Teaching elliptical excision skills to novice medical students: a randomized controlled study comparing low- and high-fidelity bench models

Background: The search for alternative and effective forms of training simulation is needed due to ethical and medico-legal aspects involved in training surgical skills on living patients, human cadavers and living animals. Aims : To evaluate if the bench model fidelity interferes in the acquisition of elliptical excision skills by novice medical students. Materials and Methods: Forty novice medical students were randomly assigned to 5 practice conditions with instructor-directed elliptical excision skills' training (n = 8): didactic materials (control); organic bench model (low-fidelity); ethylene-vinyl acetate bench model (low-fidelity); chicken legs' skin bench model (high-fidelity); or pig foot skin bench model (high-fidelity). Pre- and post-tests were applied. Global rating scale, effect size, and self-perceived confidence based on Likert scale were used to evaluate all elliptical excision performances. Results : The analysis showed that after training, the students practicing on bench models had better performance based on Global rating scale (all P < 0.0000) and felt more confident to perform elliptical excision skills (all P < 0.0000) when compared to the control. There was no significant difference (all P > 0.05) between the groups that trained on bench models. The magnitude of the effect (basic cutaneous surgery skills' training) was considered large (>0.80) in all measurements. Conclusion : The acquisition of elliptical excision skills after instructor-directed training on low-fidelity bench models was similar to the training on high-fidelity bench models; and there was a more substantial increase in elliptical excision performances of students that trained on all simulators compared to the learning on didactic materials.

A Randomized, Naturalistic, Parallel-Group Study for the Long-Term Treatment of Panic Disorder With Clonazepam or Paroxetine

This long-term extension of an 8-week randomized, naturalistic study in patients with panic disorder with or without agoraphobia compared the efficacy and safety of clonazepam (n = 47) and paroxetine (n = 37) over a 3-year total treatment duration. Target doses for all patients were 2 mg/d clonazepam and 40 mg/d paroxetine (both taken at bedtime). This study reports data from the long-term period (34 months), following the initial 8-week treatment phase. Thus, total treatment duration was 36 months. Patients with a good primary outcome during acute treatment continued monotherapy with clonazepam or paroxetine, but patients with partial primary treatment success were switched to the combination therapy. At initiation of the long-term study, the mean doses of clonazepam and paroxetine were 1.9 (SD, 0.30) and 38.4 (SD, 3.74) mg/d, respectively. These doses were maintained until month 36 (clonazepam 1.9 [ SD, 0.29] mg/d and paroxetine 38.2 [SD, 3.87] mg/d). Long-term treatment with clonazepam led to a small but significantly better Clinical Global Impression (CGI)-Improvement rating than treatment with paroxetine (mean difference: CGI-Severity scale -3.48 vs -3.24, respectively, P = 0.02; CGI-Improvement scale 1.06 vs 1.11, respectively, P = 0.04). Both treatments similarly reduced the number of panic attacks and severity of anxiety. Patients treated with clonazepam had significantly fewer adverse events than those treated with paroxetine (28.9% vs 70.6%, P < 0.001). The efficacy of clonazepam and paroxetine for the treatment of panic disorder was maintained over the long-term course. There was a significant advantage with clonazepam over paroxetine with respect to the frequency and nature of adverse events.

Dose-dependent change in biomarkers during neoadjuvant endocrine therapy with fulvestrant: results from NEWEST, a randomized Phase II study

NEWEST (Neoadjuvant Endocrine Therapy for Women with Estrogen-Sensitive Tumors) is the first study to compare biological and clinical activity of fulvestrant 500 versus 250 mg in the neoadjuvant breast cancer setting. We hypothesized that fulvestrant 500 mg may be superior to 250 mg in blocking estrogen receptor (ER) signaling and growth. A multicenter, randomized, open-label, Phase II study was performed to compare fulvestrant 500 mg (500 mg/month plus 500 mg on day 14 of month 1) versus fulvestrant 250 mg/month for 16 weeks prior to surgery in postmenopausal women with ER+ locally advanced breast cancer. Core biopsies at baseline, week 4, and surgery were assessed for biomarker changes. Primary endpoint: change in Ki67 labeling index (LI) from baseline to week 4 determined by automated computer imaging system (ACIS). Secondary endpoints: ER protein expression and function; progesterone receptor (PgR) expression; tumor response; tolerability. ER and PgR were examined retrospectively using the H score method. A total of 211 patients were randomized (fulvestrant 500 mg: n = 109; 250 mg: n = 102). At week 4, fulvestrant 500 mg resulted in greater reduction of Ki67 LI and ER expression versus 250 mg (-78.8 vs. -47.4% [p < 0.0001] and -25.0 vs. -13.5% [p = 0.0002], respectively [ACIS]); PgR suppression was not significantly different (-22.7 vs. -17.6; p = 0.5677). However, H score detected even greater suppression of ER (-50.3 vs. -13.7%; p < 0.0001) and greater PgR suppression (-80.5 vs. -46.3%; p = 0.0018) for fulvestrant 500 versus 250 mg. At week 16, tumor response rates were 22.9 and 20.6% for fulvestrant 500 and 250 mg, respectively, with considerable decline in all markers by both ACIS and H score. No detrimental effects on endometrial thickness or bone markers and no new safety concerns were identified. This provides the first evidence of greater biological activity for fulvestrant 500 versus 250 mg in depleting ER expression, function, and growth.

