Datasets:

AshtonIsNotHere

/

biosift-nli

like 2

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 human subjects

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 human subjects

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 contains population size or sample size information

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 contain population size information

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

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 quantitative outcomes

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 target drug

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 a target drug

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 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 does not have a target disease

Regular treatment with salmeterol and inhaled steroids for chronic asthma: serious adverse events.

Epidemiological evidence has suggested a link between beta(2)-agonists and increased asthma mortality. There has been much debate about possible causal links for this association, and whether regular (daily) long-acting beta(2)-agonists are safe. The aim of this review is to assess the risk of fatal and non-fatal serious adverse events in trials that randomised patients with chronic asthma to regular salmeterol with inhaled corticosteroids versus the same dose of inhaled corticosteroids alone. Trials were identified using the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials. Web sites of clinical trial registers were checked for unpublished trial data and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) submissions in relation to salmeterol were also checked. The date of the most recent search was October 2008. Controlled parallel design clinical trials on patients of any age and severity of asthma were included if they randomised patients to treatment with regular salmeterol and inhaled corticosteroids (in separate or combined inhalers), and were of at least 12 weeks duration. Two authors independently selected trials for inclusion in the review. Outcome data were independently extracted by two authors. Unpublished data on mortality and serious adverse events were obtained from the sponsors, and from FDA submissions. The review included 30 studies (10,873 participants) in adults and adolescents, and three studies (1,173 participants) in children. The overall risk of bias was low and data on serious adverse events were obtained from all studies.Six deaths occurred in 5,710 adults on regular salmeterol with inhaled corticosteroids, and five deaths in 5,163 adults on regular inhaled corticosteroids at the same dose. The difference was not statistically significant (Peto OR 1.05; 95% CI 0.32 to 3.47) and the absolute difference between groups in risk of death of any cause was 0.00005 (95% CI -0.002 to 0.002). No deaths were reported in 1,173 children, and no deaths were reported to be asthma-related.Non-fatal serious adverse events of any cause were reported in 134 adults on regular salmeterol with inhaled corticosteroids, compared to 103 adults on regular inhaled corticosteroids; again this was not a significant increase (Peto OR 1.17; 95% CI 0.90 to 1.52). The absolute difference in the risk of non-fatal serious adverse events was 0.003 (95% CI -0.002 to 0.009).There were three of 586 children with serious adverse events on regular salmeterol with inhaled corticosteroids, compared to four out of 587 on regular inhaled corticosteroids: there was no significant difference between treatments (Peto OR 0.75; 95% CI 0.17 to 3.31).Asthma-related serious adverse events were reported in 23 and 21 adults in each group respectively, a non-significant difference (Peto OR 0.95; 95% CI 0.52 to 1.73), and only one event was reported in children. No significant differences have been found in fatal or non-fatal serious adverse events in trials in which regular salmeterol has been randomly allocated with inhaled corticosteroids, in comparison to inhaled corticosteroids at the same dose. Although 10,873 adults and 1,173 children have been included in trials, the number of patients suffering adverse events is too small, and the results are too imprecise to confidently rule out a relative increase in all-cause mortality or non-fatal adverse events. It is therefore not possible to determine whether the increase in all-cause non-fatal serious adverse events reported in the previous meta-analysis on regular salmeterol alone is abolished by the additional use of regular inhaled corticosteroids. The absolute difference between groups in the risk of serious adverse events was small. There were no asthma-related deaths and few asthma-related serious adverse events. Clinical decisions and information for patients regarding regular use of salmeterol have to take into account the balance between known symptomatic benefits of salmeterol and the degree of uncertainty and concern associated with its potential harmful effects.

This study has a cohort study or clinical trial

Regular treatment with salmeterol and inhaled steroids for chronic asthma: serious adverse events.

Epidemiological evidence has suggested a link between beta(2)-agonists and increased asthma mortality. There has been much debate about possible causal links for this association, and whether regular (daily) long-acting beta(2)-agonists are safe. The aim of this review is to assess the risk of fatal and non-fatal serious adverse events in trials that randomised patients with chronic asthma to regular salmeterol with inhaled corticosteroids versus the same dose of inhaled corticosteroids alone. Trials were identified using the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials. Web sites of clinical trial registers were checked for unpublished trial data and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) submissions in relation to salmeterol were also checked. The date of the most recent search was October 2008. Controlled parallel design clinical trials on patients of any age and severity of asthma were included if they randomised patients to treatment with regular salmeterol and inhaled corticosteroids (in separate or combined inhalers), and were of at least 12 weeks duration. Two authors independently selected trials for inclusion in the review. Outcome data were independently extracted by two authors. Unpublished data on mortality and serious adverse events were obtained from the sponsors, and from FDA submissions. The review included 30 studies (10,873 participants) in adults and adolescents, and three studies (1,173 participants) in children. The overall risk of bias was low and data on serious adverse events were obtained from all studies.Six deaths occurred in 5,710 adults on regular salmeterol with inhaled corticosteroids, and five deaths in 5,163 adults on regular inhaled corticosteroids at the same dose. The difference was not statistically significant (Peto OR 1.05; 95% CI 0.32 to 3.47) and the absolute difference between groups in risk of death of any cause was 0.00005 (95% CI -0.002 to 0.002). No deaths were reported in 1,173 children, and no deaths were reported to be asthma-related.Non-fatal serious adverse events of any cause were reported in 134 adults on regular salmeterol with inhaled corticosteroids, compared to 103 adults on regular inhaled corticosteroids; again this was not a significant increase (Peto OR 1.17; 95% CI 0.90 to 1.52). The absolute difference in the risk of non-fatal serious adverse events was 0.003 (95% CI -0.002 to 0.009).There were three of 586 children with serious adverse events on regular salmeterol with inhaled corticosteroids, compared to four out of 587 on regular inhaled corticosteroids: there was no significant difference between treatments (Peto OR 0.75; 95% CI 0.17 to 3.31).Asthma-related serious adverse events were reported in 23 and 21 adults in each group respectively, a non-significant difference (Peto OR 0.95; 95% CI 0.52 to 1.73), and only one event was reported in children. No significant differences have been found in fatal or non-fatal serious adverse events in trials in which regular salmeterol has been randomly allocated with inhaled corticosteroids, in comparison to inhaled corticosteroids at the same dose. Although 10,873 adults and 1,173 children have been included in trials, the number of patients suffering adverse events is too small, and the results are too imprecise to confidently rule out a relative increase in all-cause mortality or non-fatal adverse events. It is therefore not possible to determine whether the increase in all-cause non-fatal serious adverse events reported in the previous meta-analysis on regular salmeterol alone is abolished by the additional use of regular inhaled corticosteroids. The absolute difference between groups in the risk of serious adverse events was small. There were no asthma-related deaths and few asthma-related serious adverse events. Clinical decisions and information for patients regarding regular use of salmeterol have to take into account the balance between known symptomatic benefits of salmeterol and the degree of uncertainty and concern associated with its potential harmful effects.

This study does not have any cohorts or clinical trial

Regular treatment with salmeterol and inhaled steroids for chronic asthma: serious adverse events.

Epidemiological evidence has suggested a link between beta(2)-agonists and increased asthma mortality. There has been much debate about possible causal links for this association, and whether regular (daily) long-acting beta(2)-agonists are safe. The aim of this review is to assess the risk of fatal and non-fatal serious adverse events in trials that randomised patients with chronic asthma to regular salmeterol with inhaled corticosteroids versus the same dose of inhaled corticosteroids alone. Trials were identified using the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials. Web sites of clinical trial registers were checked for unpublished trial data and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) submissions in relation to salmeterol were also checked. The date of the most recent search was October 2008. Controlled parallel design clinical trials on patients of any age and severity of asthma were included if they randomised patients to treatment with regular salmeterol and inhaled corticosteroids (in separate or combined inhalers), and were of at least 12 weeks duration. Two authors independently selected trials for inclusion in the review. Outcome data were independently extracted by two authors. Unpublished data on mortality and serious adverse events were obtained from the sponsors, and from FDA submissions. The review included 30 studies (10,873 participants) in adults and adolescents, and three studies (1,173 participants) in children. The overall risk of bias was low and data on serious adverse events were obtained from all studies.Six deaths occurred in 5,710 adults on regular salmeterol with inhaled corticosteroids, and five deaths in 5,163 adults on regular inhaled corticosteroids at the same dose. The difference was not statistically significant (Peto OR 1.05; 95% CI 0.32 to 3.47) and the absolute difference between groups in risk of death of any cause was 0.00005 (95% CI -0.002 to 0.002). No deaths were reported in 1,173 children, and no deaths were reported to be asthma-related.Non-fatal serious adverse events of any cause were reported in 134 adults on regular salmeterol with inhaled corticosteroids, compared to 103 adults on regular inhaled corticosteroids; again this was not a significant increase (Peto OR 1.17; 95% CI 0.90 to 1.52). The absolute difference in the risk of non-fatal serious adverse events was 0.003 (95% CI -0.002 to 0.009).There were three of 586 children with serious adverse events on regular salmeterol with inhaled corticosteroids, compared to four out of 587 on regular inhaled corticosteroids: there was no significant difference between treatments (Peto OR 0.75; 95% CI 0.17 to 3.31).Asthma-related serious adverse events were reported in 23 and 21 adults in each group respectively, a non-significant difference (Peto OR 0.95; 95% CI 0.52 to 1.73), and only one event was reported in children. No significant differences have been found in fatal or non-fatal serious adverse events in trials in which regular salmeterol has been randomly allocated with inhaled corticosteroids, in comparison to inhaled corticosteroids at the same dose. Although 10,873 adults and 1,173 children have been included in trials, the number of patients suffering adverse events is too small, and the results are too imprecise to confidently rule out a relative increase in all-cause mortality or non-fatal adverse events. It is therefore not possible to determine whether the increase in all-cause non-fatal serious adverse events reported in the previous meta-analysis on regular salmeterol alone is abolished by the additional use of regular inhaled corticosteroids. The absolute difference between groups in the risk of serious adverse events was small. There were no asthma-related deaths and few asthma-related serious adverse events. Clinical decisions and information for patients regarding regular use of salmeterol have to take into account the balance between known symptomatic benefits of salmeterol and the degree of uncertainty and concern associated with its potential harmful effects.

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

Regular treatment with salmeterol and inhaled steroids for chronic asthma: serious adverse events.

Epidemiological evidence has suggested a link between beta(2)-agonists and increased asthma mortality. There has been much debate about possible causal links for this association, and whether regular (daily) long-acting beta(2)-agonists are safe. The aim of this review is to assess the risk of fatal and non-fatal serious adverse events in trials that randomised patients with chronic asthma to regular salmeterol with inhaled corticosteroids versus the same dose of inhaled corticosteroids alone. Trials were identified using the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials. Web sites of clinical trial registers were checked for unpublished trial data and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) submissions in relation to salmeterol were also checked. The date of the most recent search was October 2008. Controlled parallel design clinical trials on patients of any age and severity of asthma were included if they randomised patients to treatment with regular salmeterol and inhaled corticosteroids (in separate or combined inhalers), and were of at least 12 weeks duration. Two authors independently selected trials for inclusion in the review. Outcome data were independently extracted by two authors. Unpublished data on mortality and serious adverse events were obtained from the sponsors, and from FDA submissions. The review included 30 studies (10,873 participants) in adults and adolescents, and three studies (1,173 participants) in children. The overall risk of bias was low and data on serious adverse events were obtained from all studies.Six deaths occurred in 5,710 adults on regular salmeterol with inhaled corticosteroids, and five deaths in 5,163 adults on regular inhaled corticosteroids at the same dose. The difference was not statistically significant (Peto OR 1.05; 95% CI 0.32 to 3.47) and the absolute difference between groups in risk of death of any cause was 0.00005 (95% CI -0.002 to 0.002). No deaths were reported in 1,173 children, and no deaths were reported to be asthma-related.Non-fatal serious adverse events of any cause were reported in 134 adults on regular salmeterol with inhaled corticosteroids, compared to 103 adults on regular inhaled corticosteroids; again this was not a significant increase (Peto OR 1.17; 95% CI 0.90 to 1.52). The absolute difference in the risk of non-fatal serious adverse events was 0.003 (95% CI -0.002 to 0.009).There were three of 586 children with serious adverse events on regular salmeterol with inhaled corticosteroids, compared to four out of 587 on regular inhaled corticosteroids: there was no significant difference between treatments (Peto OR 0.75; 95% CI 0.17 to 3.31).Asthma-related serious adverse events were reported in 23 and 21 adults in each group respectively, a non-significant difference (Peto OR 0.95; 95% CI 0.52 to 1.73), and only one event was reported in children. No significant differences have been found in fatal or non-fatal serious adverse events in trials in which regular salmeterol has been randomly allocated with inhaled corticosteroids, in comparison to inhaled corticosteroids at the same dose. Although 10,873 adults and 1,173 children have been included in trials, the number of patients suffering adverse events is too small, and the results are too imprecise to confidently rule out a relative increase in all-cause mortality or non-fatal adverse events. It is therefore not possible to determine whether the increase in all-cause non-fatal serious adverse events reported in the previous meta-analysis on regular salmeterol alone is abolished by the additional use of regular inhaled corticosteroids. The absolute difference between groups in the risk of serious adverse events was small. There were no asthma-related deaths and few asthma-related serious adverse events. Clinical decisions and information for patients regarding regular use of salmeterol have to take into account the balance between known symptomatic benefits of salmeterol and the degree of uncertainty and concern associated with its potential harmful effects.

This study does not have any comparison patient group

Regular treatment with salmeterol and inhaled steroids for chronic asthma: serious adverse events.

Epidemiological evidence has suggested a link between beta(2)-agonists and increased asthma mortality. There has been much debate about possible causal links for this association, and whether regular (daily) long-acting beta(2)-agonists are safe. The aim of this review is to assess the risk of fatal and non-fatal serious adverse events in trials that randomised patients with chronic asthma to regular salmeterol with inhaled corticosteroids versus the same dose of inhaled corticosteroids alone. Trials were identified using the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials. Web sites of clinical trial registers were checked for unpublished trial data and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) submissions in relation to salmeterol were also checked. The date of the most recent search was October 2008. Controlled parallel design clinical trials on patients of any age and severity of asthma were included if they randomised patients to treatment with regular salmeterol and inhaled corticosteroids (in separate or combined inhalers), and were of at least 12 weeks duration. Two authors independently selected trials for inclusion in the review. Outcome data were independently extracted by two authors. Unpublished data on mortality and serious adverse events were obtained from the sponsors, and from FDA submissions. The review included 30 studies (10,873 participants) in adults and adolescents, and three studies (1,173 participants) in children. The overall risk of bias was low and data on serious adverse events were obtained from all studies.Six deaths occurred in 5,710 adults on regular salmeterol with inhaled corticosteroids, and five deaths in 5,163 adults on regular inhaled corticosteroids at the same dose. The difference was not statistically significant (Peto OR 1.05; 95% CI 0.32 to 3.47) and the absolute difference between groups in risk of death of any cause was 0.00005 (95% CI -0.002 to 0.002). No deaths were reported in 1,173 children, and no deaths were reported to be asthma-related.Non-fatal serious adverse events of any cause were reported in 134 adults on regular salmeterol with inhaled corticosteroids, compared to 103 adults on regular inhaled corticosteroids; again this was not a significant increase (Peto OR 1.17; 95% CI 0.90 to 1.52). The absolute difference in the risk of non-fatal serious adverse events was 0.003 (95% CI -0.002 to 0.009).There were three of 586 children with serious adverse events on regular salmeterol with inhaled corticosteroids, compared to four out of 587 on regular inhaled corticosteroids: there was no significant difference between treatments (Peto OR 0.75; 95% CI 0.17 to 3.31).Asthma-related serious adverse events were reported in 23 and 21 adults in each group respectively, a non-significant difference (Peto OR 0.95; 95% CI 0.52 to 1.73), and only one event was reported in children. No significant differences have been found in fatal or non-fatal serious adverse events in trials in which regular salmeterol has been randomly allocated with inhaled corticosteroids, in comparison to inhaled corticosteroids at the same dose. Although 10,873 adults and 1,173 children have been included in trials, the number of patients suffering adverse events is too small, and the results are too imprecise to confidently rule out a relative increase in all-cause mortality or non-fatal adverse events. It is therefore not possible to determine whether the increase in all-cause non-fatal serious adverse events reported in the previous meta-analysis on regular salmeterol alone is abolished by the additional use of regular inhaled corticosteroids. The absolute difference between groups in the risk of serious adverse events was small. There were no asthma-related deaths and few asthma-related serious adverse events. Clinical decisions and information for patients regarding regular use of salmeterol have to take into account the balance between known symptomatic benefits of salmeterol and the degree of uncertainty and concern associated with its potential harmful effects.

This study has human subjects

Regular treatment with salmeterol and inhaled steroids for chronic asthma: serious adverse events.

Epidemiological evidence has suggested a link between beta(2)-agonists and increased asthma mortality. There has been much debate about possible causal links for this association, and whether regular (daily) long-acting beta(2)-agonists are safe. The aim of this review is to assess the risk of fatal and non-fatal serious adverse events in trials that randomised patients with chronic asthma to regular salmeterol with inhaled corticosteroids versus the same dose of inhaled corticosteroids alone. Trials were identified using the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials. Web sites of clinical trial registers were checked for unpublished trial data and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) submissions in relation to salmeterol were also checked. The date of the most recent search was October 2008. Controlled parallel design clinical trials on patients of any age and severity of asthma were included if they randomised patients to treatment with regular salmeterol and inhaled corticosteroids (in separate or combined inhalers), and were of at least 12 weeks duration. Two authors independently selected trials for inclusion in the review. Outcome data were independently extracted by two authors. Unpublished data on mortality and serious adverse events were obtained from the sponsors, and from FDA submissions. The review included 30 studies (10,873 participants) in adults and adolescents, and three studies (1,173 participants) in children. The overall risk of bias was low and data on serious adverse events were obtained from all studies.Six deaths occurred in 5,710 adults on regular salmeterol with inhaled corticosteroids, and five deaths in 5,163 adults on regular inhaled corticosteroids at the same dose. The difference was not statistically significant (Peto OR 1.05; 95% CI 0.32 to 3.47) and the absolute difference between groups in risk of death of any cause was 0.00005 (95% CI -0.002 to 0.002). No deaths were reported in 1,173 children, and no deaths were reported to be asthma-related.Non-fatal serious adverse events of any cause were reported in 134 adults on regular salmeterol with inhaled corticosteroids, compared to 103 adults on regular inhaled corticosteroids; again this was not a significant increase (Peto OR 1.17; 95% CI 0.90 to 1.52). The absolute difference in the risk of non-fatal serious adverse events was 0.003 (95% CI -0.002 to 0.009).There were three of 586 children with serious adverse events on regular salmeterol with inhaled corticosteroids, compared to four out of 587 on regular inhaled corticosteroids: there was no significant difference between treatments (Peto OR 0.75; 95% CI 0.17 to 3.31).Asthma-related serious adverse events were reported in 23 and 21 adults in each group respectively, a non-significant difference (Peto OR 0.95; 95% CI 0.52 to 1.73), and only one event was reported in children. No significant differences have been found in fatal or non-fatal serious adverse events in trials in which regular salmeterol has been randomly allocated with inhaled corticosteroids, in comparison to inhaled corticosteroids at the same dose. Although 10,873 adults and 1,173 children have been included in trials, the number of patients suffering adverse events is too small, and the results are too imprecise to confidently rule out a relative increase in all-cause mortality or non-fatal adverse events. It is therefore not possible to determine whether the increase in all-cause non-fatal serious adverse events reported in the previous meta-analysis on regular salmeterol alone is abolished by the additional use of regular inhaled corticosteroids. The absolute difference between groups in the risk of serious adverse events was small. There were no asthma-related deaths and few asthma-related serious adverse events. Clinical decisions and information for patients regarding regular use of salmeterol have to take into account the balance between known symptomatic benefits of salmeterol and the degree of uncertainty and concern associated with its potential harmful effects.

This study does not have human subjects

Regular treatment with salmeterol and inhaled steroids for chronic asthma: serious adverse events.

Epidemiological evidence has suggested a link between beta(2)-agonists and increased asthma mortality. There has been much debate about possible causal links for this association, and whether regular (daily) long-acting beta(2)-agonists are safe. The aim of this review is to assess the risk of fatal and non-fatal serious adverse events in trials that randomised patients with chronic asthma to regular salmeterol with inhaled corticosteroids versus the same dose of inhaled corticosteroids alone. Trials were identified using the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials. Web sites of clinical trial registers were checked for unpublished trial data and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) submissions in relation to salmeterol were also checked. The date of the most recent search was October 2008. Controlled parallel design clinical trials on patients of any age and severity of asthma were included if they randomised patients to treatment with regular salmeterol and inhaled corticosteroids (in separate or combined inhalers), and were of at least 12 weeks duration. Two authors independently selected trials for inclusion in the review. Outcome data were independently extracted by two authors. Unpublished data on mortality and serious adverse events were obtained from the sponsors, and from FDA submissions. The review included 30 studies (10,873 participants) in adults and adolescents, and three studies (1,173 participants) in children. The overall risk of bias was low and data on serious adverse events were obtained from all studies.Six deaths occurred in 5,710 adults on regular salmeterol with inhaled corticosteroids, and five deaths in 5,163 adults on regular inhaled corticosteroids at the same dose. The difference was not statistically significant (Peto OR 1.05; 95% CI 0.32 to 3.47) and the absolute difference between groups in risk of death of any cause was 0.00005 (95% CI -0.002 to 0.002). No deaths were reported in 1,173 children, and no deaths were reported to be asthma-related.Non-fatal serious adverse events of any cause were reported in 134 adults on regular salmeterol with inhaled corticosteroids, compared to 103 adults on regular inhaled corticosteroids; again this was not a significant increase (Peto OR 1.17; 95% CI 0.90 to 1.52). The absolute difference in the risk of non-fatal serious adverse events was 0.003 (95% CI -0.002 to 0.009).There were three of 586 children with serious adverse events on regular salmeterol with inhaled corticosteroids, compared to four out of 587 on regular inhaled corticosteroids: there was no significant difference between treatments (Peto OR 0.75; 95% CI 0.17 to 3.31).Asthma-related serious adverse events were reported in 23 and 21 adults in each group respectively, a non-significant difference (Peto OR 0.95; 95% CI 0.52 to 1.73), and only one event was reported in children. No significant differences have been found in fatal or non-fatal serious adverse events in trials in which regular salmeterol has been randomly allocated with inhaled corticosteroids, in comparison to inhaled corticosteroids at the same dose. Although 10,873 adults and 1,173 children have been included in trials, the number of patients suffering adverse events is too small, and the results are too imprecise to confidently rule out a relative increase in all-cause mortality or non-fatal adverse events. It is therefore not possible to determine whether the increase in all-cause non-fatal serious adverse events reported in the previous meta-analysis on regular salmeterol alone is abolished by the additional use of regular inhaled corticosteroids. The absolute difference between groups in the risk of serious adverse events was small. There were no asthma-related deaths and few asthma-related serious adverse events. Clinical decisions and information for patients regarding regular use of salmeterol have to take into account the balance between known symptomatic benefits of salmeterol and the degree of uncertainty and concern associated with its potential harmful effects.

