Datasets:

AshtonIsNotHere

/

biosift-nli

like 2

Efficacy of the Natural Clay, Calcium Aluminosilicate Anti-Diarrheal, in Reducing Medullary Thyroid Cancer-Related Diarrhea and Its Effects on Quality of Life: A Pilot Study.

Medullary thyroid cancer (MTC)-related diarrhea can be debilitating, reduces quality of life (QOL), and may be the only indication for initiating systemic therapy. Conventional antidiarrheal drugs are not always helpful and may have side effects. Calcium aluminosilicate antidiarrheal (CASAD), a natural calcium montmorrilonite clay, safely adsorbs toxins and inflammatory proteins associated with diarrhea. It was hypothesized that CASAD would reduce the severity of diarrhea and improve QOL in MTC patients. This was a prospective pilot trial (NCT01739634) of MTC patients not on systemic therapy with self-reported diarrhea of three or more bowel movements (BMs) per day for a week or more. The study design included a one-week run-in period followed by one week of CASAD ± a two-week optional continuation period. The primary endpoint was efficacy of one week of CASAD treatment in decreasing the number of BMs per day by ≥20% when compared with the baseline run-in period. Secondary objectives included tolerability and safety and the impact on QOL using the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory-Thyroid questionnaire (MDASI-THY). Ten MTC patients (median age = 52 years, 70% female, 80% white) were enrolled. All had distant metastases, and median calcitonin was 5088 ng/mL (range 1817-42,007 ng/mL). Ninety percent had received prior antidiarrheals, and 40% of these had used two or more drugs, including tincture of opium (30%), loperamide (50%), diphenoxylate/atropine (20%), colestipol (10%), or cholestyramine (10%). Of seven evaluable patients, four (56%) had ≥20% reduction in BMs per day. Six out of seven patients discontinued their prior antidiarrheals. Best response ranged from 7% to 99% reduction in mean BMs/day from baseline. Five out of seven patients considered CASAD a success, and they opted for the two-week continuation period. Improvements in diarrhea and all six interference items assessed by MDASI-THY were noted at weeks 1 and 3. Total interference score was significantly improved at three weeks compared with baseline (p = 0.05). An oral levothyroxine absorption test was performed in one patient; malabsorption of levothyroxine was not observed. Adverse events included flatulence (40%), bloating (10%), heartburn (10%), and constipation (10%). CASAD is a promising strategy for treatment of MTC-related diarrhea. In this small pilot study, improvements in frequency and quality of diarrhea as well as QOL were noted. Further studies in this population are warranted.

This study has a control, double-blind, or comparison patient group

Efficacy of the Natural Clay, Calcium Aluminosilicate Anti-Diarrheal, in Reducing Medullary Thyroid Cancer-Related Diarrhea and Its Effects on Quality of Life: A Pilot Study.

Medullary thyroid cancer (MTC)-related diarrhea can be debilitating, reduces quality of life (QOL), and may be the only indication for initiating systemic therapy. Conventional antidiarrheal drugs are not always helpful and may have side effects. Calcium aluminosilicate antidiarrheal (CASAD), a natural calcium montmorrilonite clay, safely adsorbs toxins and inflammatory proteins associated with diarrhea. It was hypothesized that CASAD would reduce the severity of diarrhea and improve QOL in MTC patients. This was a prospective pilot trial (NCT01739634) of MTC patients not on systemic therapy with self-reported diarrhea of three or more bowel movements (BMs) per day for a week or more. The study design included a one-week run-in period followed by one week of CASAD ± a two-week optional continuation period. The primary endpoint was efficacy of one week of CASAD treatment in decreasing the number of BMs per day by ≥20% when compared with the baseline run-in period. Secondary objectives included tolerability and safety and the impact on QOL using the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory-Thyroid questionnaire (MDASI-THY). Ten MTC patients (median age = 52 years, 70% female, 80% white) were enrolled. All had distant metastases, and median calcitonin was 5088 ng/mL (range 1817-42,007 ng/mL). Ninety percent had received prior antidiarrheals, and 40% of these had used two or more drugs, including tincture of opium (30%), loperamide (50%), diphenoxylate/atropine (20%), colestipol (10%), or cholestyramine (10%). Of seven evaluable patients, four (56%) had ≥20% reduction in BMs per day. Six out of seven patients discontinued their prior antidiarrheals. Best response ranged from 7% to 99% reduction in mean BMs/day from baseline. Five out of seven patients considered CASAD a success, and they opted for the two-week continuation period. Improvements in diarrhea and all six interference items assessed by MDASI-THY were noted at weeks 1 and 3. Total interference score was significantly improved at three weeks compared with baseline (p = 0.05). An oral levothyroxine absorption test was performed in one patient; malabsorption of levothyroxine was not observed. Adverse events included flatulence (40%), bloating (10%), heartburn (10%), and constipation (10%). CASAD is a promising strategy for treatment of MTC-related diarrhea. In this small pilot study, improvements in frequency and quality of diarrhea as well as QOL were noted. Further studies in this population are warranted.

This study does not have any comparison patient group

Efficacy of the Natural Clay, Calcium Aluminosilicate Anti-Diarrheal, in Reducing Medullary Thyroid Cancer-Related Diarrhea and Its Effects on Quality of Life: A Pilot Study.

Medullary thyroid cancer (MTC)-related diarrhea can be debilitating, reduces quality of life (QOL), and may be the only indication for initiating systemic therapy. Conventional antidiarrheal drugs are not always helpful and may have side effects. Calcium aluminosilicate antidiarrheal (CASAD), a natural calcium montmorrilonite clay, safely adsorbs toxins and inflammatory proteins associated with diarrhea. It was hypothesized that CASAD would reduce the severity of diarrhea and improve QOL in MTC patients. This was a prospective pilot trial (NCT01739634) of MTC patients not on systemic therapy with self-reported diarrhea of three or more bowel movements (BMs) per day for a week or more. The study design included a one-week run-in period followed by one week of CASAD ± a two-week optional continuation period. The primary endpoint was efficacy of one week of CASAD treatment in decreasing the number of BMs per day by ≥20% when compared with the baseline run-in period. Secondary objectives included tolerability and safety and the impact on QOL using the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory-Thyroid questionnaire (MDASI-THY). Ten MTC patients (median age = 52 years, 70% female, 80% white) were enrolled. All had distant metastases, and median calcitonin was 5088 ng/mL (range 1817-42,007 ng/mL). Ninety percent had received prior antidiarrheals, and 40% of these had used two or more drugs, including tincture of opium (30%), loperamide (50%), diphenoxylate/atropine (20%), colestipol (10%), or cholestyramine (10%). Of seven evaluable patients, four (56%) had ≥20% reduction in BMs per day. Six out of seven patients discontinued their prior antidiarrheals. Best response ranged from 7% to 99% reduction in mean BMs/day from baseline. Five out of seven patients considered CASAD a success, and they opted for the two-week continuation period. Improvements in diarrhea and all six interference items assessed by MDASI-THY were noted at weeks 1 and 3. Total interference score was significantly improved at three weeks compared with baseline (p = 0.05). An oral levothyroxine absorption test was performed in one patient; malabsorption of levothyroxine was not observed. Adverse events included flatulence (40%), bloating (10%), heartburn (10%), and constipation (10%). CASAD is a promising strategy for treatment of MTC-related diarrhea. In this small pilot study, improvements in frequency and quality of diarrhea as well as QOL were noted. Further studies in this population are warranted.

This study has human subjects

Efficacy of the Natural Clay, Calcium Aluminosilicate Anti-Diarrheal, in Reducing Medullary Thyroid Cancer-Related Diarrhea and Its Effects on Quality of Life: A Pilot Study.

Medullary thyroid cancer (MTC)-related diarrhea can be debilitating, reduces quality of life (QOL), and may be the only indication for initiating systemic therapy. Conventional antidiarrheal drugs are not always helpful and may have side effects. Calcium aluminosilicate antidiarrheal (CASAD), a natural calcium montmorrilonite clay, safely adsorbs toxins and inflammatory proteins associated with diarrhea. It was hypothesized that CASAD would reduce the severity of diarrhea and improve QOL in MTC patients. This was a prospective pilot trial (NCT01739634) of MTC patients not on systemic therapy with self-reported diarrhea of three or more bowel movements (BMs) per day for a week or more. The study design included a one-week run-in period followed by one week of CASAD ± a two-week optional continuation period. The primary endpoint was efficacy of one week of CASAD treatment in decreasing the number of BMs per day by ≥20% when compared with the baseline run-in period. Secondary objectives included tolerability and safety and the impact on QOL using the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory-Thyroid questionnaire (MDASI-THY). Ten MTC patients (median age = 52 years, 70% female, 80% white) were enrolled. All had distant metastases, and median calcitonin was 5088 ng/mL (range 1817-42,007 ng/mL). Ninety percent had received prior antidiarrheals, and 40% of these had used two or more drugs, including tincture of opium (30%), loperamide (50%), diphenoxylate/atropine (20%), colestipol (10%), or cholestyramine (10%). Of seven evaluable patients, four (56%) had ≥20% reduction in BMs per day. Six out of seven patients discontinued their prior antidiarrheals. Best response ranged from 7% to 99% reduction in mean BMs/day from baseline. Five out of seven patients considered CASAD a success, and they opted for the two-week continuation period. Improvements in diarrhea and all six interference items assessed by MDASI-THY were noted at weeks 1 and 3. Total interference score was significantly improved at three weeks compared with baseline (p = 0.05). An oral levothyroxine absorption test was performed in one patient; malabsorption of levothyroxine was not observed. Adverse events included flatulence (40%), bloating (10%), heartburn (10%), and constipation (10%). CASAD is a promising strategy for treatment of MTC-related diarrhea. In this small pilot study, improvements in frequency and quality of diarrhea as well as QOL were noted. Further studies in this population are warranted.

This study does not have human subjects

Efficacy of the Natural Clay, Calcium Aluminosilicate Anti-Diarrheal, in Reducing Medullary Thyroid Cancer-Related Diarrhea and Its Effects on Quality of Life: A Pilot Study.

Medullary thyroid cancer (MTC)-related diarrhea can be debilitating, reduces quality of life (QOL), and may be the only indication for initiating systemic therapy. Conventional antidiarrheal drugs are not always helpful and may have side effects. Calcium aluminosilicate antidiarrheal (CASAD), a natural calcium montmorrilonite clay, safely adsorbs toxins and inflammatory proteins associated with diarrhea. It was hypothesized that CASAD would reduce the severity of diarrhea and improve QOL in MTC patients. This was a prospective pilot trial (NCT01739634) of MTC patients not on systemic therapy with self-reported diarrhea of three or more bowel movements (BMs) per day for a week or more. The study design included a one-week run-in period followed by one week of CASAD ± a two-week optional continuation period. The primary endpoint was efficacy of one week of CASAD treatment in decreasing the number of BMs per day by ≥20% when compared with the baseline run-in period. Secondary objectives included tolerability and safety and the impact on QOL using the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory-Thyroid questionnaire (MDASI-THY). Ten MTC patients (median age = 52 years, 70% female, 80% white) were enrolled. All had distant metastases, and median calcitonin was 5088 ng/mL (range 1817-42,007 ng/mL). Ninety percent had received prior antidiarrheals, and 40% of these had used two or more drugs, including tincture of opium (30%), loperamide (50%), diphenoxylate/atropine (20%), colestipol (10%), or cholestyramine (10%). Of seven evaluable patients, four (56%) had ≥20% reduction in BMs per day. Six out of seven patients discontinued their prior antidiarrheals. Best response ranged from 7% to 99% reduction in mean BMs/day from baseline. Five out of seven patients considered CASAD a success, and they opted for the two-week continuation period. Improvements in diarrhea and all six interference items assessed by MDASI-THY were noted at weeks 1 and 3. Total interference score was significantly improved at three weeks compared with baseline (p = 0.05). An oral levothyroxine absorption test was performed in one patient; malabsorption of levothyroxine was not observed. Adverse events included flatulence (40%), bloating (10%), heartburn (10%), and constipation (10%). CASAD is a promising strategy for treatment of MTC-related diarrhea. In this small pilot study, improvements in frequency and quality of diarrhea as well as QOL were noted. Further studies in this population are warranted.

This study contains population size or sample size information

Efficacy of the Natural Clay, Calcium Aluminosilicate Anti-Diarrheal, in Reducing Medullary Thyroid Cancer-Related Diarrhea and Its Effects on Quality of Life: A Pilot Study.

Medullary thyroid cancer (MTC)-related diarrhea can be debilitating, reduces quality of life (QOL), and may be the only indication for initiating systemic therapy. Conventional antidiarrheal drugs are not always helpful and may have side effects. Calcium aluminosilicate antidiarrheal (CASAD), a natural calcium montmorrilonite clay, safely adsorbs toxins and inflammatory proteins associated with diarrhea. It was hypothesized that CASAD would reduce the severity of diarrhea and improve QOL in MTC patients. This was a prospective pilot trial (NCT01739634) of MTC patients not on systemic therapy with self-reported diarrhea of three or more bowel movements (BMs) per day for a week or more. The study design included a one-week run-in period followed by one week of CASAD ± a two-week optional continuation period. The primary endpoint was efficacy of one week of CASAD treatment in decreasing the number of BMs per day by ≥20% when compared with the baseline run-in period. Secondary objectives included tolerability and safety and the impact on QOL using the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory-Thyroid questionnaire (MDASI-THY). Ten MTC patients (median age = 52 years, 70% female, 80% white) were enrolled. All had distant metastases, and median calcitonin was 5088 ng/mL (range 1817-42,007 ng/mL). Ninety percent had received prior antidiarrheals, and 40% of these had used two or more drugs, including tincture of opium (30%), loperamide (50%), diphenoxylate/atropine (20%), colestipol (10%), or cholestyramine (10%). Of seven evaluable patients, four (56%) had ≥20% reduction in BMs per day. Six out of seven patients discontinued their prior antidiarrheals. Best response ranged from 7% to 99% reduction in mean BMs/day from baseline. Five out of seven patients considered CASAD a success, and they opted for the two-week continuation period. Improvements in diarrhea and all six interference items assessed by MDASI-THY were noted at weeks 1 and 3. Total interference score was significantly improved at three weeks compared with baseline (p = 0.05). An oral levothyroxine absorption test was performed in one patient; malabsorption of levothyroxine was not observed. Adverse events included flatulence (40%), bloating (10%), heartburn (10%), and constipation (10%). CASAD is a promising strategy for treatment of MTC-related diarrhea. In this small pilot study, improvements in frequency and quality of diarrhea as well as QOL were noted. Further studies in this population are warranted.

This study does not contain population size information

Efficacy of the Natural Clay, Calcium Aluminosilicate Anti-Diarrheal, in Reducing Medullary Thyroid Cancer-Related Diarrhea and Its Effects on Quality of Life: A Pilot Study.

Medullary thyroid cancer (MTC)-related diarrhea can be debilitating, reduces quality of life (QOL), and may be the only indication for initiating systemic therapy. Conventional antidiarrheal drugs are not always helpful and may have side effects. Calcium aluminosilicate antidiarrheal (CASAD), a natural calcium montmorrilonite clay, safely adsorbs toxins and inflammatory proteins associated with diarrhea. It was hypothesized that CASAD would reduce the severity of diarrhea and improve QOL in MTC patients. This was a prospective pilot trial (NCT01739634) of MTC patients not on systemic therapy with self-reported diarrhea of three or more bowel movements (BMs) per day for a week or more. The study design included a one-week run-in period followed by one week of CASAD ± a two-week optional continuation period. The primary endpoint was efficacy of one week of CASAD treatment in decreasing the number of BMs per day by ≥20% when compared with the baseline run-in period. Secondary objectives included tolerability and safety and the impact on QOL using the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory-Thyroid questionnaire (MDASI-THY). Ten MTC patients (median age = 52 years, 70% female, 80% white) were enrolled. All had distant metastases, and median calcitonin was 5088 ng/mL (range 1817-42,007 ng/mL). Ninety percent had received prior antidiarrheals, and 40% of these had used two or more drugs, including tincture of opium (30%), loperamide (50%), diphenoxylate/atropine (20%), colestipol (10%), or cholestyramine (10%). Of seven evaluable patients, four (56%) had ≥20% reduction in BMs per day. Six out of seven patients discontinued their prior antidiarrheals. Best response ranged from 7% to 99% reduction in mean BMs/day from baseline. Five out of seven patients considered CASAD a success, and they opted for the two-week continuation period. Improvements in diarrhea and all six interference items assessed by MDASI-THY were noted at weeks 1 and 3. Total interference score was significantly improved at three weeks compared with baseline (p = 0.05). An oral levothyroxine absorption test was performed in one patient; malabsorption of levothyroxine was not observed. Adverse events included flatulence (40%), bloating (10%), heartburn (10%), and constipation (10%). CASAD is a promising strategy for treatment of MTC-related diarrhea. In this small pilot study, improvements in frequency and quality of diarrhea as well as QOL were noted. Further studies in this population are warranted.

This study has quantitative outcomes like numbers, P-value, OR, CI, HR, RR, or patient ratios

Efficacy of the Natural Clay, Calcium Aluminosilicate Anti-Diarrheal, in Reducing Medullary Thyroid Cancer-Related Diarrhea and Its Effects on Quality of Life: A Pilot Study.

Medullary thyroid cancer (MTC)-related diarrhea can be debilitating, reduces quality of life (QOL), and may be the only indication for initiating systemic therapy. Conventional antidiarrheal drugs are not always helpful and may have side effects. Calcium aluminosilicate antidiarrheal (CASAD), a natural calcium montmorrilonite clay, safely adsorbs toxins and inflammatory proteins associated with diarrhea. It was hypothesized that CASAD would reduce the severity of diarrhea and improve QOL in MTC patients. This was a prospective pilot trial (NCT01739634) of MTC patients not on systemic therapy with self-reported diarrhea of three or more bowel movements (BMs) per day for a week or more. The study design included a one-week run-in period followed by one week of CASAD ± a two-week optional continuation period. The primary endpoint was efficacy of one week of CASAD treatment in decreasing the number of BMs per day by ≥20% when compared with the baseline run-in period. Secondary objectives included tolerability and safety and the impact on QOL using the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory-Thyroid questionnaire (MDASI-THY). Ten MTC patients (median age = 52 years, 70% female, 80% white) were enrolled. All had distant metastases, and median calcitonin was 5088 ng/mL (range 1817-42,007 ng/mL). Ninety percent had received prior antidiarrheals, and 40% of these had used two or more drugs, including tincture of opium (30%), loperamide (50%), diphenoxylate/atropine (20%), colestipol (10%), or cholestyramine (10%). Of seven evaluable patients, four (56%) had ≥20% reduction in BMs per day. Six out of seven patients discontinued their prior antidiarrheals. Best response ranged from 7% to 99% reduction in mean BMs/day from baseline. Five out of seven patients considered CASAD a success, and they opted for the two-week continuation period. Improvements in diarrhea and all six interference items assessed by MDASI-THY were noted at weeks 1 and 3. Total interference score was significantly improved at three weeks compared with baseline (p = 0.05). An oral levothyroxine absorption test was performed in one patient; malabsorption of levothyroxine was not observed. Adverse events included flatulence (40%), bloating (10%), heartburn (10%), and constipation (10%). CASAD is a promising strategy for treatment of MTC-related diarrhea. In this small pilot study, improvements in frequency and quality of diarrhea as well as QOL were noted. Further studies in this population are warranted.

This study does not have any quantitative outcomes

Efficacy of the Natural Clay, Calcium Aluminosilicate Anti-Diarrheal, in Reducing Medullary Thyroid Cancer-Related Diarrhea and Its Effects on Quality of Life: A Pilot Study.

Medullary thyroid cancer (MTC)-related diarrhea can be debilitating, reduces quality of life (QOL), and may be the only indication for initiating systemic therapy. Conventional antidiarrheal drugs are not always helpful and may have side effects. Calcium aluminosilicate antidiarrheal (CASAD), a natural calcium montmorrilonite clay, safely adsorbs toxins and inflammatory proteins associated with diarrhea. It was hypothesized that CASAD would reduce the severity of diarrhea and improve QOL in MTC patients. This was a prospective pilot trial (NCT01739634) of MTC patients not on systemic therapy with self-reported diarrhea of three or more bowel movements (BMs) per day for a week or more. The study design included a one-week run-in period followed by one week of CASAD ± a two-week optional continuation period. The primary endpoint was efficacy of one week of CASAD treatment in decreasing the number of BMs per day by ≥20% when compared with the baseline run-in period. Secondary objectives included tolerability and safety and the impact on QOL using the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory-Thyroid questionnaire (MDASI-THY). Ten MTC patients (median age = 52 years, 70% female, 80% white) were enrolled. All had distant metastases, and median calcitonin was 5088 ng/mL (range 1817-42,007 ng/mL). Ninety percent had received prior antidiarrheals, and 40% of these had used two or more drugs, including tincture of opium (30%), loperamide (50%), diphenoxylate/atropine (20%), colestipol (10%), or cholestyramine (10%). Of seven evaluable patients, four (56%) had ≥20% reduction in BMs per day. Six out of seven patients discontinued their prior antidiarrheals. Best response ranged from 7% to 99% reduction in mean BMs/day from baseline. Five out of seven patients considered CASAD a success, and they opted for the two-week continuation period. Improvements in diarrhea and all six interference items assessed by MDASI-THY were noted at weeks 1 and 3. Total interference score was significantly improved at three weeks compared with baseline (p = 0.05). An oral levothyroxine absorption test was performed in one patient; malabsorption of levothyroxine was not observed. Adverse events included flatulence (40%), bloating (10%), heartburn (10%), and constipation (10%). CASAD is a promising strategy for treatment of MTC-related diarrhea. In this small pilot study, improvements in frequency and quality of diarrhea as well as QOL were noted. Further studies in this population are warranted.

This study has a target drug

Efficacy of the Natural Clay, Calcium Aluminosilicate Anti-Diarrheal, in Reducing Medullary Thyroid Cancer-Related Diarrhea and Its Effects on Quality of Life: A Pilot Study.

Medullary thyroid cancer (MTC)-related diarrhea can be debilitating, reduces quality of life (QOL), and may be the only indication for initiating systemic therapy. Conventional antidiarrheal drugs are not always helpful and may have side effects. Calcium aluminosilicate antidiarrheal (CASAD), a natural calcium montmorrilonite clay, safely adsorbs toxins and inflammatory proteins associated with diarrhea. It was hypothesized that CASAD would reduce the severity of diarrhea and improve QOL in MTC patients. This was a prospective pilot trial (NCT01739634) of MTC patients not on systemic therapy with self-reported diarrhea of three or more bowel movements (BMs) per day for a week or more. The study design included a one-week run-in period followed by one week of CASAD ± a two-week optional continuation period. The primary endpoint was efficacy of one week of CASAD treatment in decreasing the number of BMs per day by ≥20% when compared with the baseline run-in period. Secondary objectives included tolerability and safety and the impact on QOL using the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory-Thyroid questionnaire (MDASI-THY). Ten MTC patients (median age = 52 years, 70% female, 80% white) were enrolled. All had distant metastases, and median calcitonin was 5088 ng/mL (range 1817-42,007 ng/mL). Ninety percent had received prior antidiarrheals, and 40% of these had used two or more drugs, including tincture of opium (30%), loperamide (50%), diphenoxylate/atropine (20%), colestipol (10%), or cholestyramine (10%). Of seven evaluable patients, four (56%) had ≥20% reduction in BMs per day. Six out of seven patients discontinued their prior antidiarrheals. Best response ranged from 7% to 99% reduction in mean BMs/day from baseline. Five out of seven patients considered CASAD a success, and they opted for the two-week continuation period. Improvements in diarrhea and all six interference items assessed by MDASI-THY were noted at weeks 1 and 3. Total interference score was significantly improved at three weeks compared with baseline (p = 0.05). An oral levothyroxine absorption test was performed in one patient; malabsorption of levothyroxine was not observed. Adverse events included flatulence (40%), bloating (10%), heartburn (10%), and constipation (10%). CASAD is a promising strategy for treatment of MTC-related diarrhea. In this small pilot study, improvements in frequency and quality of diarrhea as well as QOL were noted. Further studies in this population are warranted.

