradiation was performed in the immediate postoperative period, and it was repeated every 48 h in the first 14 days. The initial implant stability quotient (ISQ) of the implants was measured by means of RFA. New ISQ measurements were made after 10 days, 3, 6, 9, and 12 weeks. The initial ISQ values ranged from 65-84, with a mean of 76, undergoing a significant drop in stability from the 10th day to the 6th week in the irradiated group, and presenting a gradual increase from the 6th to the 12th week. The highest ISQ values were observed on the 10th day in the irradiated group, and the lowest in the 6th week in both groups. Under the conditions of this study, no evidence was found of any effect of LLLT on the stability of the implants when measured by RFA. Since high primary stability and good bone quality are of major relevancy for a rigid bone-implant interface, additional LLLT may have little impact macroscopically.

Rationale, study design, and analysis plan of the Alveolar Recruitment for ARDS Trial (ART): Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background: Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is associated with high in-hospital mortality. Alveolar recruitment followed by ventilation at optimal titrated PEEP may reduce ventilator-induced lung injury and improve oxygenation in patients with ARDS, but the effects on mortality and other clinical outcomes remain unknown. This article reports the rationale, study design, and analysis plan of the Alveolar Recruitment for ARDS Trial (ART). Methods/Design: ART is a pragmatic, multicenter, randomized (concealed), controlled trial, which aims to determine if maximum stepwise alveolar recruitment associated with PEEP titration is able to increase 28-day survival in patients with ARDS compared to conventional treatment (ARDSNet strategy). We will enroll adult patients with ARDS of less than 72 h duration. The intervention group will receive an alveolar recruitment maneuver, with stepwise increases of PEEP achieving 45 cmH(2)O and peak pressure of 60 cmH2O, followed by ventilation with optimal PEEP titrated according to the static compliance of the respiratory system. In the control group, mechanical ventilation will follow a conventional protocol (ARDSNet). In both groups, we will use controlled volume mode with low tidal volumes (4 to 6 mL/kg of predicted body weight) and targeting plateau pressure <= 30 cmH2O. The primary outcome is 28-day survival, and the secondary outcomes are: length of ICU stay; length of hospital stay; pneumothorax requiring chest tube during first 7 days; barotrauma during first 7 days; mechanical ventilation-free days from days 1 to 28; ICU, in-hospital, and 6-month survival. ART is an event-guided trial planned to last until 520 events (deaths within 28 days) are observed. These events allow detection of a hazard ratio of 0.75, with 90% power and two-tailed type I error of 5%. All analysis will follow the intention-to-treat principle. Discussion: If the ART strategy with maximum recruitment and PEEP titration improves 28-day survival, this will represent a notable advance to the care of ARDS patients. Conversely, if the ART strategy is similar or inferior to the current evidence-based strategy (ARDSNet), this should also change current practice as many institutions routinely employ recruitment maneuvers and set PEEP levels according to some titration method.

A comparison between diuretics and angiotensin-receptor blocker agents in patients with stage I hypertension (PREVER-treatment trial): study protocol for a randomized double-blind controlled trial

Abstract Background Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death in Brazil, and hypertension is its major risk factor. The benefit of its drug treatment to prevent major cardiovascular events was consistently demonstrated. Angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARB) have been the preferential drugs in the management of hypertension worldwide, despite the absence of any consistent evidence of advantage over older agents, and the concern that they may be associated with lower renal protection and risk for cancer. Diuretics are as efficacious as other agents, are well tolerated, have longer duration of action and low cost, but have been scarcely compared with ARBs. A study comparing diuretic and ARB is therefore warranted. Methods/design This is a randomized, double-blind, clinical trial, comparing the association of chlorthalidone and amiloride with losartan as first drug option in patients aged 30 to 70 years, with stage I hypertension. The primary outcomes will be variation of blood pressure by time, adverse events and development or worsening of microalbuminuria and of left ventricular hypertrophy in the EKG. The secondary outcomes will be fatal or non-fatal cardiovascular events: myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure, evidence of new subclinical atherosclerosis and sudden death. The study will last 18 months. The sample size will be of 1200 participants for group in order to confer enough power to test for all primary outcomes. The project was approved by the Ethics committee of each participating institution. Discussion The putative pleiotropic effects of ARB agents, particularly renal protection, have been disputed, and they have been scarcely compared with diuretics in large clinical trials, despite that they have been at least as efficacious as newer agents in managing hypertension. Even if the null hypothesis is not rejected, the information will be useful for health care policy to treat hypertension in Brazil. Clinical trials registration number ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00971165