This study contains population size or sample size information

Regular treatment with salmeterol and inhaled steroids for chronic asthma: serious adverse events.

Epidemiological evidence has suggested a link between beta(2)-agonists and increased asthma mortality. There has been much debate about possible causal links for this association, and whether regular (daily) long-acting beta(2)-agonists are safe. The aim of this review is to assess the risk of fatal and non-fatal serious adverse events in trials that randomised patients with chronic asthma to regular salmeterol with inhaled corticosteroids versus the same dose of inhaled corticosteroids alone. Trials were identified using the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials. Web sites of clinical trial registers were checked for unpublished trial data and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) submissions in relation to salmeterol were also checked. The date of the most recent search was October 2008. Controlled parallel design clinical trials on patients of any age and severity of asthma were included if they randomised patients to treatment with regular salmeterol and inhaled corticosteroids (in separate or combined inhalers), and were of at least 12 weeks duration. Two authors independently selected trials for inclusion in the review. Outcome data were independently extracted by two authors. Unpublished data on mortality and serious adverse events were obtained from the sponsors, and from FDA submissions. The review included 30 studies (10,873 participants) in adults and adolescents, and three studies (1,173 participants) in children. The overall risk of bias was low and data on serious adverse events were obtained from all studies.Six deaths occurred in 5,710 adults on regular salmeterol with inhaled corticosteroids, and five deaths in 5,163 adults on regular inhaled corticosteroids at the same dose. The difference was not statistically significant (Peto OR 1.05; 95% CI 0.32 to 3.47) and the absolute difference between groups in risk of death of any cause was 0.00005 (95% CI -0.002 to 0.002). No deaths were reported in 1,173 children, and no deaths were reported to be asthma-related.Non-fatal serious adverse events of any cause were reported in 134 adults on regular salmeterol with inhaled corticosteroids, compared to 103 adults on regular inhaled corticosteroids; again this was not a significant increase (Peto OR 1.17; 95% CI 0.90 to 1.52). The absolute difference in the risk of non-fatal serious adverse events was 0.003 (95% CI -0.002 to 0.009).There were three of 586 children with serious adverse events on regular salmeterol with inhaled corticosteroids, compared to four out of 587 on regular inhaled corticosteroids: there was no significant difference between treatments (Peto OR 0.75; 95% CI 0.17 to 3.31).Asthma-related serious adverse events were reported in 23 and 21 adults in each group respectively, a non-significant difference (Peto OR 0.95; 95% CI 0.52 to 1.73), and only one event was reported in children. No significant differences have been found in fatal or non-fatal serious adverse events in trials in which regular salmeterol has been randomly allocated with inhaled corticosteroids, in comparison to inhaled corticosteroids at the same dose. Although 10,873 adults and 1,173 children have been included in trials, the number of patients suffering adverse events is too small, and the results are too imprecise to confidently rule out a relative increase in all-cause mortality or non-fatal adverse events. It is therefore not possible to determine whether the increase in all-cause non-fatal serious adverse events reported in the previous meta-analysis on regular salmeterol alone is abolished by the additional use of regular inhaled corticosteroids. The absolute difference between groups in the risk of serious adverse events was small. There were no asthma-related deaths and few asthma-related serious adverse events. Clinical decisions and information for patients regarding regular use of salmeterol have to take into account the balance between known symptomatic benefits of salmeterol and the degree of uncertainty and concern associated with its potential harmful effects.

This study does not contain population size information

Regular treatment with salmeterol and inhaled steroids for chronic asthma: serious adverse events.

Epidemiological evidence has suggested a link between beta(2)-agonists and increased asthma mortality. There has been much debate about possible causal links for this association, and whether regular (daily) long-acting beta(2)-agonists are safe. The aim of this review is to assess the risk of fatal and non-fatal serious adverse events in trials that randomised patients with chronic asthma to regular salmeterol with inhaled corticosteroids versus the same dose of inhaled corticosteroids alone. Trials were identified using the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials. Web sites of clinical trial registers were checked for unpublished trial data and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) submissions in relation to salmeterol were also checked. The date of the most recent search was October 2008. Controlled parallel design clinical trials on patients of any age and severity of asthma were included if they randomised patients to treatment with regular salmeterol and inhaled corticosteroids (in separate or combined inhalers), and were of at least 12 weeks duration. Two authors independently selected trials for inclusion in the review. Outcome data were independently extracted by two authors. Unpublished data on mortality and serious adverse events were obtained from the sponsors, and from FDA submissions. The review included 30 studies (10,873 participants) in adults and adolescents, and three studies (1,173 participants) in children. The overall risk of bias was low and data on serious adverse events were obtained from all studies.Six deaths occurred in 5,710 adults on regular salmeterol with inhaled corticosteroids, and five deaths in 5,163 adults on regular inhaled corticosteroids at the same dose. The difference was not statistically significant (Peto OR 1.05; 95% CI 0.32 to 3.47) and the absolute difference between groups in risk of death of any cause was 0.00005 (95% CI -0.002 to 0.002). No deaths were reported in 1,173 children, and no deaths were reported to be asthma-related.Non-fatal serious adverse events of any cause were reported in 134 adults on regular salmeterol with inhaled corticosteroids, compared to 103 adults on regular inhaled corticosteroids; again this was not a significant increase (Peto OR 1.17; 95% CI 0.90 to 1.52). The absolute difference in the risk of non-fatal serious adverse events was 0.003 (95% CI -0.002 to 0.009).There were three of 586 children with serious adverse events on regular salmeterol with inhaled corticosteroids, compared to four out of 587 on regular inhaled corticosteroids: there was no significant difference between treatments (Peto OR 0.75; 95% CI 0.17 to 3.31).Asthma-related serious adverse events were reported in 23 and 21 adults in each group respectively, a non-significant difference (Peto OR 0.95; 95% CI 0.52 to 1.73), and only one event was reported in children. No significant differences have been found in fatal or non-fatal serious adverse events in trials in which regular salmeterol has been randomly allocated with inhaled corticosteroids, in comparison to inhaled corticosteroids at the same dose. Although 10,873 adults and 1,173 children have been included in trials, the number of patients suffering adverse events is too small, and the results are too imprecise to confidently rule out a relative increase in all-cause mortality or non-fatal adverse events. It is therefore not possible to determine whether the increase in all-cause non-fatal serious adverse events reported in the previous meta-analysis on regular salmeterol alone is abolished by the additional use of regular inhaled corticosteroids. The absolute difference between groups in the risk of serious adverse events was small. There were no asthma-related deaths and few asthma-related serious adverse events. Clinical decisions and information for patients regarding regular use of salmeterol have to take into account the balance between known symptomatic benefits of salmeterol and the degree of uncertainty and concern associated with its potential harmful effects.

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

Regular treatment with salmeterol and inhaled steroids for chronic asthma: serious adverse events.

Epidemiological evidence has suggested a link between beta(2)-agonists and increased asthma mortality. There has been much debate about possible causal links for this association, and whether regular (daily) long-acting beta(2)-agonists are safe. The aim of this review is to assess the risk of fatal and non-fatal serious adverse events in trials that randomised patients with chronic asthma to regular salmeterol with inhaled corticosteroids versus the same dose of inhaled corticosteroids alone. Trials were identified using the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials. Web sites of clinical trial registers were checked for unpublished trial data and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) submissions in relation to salmeterol were also checked. The date of the most recent search was October 2008. Controlled parallel design clinical trials on patients of any age and severity of asthma were included if they randomised patients to treatment with regular salmeterol and inhaled corticosteroids (in separate or combined inhalers), and were of at least 12 weeks duration. Two authors independently selected trials for inclusion in the review. Outcome data were independently extracted by two authors. Unpublished data on mortality and serious adverse events were obtained from the sponsors, and from FDA submissions. The review included 30 studies (10,873 participants) in adults and adolescents, and three studies (1,173 participants) in children. The overall risk of bias was low and data on serious adverse events were obtained from all studies.Six deaths occurred in 5,710 adults on regular salmeterol with inhaled corticosteroids, and five deaths in 5,163 adults on regular inhaled corticosteroids at the same dose. The difference was not statistically significant (Peto OR 1.05; 95% CI 0.32 to 3.47) and the absolute difference between groups in risk of death of any cause was 0.00005 (95% CI -0.002 to 0.002). No deaths were reported in 1,173 children, and no deaths were reported to be asthma-related.Non-fatal serious adverse events of any cause were reported in 134 adults on regular salmeterol with inhaled corticosteroids, compared to 103 adults on regular inhaled corticosteroids; again this was not a significant increase (Peto OR 1.17; 95% CI 0.90 to 1.52). The absolute difference in the risk of non-fatal serious adverse events was 0.003 (95% CI -0.002 to 0.009).There were three of 586 children with serious adverse events on regular salmeterol with inhaled corticosteroids, compared to four out of 587 on regular inhaled corticosteroids: there was no significant difference between treatments (Peto OR 0.75; 95% CI 0.17 to 3.31).Asthma-related serious adverse events were reported in 23 and 21 adults in each group respectively, a non-significant difference (Peto OR 0.95; 95% CI 0.52 to 1.73), and only one event was reported in children. No significant differences have been found in fatal or non-fatal serious adverse events in trials in which regular salmeterol has been randomly allocated with inhaled corticosteroids, in comparison to inhaled corticosteroids at the same dose. Although 10,873 adults and 1,173 children have been included in trials, the number of patients suffering adverse events is too small, and the results are too imprecise to confidently rule out a relative increase in all-cause mortality or non-fatal adverse events. It is therefore not possible to determine whether the increase in all-cause non-fatal serious adverse events reported in the previous meta-analysis on regular salmeterol alone is abolished by the additional use of regular inhaled corticosteroids. The absolute difference between groups in the risk of serious adverse events was small. There were no asthma-related deaths and few asthma-related serious adverse events. Clinical decisions and information for patients regarding regular use of salmeterol have to take into account the balance between known symptomatic benefits of salmeterol and the degree of uncertainty and concern associated with its potential harmful effects.

This study does not have any quantitative outcomes

Regular treatment with salmeterol and inhaled steroids for chronic asthma: serious adverse events.

Epidemiological evidence has suggested a link between beta(2)-agonists and increased asthma mortality. There has been much debate about possible causal links for this association, and whether regular (daily) long-acting beta(2)-agonists are safe. The aim of this review is to assess the risk of fatal and non-fatal serious adverse events in trials that randomised patients with chronic asthma to regular salmeterol with inhaled corticosteroids versus the same dose of inhaled corticosteroids alone. Trials were identified using the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials. Web sites of clinical trial registers were checked for unpublished trial data and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) submissions in relation to salmeterol were also checked. The date of the most recent search was October 2008. Controlled parallel design clinical trials on patients of any age and severity of asthma were included if they randomised patients to treatment with regular salmeterol and inhaled corticosteroids (in separate or combined inhalers), and were of at least 12 weeks duration. Two authors independently selected trials for inclusion in the review. Outcome data were independently extracted by two authors. Unpublished data on mortality and serious adverse events were obtained from the sponsors, and from FDA submissions. The review included 30 studies (10,873 participants) in adults and adolescents, and three studies (1,173 participants) in children. The overall risk of bias was low and data on serious adverse events were obtained from all studies.Six deaths occurred in 5,710 adults on regular salmeterol with inhaled corticosteroids, and five deaths in 5,163 adults on regular inhaled corticosteroids at the same dose. The difference was not statistically significant (Peto OR 1.05; 95% CI 0.32 to 3.47) and the absolute difference between groups in risk of death of any cause was 0.00005 (95% CI -0.002 to 0.002). No deaths were reported in 1,173 children, and no deaths were reported to be asthma-related.Non-fatal serious adverse events of any cause were reported in 134 adults on regular salmeterol with inhaled corticosteroids, compared to 103 adults on regular inhaled corticosteroids; again this was not a significant increase (Peto OR 1.17; 95% CI 0.90 to 1.52). The absolute difference in the risk of non-fatal serious adverse events was 0.003 (95% CI -0.002 to 0.009).There were three of 586 children with serious adverse events on regular salmeterol with inhaled corticosteroids, compared to four out of 587 on regular inhaled corticosteroids: there was no significant difference between treatments (Peto OR 0.75; 95% CI 0.17 to 3.31).Asthma-related serious adverse events were reported in 23 and 21 adults in each group respectively, a non-significant difference (Peto OR 0.95; 95% CI 0.52 to 1.73), and only one event was reported in children. No significant differences have been found in fatal or non-fatal serious adverse events in trials in which regular salmeterol has been randomly allocated with inhaled corticosteroids, in comparison to inhaled corticosteroids at the same dose. Although 10,873 adults and 1,173 children have been included in trials, the number of patients suffering adverse events is too small, and the results are too imprecise to confidently rule out a relative increase in all-cause mortality or non-fatal adverse events. It is therefore not possible to determine whether the increase in all-cause non-fatal serious adverse events reported in the previous meta-analysis on regular salmeterol alone is abolished by the additional use of regular inhaled corticosteroids. The absolute difference between groups in the risk of serious adverse events was small. There were no asthma-related deaths and few asthma-related serious adverse events. Clinical decisions and information for patients regarding regular use of salmeterol have to take into account the balance between known symptomatic benefits of salmeterol and the degree of uncertainty and concern associated with its potential harmful effects.

This study has a target drug

Regular treatment with salmeterol and inhaled steroids for chronic asthma: serious adverse events.

Epidemiological evidence has suggested a link between beta(2)-agonists and increased asthma mortality. There has been much debate about possible causal links for this association, and whether regular (daily) long-acting beta(2)-agonists are safe. The aim of this review is to assess the risk of fatal and non-fatal serious adverse events in trials that randomised patients with chronic asthma to regular salmeterol with inhaled corticosteroids versus the same dose of inhaled corticosteroids alone. Trials were identified using the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials. Web sites of clinical trial registers were checked for unpublished trial data and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) submissions in relation to salmeterol were also checked. The date of the most recent search was October 2008. Controlled parallel design clinical trials on patients of any age and severity of asthma were included if they randomised patients to treatment with regular salmeterol and inhaled corticosteroids (in separate or combined inhalers), and were of at least 12 weeks duration. Two authors independently selected trials for inclusion in the review. Outcome data were independently extracted by two authors. Unpublished data on mortality and serious adverse events were obtained from the sponsors, and from FDA submissions. The review included 30 studies (10,873 participants) in adults and adolescents, and three studies (1,173 participants) in children. The overall risk of bias was low and data on serious adverse events were obtained from all studies.Six deaths occurred in 5,710 adults on regular salmeterol with inhaled corticosteroids, and five deaths in 5,163 adults on regular inhaled corticosteroids at the same dose. The difference was not statistically significant (Peto OR 1.05; 95% CI 0.32 to 3.47) and the absolute difference between groups in risk of death of any cause was 0.00005 (95% CI -0.002 to 0.002). No deaths were reported in 1,173 children, and no deaths were reported to be asthma-related.Non-fatal serious adverse events of any cause were reported in 134 adults on regular salmeterol with inhaled corticosteroids, compared to 103 adults on regular inhaled corticosteroids; again this was not a significant increase (Peto OR 1.17; 95% CI 0.90 to 1.52). The absolute difference in the risk of non-fatal serious adverse events was 0.003 (95% CI -0.002 to 0.009).There were three of 586 children with serious adverse events on regular salmeterol with inhaled corticosteroids, compared to four out of 587 on regular inhaled corticosteroids: there was no significant difference between treatments (Peto OR 0.75; 95% CI 0.17 to 3.31).Asthma-related serious adverse events were reported in 23 and 21 adults in each group respectively, a non-significant difference (Peto OR 0.95; 95% CI 0.52 to 1.73), and only one event was reported in children. No significant differences have been found in fatal or non-fatal serious adverse events in trials in which regular salmeterol has been randomly allocated with inhaled corticosteroids, in comparison to inhaled corticosteroids at the same dose. Although 10,873 adults and 1,173 children have been included in trials, the number of patients suffering adverse events is too small, and the results are too imprecise to confidently rule out a relative increase in all-cause mortality or non-fatal adverse events. It is therefore not possible to determine whether the increase in all-cause non-fatal serious adverse events reported in the previous meta-analysis on regular salmeterol alone is abolished by the additional use of regular inhaled corticosteroids. The absolute difference between groups in the risk of serious adverse events was small. There were no asthma-related deaths and few asthma-related serious adverse events. Clinical decisions and information for patients regarding regular use of salmeterol have to take into account the balance between known symptomatic benefits of salmeterol and the degree of uncertainty and concern associated with its potential harmful effects.

This study does not have a target drug

Regular treatment with salmeterol and inhaled steroids for chronic asthma: serious adverse events.

Epidemiological evidence has suggested a link between beta(2)-agonists and increased asthma mortality. There has been much debate about possible causal links for this association, and whether regular (daily) long-acting beta(2)-agonists are safe. The aim of this review is to assess the risk of fatal and non-fatal serious adverse events in trials that randomised patients with chronic asthma to regular salmeterol with inhaled corticosteroids versus the same dose of inhaled corticosteroids alone. Trials were identified using the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials. Web sites of clinical trial registers were checked for unpublished trial data and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) submissions in relation to salmeterol were also checked. The date of the most recent search was October 2008. Controlled parallel design clinical trials on patients of any age and severity of asthma were included if they randomised patients to treatment with regular salmeterol and inhaled corticosteroids (in separate or combined inhalers), and were of at least 12 weeks duration. Two authors independently selected trials for inclusion in the review. Outcome data were independently extracted by two authors. Unpublished data on mortality and serious adverse events were obtained from the sponsors, and from FDA submissions. The review included 30 studies (10,873 participants) in adults and adolescents, and three studies (1,173 participants) in children. The overall risk of bias was low and data on serious adverse events were obtained from all studies.Six deaths occurred in 5,710 adults on regular salmeterol with inhaled corticosteroids, and five deaths in 5,163 adults on regular inhaled corticosteroids at the same dose. The difference was not statistically significant (Peto OR 1.05; 95% CI 0.32 to 3.47) and the absolute difference between groups in risk of death of any cause was 0.00005 (95% CI -0.002 to 0.002). No deaths were reported in 1,173 children, and no deaths were reported to be asthma-related.Non-fatal serious adverse events of any cause were reported in 134 adults on regular salmeterol with inhaled corticosteroids, compared to 103 adults on regular inhaled corticosteroids; again this was not a significant increase (Peto OR 1.17; 95% CI 0.90 to 1.52). The absolute difference in the risk of non-fatal serious adverse events was 0.003 (95% CI -0.002 to 0.009).There were three of 586 children with serious adverse events on regular salmeterol with inhaled corticosteroids, compared to four out of 587 on regular inhaled corticosteroids: there was no significant difference between treatments (Peto OR 0.75; 95% CI 0.17 to 3.31).Asthma-related serious adverse events were reported in 23 and 21 adults in each group respectively, a non-significant difference (Peto OR 0.95; 95% CI 0.52 to 1.73), and only one event was reported in children. No significant differences have been found in fatal or non-fatal serious adverse events in trials in which regular salmeterol has been randomly allocated with inhaled corticosteroids, in comparison to inhaled corticosteroids at the same dose. Although 10,873 adults and 1,173 children have been included in trials, the number of patients suffering adverse events is too small, and the results are too imprecise to confidently rule out a relative increase in all-cause mortality or non-fatal adverse events. It is therefore not possible to determine whether the increase in all-cause non-fatal serious adverse events reported in the previous meta-analysis on regular salmeterol alone is abolished by the additional use of regular inhaled corticosteroids. The absolute difference between groups in the risk of serious adverse events was small. There were no asthma-related deaths and few asthma-related serious adverse events. Clinical decisions and information for patients regarding regular use of salmeterol have to take into account the balance between known symptomatic benefits of salmeterol and the degree of uncertainty and concern associated with its potential harmful effects.

This study has a target disease

Regular treatment with salmeterol and inhaled steroids for chronic asthma: serious adverse events.

Epidemiological evidence has suggested a link between beta(2)-agonists and increased asthma mortality. There has been much debate about possible causal links for this association, and whether regular (daily) long-acting beta(2)-agonists are safe. The aim of this review is to assess the risk of fatal and non-fatal serious adverse events in trials that randomised patients with chronic asthma to regular salmeterol with inhaled corticosteroids versus the same dose of inhaled corticosteroids alone. Trials were identified using the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials. Web sites of clinical trial registers were checked for unpublished trial data and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) submissions in relation to salmeterol were also checked. The date of the most recent search was October 2008. Controlled parallel design clinical trials on patients of any age and severity of asthma were included if they randomised patients to treatment with regular salmeterol and inhaled corticosteroids (in separate or combined inhalers), and were of at least 12 weeks duration. Two authors independently selected trials for inclusion in the review. Outcome data were independently extracted by two authors. Unpublished data on mortality and serious adverse events were obtained from the sponsors, and from FDA submissions. The review included 30 studies (10,873 participants) in adults and adolescents, and three studies (1,173 participants) in children. The overall risk of bias was low and data on serious adverse events were obtained from all studies.Six deaths occurred in 5,710 adults on regular salmeterol with inhaled corticosteroids, and five deaths in 5,163 adults on regular inhaled corticosteroids at the same dose. The difference was not statistically significant (Peto OR 1.05; 95% CI 0.32 to 3.47) and the absolute difference between groups in risk of death of any cause was 0.00005 (95% CI -0.002 to 0.002). No deaths were reported in 1,173 children, and no deaths were reported to be asthma-related.Non-fatal serious adverse events of any cause were reported in 134 adults on regular salmeterol with inhaled corticosteroids, compared to 103 adults on regular inhaled corticosteroids; again this was not a significant increase (Peto OR 1.17; 95% CI 0.90 to 1.52). The absolute difference in the risk of non-fatal serious adverse events was 0.003 (95% CI -0.002 to 0.009).There were three of 586 children with serious adverse events on regular salmeterol with inhaled corticosteroids, compared to four out of 587 on regular inhaled corticosteroids: there was no significant difference between treatments (Peto OR 0.75; 95% CI 0.17 to 3.31).Asthma-related serious adverse events were reported in 23 and 21 adults in each group respectively, a non-significant difference (Peto OR 0.95; 95% CI 0.52 to 1.73), and only one event was reported in children. No significant differences have been found in fatal or non-fatal serious adverse events in trials in which regular salmeterol has been randomly allocated with inhaled corticosteroids, in comparison to inhaled corticosteroids at the same dose. Although 10,873 adults and 1,173 children have been included in trials, the number of patients suffering adverse events is too small, and the results are too imprecise to confidently rule out a relative increase in all-cause mortality or non-fatal adverse events. It is therefore not possible to determine whether the increase in all-cause non-fatal serious adverse events reported in the previous meta-analysis on regular salmeterol alone is abolished by the additional use of regular inhaled corticosteroids. The absolute difference between groups in the risk of serious adverse events was small. There were no asthma-related deaths and few asthma-related serious adverse events. Clinical decisions and information for patients regarding regular use of salmeterol have to take into account the balance between known symptomatic benefits of salmeterol and the degree of uncertainty and concern associated with its potential harmful effects.