This study does not have a target drug

Efficacy of the Natural Clay, Calcium Aluminosilicate Anti-Diarrheal, in Reducing Medullary Thyroid Cancer-Related Diarrhea and Its Effects on Quality of Life: A Pilot Study.

Medullary thyroid cancer (MTC)-related diarrhea can be debilitating, reduces quality of life (QOL), and may be the only indication for initiating systemic therapy. Conventional antidiarrheal drugs are not always helpful and may have side effects. Calcium aluminosilicate antidiarrheal (CASAD), a natural calcium montmorrilonite clay, safely adsorbs toxins and inflammatory proteins associated with diarrhea. It was hypothesized that CASAD would reduce the severity of diarrhea and improve QOL in MTC patients. This was a prospective pilot trial (NCT01739634) of MTC patients not on systemic therapy with self-reported diarrhea of three or more bowel movements (BMs) per day for a week or more. The study design included a one-week run-in period followed by one week of CASAD ± a two-week optional continuation period. The primary endpoint was efficacy of one week of CASAD treatment in decreasing the number of BMs per day by ≥20% when compared with the baseline run-in period. Secondary objectives included tolerability and safety and the impact on QOL using the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory-Thyroid questionnaire (MDASI-THY). Ten MTC patients (median age = 52 years, 70% female, 80% white) were enrolled. All had distant metastases, and median calcitonin was 5088 ng/mL (range 1817-42,007 ng/mL). Ninety percent had received prior antidiarrheals, and 40% of these had used two or more drugs, including tincture of opium (30%), loperamide (50%), diphenoxylate/atropine (20%), colestipol (10%), or cholestyramine (10%). Of seven evaluable patients, four (56%) had ≥20% reduction in BMs per day. Six out of seven patients discontinued their prior antidiarrheals. Best response ranged from 7% to 99% reduction in mean BMs/day from baseline. Five out of seven patients considered CASAD a success, and they opted for the two-week continuation period. Improvements in diarrhea and all six interference items assessed by MDASI-THY were noted at weeks 1 and 3. Total interference score was significantly improved at three weeks compared with baseline (p = 0.05). An oral levothyroxine absorption test was performed in one patient; malabsorption of levothyroxine was not observed. Adverse events included flatulence (40%), bloating (10%), heartburn (10%), and constipation (10%). CASAD is a promising strategy for treatment of MTC-related diarrhea. In this small pilot study, improvements in frequency and quality of diarrhea as well as QOL were noted. Further studies in this population are warranted.

This study has a target disease

Efficacy of the Natural Clay, Calcium Aluminosilicate Anti-Diarrheal, in Reducing Medullary Thyroid Cancer-Related Diarrhea and Its Effects on Quality of Life: A Pilot Study.

Medullary thyroid cancer (MTC)-related diarrhea can be debilitating, reduces quality of life (QOL), and may be the only indication for initiating systemic therapy. Conventional antidiarrheal drugs are not always helpful and may have side effects. Calcium aluminosilicate antidiarrheal (CASAD), a natural calcium montmorrilonite clay, safely adsorbs toxins and inflammatory proteins associated with diarrhea. It was hypothesized that CASAD would reduce the severity of diarrhea and improve QOL in MTC patients. This was a prospective pilot trial (NCT01739634) of MTC patients not on systemic therapy with self-reported diarrhea of three or more bowel movements (BMs) per day for a week or more. The study design included a one-week run-in period followed by one week of CASAD ± a two-week optional continuation period. The primary endpoint was efficacy of one week of CASAD treatment in decreasing the number of BMs per day by ≥20% when compared with the baseline run-in period. Secondary objectives included tolerability and safety and the impact on QOL using the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory-Thyroid questionnaire (MDASI-THY). Ten MTC patients (median age = 52 years, 70% female, 80% white) were enrolled. All had distant metastases, and median calcitonin was 5088 ng/mL (range 1817-42,007 ng/mL). Ninety percent had received prior antidiarrheals, and 40% of these had used two or more drugs, including tincture of opium (30%), loperamide (50%), diphenoxylate/atropine (20%), colestipol (10%), or cholestyramine (10%). Of seven evaluable patients, four (56%) had ≥20% reduction in BMs per day. Six out of seven patients discontinued their prior antidiarrheals. Best response ranged from 7% to 99% reduction in mean BMs/day from baseline. Five out of seven patients considered CASAD a success, and they opted for the two-week continuation period. Improvements in diarrhea and all six interference items assessed by MDASI-THY were noted at weeks 1 and 3. Total interference score was significantly improved at three weeks compared with baseline (p = 0.05). An oral levothyroxine absorption test was performed in one patient; malabsorption of levothyroxine was not observed. Adverse events included flatulence (40%), bloating (10%), heartburn (10%), and constipation (10%). CASAD is a promising strategy for treatment of MTC-related diarrhea. In this small pilot study, improvements in frequency and quality of diarrhea as well as QOL were noted. Further studies in this population are warranted.

This study does not have a target disease

Subcutaneous Sarilumab in hospitalised patients with moderate-severe COVID-19 infection compared to the standard of care (SARCOVID): a structured summary of a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

The main aim of the study is to evaluate the efficacy of a single dose of sarilumab, in subcutaneous administration, in hospitalised patients with moderate to early severe COVID-19 infection compared to the current standard of care, to prevent progression to systemic hyperinflammatory status. Our hypothesis is that use of subcutaneous sarilumab in early stages (window of opportunity) of COVID-19 moderate-severe pneumonia can prevent higher oxygenation requirements through non-invasive and invasive mechanical ventilation and decrease in-hospital stays, as well as death rate. The secondary objectives of the study are to evaluate the safety of sarilumab through hospitalisation and up to day 14 after discharge, compared to the control arm as assessed by incidence of serious and non serious adverse events (SAEs). In addition, as an exploratory objective, to compare the baseline clinical and biological parameters, including serum IL-6 levels, of the intervention population against controls of the same pandemic outbreak (using a propensity score) to search for markers that identify the best candidates for the treatment with subcutaneous IL-6R inhibitors and to attempt an approximation in the temporal frame of the "window of opportunity" TRIAL DESIGN: SARCOVID is an investigator-initiated single center randomised proof of concept study. Patients treated at the Hospital Universitario La Princesa, Madrid, Spain requiring hospitalisation will be consecutively recruited, meeting all inclusion criteria and none of the exclusion criteria Inclusion criteria a. Age >18, <80 years old b. COVID-19 infection documented by a positive RT-PCR test or, in absence of a RT-PCR positive test, case definition of COVID 19 infection/pneumonia as per local protocol and the presence of a positive serologic test (IgM/IgA by ELISA) c. Documented interstitial pneumonia requiring admission and at least two of the following parameters: 1) Fever ≥ 37.8°C (tympanic) 2) IL-6 in serum ≥ 25 pg/mL (in the absence of a previous dose of prednisone or equivalent> 1 mg / kg) or PCR> 5mg/dL 3) Lymphocytes <600 cells/mm³ 4) Ferritin> 300 μg/L that doubles in 24 hours 5) Ferritin> 600 μg/L in the first determination and LDH> 250 U/L 6) D-dimer (> 1 mg/L) d. Informed verbal consent or requested under urgent conditions, documented in the electronic medical record. Exclusion criteria a. Patients who require mechanical ventilation at the time of inclusion. b. AST / ALT values > 5 folds the ULN. c. Absolute neutrophil count below 500 cells/mm³ d. Absolute platelet count below 50,000 cells/mm³ e. Documented sepsis or high suspicion of superimposed infection by pathogens other than COVID-19. f. Presence of comorbidities that can likely lead to an unfavourable result according to clinical judgment. g. Complicated diverticulitis or intestinal perforation. h. Current skin infection (eg, uncontrolled dermopiodermitis). i. Immunosuppressive anti-rejection therapy. j. Pregnancy or lactation. k. Previous treatment with tocilizumab or sarilumab. l. Patients participating in another clinical trial for SARS-CoV-2 infection. m. Patients with known hypersensitivity or contraindication to sarilumab or excipients. The intervention group, sarilumab plus standard of care, will receive 400 mg single dose treatment with Sarilumab (Kevzara), 2 subcutaneous injections 200mg each in a pre-filled syringe. Treatment with drugs or procedures in routine clinical practice that the clinician responsible for the patient deems necessary is allowed. The control group will receive drugs or procedures in routine clinical practice according to the best standard of care as per local protocol. Primary Outcome Measures 1. Mean change in clinical status assessment using the 7-point ordinal scale at day 7 after randomisation compared to baseline (Score ranges 1-7) 1. Death; 2. Hospitalised, requiring invasive mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO); 3. Hospitalised, requiring non-invasive ventilation or high flow oxygen devices; 4. Hospitalised, requiring supplemental oxygen; 5. Hospitalised, not requiring supplemental oxygen - but in need of ongoing medical care (COVID-19 related or otherwise) 6. Hospitalised, not requiring supplemental oxygen - no longer requires ongoing medical care (independent) 7. Not hospitalised 2. Duration of hospitalisation: Days from the date of enrolment to the date of discharge 3. Number of deaths at the end of study RANDOMISATION: Randomisation to treatment arms sarilumab plus standard of care or standard of care in a 2:1 ratio will be performed by the Clinical Research and Clinical Trials Unit (CRCTU) at the Hospital using a table of random numbers, an internet-based randomisation tool. After checking that all inclusion criteria are met and none of the exclusion criteria, CRCTU will communicate the recruiting investigator the assigned treatment. This study is unblinded. 30 patients treated by COVID-19 infection who require hospitalisation: 20 will receive sarilumab plus Standard of Care and 10 will receive Standard of Care. The Protocol version number is 2, as of 6^th April 2020, with amendment 1, as of 7^th May 2020. The recruitment is ongoing. Recruitment started on April 13^th 2020 and is anticipated to be completed by November 2020. This trial was first registered in the European Union Clinical Trials Register on 4 April 2020, EudraCT Number 2020-001634-36 . Then, posted on ClinicalTrials.gov on 22 April 2020, Identifier: NCT04357808 . The full protocol is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interest in expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol. The study protocol has been reported in accordance with the International Council Harmonization guidelines: https://www.ich.org/page/efficacy-guidelines .

This study has a cohort study or clinical trial

Subcutaneous Sarilumab in hospitalised patients with moderate-severe COVID-19 infection compared to the standard of care (SARCOVID): a structured summary of a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

The main aim of the study is to evaluate the efficacy of a single dose of sarilumab, in subcutaneous administration, in hospitalised patients with moderate to early severe COVID-19 infection compared to the current standard of care, to prevent progression to systemic hyperinflammatory status. Our hypothesis is that use of subcutaneous sarilumab in early stages (window of opportunity) of COVID-19 moderate-severe pneumonia can prevent higher oxygenation requirements through non-invasive and invasive mechanical ventilation and decrease in-hospital stays, as well as death rate. The secondary objectives of the study are to evaluate the safety of sarilumab through hospitalisation and up to day 14 after discharge, compared to the control arm as assessed by incidence of serious and non serious adverse events (SAEs). In addition, as an exploratory objective, to compare the baseline clinical and biological parameters, including serum IL-6 levels, of the intervention population against controls of the same pandemic outbreak (using a propensity score) to search for markers that identify the best candidates for the treatment with subcutaneous IL-6R inhibitors and to attempt an approximation in the temporal frame of the "window of opportunity" TRIAL DESIGN: SARCOVID is an investigator-initiated single center randomised proof of concept study. Patients treated at the Hospital Universitario La Princesa, Madrid, Spain requiring hospitalisation will be consecutively recruited, meeting all inclusion criteria and none of the exclusion criteria Inclusion criteria a. Age >18, <80 years old b. COVID-19 infection documented by a positive RT-PCR test or, in absence of a RT-PCR positive test, case definition of COVID 19 infection/pneumonia as per local protocol and the presence of a positive serologic test (IgM/IgA by ELISA) c. Documented interstitial pneumonia requiring admission and at least two of the following parameters: 1) Fever ≥ 37.8°C (tympanic) 2) IL-6 in serum ≥ 25 pg/mL (in the absence of a previous dose of prednisone or equivalent> 1 mg / kg) or PCR> 5mg/dL 3) Lymphocytes <600 cells/mm³ 4) Ferritin> 300 μg/L that doubles in 24 hours 5) Ferritin> 600 μg/L in the first determination and LDH> 250 U/L 6) D-dimer (> 1 mg/L) d. Informed verbal consent or requested under urgent conditions, documented in the electronic medical record. Exclusion criteria a. Patients who require mechanical ventilation at the time of inclusion. b. AST / ALT values > 5 folds the ULN. c. Absolute neutrophil count below 500 cells/mm³ d. Absolute platelet count below 50,000 cells/mm³ e. Documented sepsis or high suspicion of superimposed infection by pathogens other than COVID-19. f. Presence of comorbidities that can likely lead to an unfavourable result according to clinical judgment. g. Complicated diverticulitis or intestinal perforation. h. Current skin infection (eg, uncontrolled dermopiodermitis). i. Immunosuppressive anti-rejection therapy. j. Pregnancy or lactation. k. Previous treatment with tocilizumab or sarilumab. l. Patients participating in another clinical trial for SARS-CoV-2 infection. m. Patients with known hypersensitivity or contraindication to sarilumab or excipients. The intervention group, sarilumab plus standard of care, will receive 400 mg single dose treatment with Sarilumab (Kevzara), 2 subcutaneous injections 200mg each in a pre-filled syringe. Treatment with drugs or procedures in routine clinical practice that the clinician responsible for the patient deems necessary is allowed. The control group will receive drugs or procedures in routine clinical practice according to the best standard of care as per local protocol. Primary Outcome Measures 1. Mean change in clinical status assessment using the 7-point ordinal scale at day 7 after randomisation compared to baseline (Score ranges 1-7) 1. Death; 2. Hospitalised, requiring invasive mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO); 3. Hospitalised, requiring non-invasive ventilation or high flow oxygen devices; 4. Hospitalised, requiring supplemental oxygen; 5. Hospitalised, not requiring supplemental oxygen - but in need of ongoing medical care (COVID-19 related or otherwise) 6. Hospitalised, not requiring supplemental oxygen - no longer requires ongoing medical care (independent) 7. Not hospitalised 2. Duration of hospitalisation: Days from the date of enrolment to the date of discharge 3. Number of deaths at the end of study RANDOMISATION: Randomisation to treatment arms sarilumab plus standard of care or standard of care in a 2:1 ratio will be performed by the Clinical Research and Clinical Trials Unit (CRCTU) at the Hospital using a table of random numbers, an internet-based randomisation tool. After checking that all inclusion criteria are met and none of the exclusion criteria, CRCTU will communicate the recruiting investigator the assigned treatment. This study is unblinded. 30 patients treated by COVID-19 infection who require hospitalisation: 20 will receive sarilumab plus Standard of Care and 10 will receive Standard of Care. The Protocol version number is 2, as of 6^th April 2020, with amendment 1, as of 7^th May 2020. The recruitment is ongoing. Recruitment started on April 13^th 2020 and is anticipated to be completed by November 2020. This trial was first registered in the European Union Clinical Trials Register on 4 April 2020, EudraCT Number 2020-001634-36 . Then, posted on ClinicalTrials.gov on 22 April 2020, Identifier: NCT04357808 . The full protocol is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interest in expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol. The study protocol has been reported in accordance with the International Council Harmonization guidelines: https://www.ich.org/page/efficacy-guidelines .

This study does not have any cohorts or clinical trial

Subcutaneous Sarilumab in hospitalised patients with moderate-severe COVID-19 infection compared to the standard of care (SARCOVID): a structured summary of a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

The main aim of the study is to evaluate the efficacy of a single dose of sarilumab, in subcutaneous administration, in hospitalised patients with moderate to early severe COVID-19 infection compared to the current standard of care, to prevent progression to systemic hyperinflammatory status. Our hypothesis is that use of subcutaneous sarilumab in early stages (window of opportunity) of COVID-19 moderate-severe pneumonia can prevent higher oxygenation requirements through non-invasive and invasive mechanical ventilation and decrease in-hospital stays, as well as death rate. The secondary objectives of the study are to evaluate the safety of sarilumab through hospitalisation and up to day 14 after discharge, compared to the control arm as assessed by incidence of serious and non serious adverse events (SAEs). In addition, as an exploratory objective, to compare the baseline clinical and biological parameters, including serum IL-6 levels, of the intervention population against controls of the same pandemic outbreak (using a propensity score) to search for markers that identify the best candidates for the treatment with subcutaneous IL-6R inhibitors and to attempt an approximation in the temporal frame of the "window of opportunity" TRIAL DESIGN: SARCOVID is an investigator-initiated single center randomised proof of concept study. Patients treated at the Hospital Universitario La Princesa, Madrid, Spain requiring hospitalisation will be consecutively recruited, meeting all inclusion criteria and none of the exclusion criteria Inclusion criteria a. Age >18, <80 years old b. COVID-19 infection documented by a positive RT-PCR test or, in absence of a RT-PCR positive test, case definition of COVID 19 infection/pneumonia as per local protocol and the presence of a positive serologic test (IgM/IgA by ELISA) c. Documented interstitial pneumonia requiring admission and at least two of the following parameters: 1) Fever ≥ 37.8°C (tympanic) 2) IL-6 in serum ≥ 25 pg/mL (in the absence of a previous dose of prednisone or equivalent> 1 mg / kg) or PCR> 5mg/dL 3) Lymphocytes <600 cells/mm³ 4) Ferritin> 300 μg/L that doubles in 24 hours 5) Ferritin> 600 μg/L in the first determination and LDH> 250 U/L 6) D-dimer (> 1 mg/L) d. Informed verbal consent or requested under urgent conditions, documented in the electronic medical record. Exclusion criteria a. Patients who require mechanical ventilation at the time of inclusion. b. AST / ALT values > 5 folds the ULN. c. Absolute neutrophil count below 500 cells/mm³ d. Absolute platelet count below 50,000 cells/mm³ e. Documented sepsis or high suspicion of superimposed infection by pathogens other than COVID-19. f. Presence of comorbidities that can likely lead to an unfavourable result according to clinical judgment. g. Complicated diverticulitis or intestinal perforation. h. Current skin infection (eg, uncontrolled dermopiodermitis). i. Immunosuppressive anti-rejection therapy. j. Pregnancy or lactation. k. Previous treatment with tocilizumab or sarilumab. l. Patients participating in another clinical trial for SARS-CoV-2 infection. m. Patients with known hypersensitivity or contraindication to sarilumab or excipients. The intervention group, sarilumab plus standard of care, will receive 400 mg single dose treatment with Sarilumab (Kevzara), 2 subcutaneous injections 200mg each in a pre-filled syringe. Treatment with drugs or procedures in routine clinical practice that the clinician responsible for the patient deems necessary is allowed. The control group will receive drugs or procedures in routine clinical practice according to the best standard of care as per local protocol. Primary Outcome Measures 1. Mean change in clinical status assessment using the 7-point ordinal scale at day 7 after randomisation compared to baseline (Score ranges 1-7) 1. Death; 2. Hospitalised, requiring invasive mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO); 3. Hospitalised, requiring non-invasive ventilation or high flow oxygen devices; 4. Hospitalised, requiring supplemental oxygen; 5. Hospitalised, not requiring supplemental oxygen - but in need of ongoing medical care (COVID-19 related or otherwise) 6. Hospitalised, not requiring supplemental oxygen - no longer requires ongoing medical care (independent) 7. Not hospitalised 2. Duration of hospitalisation: Days from the date of enrolment to the date of discharge 3. Number of deaths at the end of study RANDOMISATION: Randomisation to treatment arms sarilumab plus standard of care or standard of care in a 2:1 ratio will be performed by the Clinical Research and Clinical Trials Unit (CRCTU) at the Hospital using a table of random numbers, an internet-based randomisation tool. After checking that all inclusion criteria are met and none of the exclusion criteria, CRCTU will communicate the recruiting investigator the assigned treatment. This study is unblinded. 30 patients treated by COVID-19 infection who require hospitalisation: 20 will receive sarilumab plus Standard of Care and 10 will receive Standard of Care. The Protocol version number is 2, as of 6^th April 2020, with amendment 1, as of 7^th May 2020. The recruitment is ongoing. Recruitment started on April 13^th 2020 and is anticipated to be completed by November 2020. This trial was first registered in the European Union Clinical Trials Register on 4 April 2020, EudraCT Number 2020-001634-36 . Then, posted on ClinicalTrials.gov on 22 April 2020, Identifier: NCT04357808 . The full protocol is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interest in expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol. The study protocol has been reported in accordance with the International Council Harmonization guidelines: https://www.ich.org/page/efficacy-guidelines .

This study has a control, double-blind, or comparison patient group

Subcutaneous Sarilumab in hospitalised patients with moderate-severe COVID-19 infection compared to the standard of care (SARCOVID): a structured summary of a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

The main aim of the study is to evaluate the efficacy of a single dose of sarilumab, in subcutaneous administration, in hospitalised patients with moderate to early severe COVID-19 infection compared to the current standard of care, to prevent progression to systemic hyperinflammatory status. Our hypothesis is that use of subcutaneous sarilumab in early stages (window of opportunity) of COVID-19 moderate-severe pneumonia can prevent higher oxygenation requirements through non-invasive and invasive mechanical ventilation and decrease in-hospital stays, as well as death rate. The secondary objectives of the study are to evaluate the safety of sarilumab through hospitalisation and up to day 14 after discharge, compared to the control arm as assessed by incidence of serious and non serious adverse events (SAEs). In addition, as an exploratory objective, to compare the baseline clinical and biological parameters, including serum IL-6 levels, of the intervention population against controls of the same pandemic outbreak (using a propensity score) to search for markers that identify the best candidates for the treatment with subcutaneous IL-6R inhibitors and to attempt an approximation in the temporal frame of the "window of opportunity" TRIAL DESIGN: SARCOVID is an investigator-initiated single center randomised proof of concept study. Patients treated at the Hospital Universitario La Princesa, Madrid, Spain requiring hospitalisation will be consecutively recruited, meeting all inclusion criteria and none of the exclusion criteria Inclusion criteria a. Age >18, <80 years old b. COVID-19 infection documented by a positive RT-PCR test or, in absence of a RT-PCR positive test, case definition of COVID 19 infection/pneumonia as per local protocol and the presence of a positive serologic test (IgM/IgA by ELISA) c. Documented interstitial pneumonia requiring admission and at least two of the following parameters: 1) Fever ≥ 37.8°C (tympanic) 2) IL-6 in serum ≥ 25 pg/mL (in the absence of a previous dose of prednisone or equivalent> 1 mg / kg) or PCR> 5mg/dL 3) Lymphocytes <600 cells/mm³ 4) Ferritin> 300 μg/L that doubles in 24 hours 5) Ferritin> 600 μg/L in the first determination and LDH> 250 U/L 6) D-dimer (> 1 mg/L) d. Informed verbal consent or requested under urgent conditions, documented in the electronic medical record. Exclusion criteria a. Patients who require mechanical ventilation at the time of inclusion. b. AST / ALT values > 5 folds the ULN. c. Absolute neutrophil count below 500 cells/mm³ d. Absolute platelet count below 50,000 cells/mm³ e. Documented sepsis or high suspicion of superimposed infection by pathogens other than COVID-19. f. Presence of comorbidities that can likely lead to an unfavourable result according to clinical judgment. g. Complicated diverticulitis or intestinal perforation. h. Current skin infection (eg, uncontrolled dermopiodermitis). i. Immunosuppressive anti-rejection therapy. j. Pregnancy or lactation. k. Previous treatment with tocilizumab or sarilumab. l. Patients participating in another clinical trial for SARS-CoV-2 infection. m. Patients with known hypersensitivity or contraindication to sarilumab or excipients. The intervention group, sarilumab plus standard of care, will receive 400 mg single dose treatment with Sarilumab (Kevzara), 2 subcutaneous injections 200mg each in a pre-filled syringe. Treatment with drugs or procedures in routine clinical practice that the clinician responsible for the patient deems necessary is allowed. The control group will receive drugs or procedures in routine clinical practice according to the best standard of care as per local protocol. Primary Outcome Measures 1. Mean change in clinical status assessment using the 7-point ordinal scale at day 7 after randomisation compared to baseline (Score ranges 1-7) 1. Death; 2. Hospitalised, requiring invasive mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO); 3. Hospitalised, requiring non-invasive ventilation or high flow oxygen devices; 4. Hospitalised, requiring supplemental oxygen; 5. Hospitalised, not requiring supplemental oxygen - but in need of ongoing medical care (COVID-19 related or otherwise) 6. Hospitalised, not requiring supplemental oxygen - no longer requires ongoing medical care (independent) 7. Not hospitalised 2. Duration of hospitalisation: Days from the date of enrolment to the date of discharge 3. Number of deaths at the end of study RANDOMISATION: Randomisation to treatment arms sarilumab plus standard of care or standard of care in a 2:1 ratio will be performed by the Clinical Research and Clinical Trials Unit (CRCTU) at the Hospital using a table of random numbers, an internet-based randomisation tool. After checking that all inclusion criteria are met and none of the exclusion criteria, CRCTU will communicate the recruiting investigator the assigned treatment. This study is unblinded. 30 patients treated by COVID-19 infection who require hospitalisation: 20 will receive sarilumab plus Standard of Care and 10 will receive Standard of Care. The Protocol version number is 2, as of 6^th April 2020, with amendment 1, as of 7^th May 2020. The recruitment is ongoing. Recruitment started on April 13^th 2020 and is anticipated to be completed by November 2020. This trial was first registered in the European Union Clinical Trials Register on 4 April 2020, EudraCT Number 2020-001634-36 . Then, posted on ClinicalTrials.gov on 22 April 2020, Identifier: NCT04357808 . The full protocol is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interest in expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol. The study protocol has been reported in accordance with the International Council Harmonization guidelines: https://www.ich.org/page/efficacy-guidelines .

