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

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

A phase I randomized, double-blind, controlled trial of 2009 influenza A (H1N1) inactivated monovalent vaccines with different adjuvant systems

Methods We conducted a phase I, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multi-arm (10) parallel study involving healthy adults to evaluate the safety and immunogenicity of influenza A (H1N1) 2009 non-adjuvanted and adjuvanted candidate vaccines. Subjects received two intramuscular injections of one of the candidate vaccines administered 21 days apart. Antibody responses were measured by means of hemagglutination-inhibition assay before and 21 days after each vaccination. The three co-primary immunogenicity end points were the proportion of seroprotection >70%, seroconversion >40%, and the factor increase in the geometric mean titer >2.5. Results A total of 266 participants were enrolled into the study. No deaths or serious adverse events were reported. The most commonly solicited local and systemic adverse events were injection-site pain and headache, respectively. Only three subjects (1.1%) reported severe injection-site pain. Four 2009 influenza A (H1N1) inactivated monovalent candidate vaccines that met the three requirements to evaluate influenza protection, after a single dose, were identified: 15 μg of hemagglutinin antigen without adjuvant; 7.5 μg of hemagglutinin antigen with aluminum hydroxide, MPL and squalene; 3.75 μg of hemagglutinin antigen with aluminum hydroxide and MPL; and 3.75 μg of hemagglutinin antigen with aluminum hydroxide and squalene. Conclusions Adjuvant systems can be safely used in influenza vaccines, including the adjuvant monophosphoryl lipid A (MPL) derived from Bordetella pertussis with squalene and aluminum hydroxide, MPL with aluminum hydroxide, and squalene and aluminum hydroxide.