This study does not have a target disease

How can we optimise inhaled beta2 agonist dose as 'reliever' medicine for wheezy pre-school children? Study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

Asthma is a common problem in children and, if inadequately controlled, may seriously diminish their quality of life. Inhaled short-acting beta2 agonists such as salbutamol are usually prescribed as 'reliever' medication to help control day-to-day symptoms such as wheeze. As with many medications currently prescribed for younger children (defined as those aged 2 years 6 months to 6 years 11 months), there has been no pre-licensing age-specific pharmacological testing; consequently, the doses currently prescribed (200-1000 μg) may be ineffective or likely to induce unnecessary side effects. We plan to use the interrupter technique to measure airway resistance in this age group, allowing us for the first time to correlate inhaled salbutamol dose with changes in clinical response. We will measure urinary salbutamol levels 30 min after dosing as an estimate of salbutamol doses in the lungs, and also look for genetic polymorphisms linked to poor responses to inhaled salbutamol. This is a phase IV, randomised, controlled, observer-blinded, single-centre trial with four parallel groups (based on a sparse sampling approach) and a primary endpoint of the immediate bronchodilator response to salbutamol so that we can determine the most appropriate dose for an individual younger child. Simple randomisation will be used with a 1:1:1:1 allocation. The proposed research will exploit simple, non-invasive and inexpensive tests that can mostly be performed in an outpatient setting in order to help develop the evidence for the correct dose of salbutamol in younger children with recurrent wheeze who have been prescribed salbutamol by their doctor. EudraCT2014-001978-33, ISRCTN15513131. Registered on 8 April 2015.

This study has a cohort study or clinical trial

How can we optimise inhaled beta2 agonist dose as 'reliever' medicine for wheezy pre-school children? Study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

Asthma is a common problem in children and, if inadequately controlled, may seriously diminish their quality of life. Inhaled short-acting beta2 agonists such as salbutamol are usually prescribed as 'reliever' medication to help control day-to-day symptoms such as wheeze. As with many medications currently prescribed for younger children (defined as those aged 2 years 6 months to 6 years 11 months), there has been no pre-licensing age-specific pharmacological testing; consequently, the doses currently prescribed (200-1000 μg) may be ineffective or likely to induce unnecessary side effects. We plan to use the interrupter technique to measure airway resistance in this age group, allowing us for the first time to correlate inhaled salbutamol dose with changes in clinical response. We will measure urinary salbutamol levels 30 min after dosing as an estimate of salbutamol doses in the lungs, and also look for genetic polymorphisms linked to poor responses to inhaled salbutamol. This is a phase IV, randomised, controlled, observer-blinded, single-centre trial with four parallel groups (based on a sparse sampling approach) and a primary endpoint of the immediate bronchodilator response to salbutamol so that we can determine the most appropriate dose for an individual younger child. Simple randomisation will be used with a 1:1:1:1 allocation. The proposed research will exploit simple, non-invasive and inexpensive tests that can mostly be performed in an outpatient setting in order to help develop the evidence for the correct dose of salbutamol in younger children with recurrent wheeze who have been prescribed salbutamol by their doctor. EudraCT2014-001978-33, ISRCTN15513131. Registered on 8 April 2015.

This study does not have any cohorts or clinical trial

How can we optimise inhaled beta2 agonist dose as 'reliever' medicine for wheezy pre-school children? Study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

Asthma is a common problem in children and, if inadequately controlled, may seriously diminish their quality of life. Inhaled short-acting beta2 agonists such as salbutamol are usually prescribed as 'reliever' medication to help control day-to-day symptoms such as wheeze. As with many medications currently prescribed for younger children (defined as those aged 2 years 6 months to 6 years 11 months), there has been no pre-licensing age-specific pharmacological testing; consequently, the doses currently prescribed (200-1000 μg) may be ineffective or likely to induce unnecessary side effects. We plan to use the interrupter technique to measure airway resistance in this age group, allowing us for the first time to correlate inhaled salbutamol dose with changes in clinical response. We will measure urinary salbutamol levels 30 min after dosing as an estimate of salbutamol doses in the lungs, and also look for genetic polymorphisms linked to poor responses to inhaled salbutamol. This is a phase IV, randomised, controlled, observer-blinded, single-centre trial with four parallel groups (based on a sparse sampling approach) and a primary endpoint of the immediate bronchodilator response to salbutamol so that we can determine the most appropriate dose for an individual younger child. Simple randomisation will be used with a 1:1:1:1 allocation. The proposed research will exploit simple, non-invasive and inexpensive tests that can mostly be performed in an outpatient setting in order to help develop the evidence for the correct dose of salbutamol in younger children with recurrent wheeze who have been prescribed salbutamol by their doctor. EudraCT2014-001978-33, ISRCTN15513131. Registered on 8 April 2015.

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

How can we optimise inhaled beta2 agonist dose as 'reliever' medicine for wheezy pre-school children? Study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

Asthma is a common problem in children and, if inadequately controlled, may seriously diminish their quality of life. Inhaled short-acting beta2 agonists such as salbutamol are usually prescribed as 'reliever' medication to help control day-to-day symptoms such as wheeze. As with many medications currently prescribed for younger children (defined as those aged 2 years 6 months to 6 years 11 months), there has been no pre-licensing age-specific pharmacological testing; consequently, the doses currently prescribed (200-1000 μg) may be ineffective or likely to induce unnecessary side effects. We plan to use the interrupter technique to measure airway resistance in this age group, allowing us for the first time to correlate inhaled salbutamol dose with changes in clinical response. We will measure urinary salbutamol levels 30 min after dosing as an estimate of salbutamol doses in the lungs, and also look for genetic polymorphisms linked to poor responses to inhaled salbutamol. This is a phase IV, randomised, controlled, observer-blinded, single-centre trial with four parallel groups (based on a sparse sampling approach) and a primary endpoint of the immediate bronchodilator response to salbutamol so that we can determine the most appropriate dose for an individual younger child. Simple randomisation will be used with a 1:1:1:1 allocation. The proposed research will exploit simple, non-invasive and inexpensive tests that can mostly be performed in an outpatient setting in order to help develop the evidence for the correct dose of salbutamol in younger children with recurrent wheeze who have been prescribed salbutamol by their doctor. EudraCT2014-001978-33, ISRCTN15513131. Registered on 8 April 2015.

This study does not have any comparison patient group

How can we optimise inhaled beta2 agonist dose as 'reliever' medicine for wheezy pre-school children? Study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

Asthma is a common problem in children and, if inadequately controlled, may seriously diminish their quality of life. Inhaled short-acting beta2 agonists such as salbutamol are usually prescribed as 'reliever' medication to help control day-to-day symptoms such as wheeze. As with many medications currently prescribed for younger children (defined as those aged 2 years 6 months to 6 years 11 months), there has been no pre-licensing age-specific pharmacological testing; consequently, the doses currently prescribed (200-1000 μg) may be ineffective or likely to induce unnecessary side effects. We plan to use the interrupter technique to measure airway resistance in this age group, allowing us for the first time to correlate inhaled salbutamol dose with changes in clinical response. We will measure urinary salbutamol levels 30 min after dosing as an estimate of salbutamol doses in the lungs, and also look for genetic polymorphisms linked to poor responses to inhaled salbutamol. This is a phase IV, randomised, controlled, observer-blinded, single-centre trial with four parallel groups (based on a sparse sampling approach) and a primary endpoint of the immediate bronchodilator response to salbutamol so that we can determine the most appropriate dose for an individual younger child. Simple randomisation will be used with a 1:1:1:1 allocation. The proposed research will exploit simple, non-invasive and inexpensive tests that can mostly be performed in an outpatient setting in order to help develop the evidence for the correct dose of salbutamol in younger children with recurrent wheeze who have been prescribed salbutamol by their doctor. EudraCT2014-001978-33, ISRCTN15513131. Registered on 8 April 2015.

This study has human subjects

How can we optimise inhaled beta2 agonist dose as 'reliever' medicine for wheezy pre-school children? Study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

Asthma is a common problem in children and, if inadequately controlled, may seriously diminish their quality of life. Inhaled short-acting beta2 agonists such as salbutamol are usually prescribed as 'reliever' medication to help control day-to-day symptoms such as wheeze. As with many medications currently prescribed for younger children (defined as those aged 2 years 6 months to 6 years 11 months), there has been no pre-licensing age-specific pharmacological testing; consequently, the doses currently prescribed (200-1000 μg) may be ineffective or likely to induce unnecessary side effects. We plan to use the interrupter technique to measure airway resistance in this age group, allowing us for the first time to correlate inhaled salbutamol dose with changes in clinical response. We will measure urinary salbutamol levels 30 min after dosing as an estimate of salbutamol doses in the lungs, and also look for genetic polymorphisms linked to poor responses to inhaled salbutamol. This is a phase IV, randomised, controlled, observer-blinded, single-centre trial with four parallel groups (based on a sparse sampling approach) and a primary endpoint of the immediate bronchodilator response to salbutamol so that we can determine the most appropriate dose for an individual younger child. Simple randomisation will be used with a 1:1:1:1 allocation. The proposed research will exploit simple, non-invasive and inexpensive tests that can mostly be performed in an outpatient setting in order to help develop the evidence for the correct dose of salbutamol in younger children with recurrent wheeze who have been prescribed salbutamol by their doctor. EudraCT2014-001978-33, ISRCTN15513131. Registered on 8 April 2015.

This study does not have human subjects

How can we optimise inhaled beta2 agonist dose as 'reliever' medicine for wheezy pre-school children? Study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

Asthma is a common problem in children and, if inadequately controlled, may seriously diminish their quality of life. Inhaled short-acting beta2 agonists such as salbutamol are usually prescribed as 'reliever' medication to help control day-to-day symptoms such as wheeze. As with many medications currently prescribed for younger children (defined as those aged 2 years 6 months to 6 years 11 months), there has been no pre-licensing age-specific pharmacological testing; consequently, the doses currently prescribed (200-1000 μg) may be ineffective or likely to induce unnecessary side effects. We plan to use the interrupter technique to measure airway resistance in this age group, allowing us for the first time to correlate inhaled salbutamol dose with changes in clinical response. We will measure urinary salbutamol levels 30 min after dosing as an estimate of salbutamol doses in the lungs, and also look for genetic polymorphisms linked to poor responses to inhaled salbutamol. This is a phase IV, randomised, controlled, observer-blinded, single-centre trial with four parallel groups (based on a sparse sampling approach) and a primary endpoint of the immediate bronchodilator response to salbutamol so that we can determine the most appropriate dose for an individual younger child. Simple randomisation will be used with a 1:1:1:1 allocation. The proposed research will exploit simple, non-invasive and inexpensive tests that can mostly be performed in an outpatient setting in order to help develop the evidence for the correct dose of salbutamol in younger children with recurrent wheeze who have been prescribed salbutamol by their doctor. EudraCT2014-001978-33, ISRCTN15513131. Registered on 8 April 2015.

This study contains population size or sample size information

How can we optimise inhaled beta2 agonist dose as 'reliever' medicine for wheezy pre-school children? Study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

Asthma is a common problem in children and, if inadequately controlled, may seriously diminish their quality of life. Inhaled short-acting beta2 agonists such as salbutamol are usually prescribed as 'reliever' medication to help control day-to-day symptoms such as wheeze. As with many medications currently prescribed for younger children (defined as those aged 2 years 6 months to 6 years 11 months), there has been no pre-licensing age-specific pharmacological testing; consequently, the doses currently prescribed (200-1000 μg) may be ineffective or likely to induce unnecessary side effects. We plan to use the interrupter technique to measure airway resistance in this age group, allowing us for the first time to correlate inhaled salbutamol dose with changes in clinical response. We will measure urinary salbutamol levels 30 min after dosing as an estimate of salbutamol doses in the lungs, and also look for genetic polymorphisms linked to poor responses to inhaled salbutamol. This is a phase IV, randomised, controlled, observer-blinded, single-centre trial with four parallel groups (based on a sparse sampling approach) and a primary endpoint of the immediate bronchodilator response to salbutamol so that we can determine the most appropriate dose for an individual younger child. Simple randomisation will be used with a 1:1:1:1 allocation. The proposed research will exploit simple, non-invasive and inexpensive tests that can mostly be performed in an outpatient setting in order to help develop the evidence for the correct dose of salbutamol in younger children with recurrent wheeze who have been prescribed salbutamol by their doctor. EudraCT2014-001978-33, ISRCTN15513131. Registered on 8 April 2015.

This study does not contain population size information

How can we optimise inhaled beta2 agonist dose as 'reliever' medicine for wheezy pre-school children? Study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

Asthma is a common problem in children and, if inadequately controlled, may seriously diminish their quality of life. Inhaled short-acting beta2 agonists such as salbutamol are usually prescribed as 'reliever' medication to help control day-to-day symptoms such as wheeze. As with many medications currently prescribed for younger children (defined as those aged 2 years 6 months to 6 years 11 months), there has been no pre-licensing age-specific pharmacological testing; consequently, the doses currently prescribed (200-1000 μg) may be ineffective or likely to induce unnecessary side effects. We plan to use the interrupter technique to measure airway resistance in this age group, allowing us for the first time to correlate inhaled salbutamol dose with changes in clinical response. We will measure urinary salbutamol levels 30 min after dosing as an estimate of salbutamol doses in the lungs, and also look for genetic polymorphisms linked to poor responses to inhaled salbutamol. This is a phase IV, randomised, controlled, observer-blinded, single-centre trial with four parallel groups (based on a sparse sampling approach) and a primary endpoint of the immediate bronchodilator response to salbutamol so that we can determine the most appropriate dose for an individual younger child. Simple randomisation will be used with a 1:1:1:1 allocation. The proposed research will exploit simple, non-invasive and inexpensive tests that can mostly be performed in an outpatient setting in order to help develop the evidence for the correct dose of salbutamol in younger children with recurrent wheeze who have been prescribed salbutamol by their doctor. EudraCT2014-001978-33, ISRCTN15513131. Registered on 8 April 2015.

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

How can we optimise inhaled beta2 agonist dose as 'reliever' medicine for wheezy pre-school children? Study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

Asthma is a common problem in children and, if inadequately controlled, may seriously diminish their quality of life. Inhaled short-acting beta2 agonists such as salbutamol are usually prescribed as 'reliever' medication to help control day-to-day symptoms such as wheeze. As with many medications currently prescribed for younger children (defined as those aged 2 years 6 months to 6 years 11 months), there has been no pre-licensing age-specific pharmacological testing; consequently, the doses currently prescribed (200-1000 μg) may be ineffective or likely to induce unnecessary side effects. We plan to use the interrupter technique to measure airway resistance in this age group, allowing us for the first time to correlate inhaled salbutamol dose with changes in clinical response. We will measure urinary salbutamol levels 30 min after dosing as an estimate of salbutamol doses in the lungs, and also look for genetic polymorphisms linked to poor responses to inhaled salbutamol. This is a phase IV, randomised, controlled, observer-blinded, single-centre trial with four parallel groups (based on a sparse sampling approach) and a primary endpoint of the immediate bronchodilator response to salbutamol so that we can determine the most appropriate dose for an individual younger child. Simple randomisation will be used with a 1:1:1:1 allocation. The proposed research will exploit simple, non-invasive and inexpensive tests that can mostly be performed in an outpatient setting in order to help develop the evidence for the correct dose of salbutamol in younger children with recurrent wheeze who have been prescribed salbutamol by their doctor. EudraCT2014-001978-33, ISRCTN15513131. Registered on 8 April 2015.

This study does not have any quantitative outcomes

How can we optimise inhaled beta2 agonist dose as 'reliever' medicine for wheezy pre-school children? Study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

Asthma is a common problem in children and, if inadequately controlled, may seriously diminish their quality of life. Inhaled short-acting beta2 agonists such as salbutamol are usually prescribed as 'reliever' medication to help control day-to-day symptoms such as wheeze. As with many medications currently prescribed for younger children (defined as those aged 2 years 6 months to 6 years 11 months), there has been no pre-licensing age-specific pharmacological testing; consequently, the doses currently prescribed (200-1000 μg) may be ineffective or likely to induce unnecessary side effects. We plan to use the interrupter technique to measure airway resistance in this age group, allowing us for the first time to correlate inhaled salbutamol dose with changes in clinical response. We will measure urinary salbutamol levels 30 min after dosing as an estimate of salbutamol doses in the lungs, and also look for genetic polymorphisms linked to poor responses to inhaled salbutamol. This is a phase IV, randomised, controlled, observer-blinded, single-centre trial with four parallel groups (based on a sparse sampling approach) and a primary endpoint of the immediate bronchodilator response to salbutamol so that we can determine the most appropriate dose for an individual younger child. Simple randomisation will be used with a 1:1:1:1 allocation. The proposed research will exploit simple, non-invasive and inexpensive tests that can mostly be performed in an outpatient setting in order to help develop the evidence for the correct dose of salbutamol in younger children with recurrent wheeze who have been prescribed salbutamol by their doctor. EudraCT2014-001978-33, ISRCTN15513131. Registered on 8 April 2015.

This study has a target drug

How can we optimise inhaled beta2 agonist dose as 'reliever' medicine for wheezy pre-school children? Study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

Asthma is a common problem in children and, if inadequately controlled, may seriously diminish their quality of life. Inhaled short-acting beta2 agonists such as salbutamol are usually prescribed as 'reliever' medication to help control day-to-day symptoms such as wheeze. As with many medications currently prescribed for younger children (defined as those aged 2 years 6 months to 6 years 11 months), there has been no pre-licensing age-specific pharmacological testing; consequently, the doses currently prescribed (200-1000 μg) may be ineffective or likely to induce unnecessary side effects. We plan to use the interrupter technique to measure airway resistance in this age group, allowing us for the first time to correlate inhaled salbutamol dose with changes in clinical response. We will measure urinary salbutamol levels 30 min after dosing as an estimate of salbutamol doses in the lungs, and also look for genetic polymorphisms linked to poor responses to inhaled salbutamol. This is a phase IV, randomised, controlled, observer-blinded, single-centre trial with four parallel groups (based on a sparse sampling approach) and a primary endpoint of the immediate bronchodilator response to salbutamol so that we can determine the most appropriate dose for an individual younger child. Simple randomisation will be used with a 1:1:1:1 allocation. The proposed research will exploit simple, non-invasive and inexpensive tests that can mostly be performed in an outpatient setting in order to help develop the evidence for the correct dose of salbutamol in younger children with recurrent wheeze who have been prescribed salbutamol by their doctor. EudraCT2014-001978-33, ISRCTN15513131. Registered on 8 April 2015.

This study does not have a target drug

How can we optimise inhaled beta2 agonist dose as 'reliever' medicine for wheezy pre-school children? Study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

Asthma is a common problem in children and, if inadequately controlled, may seriously diminish their quality of life. Inhaled short-acting beta2 agonists such as salbutamol are usually prescribed as 'reliever' medication to help control day-to-day symptoms such as wheeze. As with many medications currently prescribed for younger children (defined as those aged 2 years 6 months to 6 years 11 months), there has been no pre-licensing age-specific pharmacological testing; consequently, the doses currently prescribed (200-1000 μg) may be ineffective or likely to induce unnecessary side effects. We plan to use the interrupter technique to measure airway resistance in this age group, allowing us for the first time to correlate inhaled salbutamol dose with changes in clinical response. We will measure urinary salbutamol levels 30 min after dosing as an estimate of salbutamol doses in the lungs, and also look for genetic polymorphisms linked to poor responses to inhaled salbutamol. This is a phase IV, randomised, controlled, observer-blinded, single-centre trial with four parallel groups (based on a sparse sampling approach) and a primary endpoint of the immediate bronchodilator response to salbutamol so that we can determine the most appropriate dose for an individual younger child. Simple randomisation will be used with a 1:1:1:1 allocation. The proposed research will exploit simple, non-invasive and inexpensive tests that can mostly be performed in an outpatient setting in order to help develop the evidence for the correct dose of salbutamol in younger children with recurrent wheeze who have been prescribed salbutamol by their doctor. EudraCT2014-001978-33, ISRCTN15513131. Registered on 8 April 2015.

This study has a target disease

How can we optimise inhaled beta2 agonist dose as 'reliever' medicine for wheezy pre-school children? Study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

Asthma is a common problem in children and, if inadequately controlled, may seriously diminish their quality of life. Inhaled short-acting beta2 agonists such as salbutamol are usually prescribed as 'reliever' medication to help control day-to-day symptoms such as wheeze. As with many medications currently prescribed for younger children (defined as those aged 2 years 6 months to 6 years 11 months), there has been no pre-licensing age-specific pharmacological testing; consequently, the doses currently prescribed (200-1000 μg) may be ineffective or likely to induce unnecessary side effects. We plan to use the interrupter technique to measure airway resistance in this age group, allowing us for the first time to correlate inhaled salbutamol dose with changes in clinical response. We will measure urinary salbutamol levels 30 min after dosing as an estimate of salbutamol doses in the lungs, and also look for genetic polymorphisms linked to poor responses to inhaled salbutamol. This is a phase IV, randomised, controlled, observer-blinded, single-centre trial with four parallel groups (based on a sparse sampling approach) and a primary endpoint of the immediate bronchodilator response to salbutamol so that we can determine the most appropriate dose for an individual younger child. Simple randomisation will be used with a 1:1:1:1 allocation. The proposed research will exploit simple, non-invasive and inexpensive tests that can mostly be performed in an outpatient setting in order to help develop the evidence for the correct dose of salbutamol in younger children with recurrent wheeze who have been prescribed salbutamol by their doctor. EudraCT2014-001978-33, ISRCTN15513131. Registered on 8 April 2015.

