A prospective randomised double-blind controlled trial evaluating the effect of trans-sacral magnetic stimulation in women with overactive bladder.

Overactive bladder (OAB) is a prevalent condition with 16% of adults having one or more symptoms that significantly affect quality of life. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation and neuromodulators have had success in treating OAB but are expensive, invasive, and sometimes cumbersome. We developed an alternative neuromodulatory technique that involves electromagnetic stimulation of the sacral nerve roots with a portable electromagnetic device to produce trans-sacral stimulation of the S3 and S4 sacral nerve roots. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of this device on OAB symptoms in women with a prospectively randomised double-blind controlled study. Following a power analysis, women with symptoms of OAB were prospectively recruited with ethical approval for randomisation to an active treatment (n = 33) or placebo group (n = 30) in a double-blind trial. The patient, at home, used the belt device daily for 20 min over 12 weeks. Outcome measures included a 3-day voiding diary, 1 h pad test, visual analogue score (VAS) for symptom impact (0-100%), Kings Health Questionnaire (KHQ) and Australian Quality of Life questionnaire (AQOL) at baseline, 6 and 12 weeks. Overall, no difference was found between groups for any of the research questions. Specifically, we were unable to demonstrate any difference between the active and sham device groups in frequency, nocturia, urinary leakage, or quality of life, nor was there any evidence of a placebo effect. The quality of the data was high with the number of missing observations (especially for disease specific KHQ and general AQOL) being few. This attempt to promote trans-sacral electromagnetic neuromodulation with a specially created device was ineffective on the symptoms of OAB.

Analgesic efficacy of intravenous perfusion of lidocaine, ketamine or a combination after laparotomy in a placebo-controlled, randomized, double-blind prospective study

In acute postoperative pain management intravenous lidocaine and/or ketamine have been advocated because of their morphine-sparing effect. The goal of this prospective, randomised, double-blind study was to assess morphine consumption with different regimens of intravenous infusion of lidocaine, ketamine or both during 48 hours following laparotomy. Patients were randomised into four groups. Group L, K, and KL received intravenous lidocaine, ketamine or a combination, respectively, before incision and during 48 hours postoperatively. The control group (C) received a similar volume of saline bolus and infusion. Postoperative analgesia included morphine delivered by a patient-controlled analgesia device. Primary outcome was the cumulative morphine consumption and pain, sedation scores, pressure algometry and side effects were our secondary outcomes. Cognition and psychomotor performance were also tested. Out of 57 eligible patients, 44 completed the study. Lidocaine reduced the cumulative morphine consumption compared with the control group (mean 0.456 mg.kg-1 +/- 0.244 (SD) versus 0.705 +/- 0.442, respectively, Ρ < 0.001). Pain scores during movement were statistically lower in all three treatment groups. Psychometric tests showed that the lidocaine group expressed more depressed feelings and sadness compared to the control group. Lidocaine administration had a morphine-sparing effect with a 36% reduction of morphine consumption while ketamine alone or combined with lidocaine did not. As a whole, our results suggest that intravenous lidocaine may offer advantages for postoperative analgesia. We propose lidocaine as a new alternative for pain control that needs to be studied further in future multicentric studies.

Effective temporary analgesia for severe painful blind eye.

There are various methods of providing pain relief for painful blind eyes. We wish to recommend this effective method of providing temporary analgesia in patients suffering from a severe painful blind eye before undergoing enucleation.