This study does not have any comparison patient group

Subcutaneous Sarilumab in hospitalised patients with moderate-severe COVID-19 infection compared to the standard of care (SARCOVID): a structured summary of a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

The main aim of the study is to evaluate the efficacy of a single dose of sarilumab, in subcutaneous administration, in hospitalised patients with moderate to early severe COVID-19 infection compared to the current standard of care, to prevent progression to systemic hyperinflammatory status. Our hypothesis is that use of subcutaneous sarilumab in early stages (window of opportunity) of COVID-19 moderate-severe pneumonia can prevent higher oxygenation requirements through non-invasive and invasive mechanical ventilation and decrease in-hospital stays, as well as death rate. The secondary objectives of the study are to evaluate the safety of sarilumab through hospitalisation and up to day 14 after discharge, compared to the control arm as assessed by incidence of serious and non serious adverse events (SAEs). In addition, as an exploratory objective, to compare the baseline clinical and biological parameters, including serum IL-6 levels, of the intervention population against controls of the same pandemic outbreak (using a propensity score) to search for markers that identify the best candidates for the treatment with subcutaneous IL-6R inhibitors and to attempt an approximation in the temporal frame of the "window of opportunity" TRIAL DESIGN: SARCOVID is an investigator-initiated single center randomised proof of concept study. Patients treated at the Hospital Universitario La Princesa, Madrid, Spain requiring hospitalisation will be consecutively recruited, meeting all inclusion criteria and none of the exclusion criteria Inclusion criteria a. Age >18, <80 years old b. COVID-19 infection documented by a positive RT-PCR test or, in absence of a RT-PCR positive test, case definition of COVID 19 infection/pneumonia as per local protocol and the presence of a positive serologic test (IgM/IgA by ELISA) c. Documented interstitial pneumonia requiring admission and at least two of the following parameters: 1) Fever ≥ 37.8°C (tympanic) 2) IL-6 in serum ≥ 25 pg/mL (in the absence of a previous dose of prednisone or equivalent> 1 mg / kg) or PCR> 5mg/dL 3) Lymphocytes <600 cells/mm³ 4) Ferritin> 300 μg/L that doubles in 24 hours 5) Ferritin> 600 μg/L in the first determination and LDH> 250 U/L 6) D-dimer (> 1 mg/L) d. Informed verbal consent or requested under urgent conditions, documented in the electronic medical record. Exclusion criteria a. Patients who require mechanical ventilation at the time of inclusion. b. AST / ALT values > 5 folds the ULN. c. Absolute neutrophil count below 500 cells/mm³ d. Absolute platelet count below 50,000 cells/mm³ e. Documented sepsis or high suspicion of superimposed infection by pathogens other than COVID-19. f. Presence of comorbidities that can likely lead to an unfavourable result according to clinical judgment. g. Complicated diverticulitis or intestinal perforation. h. Current skin infection (eg, uncontrolled dermopiodermitis). i. Immunosuppressive anti-rejection therapy. j. Pregnancy or lactation. k. Previous treatment with tocilizumab or sarilumab. l. Patients participating in another clinical trial for SARS-CoV-2 infection. m. Patients with known hypersensitivity or contraindication to sarilumab or excipients. The intervention group, sarilumab plus standard of care, will receive 400 mg single dose treatment with Sarilumab (Kevzara), 2 subcutaneous injections 200mg each in a pre-filled syringe. Treatment with drugs or procedures in routine clinical practice that the clinician responsible for the patient deems necessary is allowed. The control group will receive drugs or procedures in routine clinical practice according to the best standard of care as per local protocol. Primary Outcome Measures 1. Mean change in clinical status assessment using the 7-point ordinal scale at day 7 after randomisation compared to baseline (Score ranges 1-7) 1. Death; 2. Hospitalised, requiring invasive mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO); 3. Hospitalised, requiring non-invasive ventilation or high flow oxygen devices; 4. Hospitalised, requiring supplemental oxygen; 5. Hospitalised, not requiring supplemental oxygen - but in need of ongoing medical care (COVID-19 related or otherwise) 6. Hospitalised, not requiring supplemental oxygen - no longer requires ongoing medical care (independent) 7. Not hospitalised 2. Duration of hospitalisation: Days from the date of enrolment to the date of discharge 3. Number of deaths at the end of study RANDOMISATION: Randomisation to treatment arms sarilumab plus standard of care or standard of care in a 2:1 ratio will be performed by the Clinical Research and Clinical Trials Unit (CRCTU) at the Hospital using a table of random numbers, an internet-based randomisation tool. After checking that all inclusion criteria are met and none of the exclusion criteria, CRCTU will communicate the recruiting investigator the assigned treatment. This study is unblinded. 30 patients treated by COVID-19 infection who require hospitalisation: 20 will receive sarilumab plus Standard of Care and 10 will receive Standard of Care. The Protocol version number is 2, as of 6^th April 2020, with amendment 1, as of 7^th May 2020. The recruitment is ongoing. Recruitment started on April 13^th 2020 and is anticipated to be completed by November 2020. This trial was first registered in the European Union Clinical Trials Register on 4 April 2020, EudraCT Number 2020-001634-36 . Then, posted on ClinicalTrials.gov on 22 April 2020, Identifier: NCT04357808 . The full protocol is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interest in expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol. The study protocol has been reported in accordance with the International Council Harmonization guidelines: https://www.ich.org/page/efficacy-guidelines .

This study has human subjects

Subcutaneous Sarilumab in hospitalised patients with moderate-severe COVID-19 infection compared to the standard of care (SARCOVID): a structured summary of a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

The main aim of the study is to evaluate the efficacy of a single dose of sarilumab, in subcutaneous administration, in hospitalised patients with moderate to early severe COVID-19 infection compared to the current standard of care, to prevent progression to systemic hyperinflammatory status. Our hypothesis is that use of subcutaneous sarilumab in early stages (window of opportunity) of COVID-19 moderate-severe pneumonia can prevent higher oxygenation requirements through non-invasive and invasive mechanical ventilation and decrease in-hospital stays, as well as death rate. The secondary objectives of the study are to evaluate the safety of sarilumab through hospitalisation and up to day 14 after discharge, compared to the control arm as assessed by incidence of serious and non serious adverse events (SAEs). In addition, as an exploratory objective, to compare the baseline clinical and biological parameters, including serum IL-6 levels, of the intervention population against controls of the same pandemic outbreak (using a propensity score) to search for markers that identify the best candidates for the treatment with subcutaneous IL-6R inhibitors and to attempt an approximation in the temporal frame of the "window of opportunity" TRIAL DESIGN: SARCOVID is an investigator-initiated single center randomised proof of concept study. Patients treated at the Hospital Universitario La Princesa, Madrid, Spain requiring hospitalisation will be consecutively recruited, meeting all inclusion criteria and none of the exclusion criteria Inclusion criteria a. Age >18, <80 years old b. COVID-19 infection documented by a positive RT-PCR test or, in absence of a RT-PCR positive test, case definition of COVID 19 infection/pneumonia as per local protocol and the presence of a positive serologic test (IgM/IgA by ELISA) c. Documented interstitial pneumonia requiring admission and at least two of the following parameters: 1) Fever ≥ 37.8°C (tympanic) 2) IL-6 in serum ≥ 25 pg/mL (in the absence of a previous dose of prednisone or equivalent> 1 mg / kg) or PCR> 5mg/dL 3) Lymphocytes <600 cells/mm³ 4) Ferritin> 300 μg/L that doubles in 24 hours 5) Ferritin> 600 μg/L in the first determination and LDH> 250 U/L 6) D-dimer (> 1 mg/L) d. Informed verbal consent or requested under urgent conditions, documented in the electronic medical record. Exclusion criteria a. Patients who require mechanical ventilation at the time of inclusion. b. AST / ALT values > 5 folds the ULN. c. Absolute neutrophil count below 500 cells/mm³ d. Absolute platelet count below 50,000 cells/mm³ e. Documented sepsis or high suspicion of superimposed infection by pathogens other than COVID-19. f. Presence of comorbidities that can likely lead to an unfavourable result according to clinical judgment. g. Complicated diverticulitis or intestinal perforation. h. Current skin infection (eg, uncontrolled dermopiodermitis). i. Immunosuppressive anti-rejection therapy. j. Pregnancy or lactation. k. Previous treatment with tocilizumab or sarilumab. l. Patients participating in another clinical trial for SARS-CoV-2 infection. m. Patients with known hypersensitivity or contraindication to sarilumab or excipients. The intervention group, sarilumab plus standard of care, will receive 400 mg single dose treatment with Sarilumab (Kevzara), 2 subcutaneous injections 200mg each in a pre-filled syringe. Treatment with drugs or procedures in routine clinical practice that the clinician responsible for the patient deems necessary is allowed. The control group will receive drugs or procedures in routine clinical practice according to the best standard of care as per local protocol. Primary Outcome Measures 1. Mean change in clinical status assessment using the 7-point ordinal scale at day 7 after randomisation compared to baseline (Score ranges 1-7) 1. Death; 2. Hospitalised, requiring invasive mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO); 3. Hospitalised, requiring non-invasive ventilation or high flow oxygen devices; 4. Hospitalised, requiring supplemental oxygen; 5. Hospitalised, not requiring supplemental oxygen - but in need of ongoing medical care (COVID-19 related or otherwise) 6. Hospitalised, not requiring supplemental oxygen - no longer requires ongoing medical care (independent) 7. Not hospitalised 2. Duration of hospitalisation: Days from the date of enrolment to the date of discharge 3. Number of deaths at the end of study RANDOMISATION: Randomisation to treatment arms sarilumab plus standard of care or standard of care in a 2:1 ratio will be performed by the Clinical Research and Clinical Trials Unit (CRCTU) at the Hospital using a table of random numbers, an internet-based randomisation tool. After checking that all inclusion criteria are met and none of the exclusion criteria, CRCTU will communicate the recruiting investigator the assigned treatment. This study is unblinded. 30 patients treated by COVID-19 infection who require hospitalisation: 20 will receive sarilumab plus Standard of Care and 10 will receive Standard of Care. The Protocol version number is 2, as of 6^th April 2020, with amendment 1, as of 7^th May 2020. The recruitment is ongoing. Recruitment started on April 13^th 2020 and is anticipated to be completed by November 2020. This trial was first registered in the European Union Clinical Trials Register on 4 April 2020, EudraCT Number 2020-001634-36 . Then, posted on ClinicalTrials.gov on 22 April 2020, Identifier: NCT04357808 . The full protocol is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interest in expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol. The study protocol has been reported in accordance with the International Council Harmonization guidelines: https://www.ich.org/page/efficacy-guidelines .

This study does not have human subjects

Subcutaneous Sarilumab in hospitalised patients with moderate-severe COVID-19 infection compared to the standard of care (SARCOVID): a structured summary of a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

The main aim of the study is to evaluate the efficacy of a single dose of sarilumab, in subcutaneous administration, in hospitalised patients with moderate to early severe COVID-19 infection compared to the current standard of care, to prevent progression to systemic hyperinflammatory status. Our hypothesis is that use of subcutaneous sarilumab in early stages (window of opportunity) of COVID-19 moderate-severe pneumonia can prevent higher oxygenation requirements through non-invasive and invasive mechanical ventilation and decrease in-hospital stays, as well as death rate. The secondary objectives of the study are to evaluate the safety of sarilumab through hospitalisation and up to day 14 after discharge, compared to the control arm as assessed by incidence of serious and non serious adverse events (SAEs). In addition, as an exploratory objective, to compare the baseline clinical and biological parameters, including serum IL-6 levels, of the intervention population against controls of the same pandemic outbreak (using a propensity score) to search for markers that identify the best candidates for the treatment with subcutaneous IL-6R inhibitors and to attempt an approximation in the temporal frame of the "window of opportunity" TRIAL DESIGN: SARCOVID is an investigator-initiated single center randomised proof of concept study. Patients treated at the Hospital Universitario La Princesa, Madrid, Spain requiring hospitalisation will be consecutively recruited, meeting all inclusion criteria and none of the exclusion criteria Inclusion criteria a. Age >18, <80 years old b. COVID-19 infection documented by a positive RT-PCR test or, in absence of a RT-PCR positive test, case definition of COVID 19 infection/pneumonia as per local protocol and the presence of a positive serologic test (IgM/IgA by ELISA) c. Documented interstitial pneumonia requiring admission and at least two of the following parameters: 1) Fever ≥ 37.8°C (tympanic) 2) IL-6 in serum ≥ 25 pg/mL (in the absence of a previous dose of prednisone or equivalent> 1 mg / kg) or PCR> 5mg/dL 3) Lymphocytes <600 cells/mm³ 4) Ferritin> 300 μg/L that doubles in 24 hours 5) Ferritin> 600 μg/L in the first determination and LDH> 250 U/L 6) D-dimer (> 1 mg/L) d. Informed verbal consent or requested under urgent conditions, documented in the electronic medical record. Exclusion criteria a. Patients who require mechanical ventilation at the time of inclusion. b. AST / ALT values > 5 folds the ULN. c. Absolute neutrophil count below 500 cells/mm³ d. Absolute platelet count below 50,000 cells/mm³ e. Documented sepsis or high suspicion of superimposed infection by pathogens other than COVID-19. f. Presence of comorbidities that can likely lead to an unfavourable result according to clinical judgment. g. Complicated diverticulitis or intestinal perforation. h. Current skin infection (eg, uncontrolled dermopiodermitis). i. Immunosuppressive anti-rejection therapy. j. Pregnancy or lactation. k. Previous treatment with tocilizumab or sarilumab. l. Patients participating in another clinical trial for SARS-CoV-2 infection. m. Patients with known hypersensitivity or contraindication to sarilumab or excipients. The intervention group, sarilumab plus standard of care, will receive 400 mg single dose treatment with Sarilumab (Kevzara), 2 subcutaneous injections 200mg each in a pre-filled syringe. Treatment with drugs or procedures in routine clinical practice that the clinician responsible for the patient deems necessary is allowed. The control group will receive drugs or procedures in routine clinical practice according to the best standard of care as per local protocol. Primary Outcome Measures 1. Mean change in clinical status assessment using the 7-point ordinal scale at day 7 after randomisation compared to baseline (Score ranges 1-7) 1. Death; 2. Hospitalised, requiring invasive mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO); 3. Hospitalised, requiring non-invasive ventilation or high flow oxygen devices; 4. Hospitalised, requiring supplemental oxygen; 5. Hospitalised, not requiring supplemental oxygen - but in need of ongoing medical care (COVID-19 related or otherwise) 6. Hospitalised, not requiring supplemental oxygen - no longer requires ongoing medical care (independent) 7. Not hospitalised 2. Duration of hospitalisation: Days from the date of enrolment to the date of discharge 3. Number of deaths at the end of study RANDOMISATION: Randomisation to treatment arms sarilumab plus standard of care or standard of care in a 2:1 ratio will be performed by the Clinical Research and Clinical Trials Unit (CRCTU) at the Hospital using a table of random numbers, an internet-based randomisation tool. After checking that all inclusion criteria are met and none of the exclusion criteria, CRCTU will communicate the recruiting investigator the assigned treatment. This study is unblinded. 30 patients treated by COVID-19 infection who require hospitalisation: 20 will receive sarilumab plus Standard of Care and 10 will receive Standard of Care. The Protocol version number is 2, as of 6^th April 2020, with amendment 1, as of 7^th May 2020. The recruitment is ongoing. Recruitment started on April 13^th 2020 and is anticipated to be completed by November 2020. This trial was first registered in the European Union Clinical Trials Register on 4 April 2020, EudraCT Number 2020-001634-36 . Then, posted on ClinicalTrials.gov on 22 April 2020, Identifier: NCT04357808 . The full protocol is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interest in expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol. The study protocol has been reported in accordance with the International Council Harmonization guidelines: https://www.ich.org/page/efficacy-guidelines .

This study contains population size or sample size information

Subcutaneous Sarilumab in hospitalised patients with moderate-severe COVID-19 infection compared to the standard of care (SARCOVID): a structured summary of a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

The main aim of the study is to evaluate the efficacy of a single dose of sarilumab, in subcutaneous administration, in hospitalised patients with moderate to early severe COVID-19 infection compared to the current standard of care, to prevent progression to systemic hyperinflammatory status. Our hypothesis is that use of subcutaneous sarilumab in early stages (window of opportunity) of COVID-19 moderate-severe pneumonia can prevent higher oxygenation requirements through non-invasive and invasive mechanical ventilation and decrease in-hospital stays, as well as death rate. The secondary objectives of the study are to evaluate the safety of sarilumab through hospitalisation and up to day 14 after discharge, compared to the control arm as assessed by incidence of serious and non serious adverse events (SAEs). In addition, as an exploratory objective, to compare the baseline clinical and biological parameters, including serum IL-6 levels, of the intervention population against controls of the same pandemic outbreak (using a propensity score) to search for markers that identify the best candidates for the treatment with subcutaneous IL-6R inhibitors and to attempt an approximation in the temporal frame of the "window of opportunity" TRIAL DESIGN: SARCOVID is an investigator-initiated single center randomised proof of concept study. Patients treated at the Hospital Universitario La Princesa, Madrid, Spain requiring hospitalisation will be consecutively recruited, meeting all inclusion criteria and none of the exclusion criteria Inclusion criteria a. Age >18, <80 years old b. COVID-19 infection documented by a positive RT-PCR test or, in absence of a RT-PCR positive test, case definition of COVID 19 infection/pneumonia as per local protocol and the presence of a positive serologic test (IgM/IgA by ELISA) c. Documented interstitial pneumonia requiring admission and at least two of the following parameters: 1) Fever ≥ 37.8°C (tympanic) 2) IL-6 in serum ≥ 25 pg/mL (in the absence of a previous dose of prednisone or equivalent> 1 mg / kg) or PCR> 5mg/dL 3) Lymphocytes <600 cells/mm³ 4) Ferritin> 300 μg/L that doubles in 24 hours 5) Ferritin> 600 μg/L in the first determination and LDH> 250 U/L 6) D-dimer (> 1 mg/L) d. Informed verbal consent or requested under urgent conditions, documented in the electronic medical record. Exclusion criteria a. Patients who require mechanical ventilation at the time of inclusion. b. AST / ALT values > 5 folds the ULN. c. Absolute neutrophil count below 500 cells/mm³ d. Absolute platelet count below 50,000 cells/mm³ e. Documented sepsis or high suspicion of superimposed infection by pathogens other than COVID-19. f. Presence of comorbidities that can likely lead to an unfavourable result according to clinical judgment. g. Complicated diverticulitis or intestinal perforation. h. Current skin infection (eg, uncontrolled dermopiodermitis). i. Immunosuppressive anti-rejection therapy. j. Pregnancy or lactation. k. Previous treatment with tocilizumab or sarilumab. l. Patients participating in another clinical trial for SARS-CoV-2 infection. m. Patients with known hypersensitivity or contraindication to sarilumab or excipients. The intervention group, sarilumab plus standard of care, will receive 400 mg single dose treatment with Sarilumab (Kevzara), 2 subcutaneous injections 200mg each in a pre-filled syringe. Treatment with drugs or procedures in routine clinical practice that the clinician responsible for the patient deems necessary is allowed. The control group will receive drugs or procedures in routine clinical practice according to the best standard of care as per local protocol. Primary Outcome Measures 1. Mean change in clinical status assessment using the 7-point ordinal scale at day 7 after randomisation compared to baseline (Score ranges 1-7) 1. Death; 2. Hospitalised, requiring invasive mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO); 3. Hospitalised, requiring non-invasive ventilation or high flow oxygen devices; 4. Hospitalised, requiring supplemental oxygen; 5. Hospitalised, not requiring supplemental oxygen - but in need of ongoing medical care (COVID-19 related or otherwise) 6. Hospitalised, not requiring supplemental oxygen - no longer requires ongoing medical care (independent) 7. Not hospitalised 2. Duration of hospitalisation: Days from the date of enrolment to the date of discharge 3. Number of deaths at the end of study RANDOMISATION: Randomisation to treatment arms sarilumab plus standard of care or standard of care in a 2:1 ratio will be performed by the Clinical Research and Clinical Trials Unit (CRCTU) at the Hospital using a table of random numbers, an internet-based randomisation tool. After checking that all inclusion criteria are met and none of the exclusion criteria, CRCTU will communicate the recruiting investigator the assigned treatment. This study is unblinded. 30 patients treated by COVID-19 infection who require hospitalisation: 20 will receive sarilumab plus Standard of Care and 10 will receive Standard of Care. The Protocol version number is 2, as of 6^th April 2020, with amendment 1, as of 7^th May 2020. The recruitment is ongoing. Recruitment started on April 13^th 2020 and is anticipated to be completed by November 2020. This trial was first registered in the European Union Clinical Trials Register on 4 April 2020, EudraCT Number 2020-001634-36 . Then, posted on ClinicalTrials.gov on 22 April 2020, Identifier: NCT04357808 . The full protocol is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interest in expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol. The study protocol has been reported in accordance with the International Council Harmonization guidelines: https://www.ich.org/page/efficacy-guidelines .