This study does not have a target disease

Intensive therapy with peripheral blood progenitor cell transplantation in 60 patients with poor-prognosis follicular lymphoma.

Intensive therapy, mainly with purged autologous bone marrow transplantation (ABMT), has been proposed in recent years as consolidation treatment in young patients with follicular lymphoma. Reported experience with transplantation of peripheral blood progenitor cells (PBPC) is, so far, limited. The feasibility and the therapeutic efficacy of intensive therapy followed by unpurged autologous PBPC reinfusion were evaluated in 60 patients with poor-prognosis follicular lymphoma. Twelve patients were in first partial remission (PR), 34 were in second partial or complete remission (CR), and 14 were in subsequent progression. At the time of the procedure, 39 patients (65%) had persistent bone marrow involvement, 49 patients (82%) were in PR, and 16 patients had presented with a histologic transformation (HT). PBPC were collected after chemotherapy followed by granulocyte (G) colony-stimulating factor (CSF) or granulocyte-macrophage (GM)-CSF in 50 patients. Conditioning regimens included high-dose chemotherapy alone (14 patients); mainly the BCNU, etoposide, aracytine, melphalan [BEAM] regimen), or cyclophosphamide with or without etoposide plus total body irradiation (46 patients). The median time to reach a neutrophil count greater than 0.5 x 10(9)/L was 13 days. There were five treatment-related deaths, with four being associated with a delayed engraftment and all occurring in patients in third or subsequent progression. At a median follow-up of 21 months, 48 patients were still alive, 18 relapsed, and seven died of lymphomas progression. Estimated 2-year overall survival (OS) and failure-free survival (FFS) rates were 86% and 53%, respectively, without or plateau. Patients treated in PR1 or PR2/CR2 had a significantly longer rate of OS and FFS than those treated in subsequent progression (P = .002 and P = .001, respectively), whereas age, response to salvage treatment, presence or absence of residual bone marrow involvement, or conditioning regimen had no influence on outcome. Patients with HT tended to have a worse FFS rate (P = .04) without an OS difference. Along with an unusual rate of engraftment failure, the poor FFS observed in heavily pretreated patients suggests that intensive therapy should be performed early in the course of the disease. Given the high percentage of patients intensified in PR with residual bone marrow involvement, our results are comparable with those achieved with ABMT published to date. Prospective trials are warranted to compare this strategy with standard therapy in patients with relapsing or PR follicular lymphoma.

This study has a cohort study or clinical trial

Intensive therapy with peripheral blood progenitor cell transplantation in 60 patients with poor-prognosis follicular lymphoma.

Intensive therapy, mainly with purged autologous bone marrow transplantation (ABMT), has been proposed in recent years as consolidation treatment in young patients with follicular lymphoma. Reported experience with transplantation of peripheral blood progenitor cells (PBPC) is, so far, limited. The feasibility and the therapeutic efficacy of intensive therapy followed by unpurged autologous PBPC reinfusion were evaluated in 60 patients with poor-prognosis follicular lymphoma. Twelve patients were in first partial remission (PR), 34 were in second partial or complete remission (CR), and 14 were in subsequent progression. At the time of the procedure, 39 patients (65%) had persistent bone marrow involvement, 49 patients (82%) were in PR, and 16 patients had presented with a histologic transformation (HT). PBPC were collected after chemotherapy followed by granulocyte (G) colony-stimulating factor (CSF) or granulocyte-macrophage (GM)-CSF in 50 patients. Conditioning regimens included high-dose chemotherapy alone (14 patients); mainly the BCNU, etoposide, aracytine, melphalan [BEAM] regimen), or cyclophosphamide with or without etoposide plus total body irradiation (46 patients). The median time to reach a neutrophil count greater than 0.5 x 10(9)/L was 13 days. There were five treatment-related deaths, with four being associated with a delayed engraftment and all occurring in patients in third or subsequent progression. At a median follow-up of 21 months, 48 patients were still alive, 18 relapsed, and seven died of lymphomas progression. Estimated 2-year overall survival (OS) and failure-free survival (FFS) rates were 86% and 53%, respectively, without or plateau. Patients treated in PR1 or PR2/CR2 had a significantly longer rate of OS and FFS than those treated in subsequent progression (P = .002 and P = .001, respectively), whereas age, response to salvage treatment, presence or absence of residual bone marrow involvement, or conditioning regimen had no influence on outcome. Patients with HT tended to have a worse FFS rate (P = .04) without an OS difference. Along with an unusual rate of engraftment failure, the poor FFS observed in heavily pretreated patients suggests that intensive therapy should be performed early in the course of the disease. Given the high percentage of patients intensified in PR with residual bone marrow involvement, our results are comparable with those achieved with ABMT published to date. Prospective trials are warranted to compare this strategy with standard therapy in patients with relapsing or PR follicular lymphoma.

This study does not have any cohorts or clinical trial

Intensive therapy with peripheral blood progenitor cell transplantation in 60 patients with poor-prognosis follicular lymphoma.

Intensive therapy, mainly with purged autologous bone marrow transplantation (ABMT), has been proposed in recent years as consolidation treatment in young patients with follicular lymphoma. Reported experience with transplantation of peripheral blood progenitor cells (PBPC) is, so far, limited. The feasibility and the therapeutic efficacy of intensive therapy followed by unpurged autologous PBPC reinfusion were evaluated in 60 patients with poor-prognosis follicular lymphoma. Twelve patients were in first partial remission (PR), 34 were in second partial or complete remission (CR), and 14 were in subsequent progression. At the time of the procedure, 39 patients (65%) had persistent bone marrow involvement, 49 patients (82%) were in PR, and 16 patients had presented with a histologic transformation (HT). PBPC were collected after chemotherapy followed by granulocyte (G) colony-stimulating factor (CSF) or granulocyte-macrophage (GM)-CSF in 50 patients. Conditioning regimens included high-dose chemotherapy alone (14 patients); mainly the BCNU, etoposide, aracytine, melphalan [BEAM] regimen), or cyclophosphamide with or without etoposide plus total body irradiation (46 patients). The median time to reach a neutrophil count greater than 0.5 x 10(9)/L was 13 days. There were five treatment-related deaths, with four being associated with a delayed engraftment and all occurring in patients in third or subsequent progression. At a median follow-up of 21 months, 48 patients were still alive, 18 relapsed, and seven died of lymphomas progression. Estimated 2-year overall survival (OS) and failure-free survival (FFS) rates were 86% and 53%, respectively, without or plateau. Patients treated in PR1 or PR2/CR2 had a significantly longer rate of OS and FFS than those treated in subsequent progression (P = .002 and P = .001, respectively), whereas age, response to salvage treatment, presence or absence of residual bone marrow involvement, or conditioning regimen had no influence on outcome. Patients with HT tended to have a worse FFS rate (P = .04) without an OS difference. Along with an unusual rate of engraftment failure, the poor FFS observed in heavily pretreated patients suggests that intensive therapy should be performed early in the course of the disease. Given the high percentage of patients intensified in PR with residual bone marrow involvement, our results are comparable with those achieved with ABMT published to date. Prospective trials are warranted to compare this strategy with standard therapy in patients with relapsing or PR follicular lymphoma.

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

Intensive therapy with peripheral blood progenitor cell transplantation in 60 patients with poor-prognosis follicular lymphoma.

Intensive therapy, mainly with purged autologous bone marrow transplantation (ABMT), has been proposed in recent years as consolidation treatment in young patients with follicular lymphoma. Reported experience with transplantation of peripheral blood progenitor cells (PBPC) is, so far, limited. The feasibility and the therapeutic efficacy of intensive therapy followed by unpurged autologous PBPC reinfusion were evaluated in 60 patients with poor-prognosis follicular lymphoma. Twelve patients were in first partial remission (PR), 34 were in second partial or complete remission (CR), and 14 were in subsequent progression. At the time of the procedure, 39 patients (65%) had persistent bone marrow involvement, 49 patients (82%) were in PR, and 16 patients had presented with a histologic transformation (HT). PBPC were collected after chemotherapy followed by granulocyte (G) colony-stimulating factor (CSF) or granulocyte-macrophage (GM)-CSF in 50 patients. Conditioning regimens included high-dose chemotherapy alone (14 patients); mainly the BCNU, etoposide, aracytine, melphalan [BEAM] regimen), or cyclophosphamide with or without etoposide plus total body irradiation (46 patients). The median time to reach a neutrophil count greater than 0.5 x 10(9)/L was 13 days. There were five treatment-related deaths, with four being associated with a delayed engraftment and all occurring in patients in third or subsequent progression. At a median follow-up of 21 months, 48 patients were still alive, 18 relapsed, and seven died of lymphomas progression. Estimated 2-year overall survival (OS) and failure-free survival (FFS) rates were 86% and 53%, respectively, without or plateau. Patients treated in PR1 or PR2/CR2 had a significantly longer rate of OS and FFS than those treated in subsequent progression (P = .002 and P = .001, respectively), whereas age, response to salvage treatment, presence or absence of residual bone marrow involvement, or conditioning regimen had no influence on outcome. Patients with HT tended to have a worse FFS rate (P = .04) without an OS difference. Along with an unusual rate of engraftment failure, the poor FFS observed in heavily pretreated patients suggests that intensive therapy should be performed early in the course of the disease. Given the high percentage of patients intensified in PR with residual bone marrow involvement, our results are comparable with those achieved with ABMT published to date. Prospective trials are warranted to compare this strategy with standard therapy in patients with relapsing or PR follicular lymphoma.

This study does not have any comparison patient group

Intensive therapy with peripheral blood progenitor cell transplantation in 60 patients with poor-prognosis follicular lymphoma.

Intensive therapy, mainly with purged autologous bone marrow transplantation (ABMT), has been proposed in recent years as consolidation treatment in young patients with follicular lymphoma. Reported experience with transplantation of peripheral blood progenitor cells (PBPC) is, so far, limited. The feasibility and the therapeutic efficacy of intensive therapy followed by unpurged autologous PBPC reinfusion were evaluated in 60 patients with poor-prognosis follicular lymphoma. Twelve patients were in first partial remission (PR), 34 were in second partial or complete remission (CR), and 14 were in subsequent progression. At the time of the procedure, 39 patients (65%) had persistent bone marrow involvement, 49 patients (82%) were in PR, and 16 patients had presented with a histologic transformation (HT). PBPC were collected after chemotherapy followed by granulocyte (G) colony-stimulating factor (CSF) or granulocyte-macrophage (GM)-CSF in 50 patients. Conditioning regimens included high-dose chemotherapy alone (14 patients); mainly the BCNU, etoposide, aracytine, melphalan [BEAM] regimen), or cyclophosphamide with or without etoposide plus total body irradiation (46 patients). The median time to reach a neutrophil count greater than 0.5 x 10(9)/L was 13 days. There were five treatment-related deaths, with four being associated with a delayed engraftment and all occurring in patients in third or subsequent progression. At a median follow-up of 21 months, 48 patients were still alive, 18 relapsed, and seven died of lymphomas progression. Estimated 2-year overall survival (OS) and failure-free survival (FFS) rates were 86% and 53%, respectively, without or plateau. Patients treated in PR1 or PR2/CR2 had a significantly longer rate of OS and FFS than those treated in subsequent progression (P = .002 and P = .001, respectively), whereas age, response to salvage treatment, presence or absence of residual bone marrow involvement, or conditioning regimen had no influence on outcome. Patients with HT tended to have a worse FFS rate (P = .04) without an OS difference. Along with an unusual rate of engraftment failure, the poor FFS observed in heavily pretreated patients suggests that intensive therapy should be performed early in the course of the disease. Given the high percentage of patients intensified in PR with residual bone marrow involvement, our results are comparable with those achieved with ABMT published to date. Prospective trials are warranted to compare this strategy with standard therapy in patients with relapsing or PR follicular lymphoma.

This study has human subjects

Intensive therapy with peripheral blood progenitor cell transplantation in 60 patients with poor-prognosis follicular lymphoma.

Intensive therapy, mainly with purged autologous bone marrow transplantation (ABMT), has been proposed in recent years as consolidation treatment in young patients with follicular lymphoma. Reported experience with transplantation of peripheral blood progenitor cells (PBPC) is, so far, limited. The feasibility and the therapeutic efficacy of intensive therapy followed by unpurged autologous PBPC reinfusion were evaluated in 60 patients with poor-prognosis follicular lymphoma. Twelve patients were in first partial remission (PR), 34 were in second partial or complete remission (CR), and 14 were in subsequent progression. At the time of the procedure, 39 patients (65%) had persistent bone marrow involvement, 49 patients (82%) were in PR, and 16 patients had presented with a histologic transformation (HT). PBPC were collected after chemotherapy followed by granulocyte (G) colony-stimulating factor (CSF) or granulocyte-macrophage (GM)-CSF in 50 patients. Conditioning regimens included high-dose chemotherapy alone (14 patients); mainly the BCNU, etoposide, aracytine, melphalan [BEAM] regimen), or cyclophosphamide with or without etoposide plus total body irradiation (46 patients). The median time to reach a neutrophil count greater than 0.5 x 10(9)/L was 13 days. There were five treatment-related deaths, with four being associated with a delayed engraftment and all occurring in patients in third or subsequent progression. At a median follow-up of 21 months, 48 patients were still alive, 18 relapsed, and seven died of lymphomas progression. Estimated 2-year overall survival (OS) and failure-free survival (FFS) rates were 86% and 53%, respectively, without or plateau. Patients treated in PR1 or PR2/CR2 had a significantly longer rate of OS and FFS than those treated in subsequent progression (P = .002 and P = .001, respectively), whereas age, response to salvage treatment, presence or absence of residual bone marrow involvement, or conditioning regimen had no influence on outcome. Patients with HT tended to have a worse FFS rate (P = .04) without an OS difference. Along with an unusual rate of engraftment failure, the poor FFS observed in heavily pretreated patients suggests that intensive therapy should be performed early in the course of the disease. Given the high percentage of patients intensified in PR with residual bone marrow involvement, our results are comparable with those achieved with ABMT published to date. Prospective trials are warranted to compare this strategy with standard therapy in patients with relapsing or PR follicular lymphoma.

This study does not have human subjects

Intensive therapy with peripheral blood progenitor cell transplantation in 60 patients with poor-prognosis follicular lymphoma.

Intensive therapy, mainly with purged autologous bone marrow transplantation (ABMT), has been proposed in recent years as consolidation treatment in young patients with follicular lymphoma. Reported experience with transplantation of peripheral blood progenitor cells (PBPC) is, so far, limited. The feasibility and the therapeutic efficacy of intensive therapy followed by unpurged autologous PBPC reinfusion were evaluated in 60 patients with poor-prognosis follicular lymphoma. Twelve patients were in first partial remission (PR), 34 were in second partial or complete remission (CR), and 14 were in subsequent progression. At the time of the procedure, 39 patients (65%) had persistent bone marrow involvement, 49 patients (82%) were in PR, and 16 patients had presented with a histologic transformation (HT). PBPC were collected after chemotherapy followed by granulocyte (G) colony-stimulating factor (CSF) or granulocyte-macrophage (GM)-CSF in 50 patients. Conditioning regimens included high-dose chemotherapy alone (14 patients); mainly the BCNU, etoposide, aracytine, melphalan [BEAM] regimen), or cyclophosphamide with or without etoposide plus total body irradiation (46 patients). The median time to reach a neutrophil count greater than 0.5 x 10(9)/L was 13 days. There were five treatment-related deaths, with four being associated with a delayed engraftment and all occurring in patients in third or subsequent progression. At a median follow-up of 21 months, 48 patients were still alive, 18 relapsed, and seven died of lymphomas progression. Estimated 2-year overall survival (OS) and failure-free survival (FFS) rates were 86% and 53%, respectively, without or plateau. Patients treated in PR1 or PR2/CR2 had a significantly longer rate of OS and FFS than those treated in subsequent progression (P = .002 and P = .001, respectively), whereas age, response to salvage treatment, presence or absence of residual bone marrow involvement, or conditioning regimen had no influence on outcome. Patients with HT tended to have a worse FFS rate (P = .04) without an OS difference. Along with an unusual rate of engraftment failure, the poor FFS observed in heavily pretreated patients suggests that intensive therapy should be performed early in the course of the disease. Given the high percentage of patients intensified in PR with residual bone marrow involvement, our results are comparable with those achieved with ABMT published to date. Prospective trials are warranted to compare this strategy with standard therapy in patients with relapsing or PR follicular lymphoma.

This study contains population size or sample size information

Intensive therapy with peripheral blood progenitor cell transplantation in 60 patients with poor-prognosis follicular lymphoma.

Intensive therapy, mainly with purged autologous bone marrow transplantation (ABMT), has been proposed in recent years as consolidation treatment in young patients with follicular lymphoma. Reported experience with transplantation of peripheral blood progenitor cells (PBPC) is, so far, limited. The feasibility and the therapeutic efficacy of intensive therapy followed by unpurged autologous PBPC reinfusion were evaluated in 60 patients with poor-prognosis follicular lymphoma. Twelve patients were in first partial remission (PR), 34 were in second partial or complete remission (CR), and 14 were in subsequent progression. At the time of the procedure, 39 patients (65%) had persistent bone marrow involvement, 49 patients (82%) were in PR, and 16 patients had presented with a histologic transformation (HT). PBPC were collected after chemotherapy followed by granulocyte (G) colony-stimulating factor (CSF) or granulocyte-macrophage (GM)-CSF in 50 patients. Conditioning regimens included high-dose chemotherapy alone (14 patients); mainly the BCNU, etoposide, aracytine, melphalan [BEAM] regimen), or cyclophosphamide with or without etoposide plus total body irradiation (46 patients). The median time to reach a neutrophil count greater than 0.5 x 10(9)/L was 13 days. There were five treatment-related deaths, with four being associated with a delayed engraftment and all occurring in patients in third or subsequent progression. At a median follow-up of 21 months, 48 patients were still alive, 18 relapsed, and seven died of lymphomas progression. Estimated 2-year overall survival (OS) and failure-free survival (FFS) rates were 86% and 53%, respectively, without or plateau. Patients treated in PR1 or PR2/CR2 had a significantly longer rate of OS and FFS than those treated in subsequent progression (P = .002 and P = .001, respectively), whereas age, response to salvage treatment, presence or absence of residual bone marrow involvement, or conditioning regimen had no influence on outcome. Patients with HT tended to have a worse FFS rate (P = .04) without an OS difference. Along with an unusual rate of engraftment failure, the poor FFS observed in heavily pretreated patients suggests that intensive therapy should be performed early in the course of the disease. Given the high percentage of patients intensified in PR with residual bone marrow involvement, our results are comparable with those achieved with ABMT published to date. Prospective trials are warranted to compare this strategy with standard therapy in patients with relapsing or PR follicular lymphoma.

This study does not contain population size information

Intensive therapy with peripheral blood progenitor cell transplantation in 60 patients with poor-prognosis follicular lymphoma.

Intensive therapy, mainly with purged autologous bone marrow transplantation (ABMT), has been proposed in recent years as consolidation treatment in young patients with follicular lymphoma. Reported experience with transplantation of peripheral blood progenitor cells (PBPC) is, so far, limited. The feasibility and the therapeutic efficacy of intensive therapy followed by unpurged autologous PBPC reinfusion were evaluated in 60 patients with poor-prognosis follicular lymphoma. Twelve patients were in first partial remission (PR), 34 were in second partial or complete remission (CR), and 14 were in subsequent progression. At the time of the procedure, 39 patients (65%) had persistent bone marrow involvement, 49 patients (82%) were in PR, and 16 patients had presented with a histologic transformation (HT). PBPC were collected after chemotherapy followed by granulocyte (G) colony-stimulating factor (CSF) or granulocyte-macrophage (GM)-CSF in 50 patients. Conditioning regimens included high-dose chemotherapy alone (14 patients); mainly the BCNU, etoposide, aracytine, melphalan [BEAM] regimen), or cyclophosphamide with or without etoposide plus total body irradiation (46 patients). The median time to reach a neutrophil count greater than 0.5 x 10(9)/L was 13 days. There were five treatment-related deaths, with four being associated with a delayed engraftment and all occurring in patients in third or subsequent progression. At a median follow-up of 21 months, 48 patients were still alive, 18 relapsed, and seven died of lymphomas progression. Estimated 2-year overall survival (OS) and failure-free survival (FFS) rates were 86% and 53%, respectively, without or plateau. Patients treated in PR1 or PR2/CR2 had a significantly longer rate of OS and FFS than those treated in subsequent progression (P = .002 and P = .001, respectively), whereas age, response to salvage treatment, presence or absence of residual bone marrow involvement, or conditioning regimen had no influence on outcome. Patients with HT tended to have a worse FFS rate (P = .04) without an OS difference. Along with an unusual rate of engraftment failure, the poor FFS observed in heavily pretreated patients suggests that intensive therapy should be performed early in the course of the disease. Given the high percentage of patients intensified in PR with residual bone marrow involvement, our results are comparable with those achieved with ABMT published to date. Prospective trials are warranted to compare this strategy with standard therapy in patients with relapsing or PR follicular lymphoma.

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

Intensive therapy with peripheral blood progenitor cell transplantation in 60 patients with poor-prognosis follicular lymphoma.

Intensive therapy, mainly with purged autologous bone marrow transplantation (ABMT), has been proposed in recent years as consolidation treatment in young patients with follicular lymphoma. Reported experience with transplantation of peripheral blood progenitor cells (PBPC) is, so far, limited. The feasibility and the therapeutic efficacy of intensive therapy followed by unpurged autologous PBPC reinfusion were evaluated in 60 patients with poor-prognosis follicular lymphoma. Twelve patients were in first partial remission (PR), 34 were in second partial or complete remission (CR), and 14 were in subsequent progression. At the time of the procedure, 39 patients (65%) had persistent bone marrow involvement, 49 patients (82%) were in PR, and 16 patients had presented with a histologic transformation (HT). PBPC were collected after chemotherapy followed by granulocyte (G) colony-stimulating factor (CSF) or granulocyte-macrophage (GM)-CSF in 50 patients. Conditioning regimens included high-dose chemotherapy alone (14 patients); mainly the BCNU, etoposide, aracytine, melphalan [BEAM] regimen), or cyclophosphamide with or without etoposide plus total body irradiation (46 patients). The median time to reach a neutrophil count greater than 0.5 x 10(9)/L was 13 days. There were five treatment-related deaths, with four being associated with a delayed engraftment and all occurring in patients in third or subsequent progression. At a median follow-up of 21 months, 48 patients were still alive, 18 relapsed, and seven died of lymphomas progression. Estimated 2-year overall survival (OS) and failure-free survival (FFS) rates were 86% and 53%, respectively, without or plateau. Patients treated in PR1 or PR2/CR2 had a significantly longer rate of OS and FFS than those treated in subsequent progression (P = .002 and P = .001, respectively), whereas age, response to salvage treatment, presence or absence of residual bone marrow involvement, or conditioning regimen had no influence on outcome. Patients with HT tended to have a worse FFS rate (P = .04) without an OS difference. Along with an unusual rate of engraftment failure, the poor FFS observed in heavily pretreated patients suggests that intensive therapy should be performed early in the course of the disease. Given the high percentage of patients intensified in PR with residual bone marrow involvement, our results are comparable with those achieved with ABMT published to date. Prospective trials are warranted to compare this strategy with standard therapy in patients with relapsing or PR follicular lymphoma.