Prevention of preterm delivery with vaginal progesterone in women with preterm labour (4P): randomised double-blind placebo-controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of 200 mg of daily vaginal natural progesterone to prevent preterm birth in women with preterm labour. DESIGN: Multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. SETTING: Twenty-nine centres in Switzerland and Argentina. POPULATION: A total of 385 women with preterm labour (24(0/7) to 33(6/7)  weeks of gestation) treated with acute tocolysis. METHODS: Participants were randomly allocated to either 200 mg daily of self-administered vaginal progesterone or placebo within 48 hours of starting acute tocolysis. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome was delivery before 37 weeks of gestation. Secondary outcomes were delivery before 32 and 34 weeks, adverse effects, duration of tocolysis, re-admissions for preterm labour, length of hospital stay, and neonatal morbidity and mortality. The study was ended prematurely based on results of the intermediate analysis. RESULTS: Preterm birth occurred in 42.5% of women in the progesterone group versus 35.5% in the placebo group (relative risk [RR] 1.2; 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.93-1.5). Delivery at <32 and <34 weeks did not differ between the two groups (12.9 versus 9.7%; [RR 1.3; 95% CI 0.7-2.5] and 19.7 versus 12.9% [RR 1.5; 95% CI 0.9-2.4], respectively). The duration of tocolysis, hospitalisation, and recurrence of preterm labour were comparable between groups. Neonatal morbidity occurred in 44 (22.8%) cases on progesterone versus 35 (18.8%) cases on placebo (RR: 1.2; 95% CI 0.82-1.8), whereas there were 4 (2%) neonatal deaths in each study group. CONCLUSION: There is no evidence that the daily administration of 200 mg vaginal progesterone decreases preterm birth or improves neonatal outcome in women with preterm labour.

Oral Antibiotics for Fever in Low-Risk Neutropenic Patients With Cancer: A Double-Blind, Randomized, Multicenter Trial Comparing Single Daily Moxifloxacin With Twice Daily Ciprofloxacin Plus Amoxicillin/Clavulanic Acid Combination Therapy--EORTC Infectious Diseases Group Trial XV.

PURPOSE This double-blind, multicenter trial compared the efficacy and safety of a single daily oral dose of moxifloxacin with oral combination therapy in low-risk febrile neutropenic patients with cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS Inclusion criteria were cancer, febrile neutropenia, low risk of complications as predicted by a Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) score > 20, ability to swallow, and ≤ one single intravenous dose of empiric antibiotic therapy before study drug treatment initiation. Early discharge was encouraged when a set of predefined criteria was met. Patients received either moxifloxacin (400 mg once daily) monotherapy or oral ciprofloxacin (750 mg twice daily) plus amoxicillin/clavulanic acid (1,000 mg twice daily). The trial was designed to show equivalence of the two drug regimens in terms of therapy success, defined as defervescence and improvement in clinical status during study drug treatment (< 10% difference). Results Among the 333 patients evaluated in an intention-to-treat analysis, therapy success was observed in 80% of the patients administered moxifloxacin and in 82% of the patients administered combination therapy (95% CI for the difference, -10% to 8%, consistent with equivalence). Minor differences in tolerability, safety, and reasons for failure were observed. More than 50% of the patients in the two arms were discharged on protocol therapy, with 5% readmissions among those in either arm. Survival was similar (99%) in both arms. CONCLUSION Monotherapy with once daily oral moxifloxacin is efficacious and safe in low-risk febrile neutropenic patients identified with the help of the MASCC scoring system, discharged early, and observed as outpatients.

Robotic Gait Training Is not Superior to Conventional Treadmill Training in Parkinson Disease: A Single-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: The use of robots for gait training in Parkinson disease (PD) is growing, but no evidence points to an advantage over the standard treadmill. METHODS: In this randomized, single-blind controlled trial, participants aged <75 years with early-stage PD (Hoehn-Yahr <3) were randomly allocated to 2 groups: either 30 minutes of gait training on a treadmill or in the Lokomat for 3 d/wk for 4 weeks. Patients were evaluated by a physical therapist blinded to allocation before and at the end of treatment and then at the 3- and 6-month follow-up. The primary outcome measure was the 6-minute walk test. RESULTS: Of 334 screened patients, the authors randomly allocated 30 to receive gait training with treadmill or the Lokomat. At baseline, the 2 groups did not differ. At the 6-month follow-up, both groups had improved significantly in the primary outcome measure (treadmill: mean = 490.95 m, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 448.56-533.34, P = .0006; Lokomat: 458.6 m, 95% CI = 417.23-499.96, P = .01), but no significant differences were found between the 2 groups (P = .53). DISCUSSION: Robotic gait training with the Lokomat is not superior to treadmill training in improving gait performance in patients with PD. Both approaches are safe, with results maintained for up to 6 months.

A randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled trial of pioglitazone in combination with riluzole in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis.

BACKGROUND: Pioglitazone, an oral anti-diabetic that stimulates the PPAR-gamma transcription factor, increased survival of mice with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). METHODS/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We performed a phase II, double blind, multicentre, placebo controlled trial of pioglitazone in ALS patients under riluzole. 219 patients were randomly assigned to receive 45 mg/day of pioglitazone or placebo (one: one allocation ratio). The primary endpoint was survival. Secondary endpoints included incidence of non-invasive ventilation and tracheotomy, and slopes of ALS-FRS, slow vital capacity, and quality of life as assessed using EUROQoL EQ-5D. The study was conducted under a two-stage group sequential test, allowing to stop for futility or superiority after interim analysis. Shortly after interim analysis, 30 patients under pioglitazone and 24 patients under placebo had died. The trial was stopped for futility; the hazard ratio for primary endpoint was 1.21 (95% CI: 0.71-2.07, p = 0.48). Secondary endpoints were not modified by pioglitazone treatment. Pioglitazone was well tolerated. CONCLUSION/SIGNIFICANCE: Pioglitazone has no beneficial effects on the survival of ALS patients as add-on therapy to riluzole. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT00690118.

Risperidone versus clozapine in treatment-resistant chronic schizophrenia: a randomized double-blind study. The Risperidone Study Group.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the short-term efficacy and safety of risperidone and clozapine in treatment-resistant chronic schizophrenic patients. METHOD: In a controlled double-blind, multicenter study, 86 inpatients with chronic schizophrenia (DSM-III-R), who were resistant to or intolerant of conventional neuroleptics, were randomly assigned to receive risperidone or clozapine for 8 weeks after a 7-day washout period. After a 1-week dose-titration phase, doses were fixed at 6 mg/day of risperidone and 300 mg/day of clozapine for 1 week and then adjusted according to each patient's response. The final mean doses were 6.4 mg/day of risperidone and 291.2 mg/day of clozapine. Treatment efficacy and safety were evaluated with several well-known rating scales. RESULTS: Both risperidone and clozapine significantly reduced the severity of psychotic symptoms (scores on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale and the Clinical Global Impression scale) from baseline, with no significant between-group differences. At endpoint, 67% of the risperidone group and 65% of the clozapine group were clinically improved (reduction of 20% or more in total Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale score). Risperidone appeared to have a faster onset of action. In both groups extrapyramidal symptoms and other adverse events were few, and their severity was generally mild. Neither group showed evidence of a relation between drug plasma concentrations and clinical effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: Risperidone was well tolerated and as effective as medium doses of clozapine in patients with chronic schizophrenia who had been resistant to or intolerant of conventional neuroleptics.

Cefuroxime prophylaxis is effective in noninstrumented spine surgery: a double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

STUDY DESIGN: Double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial. OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy of 1 preoperative 1.5 g dose of cefuroxime in preventing surgical site infection after surgery for herniated disc. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Antibiotic prophylaxis was only tested in nonconclusive trials in this setting. METHODS: The study was conducted in 2 university hospitals in Switzerland. Patients were assessed for occurrence of surgical site infection (defined by the criteria of the Centers for Diseases Control and Prevention), other infections, or adverse events up to 6 months after surgery. Outcome measures were compared in a univariate, per-protocol analysis. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were similar in patients allocated to cefuroxime (n = 613) or placebo (n = 624). Eight (1.3%) patients in the cefuroxime group and 18 patients (2.8%) in the placebo group developed a surgical site infection (P = 0.073). A diagnosis of spondylodiscitis or epidural abscess was made in 9 patients in the placebo group, but none in the cefuroxime group (P < 0.01), which corresponded to a number necessary to treat of 69 patients to prevent one of these infections. There were no significant adverse events attributed to either cefuroxime or placebo. CONCLUSION: A single, preoperative dose of cefuroxime significantly reduces the risk of organ-space infection, most notably spondylodiscitis, after surgery for herniated disc.

The effectiveness of a standardised preoperative preparation in reducing child and parent anxiety: a single-blind randomised controlled trial.