This study does not contain population size information

Subcutaneous Sarilumab in hospitalised patients with moderate-severe COVID-19 infection compared to the standard of care (SARCOVID): a structured summary of a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

The main aim of the study is to evaluate the efficacy of a single dose of sarilumab, in subcutaneous administration, in hospitalised patients with moderate to early severe COVID-19 infection compared to the current standard of care, to prevent progression to systemic hyperinflammatory status. Our hypothesis is that use of subcutaneous sarilumab in early stages (window of opportunity) of COVID-19 moderate-severe pneumonia can prevent higher oxygenation requirements through non-invasive and invasive mechanical ventilation and decrease in-hospital stays, as well as death rate. The secondary objectives of the study are to evaluate the safety of sarilumab through hospitalisation and up to day 14 after discharge, compared to the control arm as assessed by incidence of serious and non serious adverse events (SAEs). In addition, as an exploratory objective, to compare the baseline clinical and biological parameters, including serum IL-6 levels, of the intervention population against controls of the same pandemic outbreak (using a propensity score) to search for markers that identify the best candidates for the treatment with subcutaneous IL-6R inhibitors and to attempt an approximation in the temporal frame of the "window of opportunity" TRIAL DESIGN: SARCOVID is an investigator-initiated single center randomised proof of concept study. Patients treated at the Hospital Universitario La Princesa, Madrid, Spain requiring hospitalisation will be consecutively recruited, meeting all inclusion criteria and none of the exclusion criteria Inclusion criteria a. Age >18, <80 years old b. COVID-19 infection documented by a positive RT-PCR test or, in absence of a RT-PCR positive test, case definition of COVID 19 infection/pneumonia as per local protocol and the presence of a positive serologic test (IgM/IgA by ELISA) c. Documented interstitial pneumonia requiring admission and at least two of the following parameters: 1) Fever ≥ 37.8°C (tympanic) 2) IL-6 in serum ≥ 25 pg/mL (in the absence of a previous dose of prednisone or equivalent> 1 mg / kg) or PCR> 5mg/dL 3) Lymphocytes <600 cells/mm³ 4) Ferritin> 300 μg/L that doubles in 24 hours 5) Ferritin> 600 μg/L in the first determination and LDH> 250 U/L 6) D-dimer (> 1 mg/L) d. Informed verbal consent or requested under urgent conditions, documented in the electronic medical record. Exclusion criteria a. Patients who require mechanical ventilation at the time of inclusion. b. AST / ALT values > 5 folds the ULN. c. Absolute neutrophil count below 500 cells/mm³ d. Absolute platelet count below 50,000 cells/mm³ e. Documented sepsis or high suspicion of superimposed infection by pathogens other than COVID-19. f. Presence of comorbidities that can likely lead to an unfavourable result according to clinical judgment. g. Complicated diverticulitis or intestinal perforation. h. Current skin infection (eg, uncontrolled dermopiodermitis). i. Immunosuppressive anti-rejection therapy. j. Pregnancy or lactation. k. Previous treatment with tocilizumab or sarilumab. l. Patients participating in another clinical trial for SARS-CoV-2 infection. m. Patients with known hypersensitivity or contraindication to sarilumab or excipients. The intervention group, sarilumab plus standard of care, will receive 400 mg single dose treatment with Sarilumab (Kevzara), 2 subcutaneous injections 200mg each in a pre-filled syringe. Treatment with drugs or procedures in routine clinical practice that the clinician responsible for the patient deems necessary is allowed. The control group will receive drugs or procedures in routine clinical practice according to the best standard of care as per local protocol. Primary Outcome Measures 1. Mean change in clinical status assessment using the 7-point ordinal scale at day 7 after randomisation compared to baseline (Score ranges 1-7) 1. Death; 2. Hospitalised, requiring invasive mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO); 3. Hospitalised, requiring non-invasive ventilation or high flow oxygen devices; 4. Hospitalised, requiring supplemental oxygen; 5. Hospitalised, not requiring supplemental oxygen - but in need of ongoing medical care (COVID-19 related or otherwise) 6. Hospitalised, not requiring supplemental oxygen - no longer requires ongoing medical care (independent) 7. Not hospitalised 2. Duration of hospitalisation: Days from the date of enrolment to the date of discharge 3. Number of deaths at the end of study RANDOMISATION: Randomisation to treatment arms sarilumab plus standard of care or standard of care in a 2:1 ratio will be performed by the Clinical Research and Clinical Trials Unit (CRCTU) at the Hospital using a table of random numbers, an internet-based randomisation tool. After checking that all inclusion criteria are met and none of the exclusion criteria, CRCTU will communicate the recruiting investigator the assigned treatment. This study is unblinded. 30 patients treated by COVID-19 infection who require hospitalisation: 20 will receive sarilumab plus Standard of Care and 10 will receive Standard of Care. The Protocol version number is 2, as of 6^th April 2020, with amendment 1, as of 7^th May 2020. The recruitment is ongoing. Recruitment started on April 13^th 2020 and is anticipated to be completed by November 2020. This trial was first registered in the European Union Clinical Trials Register on 4 April 2020, EudraCT Number 2020-001634-36 . Then, posted on ClinicalTrials.gov on 22 April 2020, Identifier: NCT04357808 . The full protocol is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interest in expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol. The study protocol has been reported in accordance with the International Council Harmonization guidelines: https://www.ich.org/page/efficacy-guidelines .

This study has quantitative outcomes like numbers, P-value, OR, CI, HR, RR, or patient ratios

Subcutaneous Sarilumab in hospitalised patients with moderate-severe COVID-19 infection compared to the standard of care (SARCOVID): a structured summary of a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

The main aim of the study is to evaluate the efficacy of a single dose of sarilumab, in subcutaneous administration, in hospitalised patients with moderate to early severe COVID-19 infection compared to the current standard of care, to prevent progression to systemic hyperinflammatory status. Our hypothesis is that use of subcutaneous sarilumab in early stages (window of opportunity) of COVID-19 moderate-severe pneumonia can prevent higher oxygenation requirements through non-invasive and invasive mechanical ventilation and decrease in-hospital stays, as well as death rate. The secondary objectives of the study are to evaluate the safety of sarilumab through hospitalisation and up to day 14 after discharge, compared to the control arm as assessed by incidence of serious and non serious adverse events (SAEs). In addition, as an exploratory objective, to compare the baseline clinical and biological parameters, including serum IL-6 levels, of the intervention population against controls of the same pandemic outbreak (using a propensity score) to search for markers that identify the best candidates for the treatment with subcutaneous IL-6R inhibitors and to attempt an approximation in the temporal frame of the "window of opportunity" TRIAL DESIGN: SARCOVID is an investigator-initiated single center randomised proof of concept study. Patients treated at the Hospital Universitario La Princesa, Madrid, Spain requiring hospitalisation will be consecutively recruited, meeting all inclusion criteria and none of the exclusion criteria Inclusion criteria a. Age >18, <80 years old b. COVID-19 infection documented by a positive RT-PCR test or, in absence of a RT-PCR positive test, case definition of COVID 19 infection/pneumonia as per local protocol and the presence of a positive serologic test (IgM/IgA by ELISA) c. Documented interstitial pneumonia requiring admission and at least two of the following parameters: 1) Fever ≥ 37.8°C (tympanic) 2) IL-6 in serum ≥ 25 pg/mL (in the absence of a previous dose of prednisone or equivalent> 1 mg / kg) or PCR> 5mg/dL 3) Lymphocytes <600 cells/mm³ 4) Ferritin> 300 μg/L that doubles in 24 hours 5) Ferritin> 600 μg/L in the first determination and LDH> 250 U/L 6) D-dimer (> 1 mg/L) d. Informed verbal consent or requested under urgent conditions, documented in the electronic medical record. Exclusion criteria a. Patients who require mechanical ventilation at the time of inclusion. b. AST / ALT values > 5 folds the ULN. c. Absolute neutrophil count below 500 cells/mm³ d. Absolute platelet count below 50,000 cells/mm³ e. Documented sepsis or high suspicion of superimposed infection by pathogens other than COVID-19. f. Presence of comorbidities that can likely lead to an unfavourable result according to clinical judgment. g. Complicated diverticulitis or intestinal perforation. h. Current skin infection (eg, uncontrolled dermopiodermitis). i. Immunosuppressive anti-rejection therapy. j. Pregnancy or lactation. k. Previous treatment with tocilizumab or sarilumab. l. Patients participating in another clinical trial for SARS-CoV-2 infection. m. Patients with known hypersensitivity or contraindication to sarilumab or excipients. The intervention group, sarilumab plus standard of care, will receive 400 mg single dose treatment with Sarilumab (Kevzara), 2 subcutaneous injections 200mg each in a pre-filled syringe. Treatment with drugs or procedures in routine clinical practice that the clinician responsible for the patient deems necessary is allowed. The control group will receive drugs or procedures in routine clinical practice according to the best standard of care as per local protocol. Primary Outcome Measures 1. Mean change in clinical status assessment using the 7-point ordinal scale at day 7 after randomisation compared to baseline (Score ranges 1-7) 1. Death; 2. Hospitalised, requiring invasive mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO); 3. Hospitalised, requiring non-invasive ventilation or high flow oxygen devices; 4. Hospitalised, requiring supplemental oxygen; 5. Hospitalised, not requiring supplemental oxygen - but in need of ongoing medical care (COVID-19 related or otherwise) 6. Hospitalised, not requiring supplemental oxygen - no longer requires ongoing medical care (independent) 7. Not hospitalised 2. Duration of hospitalisation: Days from the date of enrolment to the date of discharge 3. Number of deaths at the end of study RANDOMISATION: Randomisation to treatment arms sarilumab plus standard of care or standard of care in a 2:1 ratio will be performed by the Clinical Research and Clinical Trials Unit (CRCTU) at the Hospital using a table of random numbers, an internet-based randomisation tool. After checking that all inclusion criteria are met and none of the exclusion criteria, CRCTU will communicate the recruiting investigator the assigned treatment. This study is unblinded. 30 patients treated by COVID-19 infection who require hospitalisation: 20 will receive sarilumab plus Standard of Care and 10 will receive Standard of Care. The Protocol version number is 2, as of 6^th April 2020, with amendment 1, as of 7^th May 2020. The recruitment is ongoing. Recruitment started on April 13^th 2020 and is anticipated to be completed by November 2020. This trial was first registered in the European Union Clinical Trials Register on 4 April 2020, EudraCT Number 2020-001634-36 . Then, posted on ClinicalTrials.gov on 22 April 2020, Identifier: NCT04357808 . The full protocol is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interest in expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol. The study protocol has been reported in accordance with the International Council Harmonization guidelines: https://www.ich.org/page/efficacy-guidelines .

This study does not have any quantitative outcomes

Subcutaneous Sarilumab in hospitalised patients with moderate-severe COVID-19 infection compared to the standard of care (SARCOVID): a structured summary of a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

The main aim of the study is to evaluate the efficacy of a single dose of sarilumab, in subcutaneous administration, in hospitalised patients with moderate to early severe COVID-19 infection compared to the current standard of care, to prevent progression to systemic hyperinflammatory status. Our hypothesis is that use of subcutaneous sarilumab in early stages (window of opportunity) of COVID-19 moderate-severe pneumonia can prevent higher oxygenation requirements through non-invasive and invasive mechanical ventilation and decrease in-hospital stays, as well as death rate. The secondary objectives of the study are to evaluate the safety of sarilumab through hospitalisation and up to day 14 after discharge, compared to the control arm as assessed by incidence of serious and non serious adverse events (SAEs). In addition, as an exploratory objective, to compare the baseline clinical and biological parameters, including serum IL-6 levels, of the intervention population against controls of the same pandemic outbreak (using a propensity score) to search for markers that identify the best candidates for the treatment with subcutaneous IL-6R inhibitors and to attempt an approximation in the temporal frame of the "window of opportunity" TRIAL DESIGN: SARCOVID is an investigator-initiated single center randomised proof of concept study. Patients treated at the Hospital Universitario La Princesa, Madrid, Spain requiring hospitalisation will be consecutively recruited, meeting all inclusion criteria and none of the exclusion criteria Inclusion criteria a. Age >18, <80 years old b. COVID-19 infection documented by a positive RT-PCR test or, in absence of a RT-PCR positive test, case definition of COVID 19 infection/pneumonia as per local protocol and the presence of a positive serologic test (IgM/IgA by ELISA) c. Documented interstitial pneumonia requiring admission and at least two of the following parameters: 1) Fever ≥ 37.8°C (tympanic) 2) IL-6 in serum ≥ 25 pg/mL (in the absence of a previous dose of prednisone or equivalent> 1 mg / kg) or PCR> 5mg/dL 3) Lymphocytes <600 cells/mm³ 4) Ferritin> 300 μg/L that doubles in 24 hours 5) Ferritin> 600 μg/L in the first determination and LDH> 250 U/L 6) D-dimer (> 1 mg/L) d. Informed verbal consent or requested under urgent conditions, documented in the electronic medical record. Exclusion criteria a. Patients who require mechanical ventilation at the time of inclusion. b. AST / ALT values > 5 folds the ULN. c. Absolute neutrophil count below 500 cells/mm³ d. Absolute platelet count below 50,000 cells/mm³ e. Documented sepsis or high suspicion of superimposed infection by pathogens other than COVID-19. f. Presence of comorbidities that can likely lead to an unfavourable result according to clinical judgment. g. Complicated diverticulitis or intestinal perforation. h. Current skin infection (eg, uncontrolled dermopiodermitis). i. Immunosuppressive anti-rejection therapy. j. Pregnancy or lactation. k. Previous treatment with tocilizumab or sarilumab. l. Patients participating in another clinical trial for SARS-CoV-2 infection. m. Patients with known hypersensitivity or contraindication to sarilumab or excipients. The intervention group, sarilumab plus standard of care, will receive 400 mg single dose treatment with Sarilumab (Kevzara), 2 subcutaneous injections 200mg each in a pre-filled syringe. Treatment with drugs or procedures in routine clinical practice that the clinician responsible for the patient deems necessary is allowed. The control group will receive drugs or procedures in routine clinical practice according to the best standard of care as per local protocol. Primary Outcome Measures 1. Mean change in clinical status assessment using the 7-point ordinal scale at day 7 after randomisation compared to baseline (Score ranges 1-7) 1. Death; 2. Hospitalised, requiring invasive mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO); 3. Hospitalised, requiring non-invasive ventilation or high flow oxygen devices; 4. Hospitalised, requiring supplemental oxygen; 5. Hospitalised, not requiring supplemental oxygen - but in need of ongoing medical care (COVID-19 related or otherwise) 6. Hospitalised, not requiring supplemental oxygen - no longer requires ongoing medical care (independent) 7. Not hospitalised 2. Duration of hospitalisation: Days from the date of enrolment to the date of discharge 3. Number of deaths at the end of study RANDOMISATION: Randomisation to treatment arms sarilumab plus standard of care or standard of care in a 2:1 ratio will be performed by the Clinical Research and Clinical Trials Unit (CRCTU) at the Hospital using a table of random numbers, an internet-based randomisation tool. After checking that all inclusion criteria are met and none of the exclusion criteria, CRCTU will communicate the recruiting investigator the assigned treatment. This study is unblinded. 30 patients treated by COVID-19 infection who require hospitalisation: 20 will receive sarilumab plus Standard of Care and 10 will receive Standard of Care. The Protocol version number is 2, as of 6^th April 2020, with amendment 1, as of 7^th May 2020. The recruitment is ongoing. Recruitment started on April 13^th 2020 and is anticipated to be completed by November 2020. This trial was first registered in the European Union Clinical Trials Register on 4 April 2020, EudraCT Number 2020-001634-36 . Then, posted on ClinicalTrials.gov on 22 April 2020, Identifier: NCT04357808 . The full protocol is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interest in expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol. The study protocol has been reported in accordance with the International Council Harmonization guidelines: https://www.ich.org/page/efficacy-guidelines .

This study has a target drug

Subcutaneous Sarilumab in hospitalised patients with moderate-severe COVID-19 infection compared to the standard of care (SARCOVID): a structured summary of a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

The main aim of the study is to evaluate the efficacy of a single dose of sarilumab, in subcutaneous administration, in hospitalised patients with moderate to early severe COVID-19 infection compared to the current standard of care, to prevent progression to systemic hyperinflammatory status. Our hypothesis is that use of subcutaneous sarilumab in early stages (window of opportunity) of COVID-19 moderate-severe pneumonia can prevent higher oxygenation requirements through non-invasive and invasive mechanical ventilation and decrease in-hospital stays, as well as death rate. The secondary objectives of the study are to evaluate the safety of sarilumab through hospitalisation and up to day 14 after discharge, compared to the control arm as assessed by incidence of serious and non serious adverse events (SAEs). In addition, as an exploratory objective, to compare the baseline clinical and biological parameters, including serum IL-6 levels, of the intervention population against controls of the same pandemic outbreak (using a propensity score) to search for markers that identify the best candidates for the treatment with subcutaneous IL-6R inhibitors and to attempt an approximation in the temporal frame of the "window of opportunity" TRIAL DESIGN: SARCOVID is an investigator-initiated single center randomised proof of concept study. Patients treated at the Hospital Universitario La Princesa, Madrid, Spain requiring hospitalisation will be consecutively recruited, meeting all inclusion criteria and none of the exclusion criteria Inclusion criteria a. Age >18, <80 years old b. COVID-19 infection documented by a positive RT-PCR test or, in absence of a RT-PCR positive test, case definition of COVID 19 infection/pneumonia as per local protocol and the presence of a positive serologic test (IgM/IgA by ELISA) c. Documented interstitial pneumonia requiring admission and at least two of the following parameters: 1) Fever ≥ 37.8°C (tympanic) 2) IL-6 in serum ≥ 25 pg/mL (in the absence of a previous dose of prednisone or equivalent> 1 mg / kg) or PCR> 5mg/dL 3) Lymphocytes <600 cells/mm³ 4) Ferritin> 300 μg/L that doubles in 24 hours 5) Ferritin> 600 μg/L in the first determination and LDH> 250 U/L 6) D-dimer (> 1 mg/L) d. Informed verbal consent or requested under urgent conditions, documented in the electronic medical record. Exclusion criteria a. Patients who require mechanical ventilation at the time of inclusion. b. AST / ALT values > 5 folds the ULN. c. Absolute neutrophil count below 500 cells/mm³ d. Absolute platelet count below 50,000 cells/mm³ e. Documented sepsis or high suspicion of superimposed infection by pathogens other than COVID-19. f. Presence of comorbidities that can likely lead to an unfavourable result according to clinical judgment. g. Complicated diverticulitis or intestinal perforation. h. Current skin infection (eg, uncontrolled dermopiodermitis). i. Immunosuppressive anti-rejection therapy. j. Pregnancy or lactation. k. Previous treatment with tocilizumab or sarilumab. l. Patients participating in another clinical trial for SARS-CoV-2 infection. m. Patients with known hypersensitivity or contraindication to sarilumab or excipients. The intervention group, sarilumab plus standard of care, will receive 400 mg single dose treatment with Sarilumab (Kevzara), 2 subcutaneous injections 200mg each in a pre-filled syringe. Treatment with drugs or procedures in routine clinical practice that the clinician responsible for the patient deems necessary is allowed. The control group will receive drugs or procedures in routine clinical practice according to the best standard of care as per local protocol. Primary Outcome Measures 1. Mean change in clinical status assessment using the 7-point ordinal scale at day 7 after randomisation compared to baseline (Score ranges 1-7) 1. Death; 2. Hospitalised, requiring invasive mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO); 3. Hospitalised, requiring non-invasive ventilation or high flow oxygen devices; 4. Hospitalised, requiring supplemental oxygen; 5. Hospitalised, not requiring supplemental oxygen - but in need of ongoing medical care (COVID-19 related or otherwise) 6. Hospitalised, not requiring supplemental oxygen - no longer requires ongoing medical care (independent) 7. Not hospitalised 2. Duration of hospitalisation: Days from the date of enrolment to the date of discharge 3. Number of deaths at the end of study RANDOMISATION: Randomisation to treatment arms sarilumab plus standard of care or standard of care in a 2:1 ratio will be performed by the Clinical Research and Clinical Trials Unit (CRCTU) at the Hospital using a table of random numbers, an internet-based randomisation tool. After checking that all inclusion criteria are met and none of the exclusion criteria, CRCTU will communicate the recruiting investigator the assigned treatment. This study is unblinded. 30 patients treated by COVID-19 infection who require hospitalisation: 20 will receive sarilumab plus Standard of Care and 10 will receive Standard of Care. The Protocol version number is 2, as of 6^th April 2020, with amendment 1, as of 7^th May 2020. The recruitment is ongoing. Recruitment started on April 13^th 2020 and is anticipated to be completed by November 2020. This trial was first registered in the European Union Clinical Trials Register on 4 April 2020, EudraCT Number 2020-001634-36 . Then, posted on ClinicalTrials.gov on 22 April 2020, Identifier: NCT04357808 . The full protocol is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interest in expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol. The study protocol has been reported in accordance with the International Council Harmonization guidelines: https://www.ich.org/page/efficacy-guidelines .

This study does not have a target drug

Subcutaneous Sarilumab in hospitalised patients with moderate-severe COVID-19 infection compared to the standard of care (SARCOVID): a structured summary of a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

The main aim of the study is to evaluate the efficacy of a single dose of sarilumab, in subcutaneous administration, in hospitalised patients with moderate to early severe COVID-19 infection compared to the current standard of care, to prevent progression to systemic hyperinflammatory status. Our hypothesis is that use of subcutaneous sarilumab in early stages (window of opportunity) of COVID-19 moderate-severe pneumonia can prevent higher oxygenation requirements through non-invasive and invasive mechanical ventilation and decrease in-hospital stays, as well as death rate. The secondary objectives of the study are to evaluate the safety of sarilumab through hospitalisation and up to day 14 after discharge, compared to the control arm as assessed by incidence of serious and non serious adverse events (SAEs). In addition, as an exploratory objective, to compare the baseline clinical and biological parameters, including serum IL-6 levels, of the intervention population against controls of the same pandemic outbreak (using a propensity score) to search for markers that identify the best candidates for the treatment with subcutaneous IL-6R inhibitors and to attempt an approximation in the temporal frame of the "window of opportunity" TRIAL DESIGN: SARCOVID is an investigator-initiated single center randomised proof of concept study. Patients treated at the Hospital Universitario La Princesa, Madrid, Spain requiring hospitalisation will be consecutively recruited, meeting all inclusion criteria and none of the exclusion criteria Inclusion criteria a. Age >18, <80 years old b. COVID-19 infection documented by a positive RT-PCR test or, in absence of a RT-PCR positive test, case definition of COVID 19 infection/pneumonia as per local protocol and the presence of a positive serologic test (IgM/IgA by ELISA) c. Documented interstitial pneumonia requiring admission and at least two of the following parameters: 1) Fever ≥ 37.8°C (tympanic) 2) IL-6 in serum ≥ 25 pg/mL (in the absence of a previous dose of prednisone or equivalent> 1 mg / kg) or PCR> 5mg/dL 3) Lymphocytes <600 cells/mm³ 4) Ferritin> 300 μg/L that doubles in 24 hours 5) Ferritin> 600 μg/L in the first determination and LDH> 250 U/L 6) D-dimer (> 1 mg/L) d. Informed verbal consent or requested under urgent conditions, documented in the electronic medical record. Exclusion criteria a. Patients who require mechanical ventilation at the time of inclusion. b. AST / ALT values > 5 folds the ULN. c. Absolute neutrophil count below 500 cells/mm³ d. Absolute platelet count below 50,000 cells/mm³ e. Documented sepsis or high suspicion of superimposed infection by pathogens other than COVID-19. f. Presence of comorbidities that can likely lead to an unfavourable result according to clinical judgment. g. Complicated diverticulitis or intestinal perforation. h. Current skin infection (eg, uncontrolled dermopiodermitis). i. Immunosuppressive anti-rejection therapy. j. Pregnancy or lactation. k. Previous treatment with tocilizumab or sarilumab. l. Patients participating in another clinical trial for SARS-CoV-2 infection. m. Patients with known hypersensitivity or contraindication to sarilumab or excipients. The intervention group, sarilumab plus standard of care, will receive 400 mg single dose treatment with Sarilumab (Kevzara), 2 subcutaneous injections 200mg each in a pre-filled syringe. Treatment with drugs or procedures in routine clinical practice that the clinician responsible for the patient deems necessary is allowed. The control group will receive drugs or procedures in routine clinical practice according to the best standard of care as per local protocol. Primary Outcome Measures 1. Mean change in clinical status assessment using the 7-point ordinal scale at day 7 after randomisation compared to baseline (Score ranges 1-7) 1. Death; 2. Hospitalised, requiring invasive mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO); 3. Hospitalised, requiring non-invasive ventilation or high flow oxygen devices; 4. Hospitalised, requiring supplemental oxygen; 5. Hospitalised, not requiring supplemental oxygen - but in need of ongoing medical care (COVID-19 related or otherwise) 6. Hospitalised, not requiring supplemental oxygen - no longer requires ongoing medical care (independent) 7. Not hospitalised 2. Duration of hospitalisation: Days from the date of enrolment to the date of discharge 3. Number of deaths at the end of study RANDOMISATION: Randomisation to treatment arms sarilumab plus standard of care or standard of care in a 2:1 ratio will be performed by the Clinical Research and Clinical Trials Unit (CRCTU) at the Hospital using a table of random numbers, an internet-based randomisation tool. After checking that all inclusion criteria are met and none of the exclusion criteria, CRCTU will communicate the recruiting investigator the assigned treatment. This study is unblinded. 30 patients treated by COVID-19 infection who require hospitalisation: 20 will receive sarilumab plus Standard of Care and 10 will receive Standard of Care. The Protocol version number is 2, as of 6^th April 2020, with amendment 1, as of 7^th May 2020. The recruitment is ongoing. Recruitment started on April 13^th 2020 and is anticipated to be completed by November 2020. This trial was first registered in the European Union Clinical Trials Register on 4 April 2020, EudraCT Number 2020-001634-36 . Then, posted on ClinicalTrials.gov on 22 April 2020, Identifier: NCT04357808 . The full protocol is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interest in expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol. The study protocol has been reported in accordance with the International Council Harmonization guidelines: https://www.ich.org/page/efficacy-guidelines .