This study does not have any quantitative outcomes

Intensive therapy with peripheral blood progenitor cell transplantation in 60 patients with poor-prognosis follicular lymphoma.

Intensive therapy, mainly with purged autologous bone marrow transplantation (ABMT), has been proposed in recent years as consolidation treatment in young patients with follicular lymphoma. Reported experience with transplantation of peripheral blood progenitor cells (PBPC) is, so far, limited. The feasibility and the therapeutic efficacy of intensive therapy followed by unpurged autologous PBPC reinfusion were evaluated in 60 patients with poor-prognosis follicular lymphoma. Twelve patients were in first partial remission (PR), 34 were in second partial or complete remission (CR), and 14 were in subsequent progression. At the time of the procedure, 39 patients (65%) had persistent bone marrow involvement, 49 patients (82%) were in PR, and 16 patients had presented with a histologic transformation (HT). PBPC were collected after chemotherapy followed by granulocyte (G) colony-stimulating factor (CSF) or granulocyte-macrophage (GM)-CSF in 50 patients. Conditioning regimens included high-dose chemotherapy alone (14 patients); mainly the BCNU, etoposide, aracytine, melphalan [BEAM] regimen), or cyclophosphamide with or without etoposide plus total body irradiation (46 patients). The median time to reach a neutrophil count greater than 0.5 x 10(9)/L was 13 days. There were five treatment-related deaths, with four being associated with a delayed engraftment and all occurring in patients in third or subsequent progression. At a median follow-up of 21 months, 48 patients were still alive, 18 relapsed, and seven died of lymphomas progression. Estimated 2-year overall survival (OS) and failure-free survival (FFS) rates were 86% and 53%, respectively, without or plateau. Patients treated in PR1 or PR2/CR2 had a significantly longer rate of OS and FFS than those treated in subsequent progression (P = .002 and P = .001, respectively), whereas age, response to salvage treatment, presence or absence of residual bone marrow involvement, or conditioning regimen had no influence on outcome. Patients with HT tended to have a worse FFS rate (P = .04) without an OS difference. Along with an unusual rate of engraftment failure, the poor FFS observed in heavily pretreated patients suggests that intensive therapy should be performed early in the course of the disease. Given the high percentage of patients intensified in PR with residual bone marrow involvement, our results are comparable with those achieved with ABMT published to date. Prospective trials are warranted to compare this strategy with standard therapy in patients with relapsing or PR follicular lymphoma.

This study has a target drug

Intensive therapy with peripheral blood progenitor cell transplantation in 60 patients with poor-prognosis follicular lymphoma.

Intensive therapy, mainly with purged autologous bone marrow transplantation (ABMT), has been proposed in recent years as consolidation treatment in young patients with follicular lymphoma. Reported experience with transplantation of peripheral blood progenitor cells (PBPC) is, so far, limited. The feasibility and the therapeutic efficacy of intensive therapy followed by unpurged autologous PBPC reinfusion were evaluated in 60 patients with poor-prognosis follicular lymphoma. Twelve patients were in first partial remission (PR), 34 were in second partial or complete remission (CR), and 14 were in subsequent progression. At the time of the procedure, 39 patients (65%) had persistent bone marrow involvement, 49 patients (82%) were in PR, and 16 patients had presented with a histologic transformation (HT). PBPC were collected after chemotherapy followed by granulocyte (G) colony-stimulating factor (CSF) or granulocyte-macrophage (GM)-CSF in 50 patients. Conditioning regimens included high-dose chemotherapy alone (14 patients); mainly the BCNU, etoposide, aracytine, melphalan [BEAM] regimen), or cyclophosphamide with or without etoposide plus total body irradiation (46 patients). The median time to reach a neutrophil count greater than 0.5 x 10(9)/L was 13 days. There were five treatment-related deaths, with four being associated with a delayed engraftment and all occurring in patients in third or subsequent progression. At a median follow-up of 21 months, 48 patients were still alive, 18 relapsed, and seven died of lymphomas progression. Estimated 2-year overall survival (OS) and failure-free survival (FFS) rates were 86% and 53%, respectively, without or plateau. Patients treated in PR1 or PR2/CR2 had a significantly longer rate of OS and FFS than those treated in subsequent progression (P = .002 and P = .001, respectively), whereas age, response to salvage treatment, presence or absence of residual bone marrow involvement, or conditioning regimen had no influence on outcome. Patients with HT tended to have a worse FFS rate (P = .04) without an OS difference. Along with an unusual rate of engraftment failure, the poor FFS observed in heavily pretreated patients suggests that intensive therapy should be performed early in the course of the disease. Given the high percentage of patients intensified in PR with residual bone marrow involvement, our results are comparable with those achieved with ABMT published to date. Prospective trials are warranted to compare this strategy with standard therapy in patients with relapsing or PR follicular lymphoma.

This study does not have a target drug

Intensive therapy with peripheral blood progenitor cell transplantation in 60 patients with poor-prognosis follicular lymphoma.

Intensive therapy, mainly with purged autologous bone marrow transplantation (ABMT), has been proposed in recent years as consolidation treatment in young patients with follicular lymphoma. Reported experience with transplantation of peripheral blood progenitor cells (PBPC) is, so far, limited. The feasibility and the therapeutic efficacy of intensive therapy followed by unpurged autologous PBPC reinfusion were evaluated in 60 patients with poor-prognosis follicular lymphoma. Twelve patients were in first partial remission (PR), 34 were in second partial or complete remission (CR), and 14 were in subsequent progression. At the time of the procedure, 39 patients (65%) had persistent bone marrow involvement, 49 patients (82%) were in PR, and 16 patients had presented with a histologic transformation (HT). PBPC were collected after chemotherapy followed by granulocyte (G) colony-stimulating factor (CSF) or granulocyte-macrophage (GM)-CSF in 50 patients. Conditioning regimens included high-dose chemotherapy alone (14 patients); mainly the BCNU, etoposide, aracytine, melphalan [BEAM] regimen), or cyclophosphamide with or without etoposide plus total body irradiation (46 patients). The median time to reach a neutrophil count greater than 0.5 x 10(9)/L was 13 days. There were five treatment-related deaths, with four being associated with a delayed engraftment and all occurring in patients in third or subsequent progression. At a median follow-up of 21 months, 48 patients were still alive, 18 relapsed, and seven died of lymphomas progression. Estimated 2-year overall survival (OS) and failure-free survival (FFS) rates were 86% and 53%, respectively, without or plateau. Patients treated in PR1 or PR2/CR2 had a significantly longer rate of OS and FFS than those treated in subsequent progression (P = .002 and P = .001, respectively), whereas age, response to salvage treatment, presence or absence of residual bone marrow involvement, or conditioning regimen had no influence on outcome. Patients with HT tended to have a worse FFS rate (P = .04) without an OS difference. Along with an unusual rate of engraftment failure, the poor FFS observed in heavily pretreated patients suggests that intensive therapy should be performed early in the course of the disease. Given the high percentage of patients intensified in PR with residual bone marrow involvement, our results are comparable with those achieved with ABMT published to date. Prospective trials are warranted to compare this strategy with standard therapy in patients with relapsing or PR follicular lymphoma.

This study has a target disease

Intensive therapy with peripheral blood progenitor cell transplantation in 60 patients with poor-prognosis follicular lymphoma.

Intensive therapy, mainly with purged autologous bone marrow transplantation (ABMT), has been proposed in recent years as consolidation treatment in young patients with follicular lymphoma. Reported experience with transplantation of peripheral blood progenitor cells (PBPC) is, so far, limited. The feasibility and the therapeutic efficacy of intensive therapy followed by unpurged autologous PBPC reinfusion were evaluated in 60 patients with poor-prognosis follicular lymphoma. Twelve patients were in first partial remission (PR), 34 were in second partial or complete remission (CR), and 14 were in subsequent progression. At the time of the procedure, 39 patients (65%) had persistent bone marrow involvement, 49 patients (82%) were in PR, and 16 patients had presented with a histologic transformation (HT). PBPC were collected after chemotherapy followed by granulocyte (G) colony-stimulating factor (CSF) or granulocyte-macrophage (GM)-CSF in 50 patients. Conditioning regimens included high-dose chemotherapy alone (14 patients); mainly the BCNU, etoposide, aracytine, melphalan [BEAM] regimen), or cyclophosphamide with or without etoposide plus total body irradiation (46 patients). The median time to reach a neutrophil count greater than 0.5 x 10(9)/L was 13 days. There were five treatment-related deaths, with four being associated with a delayed engraftment and all occurring in patients in third or subsequent progression. At a median follow-up of 21 months, 48 patients were still alive, 18 relapsed, and seven died of lymphomas progression. Estimated 2-year overall survival (OS) and failure-free survival (FFS) rates were 86% and 53%, respectively, without or plateau. Patients treated in PR1 or PR2/CR2 had a significantly longer rate of OS and FFS than those treated in subsequent progression (P = .002 and P = .001, respectively), whereas age, response to salvage treatment, presence or absence of residual bone marrow involvement, or conditioning regimen had no influence on outcome. Patients with HT tended to have a worse FFS rate (P = .04) without an OS difference. Along with an unusual rate of engraftment failure, the poor FFS observed in heavily pretreated patients suggests that intensive therapy should be performed early in the course of the disease. Given the high percentage of patients intensified in PR with residual bone marrow involvement, our results are comparable with those achieved with ABMT published to date. Prospective trials are warranted to compare this strategy with standard therapy in patients with relapsing or PR follicular lymphoma.

This study does not have a target disease

Hydrochlorothiazide and triamterene with sustained-release oxprenolol in the treatment of hypertension.

A single-blind, three-way Latin square crossover study without wash-out periods was performed in a general practice. Thirty moderately hypertensive patients were studied to compare the antihypertensive effect of 160 mg sustained-release oxprenolol once daily, 25 mg hydrochlorothiazide/50 mg triamterene once daily or a combination of the two preparations once daily, each treatment being given for 1 month. Blood pressure control was significantly better with the combination than with either agent used separately. Pulse rates, as expected, were lower when sustained-release oxprenolol was taken either alone or in the combination. Adverse events led to withdrawal in 1 patient only. Otherwise, all treatments were well tolerated and compliance was excellent. Renal function tests indicated a slight increase in creatinine, urate and urea levels after the treatments which included hydrochlorothiazide compared with oxprenolol alone, although the results were of no clinical significance.

This study has a cohort study or clinical trial

Hydrochlorothiazide and triamterene with sustained-release oxprenolol in the treatment of hypertension.

A single-blind, three-way Latin square crossover study without wash-out periods was performed in a general practice. Thirty moderately hypertensive patients were studied to compare the antihypertensive effect of 160 mg sustained-release oxprenolol once daily, 25 mg hydrochlorothiazide/50 mg triamterene once daily or a combination of the two preparations once daily, each treatment being given for 1 month. Blood pressure control was significantly better with the combination than with either agent used separately. Pulse rates, as expected, were lower when sustained-release oxprenolol was taken either alone or in the combination. Adverse events led to withdrawal in 1 patient only. Otherwise, all treatments were well tolerated and compliance was excellent. Renal function tests indicated a slight increase in creatinine, urate and urea levels after the treatments which included hydrochlorothiazide compared with oxprenolol alone, although the results were of no clinical significance.

This study does not have any cohorts or clinical trial

Hydrochlorothiazide and triamterene with sustained-release oxprenolol in the treatment of hypertension.

A single-blind, three-way Latin square crossover study without wash-out periods was performed in a general practice. Thirty moderately hypertensive patients were studied to compare the antihypertensive effect of 160 mg sustained-release oxprenolol once daily, 25 mg hydrochlorothiazide/50 mg triamterene once daily or a combination of the two preparations once daily, each treatment being given for 1 month. Blood pressure control was significantly better with the combination than with either agent used separately. Pulse rates, as expected, were lower when sustained-release oxprenolol was taken either alone or in the combination. Adverse events led to withdrawal in 1 patient only. Otherwise, all treatments were well tolerated and compliance was excellent. Renal function tests indicated a slight increase in creatinine, urate and urea levels after the treatments which included hydrochlorothiazide compared with oxprenolol alone, although the results were of no clinical significance.

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

Hydrochlorothiazide and triamterene with sustained-release oxprenolol in the treatment of hypertension.

A single-blind, three-way Latin square crossover study without wash-out periods was performed in a general practice. Thirty moderately hypertensive patients were studied to compare the antihypertensive effect of 160 mg sustained-release oxprenolol once daily, 25 mg hydrochlorothiazide/50 mg triamterene once daily or a combination of the two preparations once daily, each treatment being given for 1 month. Blood pressure control was significantly better with the combination than with either agent used separately. Pulse rates, as expected, were lower when sustained-release oxprenolol was taken either alone or in the combination. Adverse events led to withdrawal in 1 patient only. Otherwise, all treatments were well tolerated and compliance was excellent. Renal function tests indicated a slight increase in creatinine, urate and urea levels after the treatments which included hydrochlorothiazide compared with oxprenolol alone, although the results were of no clinical significance.

This study does not have any comparison patient group

Hydrochlorothiazide and triamterene with sustained-release oxprenolol in the treatment of hypertension.

A single-blind, three-way Latin square crossover study without wash-out periods was performed in a general practice. Thirty moderately hypertensive patients were studied to compare the antihypertensive effect of 160 mg sustained-release oxprenolol once daily, 25 mg hydrochlorothiazide/50 mg triamterene once daily or a combination of the two preparations once daily, each treatment being given for 1 month. Blood pressure control was significantly better with the combination than with either agent used separately. Pulse rates, as expected, were lower when sustained-release oxprenolol was taken either alone or in the combination. Adverse events led to withdrawal in 1 patient only. Otherwise, all treatments were well tolerated and compliance was excellent. Renal function tests indicated a slight increase in creatinine, urate and urea levels after the treatments which included hydrochlorothiazide compared with oxprenolol alone, although the results were of no clinical significance.

This study has human subjects

Hydrochlorothiazide and triamterene with sustained-release oxprenolol in the treatment of hypertension.

A single-blind, three-way Latin square crossover study without wash-out periods was performed in a general practice. Thirty moderately hypertensive patients were studied to compare the antihypertensive effect of 160 mg sustained-release oxprenolol once daily, 25 mg hydrochlorothiazide/50 mg triamterene once daily or a combination of the two preparations once daily, each treatment being given for 1 month. Blood pressure control was significantly better with the combination than with either agent used separately. Pulse rates, as expected, were lower when sustained-release oxprenolol was taken either alone or in the combination. Adverse events led to withdrawal in 1 patient only. Otherwise, all treatments were well tolerated and compliance was excellent. Renal function tests indicated a slight increase in creatinine, urate and urea levels after the treatments which included hydrochlorothiazide compared with oxprenolol alone, although the results were of no clinical significance.

This study does not have human subjects

Hydrochlorothiazide and triamterene with sustained-release oxprenolol in the treatment of hypertension.

A single-blind, three-way Latin square crossover study without wash-out periods was performed in a general practice. Thirty moderately hypertensive patients were studied to compare the antihypertensive effect of 160 mg sustained-release oxprenolol once daily, 25 mg hydrochlorothiazide/50 mg triamterene once daily or a combination of the two preparations once daily, each treatment being given for 1 month. Blood pressure control was significantly better with the combination than with either agent used separately. Pulse rates, as expected, were lower when sustained-release oxprenolol was taken either alone or in the combination. Adverse events led to withdrawal in 1 patient only. Otherwise, all treatments were well tolerated and compliance was excellent. Renal function tests indicated a slight increase in creatinine, urate and urea levels after the treatments which included hydrochlorothiazide compared with oxprenolol alone, although the results were of no clinical significance.

This study contains population size or sample size information

Hydrochlorothiazide and triamterene with sustained-release oxprenolol in the treatment of hypertension.

A single-blind, three-way Latin square crossover study without wash-out periods was performed in a general practice. Thirty moderately hypertensive patients were studied to compare the antihypertensive effect of 160 mg sustained-release oxprenolol once daily, 25 mg hydrochlorothiazide/50 mg triamterene once daily or a combination of the two preparations once daily, each treatment being given for 1 month. Blood pressure control was significantly better with the combination than with either agent used separately. Pulse rates, as expected, were lower when sustained-release oxprenolol was taken either alone or in the combination. Adverse events led to withdrawal in 1 patient only. Otherwise, all treatments were well tolerated and compliance was excellent. Renal function tests indicated a slight increase in creatinine, urate and urea levels after the treatments which included hydrochlorothiazide compared with oxprenolol alone, although the results were of no clinical significance.

This study does not contain population size information

Hydrochlorothiazide and triamterene with sustained-release oxprenolol in the treatment of hypertension.

A single-blind, three-way Latin square crossover study without wash-out periods was performed in a general practice. Thirty moderately hypertensive patients were studied to compare the antihypertensive effect of 160 mg sustained-release oxprenolol once daily, 25 mg hydrochlorothiazide/50 mg triamterene once daily or a combination of the two preparations once daily, each treatment being given for 1 month. Blood pressure control was significantly better with the combination than with either agent used separately. Pulse rates, as expected, were lower when sustained-release oxprenolol was taken either alone or in the combination. Adverse events led to withdrawal in 1 patient only. Otherwise, all treatments were well tolerated and compliance was excellent. Renal function tests indicated a slight increase in creatinine, urate and urea levels after the treatments which included hydrochlorothiazide compared with oxprenolol alone, although the results were of no clinical significance.

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

Hydrochlorothiazide and triamterene with sustained-release oxprenolol in the treatment of hypertension.

A single-blind, three-way Latin square crossover study without wash-out periods was performed in a general practice. Thirty moderately hypertensive patients were studied to compare the antihypertensive effect of 160 mg sustained-release oxprenolol once daily, 25 mg hydrochlorothiazide/50 mg triamterene once daily or a combination of the two preparations once daily, each treatment being given for 1 month. Blood pressure control was significantly better with the combination than with either agent used separately. Pulse rates, as expected, were lower when sustained-release oxprenolol was taken either alone or in the combination. Adverse events led to withdrawal in 1 patient only. Otherwise, all treatments were well tolerated and compliance was excellent. Renal function tests indicated a slight increase in creatinine, urate and urea levels after the treatments which included hydrochlorothiazide compared with oxprenolol alone, although the results were of no clinical significance.

This study does not have any quantitative outcomes

Hydrochlorothiazide and triamterene with sustained-release oxprenolol in the treatment of hypertension.

A single-blind, three-way Latin square crossover study without wash-out periods was performed in a general practice. Thirty moderately hypertensive patients were studied to compare the antihypertensive effect of 160 mg sustained-release oxprenolol once daily, 25 mg hydrochlorothiazide/50 mg triamterene once daily or a combination of the two preparations once daily, each treatment being given for 1 month. Blood pressure control was significantly better with the combination than with either agent used separately. Pulse rates, as expected, were lower when sustained-release oxprenolol was taken either alone or in the combination. Adverse events led to withdrawal in 1 patient only. Otherwise, all treatments were well tolerated and compliance was excellent. Renal function tests indicated a slight increase in creatinine, urate and urea levels after the treatments which included hydrochlorothiazide compared with oxprenolol alone, although the results were of no clinical significance.

This study has a target drug

Hydrochlorothiazide and triamterene with sustained-release oxprenolol in the treatment of hypertension.

A single-blind, three-way Latin square crossover study without wash-out periods was performed in a general practice. Thirty moderately hypertensive patients were studied to compare the antihypertensive effect of 160 mg sustained-release oxprenolol once daily, 25 mg hydrochlorothiazide/50 mg triamterene once daily or a combination of the two preparations once daily, each treatment being given for 1 month. Blood pressure control was significantly better with the combination than with either agent used separately. Pulse rates, as expected, were lower when sustained-release oxprenolol was taken either alone or in the combination. Adverse events led to withdrawal in 1 patient only. Otherwise, all treatments were well tolerated and compliance was excellent. Renal function tests indicated a slight increase in creatinine, urate and urea levels after the treatments which included hydrochlorothiazide compared with oxprenolol alone, although the results were of no clinical significance.

This study does not have a target drug

Hydrochlorothiazide and triamterene with sustained-release oxprenolol in the treatment of hypertension.

A single-blind, three-way Latin square crossover study without wash-out periods was performed in a general practice. Thirty moderately hypertensive patients were studied to compare the antihypertensive effect of 160 mg sustained-release oxprenolol once daily, 25 mg hydrochlorothiazide/50 mg triamterene once daily or a combination of the two preparations once daily, each treatment being given for 1 month. Blood pressure control was significantly better with the combination than with either agent used separately. Pulse rates, as expected, were lower when sustained-release oxprenolol was taken either alone or in the combination. Adverse events led to withdrawal in 1 patient only. Otherwise, all treatments were well tolerated and compliance was excellent. Renal function tests indicated a slight increase in creatinine, urate and urea levels after the treatments which included hydrochlorothiazide compared with oxprenolol alone, although the results were of no clinical significance.

This study has a target disease

Hydrochlorothiazide and triamterene with sustained-release oxprenolol in the treatment of hypertension.

A single-blind, three-way Latin square crossover study without wash-out periods was performed in a general practice. Thirty moderately hypertensive patients were studied to compare the antihypertensive effect of 160 mg sustained-release oxprenolol once daily, 25 mg hydrochlorothiazide/50 mg triamterene once daily or a combination of the two preparations once daily, each treatment being given for 1 month. Blood pressure control was significantly better with the combination than with either agent used separately. Pulse rates, as expected, were lower when sustained-release oxprenolol was taken either alone or in the combination. Adverse events led to withdrawal in 1 patient only. Otherwise, all treatments were well tolerated and compliance was excellent. Renal function tests indicated a slight increase in creatinine, urate and urea levels after the treatments which included hydrochlorothiazide compared with oxprenolol alone, although the results were of no clinical significance.

This study does not have a target disease

Anticholinergic vs Long-Acting β-Agonist in Combination With Inhaled Corticosteroids in Black Adults With Asthma: The BELT Randomized Clinical Trial.