Acellular dermal matrix graft with or without enamel matrix derivative for root coverage in smokers: a randomized clinical study

Aim: The aim of this randomized controlled clinical study was to compare the use of an acellular dermal matrix graft (ADMG) with or without the enamel matrix derivative (EMD) in smokers to evaluate which procedure would provide better root coverage. Material and Methods: Nineteen smokers with bilateral Miller Class I or II gingival recessions >= 3 mm were selected. The test group was treated with an association of ADMG and EMD, and the control group with ADMG alone. Probing depth, relative clinical attachment level, gingival recession height, gingival recession width, keratinized tissue width and keratinized tissue thickness were evaluated before the surgeries and after 6 months. Wilcoxon test was used for the statistical analysis at significance level of 5%. Results: No significant differences were found between groups in all parameters at baseline. The mean gain recession height between baseline and 6 months and the complete root coverage favored the test group (p = 0.042, p = 0.019 respectively). Conclusion: Smoking may negatively affect the results achieved through periodontal plastic procedures; however, the association of ADMG and EMD is beneficial in the root coverage of gingival recessions in smokers, 6 months after the surgery.

A Randomized comparative clinical study of two surgical procedures to improve root coverage with the acellular dermal matrix graft

Aim This randomized, controlled, clinical study compared two surgical techniques for root coverage with the acellular dermal matrix graft (ADMG) to evaluate which procedure could provide better root coverage and greater amounts of keratinized tissue. Materials and Methods Fifteen pairs of bilateral Miller Class I or II gingival recessions were treated and assigned randomly to the test group, and the contra-lateral recessions were assigned to the control group. The ADMG was used in both groups. In the control group, the graft and flap were positioned at the level of the cemento-enamel junction (CEJ), and in the test group, the graft was positioned 1 mm apical to the CEJ and the flap 1 mm coronal to the CEJ. The clinical parameters were taken before the surgeries and after 6 months. The gingival recession area, a new parameter, was measured in standardized photographs through a special device and software. Results There were statistically significant differences favouring the proposed technique for all parameters except for the amount of keratinized tissue at 6 months. Conclusions The proposed test technique is more suitable for root coverage procedures with ADMG, and the new parameter evaluated appears valuable for root coverage analysis. (Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01175720).

Overall Survival Improvement in Patients with Lung Cancer and Bone Metastases Treated with Denosumab Versus Zoledronic Acid Subgroup Analysis from a Randomized Phase 3 Study

Introduction: Denosumab, a fully human anti-RANKL monoclonal antibody, reduces the incidence of skeletal-related events in patients with bone metastases from solid tumors. We present survival data for the subset of patients with lung cancer, participating in the phase 3 trial of denosumab versus zoledronic acid (ZA) in the treatment of bone metastases from solid tumors (except breast or prostate) or multiple myeloma. Methods: Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive monthly subcutaneous denosumab 120 mg or intravenous ZA 4 mg. An exploratory analysis, using Kaplan-Meier estimates and proportional hazards models, was performed for overall survival among patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and SCLC. Results: Denosumab was associated with improved median overall survival versus ZA in 811 patients with any lung cancer (8.9 versus 7.7 months; hazard ratio [HR] 0.80) and in 702 patients with NSCLC (9.5 versus 8.0 months; HR 0.78) (p = 0.01, each comparison). Further analysis of NSCLC by histological type showed a median survival of 8.6 months for denosumab versus 6.4 months for ZA in patients with squamous cell carcinoma (HR 0.68; p = 0.035). Incidence of overall adverse events was balanced between treatment groups; serious adverse events occurred in 66.0% of denosumab-treated patients and 72.9% of ZA-treated patients. Cumulative incidence of osteonecrosis of the jaw was similar between groups (0.7% denosumab versus 0.8% ZA). Hypocalcemia rates were 8.6% with denosumab and 3.8% with ZA. Conclusion: In this exploratory analysis, denosumab was associated with improved overall survival compared with ZA, in patients with metastatic lung cancer.

Optimized Duration of Clopidogrel Therapy Following Treatment with the Endeavor Zotarolimus-Eluting Stent in Real-World Clinical Practice (OPTIMIZE) Trial: Rationale and design of a large-scale, randomized, multicenter study

Background Current recommendations for antithrombotic therapy after drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation include prolonged dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with aspirin and clopidogrel >= 12 months. However, the impact of such a regimen for all patients receiving any DES system remains unclear based on scientific evidence available to date. Also, several other shortcomings have been identified with prolonged DAPT, including bleeding complications, compliance, and cost. The second-generation Endeavor zotarolimus-eluting stent (E-ZES) has demonstrated efficacy and safety, despite short duration DAPT (3 months) in the majority of studies. Still, the safety and clinical impact of short-term DAPT with E-ZES in the real world is yet to be determined. Methods The OPTIMIZE trial is a large, prospective, multicenter, randomized (1: 1) non-inferiority clinical evaluation of short-term (3 months) vs long-term (12-months) DAPT in patients undergoing E-ZES implantation in daily clinical practice. Overall, 3,120 patients were enrolled at 33 clinical sites in Brazil. The primary composite endpoint is death (any cause), myocardial infarction, cerebral vascular accident, and major bleeding at 12-month clinical follow-up post-index procedure. Conclusions The OPTIMIZE clinical trial will determine the clinical implications of DAPT duration with the second generation E-ZES in real-world patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. (Am Heart J 2012;164:810-816.e3.)

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