This study has a target disease

Subcutaneous Sarilumab in hospitalised patients with moderate-severe COVID-19 infection compared to the standard of care (SARCOVID): a structured summary of a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

The main aim of the study is to evaluate the efficacy of a single dose of sarilumab, in subcutaneous administration, in hospitalised patients with moderate to early severe COVID-19 infection compared to the current standard of care, to prevent progression to systemic hyperinflammatory status. Our hypothesis is that use of subcutaneous sarilumab in early stages (window of opportunity) of COVID-19 moderate-severe pneumonia can prevent higher oxygenation requirements through non-invasive and invasive mechanical ventilation and decrease in-hospital stays, as well as death rate. The secondary objectives of the study are to evaluate the safety of sarilumab through hospitalisation and up to day 14 after discharge, compared to the control arm as assessed by incidence of serious and non serious adverse events (SAEs). In addition, as an exploratory objective, to compare the baseline clinical and biological parameters, including serum IL-6 levels, of the intervention population against controls of the same pandemic outbreak (using a propensity score) to search for markers that identify the best candidates for the treatment with subcutaneous IL-6R inhibitors and to attempt an approximation in the temporal frame of the "window of opportunity" TRIAL DESIGN: SARCOVID is an investigator-initiated single center randomised proof of concept study. Patients treated at the Hospital Universitario La Princesa, Madrid, Spain requiring hospitalisation will be consecutively recruited, meeting all inclusion criteria and none of the exclusion criteria Inclusion criteria a. Age >18, <80 years old b. COVID-19 infection documented by a positive RT-PCR test or, in absence of a RT-PCR positive test, case definition of COVID 19 infection/pneumonia as per local protocol and the presence of a positive serologic test (IgM/IgA by ELISA) c. Documented interstitial pneumonia requiring admission and at least two of the following parameters: 1) Fever ≥ 37.8°C (tympanic) 2) IL-6 in serum ≥ 25 pg/mL (in the absence of a previous dose of prednisone or equivalent> 1 mg / kg) or PCR> 5mg/dL 3) Lymphocytes <600 cells/mm³ 4) Ferritin> 300 μg/L that doubles in 24 hours 5) Ferritin> 600 μg/L in the first determination and LDH> 250 U/L 6) D-dimer (> 1 mg/L) d. Informed verbal consent or requested under urgent conditions, documented in the electronic medical record. Exclusion criteria a. Patients who require mechanical ventilation at the time of inclusion. b. AST / ALT values > 5 folds the ULN. c. Absolute neutrophil count below 500 cells/mm³ d. Absolute platelet count below 50,000 cells/mm³ e. Documented sepsis or high suspicion of superimposed infection by pathogens other than COVID-19. f. Presence of comorbidities that can likely lead to an unfavourable result according to clinical judgment. g. Complicated diverticulitis or intestinal perforation. h. Current skin infection (eg, uncontrolled dermopiodermitis). i. Immunosuppressive anti-rejection therapy. j. Pregnancy or lactation. k. Previous treatment with tocilizumab or sarilumab. l. Patients participating in another clinical trial for SARS-CoV-2 infection. m. Patients with known hypersensitivity or contraindication to sarilumab or excipients. The intervention group, sarilumab plus standard of care, will receive 400 mg single dose treatment with Sarilumab (Kevzara), 2 subcutaneous injections 200mg each in a pre-filled syringe. Treatment with drugs or procedures in routine clinical practice that the clinician responsible for the patient deems necessary is allowed. The control group will receive drugs or procedures in routine clinical practice according to the best standard of care as per local protocol. Primary Outcome Measures 1. Mean change in clinical status assessment using the 7-point ordinal scale at day 7 after randomisation compared to baseline (Score ranges 1-7) 1. Death; 2. Hospitalised, requiring invasive mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO); 3. Hospitalised, requiring non-invasive ventilation or high flow oxygen devices; 4. Hospitalised, requiring supplemental oxygen; 5. Hospitalised, not requiring supplemental oxygen - but in need of ongoing medical care (COVID-19 related or otherwise) 6. Hospitalised, not requiring supplemental oxygen - no longer requires ongoing medical care (independent) 7. Not hospitalised 2. Duration of hospitalisation: Days from the date of enrolment to the date of discharge 3. Number of deaths at the end of study RANDOMISATION: Randomisation to treatment arms sarilumab plus standard of care or standard of care in a 2:1 ratio will be performed by the Clinical Research and Clinical Trials Unit (CRCTU) at the Hospital using a table of random numbers, an internet-based randomisation tool. After checking that all inclusion criteria are met and none of the exclusion criteria, CRCTU will communicate the recruiting investigator the assigned treatment. This study is unblinded. 30 patients treated by COVID-19 infection who require hospitalisation: 20 will receive sarilumab plus Standard of Care and 10 will receive Standard of Care. The Protocol version number is 2, as of 6^th April 2020, with amendment 1, as of 7^th May 2020. The recruitment is ongoing. Recruitment started on April 13^th 2020 and is anticipated to be completed by November 2020. This trial was first registered in the European Union Clinical Trials Register on 4 April 2020, EudraCT Number 2020-001634-36 . Then, posted on ClinicalTrials.gov on 22 April 2020, Identifier: NCT04357808 . The full protocol is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interest in expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol. The study protocol has been reported in accordance with the International Council Harmonization guidelines: https://www.ich.org/page/efficacy-guidelines .

This study does not have a target disease

Survival of pediatric Hodgkin lymphoma patients treated with doxorubicin, bleomycin, vincristine, etoposide, prednisone, and cyclophosphamide (ABVE-PC) versus doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (ABVD) at a single institution.

Adriamycin, bleomycin, vinblastine, dacarbazine (ABVD), the de facto standard of care in adult-onset Hodgkin lymphoma (HL), has not been directly compared to doxorubicin, bleomycin, vincristine, etoposide, prednisone, and cyclophosphamide (ABVE-PC), a pediatric-aimed regimen designed to reduce late effects. We aimed to describe the single-institution experience of using both regimens in patients with pediatric HL. This retrospective cohort study evaluated a total of 224 patients diagnosed with HL between 1999 and 2018 at Children's Hospital Los Angeles (CHLA), of which 93 patients were eligible having received ABVD (n = 46) or ABVE-PC (n = 47) chemotherapy as their initial treatment. Descriptive analyses were performed using the Student's t-test or Fisher's exact test. Survival analysis used the Kaplan-Meier method. Events included death, relapse, and secondary malignancy. We also describe the use of radiation therapy, pulmonary toxicity, and cardiomyopathy determined by shortening fraction <29%. Analyses followed an intention-to-treat principle. There was no difference in baseline characteristics between the patients receiving ABVE-PC or ABVD in regard for stage, risk group, or prognostic variables, such as the presence or absence of "B" symptoms, bulky disease, and extra-nodal involvement. A greater proportion of patients treated with ABVE-PC received consolidating external beam radiation treatment (XRT) either by randomization or by response compared to ABVD (59.6% vs. 32.6%, respectively, p = .01). While not statistically significant, response to therapy, assessed by positron emission tomography/computerized tomography (PET/CT) where available, mirrored the use for radiation (rapid response 58.3% vs. 90.0%, n = 34, p = .11). The median dose of anthracycline (doxorubicin) was the same in patients receiving ABVE-PC versus ABVD (200 vs. 200 mg/m² , interquartile range 200-250 vs. 200-300 mg/m² , p = .002). There was no difference in event-free survival (p = .63) or overall survival (p = .37) with a median follow-up length of 3.9 years. ABVD and ABVE-PC achieved similar survival outcomes in our single-institution cohort.

This study has a cohort study or clinical trial

Survival of pediatric Hodgkin lymphoma patients treated with doxorubicin, bleomycin, vincristine, etoposide, prednisone, and cyclophosphamide (ABVE-PC) versus doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (ABVD) at a single institution.

Adriamycin, bleomycin, vinblastine, dacarbazine (ABVD), the de facto standard of care in adult-onset Hodgkin lymphoma (HL), has not been directly compared to doxorubicin, bleomycin, vincristine, etoposide, prednisone, and cyclophosphamide (ABVE-PC), a pediatric-aimed regimen designed to reduce late effects. We aimed to describe the single-institution experience of using both regimens in patients with pediatric HL. This retrospective cohort study evaluated a total of 224 patients diagnosed with HL between 1999 and 2018 at Children's Hospital Los Angeles (CHLA), of which 93 patients were eligible having received ABVD (n = 46) or ABVE-PC (n = 47) chemotherapy as their initial treatment. Descriptive analyses were performed using the Student's t-test or Fisher's exact test. Survival analysis used the Kaplan-Meier method. Events included death, relapse, and secondary malignancy. We also describe the use of radiation therapy, pulmonary toxicity, and cardiomyopathy determined by shortening fraction <29%. Analyses followed an intention-to-treat principle. There was no difference in baseline characteristics between the patients receiving ABVE-PC or ABVD in regard for stage, risk group, or prognostic variables, such as the presence or absence of "B" symptoms, bulky disease, and extra-nodal involvement. A greater proportion of patients treated with ABVE-PC received consolidating external beam radiation treatment (XRT) either by randomization or by response compared to ABVD (59.6% vs. 32.6%, respectively, p = .01). While not statistically significant, response to therapy, assessed by positron emission tomography/computerized tomography (PET/CT) where available, mirrored the use for radiation (rapid response 58.3% vs. 90.0%, n = 34, p = .11). The median dose of anthracycline (doxorubicin) was the same in patients receiving ABVE-PC versus ABVD (200 vs. 200 mg/m² , interquartile range 200-250 vs. 200-300 mg/m² , p = .002). There was no difference in event-free survival (p = .63) or overall survival (p = .37) with a median follow-up length of 3.9 years. ABVD and ABVE-PC achieved similar survival outcomes in our single-institution cohort.

This study does not have any cohorts or clinical trial

Survival of pediatric Hodgkin lymphoma patients treated with doxorubicin, bleomycin, vincristine, etoposide, prednisone, and cyclophosphamide (ABVE-PC) versus doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (ABVD) at a single institution.

Adriamycin, bleomycin, vinblastine, dacarbazine (ABVD), the de facto standard of care in adult-onset Hodgkin lymphoma (HL), has not been directly compared to doxorubicin, bleomycin, vincristine, etoposide, prednisone, and cyclophosphamide (ABVE-PC), a pediatric-aimed regimen designed to reduce late effects. We aimed to describe the single-institution experience of using both regimens in patients with pediatric HL. This retrospective cohort study evaluated a total of 224 patients diagnosed with HL between 1999 and 2018 at Children's Hospital Los Angeles (CHLA), of which 93 patients were eligible having received ABVD (n = 46) or ABVE-PC (n = 47) chemotherapy as their initial treatment. Descriptive analyses were performed using the Student's t-test or Fisher's exact test. Survival analysis used the Kaplan-Meier method. Events included death, relapse, and secondary malignancy. We also describe the use of radiation therapy, pulmonary toxicity, and cardiomyopathy determined by shortening fraction <29%. Analyses followed an intention-to-treat principle. There was no difference in baseline characteristics between the patients receiving ABVE-PC or ABVD in regard for stage, risk group, or prognostic variables, such as the presence or absence of "B" symptoms, bulky disease, and extra-nodal involvement. A greater proportion of patients treated with ABVE-PC received consolidating external beam radiation treatment (XRT) either by randomization or by response compared to ABVD (59.6% vs. 32.6%, respectively, p = .01). While not statistically significant, response to therapy, assessed by positron emission tomography/computerized tomography (PET/CT) where available, mirrored the use for radiation (rapid response 58.3% vs. 90.0%, n = 34, p = .11). The median dose of anthracycline (doxorubicin) was the same in patients receiving ABVE-PC versus ABVD (200 vs. 200 mg/m² , interquartile range 200-250 vs. 200-300 mg/m² , p = .002). There was no difference in event-free survival (p = .63) or overall survival (p = .37) with a median follow-up length of 3.9 years. ABVD and ABVE-PC achieved similar survival outcomes in our single-institution cohort.

This study has a control, double-blind, or comparison patient group

Survival of pediatric Hodgkin lymphoma patients treated with doxorubicin, bleomycin, vincristine, etoposide, prednisone, and cyclophosphamide (ABVE-PC) versus doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (ABVD) at a single institution.

Adriamycin, bleomycin, vinblastine, dacarbazine (ABVD), the de facto standard of care in adult-onset Hodgkin lymphoma (HL), has not been directly compared to doxorubicin, bleomycin, vincristine, etoposide, prednisone, and cyclophosphamide (ABVE-PC), a pediatric-aimed regimen designed to reduce late effects. We aimed to describe the single-institution experience of using both regimens in patients with pediatric HL. This retrospective cohort study evaluated a total of 224 patients diagnosed with HL between 1999 and 2018 at Children's Hospital Los Angeles (CHLA), of which 93 patients were eligible having received ABVD (n = 46) or ABVE-PC (n = 47) chemotherapy as their initial treatment. Descriptive analyses were performed using the Student's t-test or Fisher's exact test. Survival analysis used the Kaplan-Meier method. Events included death, relapse, and secondary malignancy. We also describe the use of radiation therapy, pulmonary toxicity, and cardiomyopathy determined by shortening fraction <29%. Analyses followed an intention-to-treat principle. There was no difference in baseline characteristics between the patients receiving ABVE-PC or ABVD in regard for stage, risk group, or prognostic variables, such as the presence or absence of "B" symptoms, bulky disease, and extra-nodal involvement. A greater proportion of patients treated with ABVE-PC received consolidating external beam radiation treatment (XRT) either by randomization or by response compared to ABVD (59.6% vs. 32.6%, respectively, p = .01). While not statistically significant, response to therapy, assessed by positron emission tomography/computerized tomography (PET/CT) where available, mirrored the use for radiation (rapid response 58.3% vs. 90.0%, n = 34, p = .11). The median dose of anthracycline (doxorubicin) was the same in patients receiving ABVE-PC versus ABVD (200 vs. 200 mg/m² , interquartile range 200-250 vs. 200-300 mg/m² , p = .002). There was no difference in event-free survival (p = .63) or overall survival (p = .37) with a median follow-up length of 3.9 years. ABVD and ABVE-PC achieved similar survival outcomes in our single-institution cohort.

This study does not have any comparison patient group

Survival of pediatric Hodgkin lymphoma patients treated with doxorubicin, bleomycin, vincristine, etoposide, prednisone, and cyclophosphamide (ABVE-PC) versus doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (ABVD) at a single institution.

Adriamycin, bleomycin, vinblastine, dacarbazine (ABVD), the de facto standard of care in adult-onset Hodgkin lymphoma (HL), has not been directly compared to doxorubicin, bleomycin, vincristine, etoposide, prednisone, and cyclophosphamide (ABVE-PC), a pediatric-aimed regimen designed to reduce late effects. We aimed to describe the single-institution experience of using both regimens in patients with pediatric HL. This retrospective cohort study evaluated a total of 224 patients diagnosed with HL between 1999 and 2018 at Children's Hospital Los Angeles (CHLA), of which 93 patients were eligible having received ABVD (n = 46) or ABVE-PC (n = 47) chemotherapy as their initial treatment. Descriptive analyses were performed using the Student's t-test or Fisher's exact test. Survival analysis used the Kaplan-Meier method. Events included death, relapse, and secondary malignancy. We also describe the use of radiation therapy, pulmonary toxicity, and cardiomyopathy determined by shortening fraction <29%. Analyses followed an intention-to-treat principle. There was no difference in baseline characteristics between the patients receiving ABVE-PC or ABVD in regard for stage, risk group, or prognostic variables, such as the presence or absence of "B" symptoms, bulky disease, and extra-nodal involvement. A greater proportion of patients treated with ABVE-PC received consolidating external beam radiation treatment (XRT) either by randomization or by response compared to ABVD (59.6% vs. 32.6%, respectively, p = .01). While not statistically significant, response to therapy, assessed by positron emission tomography/computerized tomography (PET/CT) where available, mirrored the use for radiation (rapid response 58.3% vs. 90.0%, n = 34, p = .11). The median dose of anthracycline (doxorubicin) was the same in patients receiving ABVE-PC versus ABVD (200 vs. 200 mg/m² , interquartile range 200-250 vs. 200-300 mg/m² , p = .002). There was no difference in event-free survival (p = .63) or overall survival (p = .37) with a median follow-up length of 3.9 years. ABVD and ABVE-PC achieved similar survival outcomes in our single-institution cohort.

This study has human subjects

Survival of pediatric Hodgkin lymphoma patients treated with doxorubicin, bleomycin, vincristine, etoposide, prednisone, and cyclophosphamide (ABVE-PC) versus doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (ABVD) at a single institution.

Adriamycin, bleomycin, vinblastine, dacarbazine (ABVD), the de facto standard of care in adult-onset Hodgkin lymphoma (HL), has not been directly compared to doxorubicin, bleomycin, vincristine, etoposide, prednisone, and cyclophosphamide (ABVE-PC), a pediatric-aimed regimen designed to reduce late effects. We aimed to describe the single-institution experience of using both regimens in patients with pediatric HL. This retrospective cohort study evaluated a total of 224 patients diagnosed with HL between 1999 and 2018 at Children's Hospital Los Angeles (CHLA), of which 93 patients were eligible having received ABVD (n = 46) or ABVE-PC (n = 47) chemotherapy as their initial treatment. Descriptive analyses were performed using the Student's t-test or Fisher's exact test. Survival analysis used the Kaplan-Meier method. Events included death, relapse, and secondary malignancy. We also describe the use of radiation therapy, pulmonary toxicity, and cardiomyopathy determined by shortening fraction <29%. Analyses followed an intention-to-treat principle. There was no difference in baseline characteristics between the patients receiving ABVE-PC or ABVD in regard for stage, risk group, or prognostic variables, such as the presence or absence of "B" symptoms, bulky disease, and extra-nodal involvement. A greater proportion of patients treated with ABVE-PC received consolidating external beam radiation treatment (XRT) either by randomization or by response compared to ABVD (59.6% vs. 32.6%, respectively, p = .01). While not statistically significant, response to therapy, assessed by positron emission tomography/computerized tomography (PET/CT) where available, mirrored the use for radiation (rapid response 58.3% vs. 90.0%, n = 34, p = .11). The median dose of anthracycline (doxorubicin) was the same in patients receiving ABVE-PC versus ABVD (200 vs. 200 mg/m² , interquartile range 200-250 vs. 200-300 mg/m² , p = .002). There was no difference in event-free survival (p = .63) or overall survival (p = .37) with a median follow-up length of 3.9 years. ABVD and ABVE-PC achieved similar survival outcomes in our single-institution cohort.

This study does not have human subjects

Survival of pediatric Hodgkin lymphoma patients treated with doxorubicin, bleomycin, vincristine, etoposide, prednisone, and cyclophosphamide (ABVE-PC) versus doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (ABVD) at a single institution.

Adriamycin, bleomycin, vinblastine, dacarbazine (ABVD), the de facto standard of care in adult-onset Hodgkin lymphoma (HL), has not been directly compared to doxorubicin, bleomycin, vincristine, etoposide, prednisone, and cyclophosphamide (ABVE-PC), a pediatric-aimed regimen designed to reduce late effects. We aimed to describe the single-institution experience of using both regimens in patients with pediatric HL. This retrospective cohort study evaluated a total of 224 patients diagnosed with HL between 1999 and 2018 at Children's Hospital Los Angeles (CHLA), of which 93 patients were eligible having received ABVD (n = 46) or ABVE-PC (n = 47) chemotherapy as their initial treatment. Descriptive analyses were performed using the Student's t-test or Fisher's exact test. Survival analysis used the Kaplan-Meier method. Events included death, relapse, and secondary malignancy. We also describe the use of radiation therapy, pulmonary toxicity, and cardiomyopathy determined by shortening fraction <29%. Analyses followed an intention-to-treat principle. There was no difference in baseline characteristics between the patients receiving ABVE-PC or ABVD in regard for stage, risk group, or prognostic variables, such as the presence or absence of "B" symptoms, bulky disease, and extra-nodal involvement. A greater proportion of patients treated with ABVE-PC received consolidating external beam radiation treatment (XRT) either by randomization or by response compared to ABVD (59.6% vs. 32.6%, respectively, p = .01). While not statistically significant, response to therapy, assessed by positron emission tomography/computerized tomography (PET/CT) where available, mirrored the use for radiation (rapid response 58.3% vs. 90.0%, n = 34, p = .11). The median dose of anthracycline (doxorubicin) was the same in patients receiving ABVE-PC versus ABVD (200 vs. 200 mg/m² , interquartile range 200-250 vs. 200-300 mg/m² , p = .002). There was no difference in event-free survival (p = .63) or overall survival (p = .37) with a median follow-up length of 3.9 years. ABVD and ABVE-PC achieved similar survival outcomes in our single-institution cohort.

This study contains population size or sample size information

Survival of pediatric Hodgkin lymphoma patients treated with doxorubicin, bleomycin, vincristine, etoposide, prednisone, and cyclophosphamide (ABVE-PC) versus doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (ABVD) at a single institution.

Adriamycin, bleomycin, vinblastine, dacarbazine (ABVD), the de facto standard of care in adult-onset Hodgkin lymphoma (HL), has not been directly compared to doxorubicin, bleomycin, vincristine, etoposide, prednisone, and cyclophosphamide (ABVE-PC), a pediatric-aimed regimen designed to reduce late effects. We aimed to describe the single-institution experience of using both regimens in patients with pediatric HL. This retrospective cohort study evaluated a total of 224 patients diagnosed with HL between 1999 and 2018 at Children's Hospital Los Angeles (CHLA), of which 93 patients were eligible having received ABVD (n = 46) or ABVE-PC (n = 47) chemotherapy as their initial treatment. Descriptive analyses were performed using the Student's t-test or Fisher's exact test. Survival analysis used the Kaplan-Meier method. Events included death, relapse, and secondary malignancy. We also describe the use of radiation therapy, pulmonary toxicity, and cardiomyopathy determined by shortening fraction <29%. Analyses followed an intention-to-treat principle. There was no difference in baseline characteristics between the patients receiving ABVE-PC or ABVD in regard for stage, risk group, or prognostic variables, such as the presence or absence of "B" symptoms, bulky disease, and extra-nodal involvement. A greater proportion of patients treated with ABVE-PC received consolidating external beam radiation treatment (XRT) either by randomization or by response compared to ABVD (59.6% vs. 32.6%, respectively, p = .01). While not statistically significant, response to therapy, assessed by positron emission tomography/computerized tomography (PET/CT) where available, mirrored the use for radiation (rapid response 58.3% vs. 90.0%, n = 34, p = .11). The median dose of anthracycline (doxorubicin) was the same in patients receiving ABVE-PC versus ABVD (200 vs. 200 mg/m² , interquartile range 200-250 vs. 200-300 mg/m² , p = .002). There was no difference in event-free survival (p = .63) or overall survival (p = .37) with a median follow-up length of 3.9 years. ABVD and ABVE-PC achieved similar survival outcomes in our single-institution cohort.

This study does not contain population size information

Survival of pediatric Hodgkin lymphoma patients treated with doxorubicin, bleomycin, vincristine, etoposide, prednisone, and cyclophosphamide (ABVE-PC) versus doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (ABVD) at a single institution.