The efficacy and safety of long-acting β-agonists (LABAs) have been questioned. Black populations may be disproportionately affected by LABA risks. To compare the effectiveness and safety of tiotropium vs LABAs, when used with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in black adults with asthma and to determine whether allelic variation at the Arg16Gly locus of the β2-adrenergic receptor (ADRB2) geneis associated with treatment response. A multisite (n = 20), open-label, parallel-group, pragmatic randomized clinical trial conducted from March 2011 through July 2013, enrolling black adults with moderate to severe asthma in the United States. Patients eligible for, or receiving, step 3 or step 4 combination therapy per National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute guidelines, received ICS plus either once-daily tiotropium (n = 532) or twice-daily LABAs (n = 538,) and were followed up for up to 18 months. Patients underwent genotyping, attended study visits at baseline, 1, 6, 12, and 18 months, and completed monthly questionnaires. The primary outcome was time to asthma exacerbation, defined as a worsening asthma event requiring oral or parenteral corticosteroids. Secondary outcomes included patient-reported outcomes (Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire, Asthma Control Questionnaire [ACQ], Asthma Symptom Utility Index, and Asthma Symptom-Free Days questionnaire), spirometry (FEV1), rescue medication use, asthma deteriorations, and adverse events. There was no difference between LABA + ICS vs tiotropium + ICS in time to first exacerbation (mean No. of exacerbations/person-year, 0.42 vs 0.37 (rate ratio, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.73 to 1.11], log-rank P = .31). There was no difference in change in FEV1 at 12 months (0.003 L for LABA + ICS vs -0.018 L for tiotropium + ICS; between-group difference, 0.020 [95% CI, -0.021 to 0.061], P = .33) and at 18 months (-0.053 L vs -0.078 L; between-group difference, 0.025 [95% CI, -0.045 to 0.095], P = .49). There were no differences in ACQ score at 18 months (change in score from baseline, -0.68 for LABA + ICS vs -0.72 for tiotropium + ICS; between-group difference, 0.04 [95% CI, -0.18 to 0.27], P = .70). There were no differences in other patient-reported outcomes. Arg16Gly ADRB2 alleles were not associated with differences in the effects of tiotropium + ICS vs LABA + ICS (hazard ratio for time to first exacerbation, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.47 to 1.51] for Arg/Arg vs 0.85 [95% CI, 0.63 to 1.15] for Arg/Gly or Gly/Gly, P = .97). Among black adults with asthma treated with ICS, adding a LABA did not improve time to asthma exacerbation compared with adding tiotropium. These findings were not affected by polymorphisms at the Arg16Gly locus of ADRB2. These findings do not support the superiority of LABA + ICS compared with tiotropium + ICS for black patients with asthma. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01290874.

This study has a cohort study or clinical trial

Anticholinergic vs Long-Acting β-Agonist in Combination With Inhaled Corticosteroids in Black Adults With Asthma: The BELT Randomized Clinical Trial.

The efficacy and safety of long-acting β-agonists (LABAs) have been questioned. Black populations may be disproportionately affected by LABA risks. To compare the effectiveness and safety of tiotropium vs LABAs, when used with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in black adults with asthma and to determine whether allelic variation at the Arg16Gly locus of the β2-adrenergic receptor (ADRB2) geneis associated with treatment response. A multisite (n = 20), open-label, parallel-group, pragmatic randomized clinical trial conducted from March 2011 through July 2013, enrolling black adults with moderate to severe asthma in the United States. Patients eligible for, or receiving, step 3 or step 4 combination therapy per National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute guidelines, received ICS plus either once-daily tiotropium (n = 532) or twice-daily LABAs (n = 538,) and were followed up for up to 18 months. Patients underwent genotyping, attended study visits at baseline, 1, 6, 12, and 18 months, and completed monthly questionnaires. The primary outcome was time to asthma exacerbation, defined as a worsening asthma event requiring oral or parenteral corticosteroids. Secondary outcomes included patient-reported outcomes (Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire, Asthma Control Questionnaire [ACQ], Asthma Symptom Utility Index, and Asthma Symptom-Free Days questionnaire), spirometry (FEV1), rescue medication use, asthma deteriorations, and adverse events. There was no difference between LABA + ICS vs tiotropium + ICS in time to first exacerbation (mean No. of exacerbations/person-year, 0.42 vs 0.37 (rate ratio, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.73 to 1.11], log-rank P = .31). There was no difference in change in FEV1 at 12 months (0.003 L for LABA + ICS vs -0.018 L for tiotropium + ICS; between-group difference, 0.020 [95% CI, -0.021 to 0.061], P = .33) and at 18 months (-0.053 L vs -0.078 L; between-group difference, 0.025 [95% CI, -0.045 to 0.095], P = .49). There were no differences in ACQ score at 18 months (change in score from baseline, -0.68 for LABA + ICS vs -0.72 for tiotropium + ICS; between-group difference, 0.04 [95% CI, -0.18 to 0.27], P = .70). There were no differences in other patient-reported outcomes. Arg16Gly ADRB2 alleles were not associated with differences in the effects of tiotropium + ICS vs LABA + ICS (hazard ratio for time to first exacerbation, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.47 to 1.51] for Arg/Arg vs 0.85 [95% CI, 0.63 to 1.15] for Arg/Gly or Gly/Gly, P = .97). Among black adults with asthma treated with ICS, adding a LABA did not improve time to asthma exacerbation compared with adding tiotropium. These findings were not affected by polymorphisms at the Arg16Gly locus of ADRB2. These findings do not support the superiority of LABA + ICS compared with tiotropium + ICS for black patients with asthma. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01290874.

This study does not have any cohorts or clinical trial

Anticholinergic vs Long-Acting β-Agonist in Combination With Inhaled Corticosteroids in Black Adults With Asthma: The BELT Randomized Clinical Trial.

The efficacy and safety of long-acting β-agonists (LABAs) have been questioned. Black populations may be disproportionately affected by LABA risks. To compare the effectiveness and safety of tiotropium vs LABAs, when used with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in black adults with asthma and to determine whether allelic variation at the Arg16Gly locus of the β2-adrenergic receptor (ADRB2) geneis associated with treatment response. A multisite (n = 20), open-label, parallel-group, pragmatic randomized clinical trial conducted from March 2011 through July 2013, enrolling black adults with moderate to severe asthma in the United States. Patients eligible for, or receiving, step 3 or step 4 combination therapy per National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute guidelines, received ICS plus either once-daily tiotropium (n = 532) or twice-daily LABAs (n = 538,) and were followed up for up to 18 months. Patients underwent genotyping, attended study visits at baseline, 1, 6, 12, and 18 months, and completed monthly questionnaires. The primary outcome was time to asthma exacerbation, defined as a worsening asthma event requiring oral or parenteral corticosteroids. Secondary outcomes included patient-reported outcomes (Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire, Asthma Control Questionnaire [ACQ], Asthma Symptom Utility Index, and Asthma Symptom-Free Days questionnaire), spirometry (FEV1), rescue medication use, asthma deteriorations, and adverse events. There was no difference between LABA + ICS vs tiotropium + ICS in time to first exacerbation (mean No. of exacerbations/person-year, 0.42 vs 0.37 (rate ratio, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.73 to 1.11], log-rank P = .31). There was no difference in change in FEV1 at 12 months (0.003 L for LABA + ICS vs -0.018 L for tiotropium + ICS; between-group difference, 0.020 [95% CI, -0.021 to 0.061], P = .33) and at 18 months (-0.053 L vs -0.078 L; between-group difference, 0.025 [95% CI, -0.045 to 0.095], P = .49). There were no differences in ACQ score at 18 months (change in score from baseline, -0.68 for LABA + ICS vs -0.72 for tiotropium + ICS; between-group difference, 0.04 [95% CI, -0.18 to 0.27], P = .70). There were no differences in other patient-reported outcomes. Arg16Gly ADRB2 alleles were not associated with differences in the effects of tiotropium + ICS vs LABA + ICS (hazard ratio for time to first exacerbation, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.47 to 1.51] for Arg/Arg vs 0.85 [95% CI, 0.63 to 1.15] for Arg/Gly or Gly/Gly, P = .97). Among black adults with asthma treated with ICS, adding a LABA did not improve time to asthma exacerbation compared with adding tiotropium. These findings were not affected by polymorphisms at the Arg16Gly locus of ADRB2. These findings do not support the superiority of LABA + ICS compared with tiotropium + ICS for black patients with asthma. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01290874.

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

Anticholinergic vs Long-Acting β-Agonist in Combination With Inhaled Corticosteroids in Black Adults With Asthma: The BELT Randomized Clinical Trial.

The efficacy and safety of long-acting β-agonists (LABAs) have been questioned. Black populations may be disproportionately affected by LABA risks. To compare the effectiveness and safety of tiotropium vs LABAs, when used with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in black adults with asthma and to determine whether allelic variation at the Arg16Gly locus of the β2-adrenergic receptor (ADRB2) geneis associated with treatment response. A multisite (n = 20), open-label, parallel-group, pragmatic randomized clinical trial conducted from March 2011 through July 2013, enrolling black adults with moderate to severe asthma in the United States. Patients eligible for, or receiving, step 3 or step 4 combination therapy per National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute guidelines, received ICS plus either once-daily tiotropium (n = 532) or twice-daily LABAs (n = 538,) and were followed up for up to 18 months. Patients underwent genotyping, attended study visits at baseline, 1, 6, 12, and 18 months, and completed monthly questionnaires. The primary outcome was time to asthma exacerbation, defined as a worsening asthma event requiring oral or parenteral corticosteroids. Secondary outcomes included patient-reported outcomes (Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire, Asthma Control Questionnaire [ACQ], Asthma Symptom Utility Index, and Asthma Symptom-Free Days questionnaire), spirometry (FEV1), rescue medication use, asthma deteriorations, and adverse events. There was no difference between LABA + ICS vs tiotropium + ICS in time to first exacerbation (mean No. of exacerbations/person-year, 0.42 vs 0.37 (rate ratio, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.73 to 1.11], log-rank P = .31). There was no difference in change in FEV1 at 12 months (0.003 L for LABA + ICS vs -0.018 L for tiotropium + ICS; between-group difference, 0.020 [95% CI, -0.021 to 0.061], P = .33) and at 18 months (-0.053 L vs -0.078 L; between-group difference, 0.025 [95% CI, -0.045 to 0.095], P = .49). There were no differences in ACQ score at 18 months (change in score from baseline, -0.68 for LABA + ICS vs -0.72 for tiotropium + ICS; between-group difference, 0.04 [95% CI, -0.18 to 0.27], P = .70). There were no differences in other patient-reported outcomes. Arg16Gly ADRB2 alleles were not associated with differences in the effects of tiotropium + ICS vs LABA + ICS (hazard ratio for time to first exacerbation, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.47 to 1.51] for Arg/Arg vs 0.85 [95% CI, 0.63 to 1.15] for Arg/Gly or Gly/Gly, P = .97). Among black adults with asthma treated with ICS, adding a LABA did not improve time to asthma exacerbation compared with adding tiotropium. These findings were not affected by polymorphisms at the Arg16Gly locus of ADRB2. These findings do not support the superiority of LABA + ICS compared with tiotropium + ICS for black patients with asthma. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01290874.

This study does not have any comparison patient group

Anticholinergic vs Long-Acting β-Agonist in Combination With Inhaled Corticosteroids in Black Adults With Asthma: The BELT Randomized Clinical Trial.

The efficacy and safety of long-acting β-agonists (LABAs) have been questioned. Black populations may be disproportionately affected by LABA risks. To compare the effectiveness and safety of tiotropium vs LABAs, when used with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in black adults with asthma and to determine whether allelic variation at the Arg16Gly locus of the β2-adrenergic receptor (ADRB2) geneis associated with treatment response. A multisite (n = 20), open-label, parallel-group, pragmatic randomized clinical trial conducted from March 2011 through July 2013, enrolling black adults with moderate to severe asthma in the United States. Patients eligible for, or receiving, step 3 or step 4 combination therapy per National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute guidelines, received ICS plus either once-daily tiotropium (n = 532) or twice-daily LABAs (n = 538,) and were followed up for up to 18 months. Patients underwent genotyping, attended study visits at baseline, 1, 6, 12, and 18 months, and completed monthly questionnaires. The primary outcome was time to asthma exacerbation, defined as a worsening asthma event requiring oral or parenteral corticosteroids. Secondary outcomes included patient-reported outcomes (Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire, Asthma Control Questionnaire [ACQ], Asthma Symptom Utility Index, and Asthma Symptom-Free Days questionnaire), spirometry (FEV1), rescue medication use, asthma deteriorations, and adverse events. There was no difference between LABA + ICS vs tiotropium + ICS in time to first exacerbation (mean No. of exacerbations/person-year, 0.42 vs 0.37 (rate ratio, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.73 to 1.11], log-rank P = .31). There was no difference in change in FEV1 at 12 months (0.003 L for LABA + ICS vs -0.018 L for tiotropium + ICS; between-group difference, 0.020 [95% CI, -0.021 to 0.061], P = .33) and at 18 months (-0.053 L vs -0.078 L; between-group difference, 0.025 [95% CI, -0.045 to 0.095], P = .49). There were no differences in ACQ score at 18 months (change in score from baseline, -0.68 for LABA + ICS vs -0.72 for tiotropium + ICS; between-group difference, 0.04 [95% CI, -0.18 to 0.27], P = .70). There were no differences in other patient-reported outcomes. Arg16Gly ADRB2 alleles were not associated with differences in the effects of tiotropium + ICS vs LABA + ICS (hazard ratio for time to first exacerbation, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.47 to 1.51] for Arg/Arg vs 0.85 [95% CI, 0.63 to 1.15] for Arg/Gly or Gly/Gly, P = .97). Among black adults with asthma treated with ICS, adding a LABA did not improve time to asthma exacerbation compared with adding tiotropium. These findings were not affected by polymorphisms at the Arg16Gly locus of ADRB2. These findings do not support the superiority of LABA + ICS compared with tiotropium + ICS for black patients with asthma. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01290874.

This study has human subjects

Anticholinergic vs Long-Acting β-Agonist in Combination With Inhaled Corticosteroids in Black Adults With Asthma: The BELT Randomized Clinical Trial.

The efficacy and safety of long-acting β-agonists (LABAs) have been questioned. Black populations may be disproportionately affected by LABA risks. To compare the effectiveness and safety of tiotropium vs LABAs, when used with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in black adults with asthma and to determine whether allelic variation at the Arg16Gly locus of the β2-adrenergic receptor (ADRB2) geneis associated with treatment response. A multisite (n = 20), open-label, parallel-group, pragmatic randomized clinical trial conducted from March 2011 through July 2013, enrolling black adults with moderate to severe asthma in the United States. Patients eligible for, or receiving, step 3 or step 4 combination therapy per National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute guidelines, received ICS plus either once-daily tiotropium (n = 532) or twice-daily LABAs (n = 538,) and were followed up for up to 18 months. Patients underwent genotyping, attended study visits at baseline, 1, 6, 12, and 18 months, and completed monthly questionnaires. The primary outcome was time to asthma exacerbation, defined as a worsening asthma event requiring oral or parenteral corticosteroids. Secondary outcomes included patient-reported outcomes (Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire, Asthma Control Questionnaire [ACQ], Asthma Symptom Utility Index, and Asthma Symptom-Free Days questionnaire), spirometry (FEV1), rescue medication use, asthma deteriorations, and adverse events. There was no difference between LABA + ICS vs tiotropium + ICS in time to first exacerbation (mean No. of exacerbations/person-year, 0.42 vs 0.37 (rate ratio, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.73 to 1.11], log-rank P = .31). There was no difference in change in FEV1 at 12 months (0.003 L for LABA + ICS vs -0.018 L for tiotropium + ICS; between-group difference, 0.020 [95% CI, -0.021 to 0.061], P = .33) and at 18 months (-0.053 L vs -0.078 L; between-group difference, 0.025 [95% CI, -0.045 to 0.095], P = .49). There were no differences in ACQ score at 18 months (change in score from baseline, -0.68 for LABA + ICS vs -0.72 for tiotropium + ICS; between-group difference, 0.04 [95% CI, -0.18 to 0.27], P = .70). There were no differences in other patient-reported outcomes. Arg16Gly ADRB2 alleles were not associated with differences in the effects of tiotropium + ICS vs LABA + ICS (hazard ratio for time to first exacerbation, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.47 to 1.51] for Arg/Arg vs 0.85 [95% CI, 0.63 to 1.15] for Arg/Gly or Gly/Gly, P = .97). Among black adults with asthma treated with ICS, adding a LABA did not improve time to asthma exacerbation compared with adding tiotropium. These findings were not affected by polymorphisms at the Arg16Gly locus of ADRB2. These findings do not support the superiority of LABA + ICS compared with tiotropium + ICS for black patients with asthma. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01290874.

This study does not have human subjects

Anticholinergic vs Long-Acting β-Agonist in Combination With Inhaled Corticosteroids in Black Adults With Asthma: The BELT Randomized Clinical Trial.

The efficacy and safety of long-acting β-agonists (LABAs) have been questioned. Black populations may be disproportionately affected by LABA risks. To compare the effectiveness and safety of tiotropium vs LABAs, when used with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in black adults with asthma and to determine whether allelic variation at the Arg16Gly locus of the β2-adrenergic receptor (ADRB2) geneis associated with treatment response. A multisite (n = 20), open-label, parallel-group, pragmatic randomized clinical trial conducted from March 2011 through July 2013, enrolling black adults with moderate to severe asthma in the United States. Patients eligible for, or receiving, step 3 or step 4 combination therapy per National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute guidelines, received ICS plus either once-daily tiotropium (n = 532) or twice-daily LABAs (n = 538,) and were followed up for up to 18 months. Patients underwent genotyping, attended study visits at baseline, 1, 6, 12, and 18 months, and completed monthly questionnaires. The primary outcome was time to asthma exacerbation, defined as a worsening asthma event requiring oral or parenteral corticosteroids. Secondary outcomes included patient-reported outcomes (Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire, Asthma Control Questionnaire [ACQ], Asthma Symptom Utility Index, and Asthma Symptom-Free Days questionnaire), spirometry (FEV1), rescue medication use, asthma deteriorations, and adverse events. There was no difference between LABA + ICS vs tiotropium + ICS in time to first exacerbation (mean No. of exacerbations/person-year, 0.42 vs 0.37 (rate ratio, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.73 to 1.11], log-rank P = .31). There was no difference in change in FEV1 at 12 months (0.003 L for LABA + ICS vs -0.018 L for tiotropium + ICS; between-group difference, 0.020 [95% CI, -0.021 to 0.061], P = .33) and at 18 months (-0.053 L vs -0.078 L; between-group difference, 0.025 [95% CI, -0.045 to 0.095], P = .49). There were no differences in ACQ score at 18 months (change in score from baseline, -0.68 for LABA + ICS vs -0.72 for tiotropium + ICS; between-group difference, 0.04 [95% CI, -0.18 to 0.27], P = .70). There were no differences in other patient-reported outcomes. Arg16Gly ADRB2 alleles were not associated with differences in the effects of tiotropium + ICS vs LABA + ICS (hazard ratio for time to first exacerbation, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.47 to 1.51] for Arg/Arg vs 0.85 [95% CI, 0.63 to 1.15] for Arg/Gly or Gly/Gly, P = .97). Among black adults with asthma treated with ICS, adding a LABA did not improve time to asthma exacerbation compared with adding tiotropium. These findings were not affected by polymorphisms at the Arg16Gly locus of ADRB2. These findings do not support the superiority of LABA + ICS compared with tiotropium + ICS for black patients with asthma. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01290874.

This study contains population size or sample size information

Anticholinergic vs Long-Acting β-Agonist in Combination With Inhaled Corticosteroids in Black Adults With Asthma: The BELT Randomized Clinical Trial.

The efficacy and safety of long-acting β-agonists (LABAs) have been questioned. Black populations may be disproportionately affected by LABA risks. To compare the effectiveness and safety of tiotropium vs LABAs, when used with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in black adults with asthma and to determine whether allelic variation at the Arg16Gly locus of the β2-adrenergic receptor (ADRB2) geneis associated with treatment response. A multisite (n = 20), open-label, parallel-group, pragmatic randomized clinical trial conducted from March 2011 through July 2013, enrolling black adults with moderate to severe asthma in the United States. Patients eligible for, or receiving, step 3 or step 4 combination therapy per National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute guidelines, received ICS plus either once-daily tiotropium (n = 532) or twice-daily LABAs (n = 538,) and were followed up for up to 18 months. Patients underwent genotyping, attended study visits at baseline, 1, 6, 12, and 18 months, and completed monthly questionnaires. The primary outcome was time to asthma exacerbation, defined as a worsening asthma event requiring oral or parenteral corticosteroids. Secondary outcomes included patient-reported outcomes (Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire, Asthma Control Questionnaire [ACQ], Asthma Symptom Utility Index, and Asthma Symptom-Free Days questionnaire), spirometry (FEV1), rescue medication use, asthma deteriorations, and adverse events. There was no difference between LABA + ICS vs tiotropium + ICS in time to first exacerbation (mean No. of exacerbations/person-year, 0.42 vs 0.37 (rate ratio, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.73 to 1.11], log-rank P = .31). There was no difference in change in FEV1 at 12 months (0.003 L for LABA + ICS vs -0.018 L for tiotropium + ICS; between-group difference, 0.020 [95% CI, -0.021 to 0.061], P = .33) and at 18 months (-0.053 L vs -0.078 L; between-group difference, 0.025 [95% CI, -0.045 to 0.095], P = .49). There were no differences in ACQ score at 18 months (change in score from baseline, -0.68 for LABA + ICS vs -0.72 for tiotropium + ICS; between-group difference, 0.04 [95% CI, -0.18 to 0.27], P = .70). There were no differences in other patient-reported outcomes. Arg16Gly ADRB2 alleles were not associated with differences in the effects of tiotropium + ICS vs LABA + ICS (hazard ratio for time to first exacerbation, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.47 to 1.51] for Arg/Arg vs 0.85 [95% CI, 0.63 to 1.15] for Arg/Gly or Gly/Gly, P = .97). Among black adults with asthma treated with ICS, adding a LABA did not improve time to asthma exacerbation compared with adding tiotropium. These findings were not affected by polymorphisms at the Arg16Gly locus of ADRB2. These findings do not support the superiority of LABA + ICS compared with tiotropium + ICS for black patients with asthma. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01290874.

This study does not contain population size information

Anticholinergic vs Long-Acting β-Agonist in Combination With Inhaled Corticosteroids in Black Adults With Asthma: The BELT Randomized Clinical Trial.