AIMS: To evaluate the effect of a structured preoperative preparation on child and parent state anxiety, child behavioural change and parent satisfaction. BACKGROUND: It is estimated that around 50-70% of hospitalised children experience severe anxiety and distress prior to surgery. Children who are highly anxious and distressed preoperatively are likely to be distressed on awakening and have negative postoperative behaviour. Although education before surgery has been found to be useful mostly in North America, the effectiveness of preoperative preparation programme adapted to the Australian context remains to be tested. DESIGN: This single-blind randomised controlled study was conducted at a tertiary referral hospital for children in Western Australia. METHODS: Following ethics approval and parental consent, 73 children and one of their carers (usually a parent) were randomly assigned into two groups. The control group had standard practice with no specific preoperative education and the experimental group received a preoperative preparation, including a photo file, demonstration of equipment using a role-modelling approach and a tour. RESULTS: The preoperative preparation reduced parent state anxiety significantly (-2·32, CI -4·06 to -0·56, p = 0·009), but not child anxiety (-0·59, CI -1·23 to 0·06, p = 0·07). There was no significant difference in child postoperative behaviour or parent satisfaction between the groups. There was a significant two-point pain score reduction in the preoperative preparation group, when compared with the control group median 2 (IQR 5) and 4 (IQR 4), respectively (p = 0·001).¦CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative preparation was more efficient on parent than child. Although the preoperative preparation had limited effect on child anxiety, it permitted to decrease pain experience in the postoperative period.¦RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Parents should be actively involved in their child preoperative preparation.

Neurochemical changes within human early blind occipital cortex.

Early blindness results in occipital cortex neurons responding to a wide range of auditory and tactile stimuli. These changes in tuning properties are accompanied by an extensive reorganization of the occipital cortex that includes alterations in anatomical structure, neurochemical and metabolic pathways. Although it has been established in animal models that neurochemical pathways are heavily affected by early visual deprivation, the effects of blindness on these pathways in humans is still not well characterized. Here, using (1)H magnetic resonance spectroscopy in nine early blind and normally sighted subjects, we find that early blindness is associated with higher levels of creatine, choline and myo-Inositol and indications of lower levels of GABA within the occipital cortex. These results suggest that the cross-modal responses associated with early blindness may, at least in part, be driven by changes within occipital biochemical pathways.

Ultrathin strut biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent versus durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent for percutaneous coronary revascularisation (BIOSCIENCE): a randomised, single-blind, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Refinements in stent design affecting strut thickness, surface polymer, and drug release have improved clinical outcomes of drug-eluting stents. We aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of a novel, ultrathin strut cobalt-chromium stent releasing sirolimus from a biodegradable polymer with a thin strut durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent. METHODS: We did a randomised, single-blind, non-inferiority trial with minimum exclusion criteria at nine hospitals in Switzerland. We randomly assigned (1:1) patients aged 18 years or older with chronic stable coronary artery disease or acute coronary syndromes undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention to treatment with biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents or durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents. Randomisation was via a central web-based system and stratified by centre and presence of ST segment elevation myocardial infarction. Patients and outcome assessors were masked to treatment allocation, but treating physicians were not. The primary endpoint, target lesion failure, was a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and clinically-indicated target lesion revascularisation at 12 months. A margin of 3·5% was defined for non-inferiority of the biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent compared with the durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent. Analysis was by intention to treat. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01443104. FINDINGS: Between Feb 24, 2012, and May 22, 2013, we randomly assigned 2119 patients with 3139 lesions to treatment with sirolimus-eluting stents (1063 patients, 1594 lesions) or everolimus-eluting stents (1056 patients, 1545 lesions). 407 (19%) patients presented with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Target lesion failure with biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents (69 cases; 6·5%) was non-inferior to durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents (70 cases; 6·6%) at 12 months (absolute risk difference -0·14%, upper limit of one-sided 95% CI 1·97%, p for non-inferiority <0·0004). No significant differences were noted in rates of definite stent thrombosis (9 [0·9%] vs 4 [0·4%], rate ratio [RR] 2·26, 95% CI 0·70-7·33, p=0·16). In pre-specified stratified analyses of the primary endpoint, biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents were associated with improved outcome compared with durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents in the subgroup of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (7 [3·3%] vs 17 [8·7%], RR 0·38, 95% CI 0·16-0·91, p=0·024, p for interaction=0·014). INTERPRETATION: In a patient population with minimum exclusion criteria and high adherence to dual antiplatelet therapy, biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents were non-inferior to durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents for the combined safety and efficacy outcome target lesion failure at 12 months. The noted benefit in the subgroup of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction needs further study. FUNDING: Clinical Trials Unit, University of Bern, and Biotronik, Bülach, Switzerland.