Adriamycin, bleomycin, vinblastine, dacarbazine (ABVD), the de facto standard of care in adult-onset Hodgkin lymphoma (HL), has not been directly compared to doxorubicin, bleomycin, vincristine, etoposide, prednisone, and cyclophosphamide (ABVE-PC), a pediatric-aimed regimen designed to reduce late effects. We aimed to describe the single-institution experience of using both regimens in patients with pediatric HL. This retrospective cohort study evaluated a total of 224 patients diagnosed with HL between 1999 and 2018 at Children's Hospital Los Angeles (CHLA), of which 93 patients were eligible having received ABVD (n = 46) or ABVE-PC (n = 47) chemotherapy as their initial treatment. Descriptive analyses were performed using the Student's t-test or Fisher's exact test. Survival analysis used the Kaplan-Meier method. Events included death, relapse, and secondary malignancy. We also describe the use of radiation therapy, pulmonary toxicity, and cardiomyopathy determined by shortening fraction <29%. Analyses followed an intention-to-treat principle. There was no difference in baseline characteristics between the patients receiving ABVE-PC or ABVD in regard for stage, risk group, or prognostic variables, such as the presence or absence of "B" symptoms, bulky disease, and extra-nodal involvement. A greater proportion of patients treated with ABVE-PC received consolidating external beam radiation treatment (XRT) either by randomization or by response compared to ABVD (59.6% vs. 32.6%, respectively, p = .01). While not statistically significant, response to therapy, assessed by positron emission tomography/computerized tomography (PET/CT) where available, mirrored the use for radiation (rapid response 58.3% vs. 90.0%, n = 34, p = .11). The median dose of anthracycline (doxorubicin) was the same in patients receiving ABVE-PC versus ABVD (200 vs. 200 mg/m² , interquartile range 200-250 vs. 200-300 mg/m² , p = .002). There was no difference in event-free survival (p = .63) or overall survival (p = .37) with a median follow-up length of 3.9 years. ABVD and ABVE-PC achieved similar survival outcomes in our single-institution cohort.

This study has quantitative outcomes like numbers, P-value, OR, CI, HR, RR, or patient ratios

Survival of pediatric Hodgkin lymphoma patients treated with doxorubicin, bleomycin, vincristine, etoposide, prednisone, and cyclophosphamide (ABVE-PC) versus doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (ABVD) at a single institution.

Adriamycin, bleomycin, vinblastine, dacarbazine (ABVD), the de facto standard of care in adult-onset Hodgkin lymphoma (HL), has not been directly compared to doxorubicin, bleomycin, vincristine, etoposide, prednisone, and cyclophosphamide (ABVE-PC), a pediatric-aimed regimen designed to reduce late effects. We aimed to describe the single-institution experience of using both regimens in patients with pediatric HL. This retrospective cohort study evaluated a total of 224 patients diagnosed with HL between 1999 and 2018 at Children's Hospital Los Angeles (CHLA), of which 93 patients were eligible having received ABVD (n = 46) or ABVE-PC (n = 47) chemotherapy as their initial treatment. Descriptive analyses were performed using the Student's t-test or Fisher's exact test. Survival analysis used the Kaplan-Meier method. Events included death, relapse, and secondary malignancy. We also describe the use of radiation therapy, pulmonary toxicity, and cardiomyopathy determined by shortening fraction <29%. Analyses followed an intention-to-treat principle. There was no difference in baseline characteristics between the patients receiving ABVE-PC or ABVD in regard for stage, risk group, or prognostic variables, such as the presence or absence of "B" symptoms, bulky disease, and extra-nodal involvement. A greater proportion of patients treated with ABVE-PC received consolidating external beam radiation treatment (XRT) either by randomization or by response compared to ABVD (59.6% vs. 32.6%, respectively, p = .01). While not statistically significant, response to therapy, assessed by positron emission tomography/computerized tomography (PET/CT) where available, mirrored the use for radiation (rapid response 58.3% vs. 90.0%, n = 34, p = .11). The median dose of anthracycline (doxorubicin) was the same in patients receiving ABVE-PC versus ABVD (200 vs. 200 mg/m² , interquartile range 200-250 vs. 200-300 mg/m² , p = .002). There was no difference in event-free survival (p = .63) or overall survival (p = .37) with a median follow-up length of 3.9 years. ABVD and ABVE-PC achieved similar survival outcomes in our single-institution cohort.

This study does not have any quantitative outcomes

Survival of pediatric Hodgkin lymphoma patients treated with doxorubicin, bleomycin, vincristine, etoposide, prednisone, and cyclophosphamide (ABVE-PC) versus doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (ABVD) at a single institution.

Adriamycin, bleomycin, vinblastine, dacarbazine (ABVD), the de facto standard of care in adult-onset Hodgkin lymphoma (HL), has not been directly compared to doxorubicin, bleomycin, vincristine, etoposide, prednisone, and cyclophosphamide (ABVE-PC), a pediatric-aimed regimen designed to reduce late effects. We aimed to describe the single-institution experience of using both regimens in patients with pediatric HL. This retrospective cohort study evaluated a total of 224 patients diagnosed with HL between 1999 and 2018 at Children's Hospital Los Angeles (CHLA), of which 93 patients were eligible having received ABVD (n = 46) or ABVE-PC (n = 47) chemotherapy as their initial treatment. Descriptive analyses were performed using the Student's t-test or Fisher's exact test. Survival analysis used the Kaplan-Meier method. Events included death, relapse, and secondary malignancy. We also describe the use of radiation therapy, pulmonary toxicity, and cardiomyopathy determined by shortening fraction <29%. Analyses followed an intention-to-treat principle. There was no difference in baseline characteristics between the patients receiving ABVE-PC or ABVD in regard for stage, risk group, or prognostic variables, such as the presence or absence of "B" symptoms, bulky disease, and extra-nodal involvement. A greater proportion of patients treated with ABVE-PC received consolidating external beam radiation treatment (XRT) either by randomization or by response compared to ABVD (59.6% vs. 32.6%, respectively, p = .01). While not statistically significant, response to therapy, assessed by positron emission tomography/computerized tomography (PET/CT) where available, mirrored the use for radiation (rapid response 58.3% vs. 90.0%, n = 34, p = .11). The median dose of anthracycline (doxorubicin) was the same in patients receiving ABVE-PC versus ABVD (200 vs. 200 mg/m² , interquartile range 200-250 vs. 200-300 mg/m² , p = .002). There was no difference in event-free survival (p = .63) or overall survival (p = .37) with a median follow-up length of 3.9 years. ABVD and ABVE-PC achieved similar survival outcomes in our single-institution cohort.

This study has a target drug

Survival of pediatric Hodgkin lymphoma patients treated with doxorubicin, bleomycin, vincristine, etoposide, prednisone, and cyclophosphamide (ABVE-PC) versus doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (ABVD) at a single institution.

Adriamycin, bleomycin, vinblastine, dacarbazine (ABVD), the de facto standard of care in adult-onset Hodgkin lymphoma (HL), has not been directly compared to doxorubicin, bleomycin, vincristine, etoposide, prednisone, and cyclophosphamide (ABVE-PC), a pediatric-aimed regimen designed to reduce late effects. We aimed to describe the single-institution experience of using both regimens in patients with pediatric HL. This retrospective cohort study evaluated a total of 224 patients diagnosed with HL between 1999 and 2018 at Children's Hospital Los Angeles (CHLA), of which 93 patients were eligible having received ABVD (n = 46) or ABVE-PC (n = 47) chemotherapy as their initial treatment. Descriptive analyses were performed using the Student's t-test or Fisher's exact test. Survival analysis used the Kaplan-Meier method. Events included death, relapse, and secondary malignancy. We also describe the use of radiation therapy, pulmonary toxicity, and cardiomyopathy determined by shortening fraction <29%. Analyses followed an intention-to-treat principle. There was no difference in baseline characteristics between the patients receiving ABVE-PC or ABVD in regard for stage, risk group, or prognostic variables, such as the presence or absence of "B" symptoms, bulky disease, and extra-nodal involvement. A greater proportion of patients treated with ABVE-PC received consolidating external beam radiation treatment (XRT) either by randomization or by response compared to ABVD (59.6% vs. 32.6%, respectively, p = .01). While not statistically significant, response to therapy, assessed by positron emission tomography/computerized tomography (PET/CT) where available, mirrored the use for radiation (rapid response 58.3% vs. 90.0%, n = 34, p = .11). The median dose of anthracycline (doxorubicin) was the same in patients receiving ABVE-PC versus ABVD (200 vs. 200 mg/m² , interquartile range 200-250 vs. 200-300 mg/m² , p = .002). There was no difference in event-free survival (p = .63) or overall survival (p = .37) with a median follow-up length of 3.9 years. ABVD and ABVE-PC achieved similar survival outcomes in our single-institution cohort.

This study does not have a target drug

Survival of pediatric Hodgkin lymphoma patients treated with doxorubicin, bleomycin, vincristine, etoposide, prednisone, and cyclophosphamide (ABVE-PC) versus doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (ABVD) at a single institution.

Adriamycin, bleomycin, vinblastine, dacarbazine (ABVD), the de facto standard of care in adult-onset Hodgkin lymphoma (HL), has not been directly compared to doxorubicin, bleomycin, vincristine, etoposide, prednisone, and cyclophosphamide (ABVE-PC), a pediatric-aimed regimen designed to reduce late effects. We aimed to describe the single-institution experience of using both regimens in patients with pediatric HL. This retrospective cohort study evaluated a total of 224 patients diagnosed with HL between 1999 and 2018 at Children's Hospital Los Angeles (CHLA), of which 93 patients were eligible having received ABVD (n = 46) or ABVE-PC (n = 47) chemotherapy as their initial treatment. Descriptive analyses were performed using the Student's t-test or Fisher's exact test. Survival analysis used the Kaplan-Meier method. Events included death, relapse, and secondary malignancy. We also describe the use of radiation therapy, pulmonary toxicity, and cardiomyopathy determined by shortening fraction <29%. Analyses followed an intention-to-treat principle. There was no difference in baseline characteristics between the patients receiving ABVE-PC or ABVD in regard for stage, risk group, or prognostic variables, such as the presence or absence of "B" symptoms, bulky disease, and extra-nodal involvement. A greater proportion of patients treated with ABVE-PC received consolidating external beam radiation treatment (XRT) either by randomization or by response compared to ABVD (59.6% vs. 32.6%, respectively, p = .01). While not statistically significant, response to therapy, assessed by positron emission tomography/computerized tomography (PET/CT) where available, mirrored the use for radiation (rapid response 58.3% vs. 90.0%, n = 34, p = .11). The median dose of anthracycline (doxorubicin) was the same in patients receiving ABVE-PC versus ABVD (200 vs. 200 mg/m² , interquartile range 200-250 vs. 200-300 mg/m² , p = .002). There was no difference in event-free survival (p = .63) or overall survival (p = .37) with a median follow-up length of 3.9 years. ABVD and ABVE-PC achieved similar survival outcomes in our single-institution cohort.

This study has a target disease

Survival of pediatric Hodgkin lymphoma patients treated with doxorubicin, bleomycin, vincristine, etoposide, prednisone, and cyclophosphamide (ABVE-PC) versus doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (ABVD) at a single institution.

Adriamycin, bleomycin, vinblastine, dacarbazine (ABVD), the de facto standard of care in adult-onset Hodgkin lymphoma (HL), has not been directly compared to doxorubicin, bleomycin, vincristine, etoposide, prednisone, and cyclophosphamide (ABVE-PC), a pediatric-aimed regimen designed to reduce late effects. We aimed to describe the single-institution experience of using both regimens in patients with pediatric HL. This retrospective cohort study evaluated a total of 224 patients diagnosed with HL between 1999 and 2018 at Children's Hospital Los Angeles (CHLA), of which 93 patients were eligible having received ABVD (n = 46) or ABVE-PC (n = 47) chemotherapy as their initial treatment. Descriptive analyses were performed using the Student's t-test or Fisher's exact test. Survival analysis used the Kaplan-Meier method. Events included death, relapse, and secondary malignancy. We also describe the use of radiation therapy, pulmonary toxicity, and cardiomyopathy determined by shortening fraction <29%. Analyses followed an intention-to-treat principle. There was no difference in baseline characteristics between the patients receiving ABVE-PC or ABVD in regard for stage, risk group, or prognostic variables, such as the presence or absence of "B" symptoms, bulky disease, and extra-nodal involvement. A greater proportion of patients treated with ABVE-PC received consolidating external beam radiation treatment (XRT) either by randomization or by response compared to ABVD (59.6% vs. 32.6%, respectively, p = .01). While not statistically significant, response to therapy, assessed by positron emission tomography/computerized tomography (PET/CT) where available, mirrored the use for radiation (rapid response 58.3% vs. 90.0%, n = 34, p = .11). The median dose of anthracycline (doxorubicin) was the same in patients receiving ABVE-PC versus ABVD (200 vs. 200 mg/m² , interquartile range 200-250 vs. 200-300 mg/m² , p = .002). There was no difference in event-free survival (p = .63) or overall survival (p = .37) with a median follow-up length of 3.9 years. ABVD and ABVE-PC achieved similar survival outcomes in our single-institution cohort.

This study does not have a target disease

Gabapentin in the treatment of hemifacial spasm.

To evaluate the efficacy of gabapentin in the treatment of hemifacial spasm. Twenty-three patients with hemifacial spasm not suitable for surgery or therapy with botulinum toxin were treated with gabapentin. The main efficacy parameter was the percentage of spasm reduction. A clinically significant reduction of spasms was obtained by 16 patients. Gabapentin was effective and safe in reducing hemifacial spasm in 16 out 23 (69.6%) patients.

This study has a cohort study or clinical trial

Gabapentin in the treatment of hemifacial spasm.

To evaluate the efficacy of gabapentin in the treatment of hemifacial spasm. Twenty-three patients with hemifacial spasm not suitable for surgery or therapy with botulinum toxin were treated with gabapentin. The main efficacy parameter was the percentage of spasm reduction. A clinically significant reduction of spasms was obtained by 16 patients. Gabapentin was effective and safe in reducing hemifacial spasm in 16 out 23 (69.6%) patients.

This study does not have any cohorts or clinical trial

Gabapentin in the treatment of hemifacial spasm.

To evaluate the efficacy of gabapentin in the treatment of hemifacial spasm. Twenty-three patients with hemifacial spasm not suitable for surgery or therapy with botulinum toxin were treated with gabapentin. The main efficacy parameter was the percentage of spasm reduction. A clinically significant reduction of spasms was obtained by 16 patients. Gabapentin was effective and safe in reducing hemifacial spasm in 16 out 23 (69.6%) patients.

This study has a control, double-blind, or comparison patient group

Gabapentin in the treatment of hemifacial spasm.

To evaluate the efficacy of gabapentin in the treatment of hemifacial spasm. Twenty-three patients with hemifacial spasm not suitable for surgery or therapy with botulinum toxin were treated with gabapentin. The main efficacy parameter was the percentage of spasm reduction. A clinically significant reduction of spasms was obtained by 16 patients. Gabapentin was effective and safe in reducing hemifacial spasm in 16 out 23 (69.6%) patients.

This study does not have any comparison patient group

Gabapentin in the treatment of hemifacial spasm.

To evaluate the efficacy of gabapentin in the treatment of hemifacial spasm. Twenty-three patients with hemifacial spasm not suitable for surgery or therapy with botulinum toxin were treated with gabapentin. The main efficacy parameter was the percentage of spasm reduction. A clinically significant reduction of spasms was obtained by 16 patients. Gabapentin was effective and safe in reducing hemifacial spasm in 16 out 23 (69.6%) patients.

This study has human subjects

Gabapentin in the treatment of hemifacial spasm.

To evaluate the efficacy of gabapentin in the treatment of hemifacial spasm. Twenty-three patients with hemifacial spasm not suitable for surgery or therapy with botulinum toxin were treated with gabapentin. The main efficacy parameter was the percentage of spasm reduction. A clinically significant reduction of spasms was obtained by 16 patients. Gabapentin was effective and safe in reducing hemifacial spasm in 16 out 23 (69.6%) patients.

This study does not have human subjects

Gabapentin in the treatment of hemifacial spasm.

To evaluate the efficacy of gabapentin in the treatment of hemifacial spasm. Twenty-three patients with hemifacial spasm not suitable for surgery or therapy with botulinum toxin were treated with gabapentin. The main efficacy parameter was the percentage of spasm reduction. A clinically significant reduction of spasms was obtained by 16 patients. Gabapentin was effective and safe in reducing hemifacial spasm in 16 out 23 (69.6%) patients.

This study contains population size or sample size information

Gabapentin in the treatment of hemifacial spasm.

To evaluate the efficacy of gabapentin in the treatment of hemifacial spasm. Twenty-three patients with hemifacial spasm not suitable for surgery or therapy with botulinum toxin were treated with gabapentin. The main efficacy parameter was the percentage of spasm reduction. A clinically significant reduction of spasms was obtained by 16 patients. Gabapentin was effective and safe in reducing hemifacial spasm in 16 out 23 (69.6%) patients.

This study does not contain population size information

Gabapentin in the treatment of hemifacial spasm.

To evaluate the efficacy of gabapentin in the treatment of hemifacial spasm. Twenty-three patients with hemifacial spasm not suitable for surgery or therapy with botulinum toxin were treated with gabapentin. The main efficacy parameter was the percentage of spasm reduction. A clinically significant reduction of spasms was obtained by 16 patients. Gabapentin was effective and safe in reducing hemifacial spasm in 16 out 23 (69.6%) patients.

This study has quantitative outcomes like numbers, P-value, OR, CI, HR, RR, or patient ratios

Gabapentin in the treatment of hemifacial spasm.

To evaluate the efficacy of gabapentin in the treatment of hemifacial spasm. Twenty-three patients with hemifacial spasm not suitable for surgery or therapy with botulinum toxin were treated with gabapentin. The main efficacy parameter was the percentage of spasm reduction. A clinically significant reduction of spasms was obtained by 16 patients. Gabapentin was effective and safe in reducing hemifacial spasm in 16 out 23 (69.6%) patients.

This study does not have any quantitative outcomes

Gabapentin in the treatment of hemifacial spasm.

To evaluate the efficacy of gabapentin in the treatment of hemifacial spasm. Twenty-three patients with hemifacial spasm not suitable for surgery or therapy with botulinum toxin were treated with gabapentin. The main efficacy parameter was the percentage of spasm reduction. A clinically significant reduction of spasms was obtained by 16 patients. Gabapentin was effective and safe in reducing hemifacial spasm in 16 out 23 (69.6%) patients.

This study has a target drug

Gabapentin in the treatment of hemifacial spasm.

To evaluate the efficacy of gabapentin in the treatment of hemifacial spasm. Twenty-three patients with hemifacial spasm not suitable for surgery or therapy with botulinum toxin were treated with gabapentin. The main efficacy parameter was the percentage of spasm reduction. A clinically significant reduction of spasms was obtained by 16 patients. Gabapentin was effective and safe in reducing hemifacial spasm in 16 out 23 (69.6%) patients.

This study does not have a target drug

Gabapentin in the treatment of hemifacial spasm.

To evaluate the efficacy of gabapentin in the treatment of hemifacial spasm. Twenty-three patients with hemifacial spasm not suitable for surgery or therapy with botulinum toxin were treated with gabapentin. The main efficacy parameter was the percentage of spasm reduction. A clinically significant reduction of spasms was obtained by 16 patients. Gabapentin was effective and safe in reducing hemifacial spasm in 16 out 23 (69.6%) patients.

This study has a target disease

Gabapentin in the treatment of hemifacial spasm.

To evaluate the efficacy of gabapentin in the treatment of hemifacial spasm. Twenty-three patients with hemifacial spasm not suitable for surgery or therapy with botulinum toxin were treated with gabapentin. The main efficacy parameter was the percentage of spasm reduction. A clinically significant reduction of spasms was obtained by 16 patients. Gabapentin was effective and safe in reducing hemifacial spasm in 16 out 23 (69.6%) patients.

This study does not have a target disease

Beta blockers in ischemic heart disease.

Many trials have reported that beta blockers increase survival after myocardial infarction; these trials are reviewed. The timolol trial was randomized and showed that mortality was reduced for all patients randomized to beta blockers. Similar findings have been found in both the metoprolol trial in Göteburg and the Beta-Blocker Heart Attack Trial in the U.S. Chronic beta-blockade therapy appears to reduce mortality in patients who survive acute myocardial infarction. The mechanism is as yet unknown.

This study has a cohort study or clinical trial

Beta blockers in ischemic heart disease.

Many trials have reported that beta blockers increase survival after myocardial infarction; these trials are reviewed. The timolol trial was randomized and showed that mortality was reduced for all patients randomized to beta blockers. Similar findings have been found in both the metoprolol trial in Göteburg and the Beta-Blocker Heart Attack Trial in the U.S. Chronic beta-blockade therapy appears to reduce mortality in patients who survive acute myocardial infarction. The mechanism is as yet unknown.

This study does not have any cohorts or clinical trial

Beta blockers in ischemic heart disease.

Many trials have reported that beta blockers increase survival after myocardial infarction; these trials are reviewed. The timolol trial was randomized and showed that mortality was reduced for all patients randomized to beta blockers. Similar findings have been found in both the metoprolol trial in Göteburg and the Beta-Blocker Heart Attack Trial in the U.S. Chronic beta-blockade therapy appears to reduce mortality in patients who survive acute myocardial infarction. The mechanism is as yet unknown.

This study has a control, double-blind, or comparison patient group

Beta blockers in ischemic heart disease.

Many trials have reported that beta blockers increase survival after myocardial infarction; these trials are reviewed. The timolol trial was randomized and showed that mortality was reduced for all patients randomized to beta blockers. Similar findings have been found in both the metoprolol trial in Göteburg and the Beta-Blocker Heart Attack Trial in the U.S. Chronic beta-blockade therapy appears to reduce mortality in patients who survive acute myocardial infarction. The mechanism is as yet unknown.

This study does not have any comparison patient group

Beta blockers in ischemic heart disease.

Many trials have reported that beta blockers increase survival after myocardial infarction; these trials are reviewed. The timolol trial was randomized and showed that mortality was reduced for all patients randomized to beta blockers. Similar findings have been found in both the metoprolol trial in Göteburg and the Beta-Blocker Heart Attack Trial in the U.S. Chronic beta-blockade therapy appears to reduce mortality in patients who survive acute myocardial infarction. The mechanism is as yet unknown.

This study has human subjects

Beta blockers in ischemic heart disease.

Many trials have reported that beta blockers increase survival after myocardial infarction; these trials are reviewed. The timolol trial was randomized and showed that mortality was reduced for all patients randomized to beta blockers. Similar findings have been found in both the metoprolol trial in Göteburg and the Beta-Blocker Heart Attack Trial in the U.S. Chronic beta-blockade therapy appears to reduce mortality in patients who survive acute myocardial infarction. The mechanism is as yet unknown.

This study does not have human subjects

Beta blockers in ischemic heart disease.

Many trials have reported that beta blockers increase survival after myocardial infarction; these trials are reviewed. The timolol trial was randomized and showed that mortality was reduced for all patients randomized to beta blockers. Similar findings have been found in both the metoprolol trial in Göteburg and the Beta-Blocker Heart Attack Trial in the U.S. Chronic beta-blockade therapy appears to reduce mortality in patients who survive acute myocardial infarction. The mechanism is as yet unknown.

This study contains population size or sample size information

Beta blockers in ischemic heart disease.

Many trials have reported that beta blockers increase survival after myocardial infarction; these trials are reviewed. The timolol trial was randomized and showed that mortality was reduced for all patients randomized to beta blockers. Similar findings have been found in both the metoprolol trial in Göteburg and the Beta-Blocker Heart Attack Trial in the U.S. Chronic beta-blockade therapy appears to reduce mortality in patients who survive acute myocardial infarction. The mechanism is as yet unknown.

This study does not contain population size information

Beta blockers in ischemic heart disease.

Many trials have reported that beta blockers increase survival after myocardial infarction; these trials are reviewed. The timolol trial was randomized and showed that mortality was reduced for all patients randomized to beta blockers. Similar findings have been found in both the metoprolol trial in Göteburg and the Beta-Blocker Heart Attack Trial in the U.S. Chronic beta-blockade therapy appears to reduce mortality in patients who survive acute myocardial infarction. The mechanism is as yet unknown.

This study has quantitative outcomes like numbers, P-value, OR, CI, HR, RR, or patient ratios

Beta blockers in ischemic heart disease.

Many trials have reported that beta blockers increase survival after myocardial infarction; these trials are reviewed. The timolol trial was randomized and showed that mortality was reduced for all patients randomized to beta blockers. Similar findings have been found in both the metoprolol trial in Göteburg and the Beta-Blocker Heart Attack Trial in the U.S. Chronic beta-blockade therapy appears to reduce mortality in patients who survive acute myocardial infarction. The mechanism is as yet unknown.

This study does not have any quantitative outcomes

Beta blockers in ischemic heart disease.