The efficacy and safety of long-acting β-agonists (LABAs) have been questioned. Black populations may be disproportionately affected by LABA risks. To compare the effectiveness and safety of tiotropium vs LABAs, when used with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in black adults with asthma and to determine whether allelic variation at the Arg16Gly locus of the β2-adrenergic receptor (ADRB2) geneis associated with treatment response. A multisite (n = 20), open-label, parallel-group, pragmatic randomized clinical trial conducted from March 2011 through July 2013, enrolling black adults with moderate to severe asthma in the United States. Patients eligible for, or receiving, step 3 or step 4 combination therapy per National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute guidelines, received ICS plus either once-daily tiotropium (n = 532) or twice-daily LABAs (n = 538,) and were followed up for up to 18 months. Patients underwent genotyping, attended study visits at baseline, 1, 6, 12, and 18 months, and completed monthly questionnaires. The primary outcome was time to asthma exacerbation, defined as a worsening asthma event requiring oral or parenteral corticosteroids. Secondary outcomes included patient-reported outcomes (Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire, Asthma Control Questionnaire [ACQ], Asthma Symptom Utility Index, and Asthma Symptom-Free Days questionnaire), spirometry (FEV1), rescue medication use, asthma deteriorations, and adverse events. There was no difference between LABA + ICS vs tiotropium + ICS in time to first exacerbation (mean No. of exacerbations/person-year, 0.42 vs 0.37 (rate ratio, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.73 to 1.11], log-rank P = .31). There was no difference in change in FEV1 at 12 months (0.003 L for LABA + ICS vs -0.018 L for tiotropium + ICS; between-group difference, 0.020 [95% CI, -0.021 to 0.061], P = .33) and at 18 months (-0.053 L vs -0.078 L; between-group difference, 0.025 [95% CI, -0.045 to 0.095], P = .49). There were no differences in ACQ score at 18 months (change in score from baseline, -0.68 for LABA + ICS vs -0.72 for tiotropium + ICS; between-group difference, 0.04 [95% CI, -0.18 to 0.27], P = .70). There were no differences in other patient-reported outcomes. Arg16Gly ADRB2 alleles were not associated with differences in the effects of tiotropium + ICS vs LABA + ICS (hazard ratio for time to first exacerbation, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.47 to 1.51] for Arg/Arg vs 0.85 [95% CI, 0.63 to 1.15] for Arg/Gly or Gly/Gly, P = .97). Among black adults with asthma treated with ICS, adding a LABA did not improve time to asthma exacerbation compared with adding tiotropium. These findings were not affected by polymorphisms at the Arg16Gly locus of ADRB2. These findings do not support the superiority of LABA + ICS compared with tiotropium + ICS for black patients with asthma. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01290874.

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

Anticholinergic vs Long-Acting β-Agonist in Combination With Inhaled Corticosteroids in Black Adults With Asthma: The BELT Randomized Clinical Trial.

The efficacy and safety of long-acting β-agonists (LABAs) have been questioned. Black populations may be disproportionately affected by LABA risks. To compare the effectiveness and safety of tiotropium vs LABAs, when used with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in black adults with asthma and to determine whether allelic variation at the Arg16Gly locus of the β2-adrenergic receptor (ADRB2) geneis associated with treatment response. A multisite (n = 20), open-label, parallel-group, pragmatic randomized clinical trial conducted from March 2011 through July 2013, enrolling black adults with moderate to severe asthma in the United States. Patients eligible for, or receiving, step 3 or step 4 combination therapy per National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute guidelines, received ICS plus either once-daily tiotropium (n = 532) or twice-daily LABAs (n = 538,) and were followed up for up to 18 months. Patients underwent genotyping, attended study visits at baseline, 1, 6, 12, and 18 months, and completed monthly questionnaires. The primary outcome was time to asthma exacerbation, defined as a worsening asthma event requiring oral or parenteral corticosteroids. Secondary outcomes included patient-reported outcomes (Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire, Asthma Control Questionnaire [ACQ], Asthma Symptom Utility Index, and Asthma Symptom-Free Days questionnaire), spirometry (FEV1), rescue medication use, asthma deteriorations, and adverse events. There was no difference between LABA + ICS vs tiotropium + ICS in time to first exacerbation (mean No. of exacerbations/person-year, 0.42 vs 0.37 (rate ratio, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.73 to 1.11], log-rank P = .31). There was no difference in change in FEV1 at 12 months (0.003 L for LABA + ICS vs -0.018 L for tiotropium + ICS; between-group difference, 0.020 [95% CI, -0.021 to 0.061], P = .33) and at 18 months (-0.053 L vs -0.078 L; between-group difference, 0.025 [95% CI, -0.045 to 0.095], P = .49). There were no differences in ACQ score at 18 months (change in score from baseline, -0.68 for LABA + ICS vs -0.72 for tiotropium + ICS; between-group difference, 0.04 [95% CI, -0.18 to 0.27], P = .70). There were no differences in other patient-reported outcomes. Arg16Gly ADRB2 alleles were not associated with differences in the effects of tiotropium + ICS vs LABA + ICS (hazard ratio for time to first exacerbation, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.47 to 1.51] for Arg/Arg vs 0.85 [95% CI, 0.63 to 1.15] for Arg/Gly or Gly/Gly, P = .97). Among black adults with asthma treated with ICS, adding a LABA did not improve time to asthma exacerbation compared with adding tiotropium. These findings were not affected by polymorphisms at the Arg16Gly locus of ADRB2. These findings do not support the superiority of LABA + ICS compared with tiotropium + ICS for black patients with asthma. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01290874.

This study does not have any quantitative outcomes

Anticholinergic vs Long-Acting β-Agonist in Combination With Inhaled Corticosteroids in Black Adults With Asthma: The BELT Randomized Clinical Trial.

The efficacy and safety of long-acting β-agonists (LABAs) have been questioned. Black populations may be disproportionately affected by LABA risks. To compare the effectiveness and safety of tiotropium vs LABAs, when used with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in black adults with asthma and to determine whether allelic variation at the Arg16Gly locus of the β2-adrenergic receptor (ADRB2) geneis associated with treatment response. A multisite (n = 20), open-label, parallel-group, pragmatic randomized clinical trial conducted from March 2011 through July 2013, enrolling black adults with moderate to severe asthma in the United States. Patients eligible for, or receiving, step 3 or step 4 combination therapy per National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute guidelines, received ICS plus either once-daily tiotropium (n = 532) or twice-daily LABAs (n = 538,) and were followed up for up to 18 months. Patients underwent genotyping, attended study visits at baseline, 1, 6, 12, and 18 months, and completed monthly questionnaires. The primary outcome was time to asthma exacerbation, defined as a worsening asthma event requiring oral or parenteral corticosteroids. Secondary outcomes included patient-reported outcomes (Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire, Asthma Control Questionnaire [ACQ], Asthma Symptom Utility Index, and Asthma Symptom-Free Days questionnaire), spirometry (FEV1), rescue medication use, asthma deteriorations, and adverse events. There was no difference between LABA + ICS vs tiotropium + ICS in time to first exacerbation (mean No. of exacerbations/person-year, 0.42 vs 0.37 (rate ratio, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.73 to 1.11], log-rank P = .31). There was no difference in change in FEV1 at 12 months (0.003 L for LABA + ICS vs -0.018 L for tiotropium + ICS; between-group difference, 0.020 [95% CI, -0.021 to 0.061], P = .33) and at 18 months (-0.053 L vs -0.078 L; between-group difference, 0.025 [95% CI, -0.045 to 0.095], P = .49). There were no differences in ACQ score at 18 months (change in score from baseline, -0.68 for LABA + ICS vs -0.72 for tiotropium + ICS; between-group difference, 0.04 [95% CI, -0.18 to 0.27], P = .70). There were no differences in other patient-reported outcomes. Arg16Gly ADRB2 alleles were not associated with differences in the effects of tiotropium + ICS vs LABA + ICS (hazard ratio for time to first exacerbation, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.47 to 1.51] for Arg/Arg vs 0.85 [95% CI, 0.63 to 1.15] for Arg/Gly or Gly/Gly, P = .97). Among black adults with asthma treated with ICS, adding a LABA did not improve time to asthma exacerbation compared with adding tiotropium. These findings were not affected by polymorphisms at the Arg16Gly locus of ADRB2. These findings do not support the superiority of LABA + ICS compared with tiotropium + ICS for black patients with asthma. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01290874.

This study has a target drug

Anticholinergic vs Long-Acting β-Agonist in Combination With Inhaled Corticosteroids in Black Adults With Asthma: The BELT Randomized Clinical Trial.

The efficacy and safety of long-acting β-agonists (LABAs) have been questioned. Black populations may be disproportionately affected by LABA risks. To compare the effectiveness and safety of tiotropium vs LABAs, when used with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in black adults with asthma and to determine whether allelic variation at the Arg16Gly locus of the β2-adrenergic receptor (ADRB2) geneis associated with treatment response. A multisite (n = 20), open-label, parallel-group, pragmatic randomized clinical trial conducted from March 2011 through July 2013, enrolling black adults with moderate to severe asthma in the United States. Patients eligible for, or receiving, step 3 or step 4 combination therapy per National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute guidelines, received ICS plus either once-daily tiotropium (n = 532) or twice-daily LABAs (n = 538,) and were followed up for up to 18 months. Patients underwent genotyping, attended study visits at baseline, 1, 6, 12, and 18 months, and completed monthly questionnaires. The primary outcome was time to asthma exacerbation, defined as a worsening asthma event requiring oral or parenteral corticosteroids. Secondary outcomes included patient-reported outcomes (Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire, Asthma Control Questionnaire [ACQ], Asthma Symptom Utility Index, and Asthma Symptom-Free Days questionnaire), spirometry (FEV1), rescue medication use, asthma deteriorations, and adverse events. There was no difference between LABA + ICS vs tiotropium + ICS in time to first exacerbation (mean No. of exacerbations/person-year, 0.42 vs 0.37 (rate ratio, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.73 to 1.11], log-rank P = .31). There was no difference in change in FEV1 at 12 months (0.003 L for LABA + ICS vs -0.018 L for tiotropium + ICS; between-group difference, 0.020 [95% CI, -0.021 to 0.061], P = .33) and at 18 months (-0.053 L vs -0.078 L; between-group difference, 0.025 [95% CI, -0.045 to 0.095], P = .49). There were no differences in ACQ score at 18 months (change in score from baseline, -0.68 for LABA + ICS vs -0.72 for tiotropium + ICS; between-group difference, 0.04 [95% CI, -0.18 to 0.27], P = .70). There were no differences in other patient-reported outcomes. Arg16Gly ADRB2 alleles were not associated with differences in the effects of tiotropium + ICS vs LABA + ICS (hazard ratio for time to first exacerbation, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.47 to 1.51] for Arg/Arg vs 0.85 [95% CI, 0.63 to 1.15] for Arg/Gly or Gly/Gly, P = .97). Among black adults with asthma treated with ICS, adding a LABA did not improve time to asthma exacerbation compared with adding tiotropium. These findings were not affected by polymorphisms at the Arg16Gly locus of ADRB2. These findings do not support the superiority of LABA + ICS compared with tiotropium + ICS for black patients with asthma. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01290874.

This study does not have a target drug

Anticholinergic vs Long-Acting β-Agonist in Combination With Inhaled Corticosteroids in Black Adults With Asthma: The BELT Randomized Clinical Trial.

The efficacy and safety of long-acting β-agonists (LABAs) have been questioned. Black populations may be disproportionately affected by LABA risks. To compare the effectiveness and safety of tiotropium vs LABAs, when used with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in black adults with asthma and to determine whether allelic variation at the Arg16Gly locus of the β2-adrenergic receptor (ADRB2) geneis associated with treatment response. A multisite (n = 20), open-label, parallel-group, pragmatic randomized clinical trial conducted from March 2011 through July 2013, enrolling black adults with moderate to severe asthma in the United States. Patients eligible for, or receiving, step 3 or step 4 combination therapy per National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute guidelines, received ICS plus either once-daily tiotropium (n = 532) or twice-daily LABAs (n = 538,) and were followed up for up to 18 months. Patients underwent genotyping, attended study visits at baseline, 1, 6, 12, and 18 months, and completed monthly questionnaires. The primary outcome was time to asthma exacerbation, defined as a worsening asthma event requiring oral or parenteral corticosteroids. Secondary outcomes included patient-reported outcomes (Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire, Asthma Control Questionnaire [ACQ], Asthma Symptom Utility Index, and Asthma Symptom-Free Days questionnaire), spirometry (FEV1), rescue medication use, asthma deteriorations, and adverse events. There was no difference between LABA + ICS vs tiotropium + ICS in time to first exacerbation (mean No. of exacerbations/person-year, 0.42 vs 0.37 (rate ratio, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.73 to 1.11], log-rank P = .31). There was no difference in change in FEV1 at 12 months (0.003 L for LABA + ICS vs -0.018 L for tiotropium + ICS; between-group difference, 0.020 [95% CI, -0.021 to 0.061], P = .33) and at 18 months (-0.053 L vs -0.078 L; between-group difference, 0.025 [95% CI, -0.045 to 0.095], P = .49). There were no differences in ACQ score at 18 months (change in score from baseline, -0.68 for LABA + ICS vs -0.72 for tiotropium + ICS; between-group difference, 0.04 [95% CI, -0.18 to 0.27], P = .70). There were no differences in other patient-reported outcomes. Arg16Gly ADRB2 alleles were not associated with differences in the effects of tiotropium + ICS vs LABA + ICS (hazard ratio for time to first exacerbation, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.47 to 1.51] for Arg/Arg vs 0.85 [95% CI, 0.63 to 1.15] for Arg/Gly or Gly/Gly, P = .97). Among black adults with asthma treated with ICS, adding a LABA did not improve time to asthma exacerbation compared with adding tiotropium. These findings were not affected by polymorphisms at the Arg16Gly locus of ADRB2. These findings do not support the superiority of LABA + ICS compared with tiotropium + ICS for black patients with asthma. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01290874.

This study has a target disease

Anticholinergic vs Long-Acting β-Agonist in Combination With Inhaled Corticosteroids in Black Adults With Asthma: The BELT Randomized Clinical Trial.

The efficacy and safety of long-acting β-agonists (LABAs) have been questioned. Black populations may be disproportionately affected by LABA risks. To compare the effectiveness and safety of tiotropium vs LABAs, when used with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in black adults with asthma and to determine whether allelic variation at the Arg16Gly locus of the β2-adrenergic receptor (ADRB2) geneis associated with treatment response. A multisite (n = 20), open-label, parallel-group, pragmatic randomized clinical trial conducted from March 2011 through July 2013, enrolling black adults with moderate to severe asthma in the United States. Patients eligible for, or receiving, step 3 or step 4 combination therapy per National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute guidelines, received ICS plus either once-daily tiotropium (n = 532) or twice-daily LABAs (n = 538,) and were followed up for up to 18 months. Patients underwent genotyping, attended study visits at baseline, 1, 6, 12, and 18 months, and completed monthly questionnaires. The primary outcome was time to asthma exacerbation, defined as a worsening asthma event requiring oral or parenteral corticosteroids. Secondary outcomes included patient-reported outcomes (Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire, Asthma Control Questionnaire [ACQ], Asthma Symptom Utility Index, and Asthma Symptom-Free Days questionnaire), spirometry (FEV1), rescue medication use, asthma deteriorations, and adverse events. There was no difference between LABA + ICS vs tiotropium + ICS in time to first exacerbation (mean No. of exacerbations/person-year, 0.42 vs 0.37 (rate ratio, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.73 to 1.11], log-rank P = .31). There was no difference in change in FEV1 at 12 months (0.003 L for LABA + ICS vs -0.018 L for tiotropium + ICS; between-group difference, 0.020 [95% CI, -0.021 to 0.061], P = .33) and at 18 months (-0.053 L vs -0.078 L; between-group difference, 0.025 [95% CI, -0.045 to 0.095], P = .49). There were no differences in ACQ score at 18 months (change in score from baseline, -0.68 for LABA + ICS vs -0.72 for tiotropium + ICS; between-group difference, 0.04 [95% CI, -0.18 to 0.27], P = .70). There were no differences in other patient-reported outcomes. Arg16Gly ADRB2 alleles were not associated with differences in the effects of tiotropium + ICS vs LABA + ICS (hazard ratio for time to first exacerbation, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.47 to 1.51] for Arg/Arg vs 0.85 [95% CI, 0.63 to 1.15] for Arg/Gly or Gly/Gly, P = .97). Among black adults with asthma treated with ICS, adding a LABA did not improve time to asthma exacerbation compared with adding tiotropium. These findings were not affected by polymorphisms at the Arg16Gly locus of ADRB2. These findings do not support the superiority of LABA + ICS compared with tiotropium + ICS for black patients with asthma. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01290874.

This study does not have a target disease

Outpatient treatment of COVID-19 with steroids in the phase of mild pneumonia without the need for admission as an opportunity to modify the course of the disease: A structured summary of a randomised controlled trial.

The aim of this study is to explore the effectiveness and safety of oral corticosteroids (prednisone) in the treatment of early stage SARS-Cov-2 pneumonia in patients who do not yet meet hospital admission criteria. Randomized clinical trial, controlled, open, parallel group, to evaluate the effectiveness of steroids in adult patients with confirmed COVID-19, with incipient pulmonary involvement, without hospital admission criteria. Patients will be stratified by the presence or not of radiological data on pneumonia. We will include patients with early stage SARS-Cov-2 pneumonia who do not meet hospital admission criteria from the reference hospital, the Hospital Universitario de Burgos, in the region of Castilla y León, Spain. Patients will be followed-up by specialist physicians and Primary Health Care professionals. - Men and women. - Age between 18 and 75 years old. - Diagnosed SARS-CoV-2 infection, by PCR and/or IgM+ antibody test and/or antigen test. - Clinical diagnosis of lung involvement: (respiratory symptoms +/- pathological auscultation +/- O2 desaturation) - Chest X-ray with mild-moderate alterations or normal. - Patients who give their verbal informed consent in front of witnesses, which will be reflected in the patients' medical records. - Oxygen desaturation below 93% or P0₂ < 62. - Moderate-severe dyspnea or significant respiratory or general deterioration that makes admission advisable. - Chest X-ray with multifocal infiltrates. - Insulin-dependent diabetes with poor control or glycaemia in the emergency room test greater than 300 mg/ml (fasting or not). - Other significant comorbidities: Severe renal failure (creatinine clearance < 30 mL/min); cirrhosis or chronic liver disease, poorly controlled hypertension. - Heart rhythm disturbances (including prolonged QT). - Severe immunosuppression (HIV infection, long-term use of immunosuppressive agents); cancer. - Pregnant or breast-feeding women. - Patients under use of glucocorticoids for other diseases. - History of allergy or intolerance to any of the drugs in the study (prednisone, azithromycin or hydroxychloroquine). - Patients who took one or more of the study drugs in the 7 days prior to study inclusion. - Patients taking non-suppressible drugs with risk of QT prolongation or significant interactions. - Patients unwilling or unable to participate until study completion. - Participation in another study. Eligible patients will be randomized to receive standard outpatient treatment only (group 1) or standard outpatient treatment plus prednisone (group 2). - Group 1: paracetamol 1 g/8 h (on demand) + hydroxychloroquine 400 mg/12h the first day, 200 mg/12 h for 4 days + azithromycin 500 mg/24h for 5 days. - Group 2: paracetamol 1 g/8 h (on demand) + hydroxychloroquine 400 mg/12h the first day, 200 mg/12 h for 4 days + azithromycin 500 mg/24h for 5 days + prednisone 60 mg / 24 h for 3 days, 30 mg / 24 h for 3 days and 15 mg / 24 h for 3 days. If the patient requires ambulatory observation, according to the protocol established in this respect in the Emergency Department, meets all the criteria for inclusion and none for exclusion, data will be taken by the person responsible on the data collection sheet. The main result is admission after 30 days. Secondary outcomes are 30-day ICU admission and hospital stay. The safety variable will be the occurrence of clinical symptoms or delirium related to the steroids. Also, the possible decompensations of diabetes will be measured. All tests will be on an intention-to-treat basis. Treatment will be assigned according to stratified randomization by the presence or absence of radiological data of lung involvement (previously performed by random sequence 1:1 generated with Epidat and kept hidden by opaque, sealed envelopes, which will only be opened after inclusion and basal measurement). Participants, caregivers and personnel responsible for outcomes measurement will not be blinded to group assignment, once the patient is included and the basal measurement performed, as per protocol design. The percentage of patients with incipient lung involvement is unknown, but given that pulmonary involvement already exists it is estimated to be around 20%. We consider that the intervention could reduce this percentage to 5%, so the necessary sample size would be 200 subjects (100 per group), with a power of 80% and an estimated loss percentage of 10%. The protocol with code TAC-COVID-19, version 2.0 on date: April 16, 2020 is approved by the Spanish Drug Agency (AEMPS) and the local Ethics Committee. The trial is in the recruitment phase. Recruitment began 19 April, 2020 and is anticipated to be complete by April 2021. The trial was registered under the title "OUTPATIENT TREATMENT OF EARLY PULMONARY COVID19 WITH CORTICOSTEROIDS AS AN OPPORTUNITY TO MODIFY THE COURSE OF THE DISEASE" with EudraCT number 2020-001622-64 , registered on 3 April 2020. 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.

This study has a cohort study or clinical trial

Outpatient treatment of COVID-19 with steroids in the phase of mild pneumonia without the need for admission as an opportunity to modify the course of the disease: A structured summary of a randomised controlled trial.