Glutathione precursor N-acetyl-cysteine modulates EEG synchronization in schizophrenia patients: a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial.

Glutathione (GSH) dysregulation at the gene, protein, and functional levels has been observed in schizophrenia patients. Together with disease-like anomalies in GSH deficit experimental models, it suggests that such redox dysregulation can play a critical role in altering neural connectivity and synchronization, and thus possibly causing schizophrenia symptoms. To determine whether increased GSH levels would modulate EEG synchronization, N-acetyl-cysteine (NAC), a glutathione precursor, was administered to patients in a randomized, double-blind, crossover protocol for 60 days, followed by placebo for another 60 days (or vice versa). We analyzed whole-head topography of the multivariate phase synchronization (MPS) for 128-channel resting-state EEGs that were recorded at the onset, at the point of crossover, and at the end of the protocol. In this proof of concept study, the treatment with NAC significantly increased MPS compared to placebo over the left parieto-temporal, the right temporal, and the bilateral prefrontal regions. These changes were robust both at the group and at the individual level. Although MPS increase was observed in the absence of clinical improvement at a group level, it correlated with individual change estimated by Liddle's disorganization scale. Therefore, significant changes in EEG synchronization induced by NAC administration may precede clinically detectable improvement, highlighting its possible utility as a biomarker of treatment efficacy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01506765.

A Phase IIB, Randomized, Double-Blind, Multicenter, Immunogenicity Study of Vacc-4x Versus Placebo in HIV-1-infected Patients

Background: Vacc-4x is a peptide-based HIV therapeutic vaccine to conserved domains on p24Gag. Recently conserved 'sectors' on HIV p24, critical for virus viability and thereby immunologically vulnerable have been identified. Elite controllers target immune responses to such regions. The Vacc-4x peptides lie within a number of these conserved sectors of HIV p24. The co-primary endpoints of this study were to compare changes in CD4 counts and return to ART between treatmentand placebo groups during a 24 week treatment interruption. Secondary endpoints included safety, viral load and immunogenicity.Methods: This prospective, randomized, double blind phase IIB clinical study (NCT00659789) was carried out in 13 European and 5 US centers recruiting 135 patients on ART. After 6 immunizations on ART over 28 weeks, treatment was interrupted for up to 24 weeks (to week 52) (Vacc-4x n = 88; placebo n = 38). Immunological analyses (ELISPOT, proliferation, intracellular cytokine staining) were carried out at central laboratories.Results: There were no Vacc-4x-related serious adverse events. Of the 135 patients recruited (male n = 92; female n = 43), 126 patients completed the study. Median prestudy CD4 count was 712 (Vacc-4x) and 619 cells/mm3 (placebo), and median CD4 nadir 300 (Vacc-4x) and 285 cells/mm3 (placebo). There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups regarding change in CD4 counts (p = 0.12) or ART resumption (p = 0.89) during treatment interruption. A statistically significant treatment difference between Vacc-4x and placebo groupsfor viral load (VL) was found for patients who achieved a 6 month ART-free period (p = 0.0022). There was a positive correlation between ELISPOT responses and lower viral load in the Vacc-4x group compared to placebo (p = 0.02). Long-term follow-up of patients up t o week 104 was completed in June 2011.Conclusion: Vacc-4x was found to be safe and well tolerated. TheVacc-4x group experienced a significant reduction in viral load compared to placebo.