Current Issue : October-December Volume : 2023 Issue Number : 4 Articles : 5 Articles
Background: A few prospective trials and case series have suggested that hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) may be efficacious for the treatment of severe COVID-19, but safety is a concern for critically ill patients. We present an interim analysis of the safety of HBOT via a randomized controlled trial (COVID-19-HBO). Methods: A randomized controlled, open-label, clinical trial was conducted in compliance with good clinical practice to explore the safety and efficacy of HBOT for severe COVID-19 in critically ill patients with moderate acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Between 3 June 2020, and 17 May 2021, 31 patients with severe COVID-19 and moderate-to-severe ARDS, a ratio of arterial oxygen partial pressure to fractional inspired oxygen (PaO2/FiO2) < 26.7 kPa (200 mmHg), and at least two defined risk factors for intensive care unit (ICU) admission and/or mortality were enrolled in the trial and randomized 1:1 to best practice, or HBOT in addition to best practice. The subjects allocated to HBOT received a maximum of five treatments at 2.4 atmospheres absolute (ATA) for 80 min over seven days. The subjects were followed up for 30 days. The safety endpoints were analyzed. Results: Adverse events (AEs) were common. Hypoxia was the most common adverse event reported. There was no statistically significant difference between the groups. Numerically, serious adverse events (SAEs) and barotrauma were more frequent in the control group, and the differences between groups were in favor of the HBOT in PaO2/FiO2 (PFI) and the national early warning score (NEWS); statistically, however, the differences were not significant at day 7, and no difference was observed for the total oxygen burden and cumulative pulmonary oxygen toxicity dose (CPTD). Conclusion: HBOT appears to be safe as an intervention for critically ill patients with moderate-to-severe ARDS induced by COVID-19. Clinical trial registration: NCT04327505 (31 March 2020) and EudraCT 2020-001349-37 (24 April 2020)....
Synthetic corticosteroids are widely used due to their anti-inflammatory and immunosuppressant effects. Their use has been associated with venous thromboembolism, but it is unknown whether thromboembolism has a causal relationship with corticosteroid treatment. In a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in normal to overweight healthy men, the effect of the corticosteroid prednisolone on haemostasis using either 50 mg prednisolone or matching placebo once daily for ten days was investigated. The primary outcome was a change from baseline in the viscoelastic measurement maximal amplitude of clot in kaolin-activated thromboelastography (TEG). Changes from baseline in other TEG measurements, D-dimer, von Willebrand factor (VWF) antigen, and ristocetin cofactor activity (RCo), antithrombin, protein C, prothrombin, fibrinogen, INR, APTT, and platelet count were secondary outcomes. Thirty-four men participated in this study. Compared to placebo, prednisolone treatment did not affect maximal amplitude of clot (difference −0.77 (95% confidence interval (CI) −2.48, 0.94) mm, p = 0.37, missing: n = 2), but it altered VWF antigen (28%, p = 0.0004), VWF:RCo (19%, p = 0.0006), prothrombin (5%, p = 0.05), protein C (31%, p < 0.0001), antithrombin (5%, p = 0.013), and fibrinogen (−15%, p = 0.004). Thus, prednisolone treatment did not alter TEG-assessed maximal amplitude of clot, despite that it affected prothrombotic markers (increased prothrombin, VWF antigen, VWF:RCo, prothrombin, and decreased fibrinogen) and increased antithrombotic markers (protein C and antithrombin)....
Introduction: Our trial (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04246619) evaluates the efficacy of two generic medications, pregabalin and duloxetine, for treating pain in PDPN patients. Methods: The patients were randomised either into the pregabalin (99) or the duloxetine (102) arm. Pain was evaluated using the DN-4 questionnaire, and visual analogue scales (VASs, 0–100 mm) were used to measure the average pain intensity (API), worst pain intensity (WPI) in the last 24 h and current pain intensity (CPI). Results: The proportion of patients with a clinically significant improvement in the API atWeek 12 was 88.3% [CI 81.7%, 94.8%] in the pregabalin arm and 86.9% [CI 76.7%, 97.1%] in the duloxetine arm. After 12 weeks, the CPI, API, and WPI decreased by −35.3 [−40.5, −30.0], −37.0 [−41.4, −32.6], and −41.6 [−46.6, −36.5] in the pregabalin arm, and by −35.0 [−39.2, −30.7], −36.9 [−41.5, −32.3], and −40.0 [−44.8, −35.2] in the duloxetine arm (all in mm, all p < 0.001). Conclusion: Our results demonstrate that pregabalin and duloxetine are effective medications for treating pain in PDPN in more than 86% of all randomised patients....
This study compared mirtazapine with megestrol in the management of cancer-related anorexia–cachexia syndrome in patients with advanced cancer. A randomized, double-blind, controlled clinical trial involving patients with advanced cancer and anorexia–cachexia syndrome was performed. Participants received mirtazapine 30 mg/day or megestrol 320 mg/day for eight weeks. The primary endpoint was the effect of mirtazapine on weight gain and the secondary endpoints were its effect on appetite, muscle strength, physical performance, body composition, adverse events, and medication adherence. Linear regression model with mixed effects was applied and a significance level of 5% was adopted. Fifty-two patients were randomized. Mean age was 65.8 ± 8.4 years. There was weight gain in 52% of the participants in the megestrol group and in 38% in the mirtazapine group after four weeks (p = 0.040). Appetite improved in 92% of the participants in the megestrol group and in 56% in the mirtazapine group after eight weeks (p = 0.007). In the sub-analysis by sex, women showed improvement in appetite (p < 0.001) and weight gain (p < 0.005) in the mirtazapine group, which was not observed in men. Mirtazapine appears to be inferior to megestrol in weight and appetite improvement. However, there may be a difference in the therapeutic response between sexes....
Septoplasty and turbinate surgery are among the most frequent surgical procedures to improve nasal obstruction and quality of life. These procedures usually imply the presence of congestion, secretions, and crusting related to the movement of the instruments during surgery. However, the use of nasal lavage may reduce this situation. The addition of Hyaluronic acid or Xylitol offers advantages in these washes. This study was a randomized, double-blind, controlled trial. All patients underwent endoscopic septoplasty with inferior turbinate submucosal resection without posterior nasal packing. SNOT-22, main VAS, NOSE, Modified Lund-Kennedy endoscopic scale, number of crusts and adhesions were quantified before and on the day of the surgery, visit three (seven days), visit four (fourteen days), and visit five (twenty-eight days). Forty-seven patients completed the study, divided into a standard saline arm (group 1, 22 patients) and normal saline plus HA and Xylitol arm (group 2, 27 patients). Both treatment groups improved their quality of life and objective parameters during the four weeks of the study. All patients tolerated the nasal irrigations well, and none discontinued the treatments. The study concludes that nasal washes of Aluneb Isotónico® offer several benefits to patients as a protective and preventative agent....
Loading....