Many trials have reported that beta blockers increase survival after myocardial infarction; these trials are reviewed. The timolol trial was randomized and showed that mortality was reduced for all patients randomized to beta blockers. Similar findings have been found in both the metoprolol trial in Göteburg and the Beta-Blocker Heart Attack Trial in the U.S. Chronic beta-blockade therapy appears to reduce mortality in patients who survive acute myocardial infarction. The mechanism is as yet unknown.

This study has a target drug

Beta blockers in ischemic heart disease.

Many trials have reported that beta blockers increase survival after myocardial infarction; these trials are reviewed. The timolol trial was randomized and showed that mortality was reduced for all patients randomized to beta blockers. Similar findings have been found in both the metoprolol trial in Göteburg and the Beta-Blocker Heart Attack Trial in the U.S. Chronic beta-blockade therapy appears to reduce mortality in patients who survive acute myocardial infarction. The mechanism is as yet unknown.

This study does not have a target drug

Beta blockers in ischemic heart disease.

Many trials have reported that beta blockers increase survival after myocardial infarction; these trials are reviewed. The timolol trial was randomized and showed that mortality was reduced for all patients randomized to beta blockers. Similar findings have been found in both the metoprolol trial in Göteburg and the Beta-Blocker Heart Attack Trial in the U.S. Chronic beta-blockade therapy appears to reduce mortality in patients who survive acute myocardial infarction. The mechanism is as yet unknown.

This study has a target disease

Beta blockers in ischemic heart disease.

Many trials have reported that beta blockers increase survival after myocardial infarction; these trials are reviewed. The timolol trial was randomized and showed that mortality was reduced for all patients randomized to beta blockers. Similar findings have been found in both the metoprolol trial in Göteburg and the Beta-Blocker Heart Attack Trial in the U.S. Chronic beta-blockade therapy appears to reduce mortality in patients who survive acute myocardial infarction. The mechanism is as yet unknown.

This study does not have a target disease

Administration of citalopram before ECT: seizure duration and hormone responses.

From theoretical and clinical perspectives, it is important to know if selected serotonin-reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), often administered concurrently with electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), modify seizure duration. In a study with a double-blind, cross-over design, the authors evaluated the effect of citalopram, the most selective SSRI available, on the length of electrically induced seizures and on hormone secretion during ECT. Ten depressed women were given either 20 mg citalopram or placebo orally 2 hours before the third and fourth ECT sessions. Seizure duration was assessed by the cuff technique and from electroencephalographic recordings, whereas blood for prolactin, thyrotropin, and cortisol assessment was sampled before ECT and 5, 10, 20, 30, 40, and 60 minutes after ECT. No adverse effects after the administration of citalopram were recorded. The length of seizures was not statistically different in the citalopram (29.3+/-8.4 seconds) and placebo sessions (28.2+/-9.4 seconds). Neither pre-ECT plasma hormone levels measured 2 hours after citalopram or placebo administration nor the patterns of ECT-induced hormone secretions differed between the two drug and placebo conditions. The lack of effect of citalopram on hormones in this study may be a result of possible deficiencies of the monoaminergic (i.e., serotoninergic) systems in depression. Although safety and efficacy issues were not fully addressed by coadministering citalopram for the long term and throughout the course of ECT, these findings support the view that challenges the typical clinical practice of discontinuing SSRIs before ECT.

This study has a cohort study or clinical trial

Administration of citalopram before ECT: seizure duration and hormone responses.

From theoretical and clinical perspectives, it is important to know if selected serotonin-reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), often administered concurrently with electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), modify seizure duration. In a study with a double-blind, cross-over design, the authors evaluated the effect of citalopram, the most selective SSRI available, on the length of electrically induced seizures and on hormone secretion during ECT. Ten depressed women were given either 20 mg citalopram or placebo orally 2 hours before the third and fourth ECT sessions. Seizure duration was assessed by the cuff technique and from electroencephalographic recordings, whereas blood for prolactin, thyrotropin, and cortisol assessment was sampled before ECT and 5, 10, 20, 30, 40, and 60 minutes after ECT. No adverse effects after the administration of citalopram were recorded. The length of seizures was not statistically different in the citalopram (29.3+/-8.4 seconds) and placebo sessions (28.2+/-9.4 seconds). Neither pre-ECT plasma hormone levels measured 2 hours after citalopram or placebo administration nor the patterns of ECT-induced hormone secretions differed between the two drug and placebo conditions. The lack of effect of citalopram on hormones in this study may be a result of possible deficiencies of the monoaminergic (i.e., serotoninergic) systems in depression. Although safety and efficacy issues were not fully addressed by coadministering citalopram for the long term and throughout the course of ECT, these findings support the view that challenges the typical clinical practice of discontinuing SSRIs before ECT.

This study does not have any cohorts or clinical trial

Administration of citalopram before ECT: seizure duration and hormone responses.

From theoretical and clinical perspectives, it is important to know if selected serotonin-reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), often administered concurrently with electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), modify seizure duration. In a study with a double-blind, cross-over design, the authors evaluated the effect of citalopram, the most selective SSRI available, on the length of electrically induced seizures and on hormone secretion during ECT. Ten depressed women were given either 20 mg citalopram or placebo orally 2 hours before the third and fourth ECT sessions. Seizure duration was assessed by the cuff technique and from electroencephalographic recordings, whereas blood for prolactin, thyrotropin, and cortisol assessment was sampled before ECT and 5, 10, 20, 30, 40, and 60 minutes after ECT. No adverse effects after the administration of citalopram were recorded. The length of seizures was not statistically different in the citalopram (29.3+/-8.4 seconds) and placebo sessions (28.2+/-9.4 seconds). Neither pre-ECT plasma hormone levels measured 2 hours after citalopram or placebo administration nor the patterns of ECT-induced hormone secretions differed between the two drug and placebo conditions. The lack of effect of citalopram on hormones in this study may be a result of possible deficiencies of the monoaminergic (i.e., serotoninergic) systems in depression. Although safety and efficacy issues were not fully addressed by coadministering citalopram for the long term and throughout the course of ECT, these findings support the view that challenges the typical clinical practice of discontinuing SSRIs before ECT.

This study has a control, double-blind, or comparison patient group

Administration of citalopram before ECT: seizure duration and hormone responses.

From theoretical and clinical perspectives, it is important to know if selected serotonin-reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), often administered concurrently with electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), modify seizure duration. In a study with a double-blind, cross-over design, the authors evaluated the effect of citalopram, the most selective SSRI available, on the length of electrically induced seizures and on hormone secretion during ECT. Ten depressed women were given either 20 mg citalopram or placebo orally 2 hours before the third and fourth ECT sessions. Seizure duration was assessed by the cuff technique and from electroencephalographic recordings, whereas blood for prolactin, thyrotropin, and cortisol assessment was sampled before ECT and 5, 10, 20, 30, 40, and 60 minutes after ECT. No adverse effects after the administration of citalopram were recorded. The length of seizures was not statistically different in the citalopram (29.3+/-8.4 seconds) and placebo sessions (28.2+/-9.4 seconds). Neither pre-ECT plasma hormone levels measured 2 hours after citalopram or placebo administration nor the patterns of ECT-induced hormone secretions differed between the two drug and placebo conditions. The lack of effect of citalopram on hormones in this study may be a result of possible deficiencies of the monoaminergic (i.e., serotoninergic) systems in depression. Although safety and efficacy issues were not fully addressed by coadministering citalopram for the long term and throughout the course of ECT, these findings support the view that challenges the typical clinical practice of discontinuing SSRIs before ECT.

This study does not have any comparison patient group

Administration of citalopram before ECT: seizure duration and hormone responses.

From theoretical and clinical perspectives, it is important to know if selected serotonin-reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), often administered concurrently with electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), modify seizure duration. In a study with a double-blind, cross-over design, the authors evaluated the effect of citalopram, the most selective SSRI available, on the length of electrically induced seizures and on hormone secretion during ECT. Ten depressed women were given either 20 mg citalopram or placebo orally 2 hours before the third and fourth ECT sessions. Seizure duration was assessed by the cuff technique and from electroencephalographic recordings, whereas blood for prolactin, thyrotropin, and cortisol assessment was sampled before ECT and 5, 10, 20, 30, 40, and 60 minutes after ECT. No adverse effects after the administration of citalopram were recorded. The length of seizures was not statistically different in the citalopram (29.3+/-8.4 seconds) and placebo sessions (28.2+/-9.4 seconds). Neither pre-ECT plasma hormone levels measured 2 hours after citalopram or placebo administration nor the patterns of ECT-induced hormone secretions differed between the two drug and placebo conditions. The lack of effect of citalopram on hormones in this study may be a result of possible deficiencies of the monoaminergic (i.e., serotoninergic) systems in depression. Although safety and efficacy issues were not fully addressed by coadministering citalopram for the long term and throughout the course of ECT, these findings support the view that challenges the typical clinical practice of discontinuing SSRIs before ECT.

This study has human subjects

Administration of citalopram before ECT: seizure duration and hormone responses.

From theoretical and clinical perspectives, it is important to know if selected serotonin-reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), often administered concurrently with electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), modify seizure duration. In a study with a double-blind, cross-over design, the authors evaluated the effect of citalopram, the most selective SSRI available, on the length of electrically induced seizures and on hormone secretion during ECT. Ten depressed women were given either 20 mg citalopram or placebo orally 2 hours before the third and fourth ECT sessions. Seizure duration was assessed by the cuff technique and from electroencephalographic recordings, whereas blood for prolactin, thyrotropin, and cortisol assessment was sampled before ECT and 5, 10, 20, 30, 40, and 60 minutes after ECT. No adverse effects after the administration of citalopram were recorded. The length of seizures was not statistically different in the citalopram (29.3+/-8.4 seconds) and placebo sessions (28.2+/-9.4 seconds). Neither pre-ECT plasma hormone levels measured 2 hours after citalopram or placebo administration nor the patterns of ECT-induced hormone secretions differed between the two drug and placebo conditions. The lack of effect of citalopram on hormones in this study may be a result of possible deficiencies of the monoaminergic (i.e., serotoninergic) systems in depression. Although safety and efficacy issues were not fully addressed by coadministering citalopram for the long term and throughout the course of ECT, these findings support the view that challenges the typical clinical practice of discontinuing SSRIs before ECT.

This study does not have human subjects

Administration of citalopram before ECT: seizure duration and hormone responses.

From theoretical and clinical perspectives, it is important to know if selected serotonin-reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), often administered concurrently with electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), modify seizure duration. In a study with a double-blind, cross-over design, the authors evaluated the effect of citalopram, the most selective SSRI available, on the length of electrically induced seizures and on hormone secretion during ECT. Ten depressed women were given either 20 mg citalopram or placebo orally 2 hours before the third and fourth ECT sessions. Seizure duration was assessed by the cuff technique and from electroencephalographic recordings, whereas blood for prolactin, thyrotropin, and cortisol assessment was sampled before ECT and 5, 10, 20, 30, 40, and 60 minutes after ECT. No adverse effects after the administration of citalopram were recorded. The length of seizures was not statistically different in the citalopram (29.3+/-8.4 seconds) and placebo sessions (28.2+/-9.4 seconds). Neither pre-ECT plasma hormone levels measured 2 hours after citalopram or placebo administration nor the patterns of ECT-induced hormone secretions differed between the two drug and placebo conditions. The lack of effect of citalopram on hormones in this study may be a result of possible deficiencies of the monoaminergic (i.e., serotoninergic) systems in depression. Although safety and efficacy issues were not fully addressed by coadministering citalopram for the long term and throughout the course of ECT, these findings support the view that challenges the typical clinical practice of discontinuing SSRIs before ECT.

This study contains population size or sample size information

Administration of citalopram before ECT: seizure duration and hormone responses.

From theoretical and clinical perspectives, it is important to know if selected serotonin-reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), often administered concurrently with electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), modify seizure duration. In a study with a double-blind, cross-over design, the authors evaluated the effect of citalopram, the most selective SSRI available, on the length of electrically induced seizures and on hormone secretion during ECT. Ten depressed women were given either 20 mg citalopram or placebo orally 2 hours before the third and fourth ECT sessions. Seizure duration was assessed by the cuff technique and from electroencephalographic recordings, whereas blood for prolactin, thyrotropin, and cortisol assessment was sampled before ECT and 5, 10, 20, 30, 40, and 60 minutes after ECT. No adverse effects after the administration of citalopram were recorded. The length of seizures was not statistically different in the citalopram (29.3+/-8.4 seconds) and placebo sessions (28.2+/-9.4 seconds). Neither pre-ECT plasma hormone levels measured 2 hours after citalopram or placebo administration nor the patterns of ECT-induced hormone secretions differed between the two drug and placebo conditions. The lack of effect of citalopram on hormones in this study may be a result of possible deficiencies of the monoaminergic (i.e., serotoninergic) systems in depression. Although safety and efficacy issues were not fully addressed by coadministering citalopram for the long term and throughout the course of ECT, these findings support the view that challenges the typical clinical practice of discontinuing SSRIs before ECT.

This study does not contain population size information

Administration of citalopram before ECT: seizure duration and hormone responses.

From theoretical and clinical perspectives, it is important to know if selected serotonin-reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), often administered concurrently with electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), modify seizure duration. In a study with a double-blind, cross-over design, the authors evaluated the effect of citalopram, the most selective SSRI available, on the length of electrically induced seizures and on hormone secretion during ECT. Ten depressed women were given either 20 mg citalopram or placebo orally 2 hours before the third and fourth ECT sessions. Seizure duration was assessed by the cuff technique and from electroencephalographic recordings, whereas blood for prolactin, thyrotropin, and cortisol assessment was sampled before ECT and 5, 10, 20, 30, 40, and 60 minutes after ECT. No adverse effects after the administration of citalopram were recorded. The length of seizures was not statistically different in the citalopram (29.3+/-8.4 seconds) and placebo sessions (28.2+/-9.4 seconds). Neither pre-ECT plasma hormone levels measured 2 hours after citalopram or placebo administration nor the patterns of ECT-induced hormone secretions differed between the two drug and placebo conditions. The lack of effect of citalopram on hormones in this study may be a result of possible deficiencies of the monoaminergic (i.e., serotoninergic) systems in depression. Although safety and efficacy issues were not fully addressed by coadministering citalopram for the long term and throughout the course of ECT, these findings support the view that challenges the typical clinical practice of discontinuing SSRIs before ECT.

This study has quantitative outcomes like numbers, P-value, OR, CI, HR, RR, or patient ratios

Administration of citalopram before ECT: seizure duration and hormone responses.

From theoretical and clinical perspectives, it is important to know if selected serotonin-reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), often administered concurrently with electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), modify seizure duration. In a study with a double-blind, cross-over design, the authors evaluated the effect of citalopram, the most selective SSRI available, on the length of electrically induced seizures and on hormone secretion during ECT. Ten depressed women were given either 20 mg citalopram or placebo orally 2 hours before the third and fourth ECT sessions. Seizure duration was assessed by the cuff technique and from electroencephalographic recordings, whereas blood for prolactin, thyrotropin, and cortisol assessment was sampled before ECT and 5, 10, 20, 30, 40, and 60 minutes after ECT. No adverse effects after the administration of citalopram were recorded. The length of seizures was not statistically different in the citalopram (29.3+/-8.4 seconds) and placebo sessions (28.2+/-9.4 seconds). Neither pre-ECT plasma hormone levels measured 2 hours after citalopram or placebo administration nor the patterns of ECT-induced hormone secretions differed between the two drug and placebo conditions. The lack of effect of citalopram on hormones in this study may be a result of possible deficiencies of the monoaminergic (i.e., serotoninergic) systems in depression. Although safety and efficacy issues were not fully addressed by coadministering citalopram for the long term and throughout the course of ECT, these findings support the view that challenges the typical clinical practice of discontinuing SSRIs before ECT.

This study does not have any quantitative outcomes

Administration of citalopram before ECT: seizure duration and hormone responses.

From theoretical and clinical perspectives, it is important to know if selected serotonin-reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), often administered concurrently with electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), modify seizure duration. In a study with a double-blind, cross-over design, the authors evaluated the effect of citalopram, the most selective SSRI available, on the length of electrically induced seizures and on hormone secretion during ECT. Ten depressed women were given either 20 mg citalopram or placebo orally 2 hours before the third and fourth ECT sessions. Seizure duration was assessed by the cuff technique and from electroencephalographic recordings, whereas blood for prolactin, thyrotropin, and cortisol assessment was sampled before ECT and 5, 10, 20, 30, 40, and 60 minutes after ECT. No adverse effects after the administration of citalopram were recorded. The length of seizures was not statistically different in the citalopram (29.3+/-8.4 seconds) and placebo sessions (28.2+/-9.4 seconds). Neither pre-ECT plasma hormone levels measured 2 hours after citalopram or placebo administration nor the patterns of ECT-induced hormone secretions differed between the two drug and placebo conditions. The lack of effect of citalopram on hormones in this study may be a result of possible deficiencies of the monoaminergic (i.e., serotoninergic) systems in depression. Although safety and efficacy issues were not fully addressed by coadministering citalopram for the long term and throughout the course of ECT, these findings support the view that challenges the typical clinical practice of discontinuing SSRIs before ECT.

This study has a target drug

Administration of citalopram before ECT: seizure duration and hormone responses.

From theoretical and clinical perspectives, it is important to know if selected serotonin-reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), often administered concurrently with electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), modify seizure duration. In a study with a double-blind, cross-over design, the authors evaluated the effect of citalopram, the most selective SSRI available, on the length of electrically induced seizures and on hormone secretion during ECT. Ten depressed women were given either 20 mg citalopram or placebo orally 2 hours before the third and fourth ECT sessions. Seizure duration was assessed by the cuff technique and from electroencephalographic recordings, whereas blood for prolactin, thyrotropin, and cortisol assessment was sampled before ECT and 5, 10, 20, 30, 40, and 60 minutes after ECT. No adverse effects after the administration of citalopram were recorded. The length of seizures was not statistically different in the citalopram (29.3+/-8.4 seconds) and placebo sessions (28.2+/-9.4 seconds). Neither pre-ECT plasma hormone levels measured 2 hours after citalopram or placebo administration nor the patterns of ECT-induced hormone secretions differed between the two drug and placebo conditions. The lack of effect of citalopram on hormones in this study may be a result of possible deficiencies of the monoaminergic (i.e., serotoninergic) systems in depression. Although safety and efficacy issues were not fully addressed by coadministering citalopram for the long term and throughout the course of ECT, these findings support the view that challenges the typical clinical practice of discontinuing SSRIs before ECT.

This study does not have a target drug

Administration of citalopram before ECT: seizure duration and hormone responses.

From theoretical and clinical perspectives, it is important to know if selected serotonin-reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), often administered concurrently with electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), modify seizure duration. In a study with a double-blind, cross-over design, the authors evaluated the effect of citalopram, the most selective SSRI available, on the length of electrically induced seizures and on hormone secretion during ECT. Ten depressed women were given either 20 mg citalopram or placebo orally 2 hours before the third and fourth ECT sessions. Seizure duration was assessed by the cuff technique and from electroencephalographic recordings, whereas blood for prolactin, thyrotropin, and cortisol assessment was sampled before ECT and 5, 10, 20, 30, 40, and 60 minutes after ECT. No adverse effects after the administration of citalopram were recorded. The length of seizures was not statistically different in the citalopram (29.3+/-8.4 seconds) and placebo sessions (28.2+/-9.4 seconds). Neither pre-ECT plasma hormone levels measured 2 hours after citalopram or placebo administration nor the patterns of ECT-induced hormone secretions differed between the two drug and placebo conditions. The lack of effect of citalopram on hormones in this study may be a result of possible deficiencies of the monoaminergic (i.e., serotoninergic) systems in depression. Although safety and efficacy issues were not fully addressed by coadministering citalopram for the long term and throughout the course of ECT, these findings support the view that challenges the typical clinical practice of discontinuing SSRIs before ECT.

This study has a target disease

Administration of citalopram before ECT: seizure duration and hormone responses.

From theoretical and clinical perspectives, it is important to know if selected serotonin-reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), often administered concurrently with electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), modify seizure duration. In a study with a double-blind, cross-over design, the authors evaluated the effect of citalopram, the most selective SSRI available, on the length of electrically induced seizures and on hormone secretion during ECT. Ten depressed women were given either 20 mg citalopram or placebo orally 2 hours before the third and fourth ECT sessions. Seizure duration was assessed by the cuff technique and from electroencephalographic recordings, whereas blood for prolactin, thyrotropin, and cortisol assessment was sampled before ECT and 5, 10, 20, 30, 40, and 60 minutes after ECT. No adverse effects after the administration of citalopram were recorded. The length of seizures was not statistically different in the citalopram (29.3+/-8.4 seconds) and placebo sessions (28.2+/-9.4 seconds). Neither pre-ECT plasma hormone levels measured 2 hours after citalopram or placebo administration nor the patterns of ECT-induced hormone secretions differed between the two drug and placebo conditions. The lack of effect of citalopram on hormones in this study may be a result of possible deficiencies of the monoaminergic (i.e., serotoninergic) systems in depression. Although safety and efficacy issues were not fully addressed by coadministering citalopram for the long term and throughout the course of ECT, these findings support the view that challenges the typical clinical practice of discontinuing SSRIs before ECT.

This study does not have a target disease

Feline urinary tract pathogens: prevalence of bacterial species and antimicrobial resistance over a 10-year period.

The purpose of this retrospective study was to identify bacterial species in cats with bacterial urinary tract infections (UTIs) and to investigate their antimicrobial susceptibilities over a 10-year period. Three hundred and thirty cultures from 280 cats were included in the study. The mean age of affected cats was 9.9 years; female cats with bacterial UTIs were significantly older than male cats with UTIs. The most common pathogen identified was Escherichia coli (42.3 per cent), followed by Streptococcus species (19.3 per cent), Staphylococcus species (15.6 per cent), Enterococcus species (6.6 per cent) and Micrococcaceae (5.8 per cent). Forty specimens (12.1 per cent) yielded growth of more than one isolate. Streptococcus and Enterococcus isolates were resistant to a significantly higher number of antimicrobial agents than E coli and Staphylococcus species isolates. Applying the formula to select rational antimicrobial therapy, bacterial isolates were most likely to be susceptible to nitrofurantoin, amoxicillin clavulanic acid, enrofloxacin and gentamicin. The antimicrobial impact factor for nitrofurantoin increased significantly over the 10-year period, whereas there was no significant change in antimicrobial impact factors for doxycycline, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, gentamicin, enrofloxacin, cephalothin and amoxicillin clavulanic acid. The detected changes in in vitro antimicrobial efficacy could help to develop hospital-specific guidelines for antimicrobial use to prevent the further development of resistance in feline uropathogens.

This study has a cohort study or clinical trial

Feline urinary tract pathogens: prevalence of bacterial species and antimicrobial resistance over a 10-year period.

The purpose of this retrospective study was to identify bacterial species in cats with bacterial urinary tract infections (UTIs) and to investigate their antimicrobial susceptibilities over a 10-year period. Three hundred and thirty cultures from 280 cats were included in the study. The mean age of affected cats was 9.9 years; female cats with bacterial UTIs were significantly older than male cats with UTIs. The most common pathogen identified was Escherichia coli (42.3 per cent), followed by Streptococcus species (19.3 per cent), Staphylococcus species (15.6 per cent), Enterococcus species (6.6 per cent) and Micrococcaceae (5.8 per cent). Forty specimens (12.1 per cent) yielded growth of more than one isolate. Streptococcus and Enterococcus isolates were resistant to a significantly higher number of antimicrobial agents than E coli and Staphylococcus species isolates. Applying the formula to select rational antimicrobial therapy, bacterial isolates were most likely to be susceptible to nitrofurantoin, amoxicillin clavulanic acid, enrofloxacin and gentamicin. The antimicrobial impact factor for nitrofurantoin increased significantly over the 10-year period, whereas there was no significant change in antimicrobial impact factors for doxycycline, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, gentamicin, enrofloxacin, cephalothin and amoxicillin clavulanic acid. The detected changes in in vitro antimicrobial efficacy could help to develop hospital-specific guidelines for antimicrobial use to prevent the further development of resistance in feline uropathogens.

This study does not have any cohorts or clinical trial

Feline urinary tract pathogens: prevalence of bacterial species and antimicrobial resistance over a 10-year period.