Multicenter randomized trial of cell therapy in cardiopathies – MiHeart Study

Abstract Background: Cardiovascular diseases are the major cause of death in the world. Current treatments have not been able to reverse this scenario, creating the need for the development of new therapies. Cell therapies have emerged as an alternative for cardiac diseases of distinct causes in experimental animal studies and more recently in clinical trials. Method/Design: We have designed clinical trials to test for the efficacy of autologous bone marrow derived mononuclear cell therapies in four different cardiopathies: acute and chronic ischemic heart disease, and Chagasic and dilated cardiomyopathy. All trials are multicenter, randomized, double-blind and placebo controlled. In each trial 300 patients will be enrolled and receive optimized therapy for their specific condition. Additionally, half of the patients will receive the autologous bone marrow cells while the other half will receive placebo (saline with 5% autologous serum). For each trial there are specific inclusion and exclusion criteria and the method for cell delivery is intramyocardial for the chronic ischemic heart disease and intracoronary for all others. Primary endpoint for all studies will be the difference in ejection fraction (determined by Simpson's rule) six and twelve months after intervention in relation to the basal ejection fraction. The main hypothesis of this study is that the patients who receive the autologous bone-marrow stem cell implant will have after a 6 month follow-up a mean increase of 5% in absolute left ventricular ejection fraction in comparison with the control group. Discussion: Many phase I clinical trials using cell therapy for cardiac diseases have already been performed. The few randomized studies have yielded conflicting results, rendering necessary larger well controlled trials to test for efficacy of cell therapies in cardiopathies. The trials registration numbers at the NIH registry are the following: Chagasic cardiomyopathy (NCT00349271), dilated cardiomyopathy (NCT00333827), acute myocardial infarction (NCT00350766) and Chronic Ischemic Heart Disease (NCT00362388).

Association of a probiotic to a Helicobacter pylori eradication regimen does not increase efficacy or decreases the adverse effects of the treatment: a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study

Abstract Background The treatment for the eradication of Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) is complex; full effectiveness is rarely achieved and it has many adverse effects. In developing countries, increased resistance to antibiotics and its cost make eradication more difficult. Probiotics can reduce adverse effects and improve the infection treatment efficacy. If the first-line therapy fails a second-line treatment using tetracycline, furazolidone and proton-pump inhibitors has been effective and low cost in Brazil; however it implies in a lot of adverse effects. The aim of this study was to minimize the adverse effects and increase the eradication rate applying the association of a probiotic compound to second-line therapy regimen. Methods Patients with peptic ulcer or functional dyspepsia infected by H. pylori were randomized to treatment with the furazolidone, tetracycline and lansoprazole regimen, twice a day for 7 days. In a double-blind study, patients received placebo or a probiotic compound (Lactobacillus acidophilus, Lactobacillus rhamnosus, Bifidobacterium bifidum and Streptococcus faecium) in capsules, twice a day for 30 days. A symptom questionnaire was administered in day zero, after completion of antibiotic therapy, after the probiotic use and eight weeks after the end of the treatment. Upper digestive endoscopy, histological assessment, rapid urease test and breath test were performed before and eight weeks after eradication treatment. Results One hundred and seven patients were enrolled: 21 men with active probiotic and 19 with placebo plus 34 women with active probiotic and 33 with placebo comprising a total of 55 patients with active probiotic and 52 with placebo. Fifty-one patients had peptic ulcer and 56 were diagnosed as functional dyspepsia. The per-protocol eradication rate with active probiotic was 89.8% and with placebo, 85.1% (p = 0.49); per intention to treat, 81.8% and 79.6%, respectively (p = 0.53). The rate of adverse effects at 7 days with the active probiotic was 59.3% and 71.2% with placebo (p = 0.20). At 30 days, it was 44.9% and 60.4%, respectively (p = 0.08). Conclusions The use of this probiotic compound compared to placebo in the proposed regimen in Brazilian patients with peptic ulcer or functional dyspepsia showed no significant difference in efficacy or adverse effects. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN04714018