The purpose of this retrospective study was to identify bacterial species in cats with bacterial urinary tract infections (UTIs) and to investigate their antimicrobial susceptibilities over a 10-year period. Three hundred and thirty cultures from 280 cats were included in the study. The mean age of affected cats was 9.9 years; female cats with bacterial UTIs were significantly older than male cats with UTIs. The most common pathogen identified was Escherichia coli (42.3 per cent), followed by Streptococcus species (19.3 per cent), Staphylococcus species (15.6 per cent), Enterococcus species (6.6 per cent) and Micrococcaceae (5.8 per cent). Forty specimens (12.1 per cent) yielded growth of more than one isolate. Streptococcus and Enterococcus isolates were resistant to a significantly higher number of antimicrobial agents than E coli and Staphylococcus species isolates. Applying the formula to select rational antimicrobial therapy, bacterial isolates were most likely to be susceptible to nitrofurantoin, amoxicillin clavulanic acid, enrofloxacin and gentamicin. The antimicrobial impact factor for nitrofurantoin increased significantly over the 10-year period, whereas there was no significant change in antimicrobial impact factors for doxycycline, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, gentamicin, enrofloxacin, cephalothin and amoxicillin clavulanic acid. The detected changes in in vitro antimicrobial efficacy could help to develop hospital-specific guidelines for antimicrobial use to prevent the further development of resistance in feline uropathogens.

This study has a control, double-blind, or comparison patient group

Feline urinary tract pathogens: prevalence of bacterial species and antimicrobial resistance over a 10-year period.

The purpose of this retrospective study was to identify bacterial species in cats with bacterial urinary tract infections (UTIs) and to investigate their antimicrobial susceptibilities over a 10-year period. Three hundred and thirty cultures from 280 cats were included in the study. The mean age of affected cats was 9.9 years; female cats with bacterial UTIs were significantly older than male cats with UTIs. The most common pathogen identified was Escherichia coli (42.3 per cent), followed by Streptococcus species (19.3 per cent), Staphylococcus species (15.6 per cent), Enterococcus species (6.6 per cent) and Micrococcaceae (5.8 per cent). Forty specimens (12.1 per cent) yielded growth of more than one isolate. Streptococcus and Enterococcus isolates were resistant to a significantly higher number of antimicrobial agents than E coli and Staphylococcus species isolates. Applying the formula to select rational antimicrobial therapy, bacterial isolates were most likely to be susceptible to nitrofurantoin, amoxicillin clavulanic acid, enrofloxacin and gentamicin. The antimicrobial impact factor for nitrofurantoin increased significantly over the 10-year period, whereas there was no significant change in antimicrobial impact factors for doxycycline, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, gentamicin, enrofloxacin, cephalothin and amoxicillin clavulanic acid. The detected changes in in vitro antimicrobial efficacy could help to develop hospital-specific guidelines for antimicrobial use to prevent the further development of resistance in feline uropathogens.

This study does not have any comparison patient group

Feline urinary tract pathogens: prevalence of bacterial species and antimicrobial resistance over a 10-year period.

The purpose of this retrospective study was to identify bacterial species in cats with bacterial urinary tract infections (UTIs) and to investigate their antimicrobial susceptibilities over a 10-year period. Three hundred and thirty cultures from 280 cats were included in the study. The mean age of affected cats was 9.9 years; female cats with bacterial UTIs were significantly older than male cats with UTIs. The most common pathogen identified was Escherichia coli (42.3 per cent), followed by Streptococcus species (19.3 per cent), Staphylococcus species (15.6 per cent), Enterococcus species (6.6 per cent) and Micrococcaceae (5.8 per cent). Forty specimens (12.1 per cent) yielded growth of more than one isolate. Streptococcus and Enterococcus isolates were resistant to a significantly higher number of antimicrobial agents than E coli and Staphylococcus species isolates. Applying the formula to select rational antimicrobial therapy, bacterial isolates were most likely to be susceptible to nitrofurantoin, amoxicillin clavulanic acid, enrofloxacin and gentamicin. The antimicrobial impact factor for nitrofurantoin increased significantly over the 10-year period, whereas there was no significant change in antimicrobial impact factors for doxycycline, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, gentamicin, enrofloxacin, cephalothin and amoxicillin clavulanic acid. The detected changes in in vitro antimicrobial efficacy could help to develop hospital-specific guidelines for antimicrobial use to prevent the further development of resistance in feline uropathogens.

This study has human subjects

Feline urinary tract pathogens: prevalence of bacterial species and antimicrobial resistance over a 10-year period.

The purpose of this retrospective study was to identify bacterial species in cats with bacterial urinary tract infections (UTIs) and to investigate their antimicrobial susceptibilities over a 10-year period. Three hundred and thirty cultures from 280 cats were included in the study. The mean age of affected cats was 9.9 years; female cats with bacterial UTIs were significantly older than male cats with UTIs. The most common pathogen identified was Escherichia coli (42.3 per cent), followed by Streptococcus species (19.3 per cent), Staphylococcus species (15.6 per cent), Enterococcus species (6.6 per cent) and Micrococcaceae (5.8 per cent). Forty specimens (12.1 per cent) yielded growth of more than one isolate. Streptococcus and Enterococcus isolates were resistant to a significantly higher number of antimicrobial agents than E coli and Staphylococcus species isolates. Applying the formula to select rational antimicrobial therapy, bacterial isolates were most likely to be susceptible to nitrofurantoin, amoxicillin clavulanic acid, enrofloxacin and gentamicin. The antimicrobial impact factor for nitrofurantoin increased significantly over the 10-year period, whereas there was no significant change in antimicrobial impact factors for doxycycline, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, gentamicin, enrofloxacin, cephalothin and amoxicillin clavulanic acid. The detected changes in in vitro antimicrobial efficacy could help to develop hospital-specific guidelines for antimicrobial use to prevent the further development of resistance in feline uropathogens.

This study does not have human subjects

Feline urinary tract pathogens: prevalence of bacterial species and antimicrobial resistance over a 10-year period.

The purpose of this retrospective study was to identify bacterial species in cats with bacterial urinary tract infections (UTIs) and to investigate their antimicrobial susceptibilities over a 10-year period. Three hundred and thirty cultures from 280 cats were included in the study. The mean age of affected cats was 9.9 years; female cats with bacterial UTIs were significantly older than male cats with UTIs. The most common pathogen identified was Escherichia coli (42.3 per cent), followed by Streptococcus species (19.3 per cent), Staphylococcus species (15.6 per cent), Enterococcus species (6.6 per cent) and Micrococcaceae (5.8 per cent). Forty specimens (12.1 per cent) yielded growth of more than one isolate. Streptococcus and Enterococcus isolates were resistant to a significantly higher number of antimicrobial agents than E coli and Staphylococcus species isolates. Applying the formula to select rational antimicrobial therapy, bacterial isolates were most likely to be susceptible to nitrofurantoin, amoxicillin clavulanic acid, enrofloxacin and gentamicin. The antimicrobial impact factor for nitrofurantoin increased significantly over the 10-year period, whereas there was no significant change in antimicrobial impact factors for doxycycline, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, gentamicin, enrofloxacin, cephalothin and amoxicillin clavulanic acid. The detected changes in in vitro antimicrobial efficacy could help to develop hospital-specific guidelines for antimicrobial use to prevent the further development of resistance in feline uropathogens.

This study contains population size or sample size information

Feline urinary tract pathogens: prevalence of bacterial species and antimicrobial resistance over a 10-year period.

The purpose of this retrospective study was to identify bacterial species in cats with bacterial urinary tract infections (UTIs) and to investigate their antimicrobial susceptibilities over a 10-year period. Three hundred and thirty cultures from 280 cats were included in the study. The mean age of affected cats was 9.9 years; female cats with bacterial UTIs were significantly older than male cats with UTIs. The most common pathogen identified was Escherichia coli (42.3 per cent), followed by Streptococcus species (19.3 per cent), Staphylococcus species (15.6 per cent), Enterococcus species (6.6 per cent) and Micrococcaceae (5.8 per cent). Forty specimens (12.1 per cent) yielded growth of more than one isolate. Streptococcus and Enterococcus isolates were resistant to a significantly higher number of antimicrobial agents than E coli and Staphylococcus species isolates. Applying the formula to select rational antimicrobial therapy, bacterial isolates were most likely to be susceptible to nitrofurantoin, amoxicillin clavulanic acid, enrofloxacin and gentamicin. The antimicrobial impact factor for nitrofurantoin increased significantly over the 10-year period, whereas there was no significant change in antimicrobial impact factors for doxycycline, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, gentamicin, enrofloxacin, cephalothin and amoxicillin clavulanic acid. The detected changes in in vitro antimicrobial efficacy could help to develop hospital-specific guidelines for antimicrobial use to prevent the further development of resistance in feline uropathogens.

This study does not contain population size information

Feline urinary tract pathogens: prevalence of bacterial species and antimicrobial resistance over a 10-year period.

The purpose of this retrospective study was to identify bacterial species in cats with bacterial urinary tract infections (UTIs) and to investigate their antimicrobial susceptibilities over a 10-year period. Three hundred and thirty cultures from 280 cats were included in the study. The mean age of affected cats was 9.9 years; female cats with bacterial UTIs were significantly older than male cats with UTIs. The most common pathogen identified was Escherichia coli (42.3 per cent), followed by Streptococcus species (19.3 per cent), Staphylococcus species (15.6 per cent), Enterococcus species (6.6 per cent) and Micrococcaceae (5.8 per cent). Forty specimens (12.1 per cent) yielded growth of more than one isolate. Streptococcus and Enterococcus isolates were resistant to a significantly higher number of antimicrobial agents than E coli and Staphylococcus species isolates. Applying the formula to select rational antimicrobial therapy, bacterial isolates were most likely to be susceptible to nitrofurantoin, amoxicillin clavulanic acid, enrofloxacin and gentamicin. The antimicrobial impact factor for nitrofurantoin increased significantly over the 10-year period, whereas there was no significant change in antimicrobial impact factors for doxycycline, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, gentamicin, enrofloxacin, cephalothin and amoxicillin clavulanic acid. The detected changes in in vitro antimicrobial efficacy could help to develop hospital-specific guidelines for antimicrobial use to prevent the further development of resistance in feline uropathogens.

This study has quantitative outcomes like numbers, P-value, OR, CI, HR, RR, or patient ratios

Feline urinary tract pathogens: prevalence of bacterial species and antimicrobial resistance over a 10-year period.

The purpose of this retrospective study was to identify bacterial species in cats with bacterial urinary tract infections (UTIs) and to investigate their antimicrobial susceptibilities over a 10-year period. Three hundred and thirty cultures from 280 cats were included in the study. The mean age of affected cats was 9.9 years; female cats with bacterial UTIs were significantly older than male cats with UTIs. The most common pathogen identified was Escherichia coli (42.3 per cent), followed by Streptococcus species (19.3 per cent), Staphylococcus species (15.6 per cent), Enterococcus species (6.6 per cent) and Micrococcaceae (5.8 per cent). Forty specimens (12.1 per cent) yielded growth of more than one isolate. Streptococcus and Enterococcus isolates were resistant to a significantly higher number of antimicrobial agents than E coli and Staphylococcus species isolates. Applying the formula to select rational antimicrobial therapy, bacterial isolates were most likely to be susceptible to nitrofurantoin, amoxicillin clavulanic acid, enrofloxacin and gentamicin. The antimicrobial impact factor for nitrofurantoin increased significantly over the 10-year period, whereas there was no significant change in antimicrobial impact factors for doxycycline, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, gentamicin, enrofloxacin, cephalothin and amoxicillin clavulanic acid. The detected changes in in vitro antimicrobial efficacy could help to develop hospital-specific guidelines for antimicrobial use to prevent the further development of resistance in feline uropathogens.

This study does not have any quantitative outcomes

Feline urinary tract pathogens: prevalence of bacterial species and antimicrobial resistance over a 10-year period.

The purpose of this retrospective study was to identify bacterial species in cats with bacterial urinary tract infections (UTIs) and to investigate their antimicrobial susceptibilities over a 10-year period. Three hundred and thirty cultures from 280 cats were included in the study. The mean age of affected cats was 9.9 years; female cats with bacterial UTIs were significantly older than male cats with UTIs. The most common pathogen identified was Escherichia coli (42.3 per cent), followed by Streptococcus species (19.3 per cent), Staphylococcus species (15.6 per cent), Enterococcus species (6.6 per cent) and Micrococcaceae (5.8 per cent). Forty specimens (12.1 per cent) yielded growth of more than one isolate. Streptococcus and Enterococcus isolates were resistant to a significantly higher number of antimicrobial agents than E coli and Staphylococcus species isolates. Applying the formula to select rational antimicrobial therapy, bacterial isolates were most likely to be susceptible to nitrofurantoin, amoxicillin clavulanic acid, enrofloxacin and gentamicin. The antimicrobial impact factor for nitrofurantoin increased significantly over the 10-year period, whereas there was no significant change in antimicrobial impact factors for doxycycline, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, gentamicin, enrofloxacin, cephalothin and amoxicillin clavulanic acid. The detected changes in in vitro antimicrobial efficacy could help to develop hospital-specific guidelines for antimicrobial use to prevent the further development of resistance in feline uropathogens.

This study has a target drug

Feline urinary tract pathogens: prevalence of bacterial species and antimicrobial resistance over a 10-year period.

The purpose of this retrospective study was to identify bacterial species in cats with bacterial urinary tract infections (UTIs) and to investigate their antimicrobial susceptibilities over a 10-year period. Three hundred and thirty cultures from 280 cats were included in the study. The mean age of affected cats was 9.9 years; female cats with bacterial UTIs were significantly older than male cats with UTIs. The most common pathogen identified was Escherichia coli (42.3 per cent), followed by Streptococcus species (19.3 per cent), Staphylococcus species (15.6 per cent), Enterococcus species (6.6 per cent) and Micrococcaceae (5.8 per cent). Forty specimens (12.1 per cent) yielded growth of more than one isolate. Streptococcus and Enterococcus isolates were resistant to a significantly higher number of antimicrobial agents than E coli and Staphylococcus species isolates. Applying the formula to select rational antimicrobial therapy, bacterial isolates were most likely to be susceptible to nitrofurantoin, amoxicillin clavulanic acid, enrofloxacin and gentamicin. The antimicrobial impact factor for nitrofurantoin increased significantly over the 10-year period, whereas there was no significant change in antimicrobial impact factors for doxycycline, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, gentamicin, enrofloxacin, cephalothin and amoxicillin clavulanic acid. The detected changes in in vitro antimicrobial efficacy could help to develop hospital-specific guidelines for antimicrobial use to prevent the further development of resistance in feline uropathogens.

This study does not have a target drug

Feline urinary tract pathogens: prevalence of bacterial species and antimicrobial resistance over a 10-year period.

The purpose of this retrospective study was to identify bacterial species in cats with bacterial urinary tract infections (UTIs) and to investigate their antimicrobial susceptibilities over a 10-year period. Three hundred and thirty cultures from 280 cats were included in the study. The mean age of affected cats was 9.9 years; female cats with bacterial UTIs were significantly older than male cats with UTIs. The most common pathogen identified was Escherichia coli (42.3 per cent), followed by Streptococcus species (19.3 per cent), Staphylococcus species (15.6 per cent), Enterococcus species (6.6 per cent) and Micrococcaceae (5.8 per cent). Forty specimens (12.1 per cent) yielded growth of more than one isolate. Streptococcus and Enterococcus isolates were resistant to a significantly higher number of antimicrobial agents than E coli and Staphylococcus species isolates. Applying the formula to select rational antimicrobial therapy, bacterial isolates were most likely to be susceptible to nitrofurantoin, amoxicillin clavulanic acid, enrofloxacin and gentamicin. The antimicrobial impact factor for nitrofurantoin increased significantly over the 10-year period, whereas there was no significant change in antimicrobial impact factors for doxycycline, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, gentamicin, enrofloxacin, cephalothin and amoxicillin clavulanic acid. The detected changes in in vitro antimicrobial efficacy could help to develop hospital-specific guidelines for antimicrobial use to prevent the further development of resistance in feline uropathogens.

This study has a target disease

Feline urinary tract pathogens: prevalence of bacterial species and antimicrobial resistance over a 10-year period.

The purpose of this retrospective study was to identify bacterial species in cats with bacterial urinary tract infections (UTIs) and to investigate their antimicrobial susceptibilities over a 10-year period. Three hundred and thirty cultures from 280 cats were included in the study. The mean age of affected cats was 9.9 years; female cats with bacterial UTIs were significantly older than male cats with UTIs. The most common pathogen identified was Escherichia coli (42.3 per cent), followed by Streptococcus species (19.3 per cent), Staphylococcus species (15.6 per cent), Enterococcus species (6.6 per cent) and Micrococcaceae (5.8 per cent). Forty specimens (12.1 per cent) yielded growth of more than one isolate. Streptococcus and Enterococcus isolates were resistant to a significantly higher number of antimicrobial agents than E coli and Staphylococcus species isolates. Applying the formula to select rational antimicrobial therapy, bacterial isolates were most likely to be susceptible to nitrofurantoin, amoxicillin clavulanic acid, enrofloxacin and gentamicin. The antimicrobial impact factor for nitrofurantoin increased significantly over the 10-year period, whereas there was no significant change in antimicrobial impact factors for doxycycline, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, gentamicin, enrofloxacin, cephalothin and amoxicillin clavulanic acid. The detected changes in in vitro antimicrobial efficacy could help to develop hospital-specific guidelines for antimicrobial use to prevent the further development of resistance in feline uropathogens.

This study does not have a target disease

The difference between clopidogrel responsiveness and posttreatment platelet reactivity.

Aggregation is the most common measure of platelet reactivity. The relative inhibition of platelet aggregation between pretreatment and posttreatment is the most common estimate of clopidogrel responsiveness. However, patients responsive to clopidogrel may remain with highly reactive platelets and thus have increased thrombotic risk. Platelet reactivity was determined by ADP-induced aggregation (%) in 62 patients undergoing elective coronary stenting at pretreatment and 5 days postprocedure. All patients were on aspirin (325 mg) and received 300 mg of clopidogrel immediately poststenting and 75 mg qd. Pretreatment reactivity was divided into tertiles. Based on clopidogrel drug responsiveness, nonresponders were defined as <10% relative inhibition of pretreatment aggregation, semiresponders as 10-30%, and responders as >30%. We determined the relation between clopidogrel responsiveness and platelet reactivity. Pretreatment reactivity tertiles by 5 microM ADP were: low (47+/-9%), moderate (64+/-4%), and high (78+/-6%). Eight patients were nonresponders, 18 were semiresponders, and 36 were responders. Clopidogrel responsiveness directly correlated with pretreatment reactivity, 86% of responders had moderate or high pretreatment reactivity, whereas 75% of nonresponders had low pretreatment reactivity. Despite being more responsive, 16% of patients with high pretreatment reactivity and 17% with moderate pretreatment reactivity remained with moderate posttreatment reactivity. Measuring clopidogrel responsiveness may overestimate the risk of stent thrombosis in nonresponders with low pretreatment reactivity and underestimate risk in those responders who remain with high posttreatment platelet reactivity. Posttreatment platelet reactivity is a better measure of thrombotic risk than responsiveness to clopidogrel.

This study has a cohort study or clinical trial

The difference between clopidogrel responsiveness and posttreatment platelet reactivity.

Aggregation is the most common measure of platelet reactivity. The relative inhibition of platelet aggregation between pretreatment and posttreatment is the most common estimate of clopidogrel responsiveness. However, patients responsive to clopidogrel may remain with highly reactive platelets and thus have increased thrombotic risk. Platelet reactivity was determined by ADP-induced aggregation (%) in 62 patients undergoing elective coronary stenting at pretreatment and 5 days postprocedure. All patients were on aspirin (325 mg) and received 300 mg of clopidogrel immediately poststenting and 75 mg qd. Pretreatment reactivity was divided into tertiles. Based on clopidogrel drug responsiveness, nonresponders were defined as <10% relative inhibition of pretreatment aggregation, semiresponders as 10-30%, and responders as >30%. We determined the relation between clopidogrel responsiveness and platelet reactivity. Pretreatment reactivity tertiles by 5 microM ADP were: low (47+/-9%), moderate (64+/-4%), and high (78+/-6%). Eight patients were nonresponders, 18 were semiresponders, and 36 were responders. Clopidogrel responsiveness directly correlated with pretreatment reactivity, 86% of responders had moderate or high pretreatment reactivity, whereas 75% of nonresponders had low pretreatment reactivity. Despite being more responsive, 16% of patients with high pretreatment reactivity and 17% with moderate pretreatment reactivity remained with moderate posttreatment reactivity. Measuring clopidogrel responsiveness may overestimate the risk of stent thrombosis in nonresponders with low pretreatment reactivity and underestimate risk in those responders who remain with high posttreatment platelet reactivity. Posttreatment platelet reactivity is a better measure of thrombotic risk than responsiveness to clopidogrel.

This study does not have any cohorts or clinical trial

The difference between clopidogrel responsiveness and posttreatment platelet reactivity.

Aggregation is the most common measure of platelet reactivity. The relative inhibition of platelet aggregation between pretreatment and posttreatment is the most common estimate of clopidogrel responsiveness. However, patients responsive to clopidogrel may remain with highly reactive platelets and thus have increased thrombotic risk. Platelet reactivity was determined by ADP-induced aggregation (%) in 62 patients undergoing elective coronary stenting at pretreatment and 5 days postprocedure. All patients were on aspirin (325 mg) and received 300 mg of clopidogrel immediately poststenting and 75 mg qd. Pretreatment reactivity was divided into tertiles. Based on clopidogrel drug responsiveness, nonresponders were defined as <10% relative inhibition of pretreatment aggregation, semiresponders as 10-30%, and responders as >30%. We determined the relation between clopidogrel responsiveness and platelet reactivity. Pretreatment reactivity tertiles by 5 microM ADP were: low (47+/-9%), moderate (64+/-4%), and high (78+/-6%). Eight patients were nonresponders, 18 were semiresponders, and 36 were responders. Clopidogrel responsiveness directly correlated with pretreatment reactivity, 86% of responders had moderate or high pretreatment reactivity, whereas 75% of nonresponders had low pretreatment reactivity. Despite being more responsive, 16% of patients with high pretreatment reactivity and 17% with moderate pretreatment reactivity remained with moderate posttreatment reactivity. Measuring clopidogrel responsiveness may overestimate the risk of stent thrombosis in nonresponders with low pretreatment reactivity and underestimate risk in those responders who remain with high posttreatment platelet reactivity. Posttreatment platelet reactivity is a better measure of thrombotic risk than responsiveness to clopidogrel.

This study has a control, double-blind, or comparison patient group

The difference between clopidogrel responsiveness and posttreatment platelet reactivity.

Aggregation is the most common measure of platelet reactivity. The relative inhibition of platelet aggregation between pretreatment and posttreatment is the most common estimate of clopidogrel responsiveness. However, patients responsive to clopidogrel may remain with highly reactive platelets and thus have increased thrombotic risk. Platelet reactivity was determined by ADP-induced aggregation (%) in 62 patients undergoing elective coronary stenting at pretreatment and 5 days postprocedure. All patients were on aspirin (325 mg) and received 300 mg of clopidogrel immediately poststenting and 75 mg qd. Pretreatment reactivity was divided into tertiles. Based on clopidogrel drug responsiveness, nonresponders were defined as <10% relative inhibition of pretreatment aggregation, semiresponders as 10-30%, and responders as >30%. We determined the relation between clopidogrel responsiveness and platelet reactivity. Pretreatment reactivity tertiles by 5 microM ADP were: low (47+/-9%), moderate (64+/-4%), and high (78+/-6%). Eight patients were nonresponders, 18 were semiresponders, and 36 were responders. Clopidogrel responsiveness directly correlated with pretreatment reactivity, 86% of responders had moderate or high pretreatment reactivity, whereas 75% of nonresponders had low pretreatment reactivity. Despite being more responsive, 16% of patients with high pretreatment reactivity and 17% with moderate pretreatment reactivity remained with moderate posttreatment reactivity. Measuring clopidogrel responsiveness may overestimate the risk of stent thrombosis in nonresponders with low pretreatment reactivity and underestimate risk in those responders who remain with high posttreatment platelet reactivity. Posttreatment platelet reactivity is a better measure of thrombotic risk than responsiveness to clopidogrel.

This study does not have any comparison patient group