The aim of this study is to explore the effectiveness and safety of oral corticosteroids (prednisone) in the treatment of early stage SARS-Cov-2 pneumonia in patients who do not yet meet hospital admission criteria. Randomized clinical trial, controlled, open, parallel group, to evaluate the effectiveness of steroids in adult patients with confirmed COVID-19, with incipient pulmonary involvement, without hospital admission criteria. Patients will be stratified by the presence or not of radiological data on pneumonia. We will include patients with early stage SARS-Cov-2 pneumonia who do not meet hospital admission criteria from the reference hospital, the Hospital Universitario de Burgos, in the region of Castilla y León, Spain. Patients will be followed-up by specialist physicians and Primary Health Care professionals. - Men and women. - Age between 18 and 75 years old. - Diagnosed SARS-CoV-2 infection, by PCR and/or IgM+ antibody test and/or antigen test. - Clinical diagnosis of lung involvement: (respiratory symptoms +/- pathological auscultation +/- O2 desaturation) - Chest X-ray with mild-moderate alterations or normal. - Patients who give their verbal informed consent in front of witnesses, which will be reflected in the patients' medical records. - Oxygen desaturation below 93% or P0₂ < 62. - Moderate-severe dyspnea or significant respiratory or general deterioration that makes admission advisable. - Chest X-ray with multifocal infiltrates. - Insulin-dependent diabetes with poor control or glycaemia in the emergency room test greater than 300 mg/ml (fasting or not). - Other significant comorbidities: Severe renal failure (creatinine clearance < 30 mL/min); cirrhosis or chronic liver disease, poorly controlled hypertension. - Heart rhythm disturbances (including prolonged QT). - Severe immunosuppression (HIV infection, long-term use of immunosuppressive agents); cancer. - Pregnant or breast-feeding women. - Patients under use of glucocorticoids for other diseases. - History of allergy or intolerance to any of the drugs in the study (prednisone, azithromycin or hydroxychloroquine). - Patients who took one or more of the study drugs in the 7 days prior to study inclusion. - Patients taking non-suppressible drugs with risk of QT prolongation or significant interactions. - Patients unwilling or unable to participate until study completion. - Participation in another study. Eligible patients will be randomized to receive standard outpatient treatment only (group 1) or standard outpatient treatment plus prednisone (group 2). - Group 1: paracetamol 1 g/8 h (on demand) + hydroxychloroquine 400 mg/12h the first day, 200 mg/12 h for 4 days + azithromycin 500 mg/24h for 5 days. - Group 2: paracetamol 1 g/8 h (on demand) + hydroxychloroquine 400 mg/12h the first day, 200 mg/12 h for 4 days + azithromycin 500 mg/24h for 5 days + prednisone 60 mg / 24 h for 3 days, 30 mg / 24 h for 3 days and 15 mg / 24 h for 3 days. If the patient requires ambulatory observation, according to the protocol established in this respect in the Emergency Department, meets all the criteria for inclusion and none for exclusion, data will be taken by the person responsible on the data collection sheet. The main result is admission after 30 days. Secondary outcomes are 30-day ICU admission and hospital stay. The safety variable will be the occurrence of clinical symptoms or delirium related to the steroids. Also, the possible decompensations of diabetes will be measured. All tests will be on an intention-to-treat basis. Treatment will be assigned according to stratified randomization by the presence or absence of radiological data of lung involvement (previously performed by random sequence 1:1 generated with Epidat and kept hidden by opaque, sealed envelopes, which will only be opened after inclusion and basal measurement). Participants, caregivers and personnel responsible for outcomes measurement will not be blinded to group assignment, once the patient is included and the basal measurement performed, as per protocol design. The percentage of patients with incipient lung involvement is unknown, but given that pulmonary involvement already exists it is estimated to be around 20%. We consider that the intervention could reduce this percentage to 5%, so the necessary sample size would be 200 subjects (100 per group), with a power of 80% and an estimated loss percentage of 10%. The protocol with code TAC-COVID-19, version 2.0 on date: April 16, 2020 is approved by the Spanish Drug Agency (AEMPS) and the local Ethics Committee. The trial is in the recruitment phase. Recruitment began 19 April, 2020 and is anticipated to be complete by April 2021. The trial was registered under the title "OUTPATIENT TREATMENT OF EARLY PULMONARY COVID19 WITH CORTICOSTEROIDS AS AN OPPORTUNITY TO MODIFY THE COURSE OF THE DISEASE" with EudraCT number 2020-001622-64 , registered on 3 April 2020. 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.

This study does not have any cohorts or clinical trial

Outpatient treatment of COVID-19 with steroids in the phase of mild pneumonia without the need for admission as an opportunity to modify the course of the disease: A structured summary of a randomised controlled trial.

The aim of this study is to explore the effectiveness and safety of oral corticosteroids (prednisone) in the treatment of early stage SARS-Cov-2 pneumonia in patients who do not yet meet hospital admission criteria. Randomized clinical trial, controlled, open, parallel group, to evaluate the effectiveness of steroids in adult patients with confirmed COVID-19, with incipient pulmonary involvement, without hospital admission criteria. Patients will be stratified by the presence or not of radiological data on pneumonia. We will include patients with early stage SARS-Cov-2 pneumonia who do not meet hospital admission criteria from the reference hospital, the Hospital Universitario de Burgos, in the region of Castilla y León, Spain. Patients will be followed-up by specialist physicians and Primary Health Care professionals. - Men and women. - Age between 18 and 75 years old. - Diagnosed SARS-CoV-2 infection, by PCR and/or IgM+ antibody test and/or antigen test. - Clinical diagnosis of lung involvement: (respiratory symptoms +/- pathological auscultation +/- O2 desaturation) - Chest X-ray with mild-moderate alterations or normal. - Patients who give their verbal informed consent in front of witnesses, which will be reflected in the patients' medical records. - Oxygen desaturation below 93% or P0₂ < 62. - Moderate-severe dyspnea or significant respiratory or general deterioration that makes admission advisable. - Chest X-ray with multifocal infiltrates. - Insulin-dependent diabetes with poor control or glycaemia in the emergency room test greater than 300 mg/ml (fasting or not). - Other significant comorbidities: Severe renal failure (creatinine clearance < 30 mL/min); cirrhosis or chronic liver disease, poorly controlled hypertension. - Heart rhythm disturbances (including prolonged QT). - Severe immunosuppression (HIV infection, long-term use of immunosuppressive agents); cancer. - Pregnant or breast-feeding women. - Patients under use of glucocorticoids for other diseases. - History of allergy or intolerance to any of the drugs in the study (prednisone, azithromycin or hydroxychloroquine). - Patients who took one or more of the study drugs in the 7 days prior to study inclusion. - Patients taking non-suppressible drugs with risk of QT prolongation or significant interactions. - Patients unwilling or unable to participate until study completion. - Participation in another study. Eligible patients will be randomized to receive standard outpatient treatment only (group 1) or standard outpatient treatment plus prednisone (group 2). - Group 1: paracetamol 1 g/8 h (on demand) + hydroxychloroquine 400 mg/12h the first day, 200 mg/12 h for 4 days + azithromycin 500 mg/24h for 5 days. - Group 2: paracetamol 1 g/8 h (on demand) + hydroxychloroquine 400 mg/12h the first day, 200 mg/12 h for 4 days + azithromycin 500 mg/24h for 5 days + prednisone 60 mg / 24 h for 3 days, 30 mg / 24 h for 3 days and 15 mg / 24 h for 3 days. If the patient requires ambulatory observation, according to the protocol established in this respect in the Emergency Department, meets all the criteria for inclusion and none for exclusion, data will be taken by the person responsible on the data collection sheet. The main result is admission after 30 days. Secondary outcomes are 30-day ICU admission and hospital stay. The safety variable will be the occurrence of clinical symptoms or delirium related to the steroids. Also, the possible decompensations of diabetes will be measured. All tests will be on an intention-to-treat basis. Treatment will be assigned according to stratified randomization by the presence or absence of radiological data of lung involvement (previously performed by random sequence 1:1 generated with Epidat and kept hidden by opaque, sealed envelopes, which will only be opened after inclusion and basal measurement). Participants, caregivers and personnel responsible for outcomes measurement will not be blinded to group assignment, once the patient is included and the basal measurement performed, as per protocol design. The percentage of patients with incipient lung involvement is unknown, but given that pulmonary involvement already exists it is estimated to be around 20%. We consider that the intervention could reduce this percentage to 5%, so the necessary sample size would be 200 subjects (100 per group), with a power of 80% and an estimated loss percentage of 10%. The protocol with code TAC-COVID-19, version 2.0 on date: April 16, 2020 is approved by the Spanish Drug Agency (AEMPS) and the local Ethics Committee. The trial is in the recruitment phase. Recruitment began 19 April, 2020 and is anticipated to be complete by April 2021. The trial was registered under the title "OUTPATIENT TREATMENT OF EARLY PULMONARY COVID19 WITH CORTICOSTEROIDS AS AN OPPORTUNITY TO MODIFY THE COURSE OF THE DISEASE" with EudraCT number 2020-001622-64 , registered on 3 April 2020. 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.

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

Outpatient treatment of COVID-19 with steroids in the phase of mild pneumonia without the need for admission as an opportunity to modify the course of the disease: A structured summary of a randomised controlled trial.

The aim of this study is to explore the effectiveness and safety of oral corticosteroids (prednisone) in the treatment of early stage SARS-Cov-2 pneumonia in patients who do not yet meet hospital admission criteria. Randomized clinical trial, controlled, open, parallel group, to evaluate the effectiveness of steroids in adult patients with confirmed COVID-19, with incipient pulmonary involvement, without hospital admission criteria. Patients will be stratified by the presence or not of radiological data on pneumonia. We will include patients with early stage SARS-Cov-2 pneumonia who do not meet hospital admission criteria from the reference hospital, the Hospital Universitario de Burgos, in the region of Castilla y León, Spain. Patients will be followed-up by specialist physicians and Primary Health Care professionals. - Men and women. - Age between 18 and 75 years old. - Diagnosed SARS-CoV-2 infection, by PCR and/or IgM+ antibody test and/or antigen test. - Clinical diagnosis of lung involvement: (respiratory symptoms +/- pathological auscultation +/- O2 desaturation) - Chest X-ray with mild-moderate alterations or normal. - Patients who give their verbal informed consent in front of witnesses, which will be reflected in the patients' medical records. - Oxygen desaturation below 93% or P0₂ < 62. - Moderate-severe dyspnea or significant respiratory or general deterioration that makes admission advisable. - Chest X-ray with multifocal infiltrates. - Insulin-dependent diabetes with poor control or glycaemia in the emergency room test greater than 300 mg/ml (fasting or not). - Other significant comorbidities: Severe renal failure (creatinine clearance < 30 mL/min); cirrhosis or chronic liver disease, poorly controlled hypertension. - Heart rhythm disturbances (including prolonged QT). - Severe immunosuppression (HIV infection, long-term use of immunosuppressive agents); cancer. - Pregnant or breast-feeding women. - Patients under use of glucocorticoids for other diseases. - History of allergy or intolerance to any of the drugs in the study (prednisone, azithromycin or hydroxychloroquine). - Patients who took one or more of the study drugs in the 7 days prior to study inclusion. - Patients taking non-suppressible drugs with risk of QT prolongation or significant interactions. - Patients unwilling or unable to participate until study completion. - Participation in another study. Eligible patients will be randomized to receive standard outpatient treatment only (group 1) or standard outpatient treatment plus prednisone (group 2). - Group 1: paracetamol 1 g/8 h (on demand) + hydroxychloroquine 400 mg/12h the first day, 200 mg/12 h for 4 days + azithromycin 500 mg/24h for 5 days. - Group 2: paracetamol 1 g/8 h (on demand) + hydroxychloroquine 400 mg/12h the first day, 200 mg/12 h for 4 days + azithromycin 500 mg/24h for 5 days + prednisone 60 mg / 24 h for 3 days, 30 mg / 24 h for 3 days and 15 mg / 24 h for 3 days. If the patient requires ambulatory observation, according to the protocol established in this respect in the Emergency Department, meets all the criteria for inclusion and none for exclusion, data will be taken by the person responsible on the data collection sheet. The main result is admission after 30 days. Secondary outcomes are 30-day ICU admission and hospital stay. The safety variable will be the occurrence of clinical symptoms or delirium related to the steroids. Also, the possible decompensations of diabetes will be measured. All tests will be on an intention-to-treat basis. Treatment will be assigned according to stratified randomization by the presence or absence of radiological data of lung involvement (previously performed by random sequence 1:1 generated with Epidat and kept hidden by opaque, sealed envelopes, which will only be opened after inclusion and basal measurement). Participants, caregivers and personnel responsible for outcomes measurement will not be blinded to group assignment, once the patient is included and the basal measurement performed, as per protocol design. The percentage of patients with incipient lung involvement is unknown, but given that pulmonary involvement already exists it is estimated to be around 20%. We consider that the intervention could reduce this percentage to 5%, so the necessary sample size would be 200 subjects (100 per group), with a power of 80% and an estimated loss percentage of 10%. The protocol with code TAC-COVID-19, version 2.0 on date: April 16, 2020 is approved by the Spanish Drug Agency (AEMPS) and the local Ethics Committee. The trial is in the recruitment phase. Recruitment began 19 April, 2020 and is anticipated to be complete by April 2021. The trial was registered under the title "OUTPATIENT TREATMENT OF EARLY PULMONARY COVID19 WITH CORTICOSTEROIDS AS AN OPPORTUNITY TO MODIFY THE COURSE OF THE DISEASE" with EudraCT number 2020-001622-64 , registered on 3 April 2020. 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.

This study does not have any comparison patient group

Outpatient treatment of COVID-19 with steroids in the phase of mild pneumonia without the need for admission as an opportunity to modify the course of the disease: A structured summary of a randomised controlled trial.

The aim of this study is to explore the effectiveness and safety of oral corticosteroids (prednisone) in the treatment of early stage SARS-Cov-2 pneumonia in patients who do not yet meet hospital admission criteria. Randomized clinical trial, controlled, open, parallel group, to evaluate the effectiveness of steroids in adult patients with confirmed COVID-19, with incipient pulmonary involvement, without hospital admission criteria. Patients will be stratified by the presence or not of radiological data on pneumonia. We will include patients with early stage SARS-Cov-2 pneumonia who do not meet hospital admission criteria from the reference hospital, the Hospital Universitario de Burgos, in the region of Castilla y León, Spain. Patients will be followed-up by specialist physicians and Primary Health Care professionals. - Men and women. - Age between 18 and 75 years old. - Diagnosed SARS-CoV-2 infection, by PCR and/or IgM+ antibody test and/or antigen test. - Clinical diagnosis of lung involvement: (respiratory symptoms +/- pathological auscultation +/- O2 desaturation) - Chest X-ray with mild-moderate alterations or normal. - Patients who give their verbal informed consent in front of witnesses, which will be reflected in the patients' medical records. - Oxygen desaturation below 93% or P0₂ < 62. - Moderate-severe dyspnea or significant respiratory or general deterioration that makes admission advisable. - Chest X-ray with multifocal infiltrates. - Insulin-dependent diabetes with poor control or glycaemia in the emergency room test greater than 300 mg/ml (fasting or not). - Other significant comorbidities: Severe renal failure (creatinine clearance < 30 mL/min); cirrhosis or chronic liver disease, poorly controlled hypertension. - Heart rhythm disturbances (including prolonged QT). - Severe immunosuppression (HIV infection, long-term use of immunosuppressive agents); cancer. - Pregnant or breast-feeding women. - Patients under use of glucocorticoids for other diseases. - History of allergy or intolerance to any of the drugs in the study (prednisone, azithromycin or hydroxychloroquine). - Patients who took one or more of the study drugs in the 7 days prior to study inclusion. - Patients taking non-suppressible drugs with risk of QT prolongation or significant interactions. - Patients unwilling or unable to participate until study completion. - Participation in another study. Eligible patients will be randomized to receive standard outpatient treatment only (group 1) or standard outpatient treatment plus prednisone (group 2). - Group 1: paracetamol 1 g/8 h (on demand) + hydroxychloroquine 400 mg/12h the first day, 200 mg/12 h for 4 days + azithromycin 500 mg/24h for 5 days. - Group 2: paracetamol 1 g/8 h (on demand) + hydroxychloroquine 400 mg/12h the first day, 200 mg/12 h for 4 days + azithromycin 500 mg/24h for 5 days + prednisone 60 mg / 24 h for 3 days, 30 mg / 24 h for 3 days and 15 mg / 24 h for 3 days. If the patient requires ambulatory observation, according to the protocol established in this respect in the Emergency Department, meets all the criteria for inclusion and none for exclusion, data will be taken by the person responsible on the data collection sheet. The main result is admission after 30 days. Secondary outcomes are 30-day ICU admission and hospital stay. The safety variable will be the occurrence of clinical symptoms or delirium related to the steroids. Also, the possible decompensations of diabetes will be measured. All tests will be on an intention-to-treat basis. Treatment will be assigned according to stratified randomization by the presence or absence of radiological data of lung involvement (previously performed by random sequence 1:1 generated with Epidat and kept hidden by opaque, sealed envelopes, which will only be opened after inclusion and basal measurement). Participants, caregivers and personnel responsible for outcomes measurement will not be blinded to group assignment, once the patient is included and the basal measurement performed, as per protocol design. The percentage of patients with incipient lung involvement is unknown, but given that pulmonary involvement already exists it is estimated to be around 20%. We consider that the intervention could reduce this percentage to 5%, so the necessary sample size would be 200 subjects (100 per group), with a power of 80% and an estimated loss percentage of 10%. The protocol with code TAC-COVID-19, version 2.0 on date: April 16, 2020 is approved by the Spanish Drug Agency (AEMPS) and the local Ethics Committee. The trial is in the recruitment phase. Recruitment began 19 April, 2020 and is anticipated to be complete by April 2021. The trial was registered under the title "OUTPATIENT TREATMENT OF EARLY PULMONARY COVID19 WITH CORTICOSTEROIDS AS AN OPPORTUNITY TO MODIFY THE COURSE OF THE DISEASE" with EudraCT number 2020-001622-64 , registered on 3 April 2020. 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.

This study has human subjects

Outpatient treatment of COVID-19 with steroids in the phase of mild pneumonia without the need for admission as an opportunity to modify the course of the disease: A structured summary of a randomised controlled trial.

The aim of this study is to explore the effectiveness and safety of oral corticosteroids (prednisone) in the treatment of early stage SARS-Cov-2 pneumonia in patients who do not yet meet hospital admission criteria. Randomized clinical trial, controlled, open, parallel group, to evaluate the effectiveness of steroids in adult patients with confirmed COVID-19, with incipient pulmonary involvement, without hospital admission criteria. Patients will be stratified by the presence or not of radiological data on pneumonia. We will include patients with early stage SARS-Cov-2 pneumonia who do not meet hospital admission criteria from the reference hospital, the Hospital Universitario de Burgos, in the region of Castilla y León, Spain. Patients will be followed-up by specialist physicians and Primary Health Care professionals. - Men and women. - Age between 18 and 75 years old. - Diagnosed SARS-CoV-2 infection, by PCR and/or IgM+ antibody test and/or antigen test. - Clinical diagnosis of lung involvement: (respiratory symptoms +/- pathological auscultation +/- O2 desaturation) - Chest X-ray with mild-moderate alterations or normal. - Patients who give their verbal informed consent in front of witnesses, which will be reflected in the patients' medical records. - Oxygen desaturation below 93% or P0₂ < 62. - Moderate-severe dyspnea or significant respiratory or general deterioration that makes admission advisable. - Chest X-ray with multifocal infiltrates. - Insulin-dependent diabetes with poor control or glycaemia in the emergency room test greater than 300 mg/ml (fasting or not). - Other significant comorbidities: Severe renal failure (creatinine clearance < 30 mL/min); cirrhosis or chronic liver disease, poorly controlled hypertension. - Heart rhythm disturbances (including prolonged QT). - Severe immunosuppression (HIV infection, long-term use of immunosuppressive agents); cancer. - Pregnant or breast-feeding women. - Patients under use of glucocorticoids for other diseases. - History of allergy or intolerance to any of the drugs in the study (prednisone, azithromycin or hydroxychloroquine). - Patients who took one or more of the study drugs in the 7 days prior to study inclusion. - Patients taking non-suppressible drugs with risk of QT prolongation or significant interactions. - Patients unwilling or unable to participate until study completion. - Participation in another study. Eligible patients will be randomized to receive standard outpatient treatment only (group 1) or standard outpatient treatment plus prednisone (group 2). - Group 1: paracetamol 1 g/8 h (on demand) + hydroxychloroquine 400 mg/12h the first day, 200 mg/12 h for 4 days + azithromycin 500 mg/24h for 5 days. - Group 2: paracetamol 1 g/8 h (on demand) + hydroxychloroquine 400 mg/12h the first day, 200 mg/12 h for 4 days + azithromycin 500 mg/24h for 5 days + prednisone 60 mg / 24 h for 3 days, 30 mg / 24 h for 3 days and 15 mg / 24 h for 3 days. If the patient requires ambulatory observation, according to the protocol established in this respect in the Emergency Department, meets all the criteria for inclusion and none for exclusion, data will be taken by the person responsible on the data collection sheet. The main result is admission after 30 days. Secondary outcomes are 30-day ICU admission and hospital stay. The safety variable will be the occurrence of clinical symptoms or delirium related to the steroids. Also, the possible decompensations of diabetes will be measured. All tests will be on an intention-to-treat basis. Treatment will be assigned according to stratified randomization by the presence or absence of radiological data of lung involvement (previously performed by random sequence 1:1 generated with Epidat and kept hidden by opaque, sealed envelopes, which will only be opened after inclusion and basal measurement). Participants, caregivers and personnel responsible for outcomes measurement will not be blinded to group assignment, once the patient is included and the basal measurement performed, as per protocol design. The percentage of patients with incipient lung involvement is unknown, but given that pulmonary involvement already exists it is estimated to be around 20%. We consider that the intervention could reduce this percentage to 5%, so the necessary sample size would be 200 subjects (100 per group), with a power of 80% and an estimated loss percentage of 10%. The protocol with code TAC-COVID-19, version 2.0 on date: April 16, 2020 is approved by the Spanish Drug Agency (AEMPS) and the local Ethics Committee. The trial is in the recruitment phase. Recruitment began 19 April, 2020 and is anticipated to be complete by April 2021. The trial was registered under the title "OUTPATIENT TREATMENT OF EARLY PULMONARY COVID19 WITH CORTICOSTEROIDS AS AN OPPORTUNITY TO MODIFY THE COURSE OF THE DISEASE" with EudraCT number 2020-001622-64 , registered on 3 April 2020. 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.

This study does not have human subjects

Outpatient treatment of COVID-19 with steroids in the phase of mild pneumonia without the need for admission as an opportunity to modify the course of the disease: A structured summary of a randomised controlled trial.

The aim of this study is to explore the effectiveness and safety of oral corticosteroids (prednisone) in the treatment of early stage SARS-Cov-2 pneumonia in patients who do not yet meet hospital admission criteria. Randomized clinical trial, controlled, open, parallel group, to evaluate the effectiveness of steroids in adult patients with confirmed COVID-19, with incipient pulmonary involvement, without hospital admission criteria. Patients will be stratified by the presence or not of radiological data on pneumonia. We will include patients with early stage SARS-Cov-2 pneumonia who do not meet hospital admission criteria from the reference hospital, the Hospital Universitario de Burgos, in the region of Castilla y León, Spain. Patients will be followed-up by specialist physicians and Primary Health Care professionals. - Men and women. - Age between 18 and 75 years old. - Diagnosed SARS-CoV-2 infection, by PCR and/or IgM+ antibody test and/or antigen test. - Clinical diagnosis of lung involvement: (respiratory symptoms +/- pathological auscultation +/- O2 desaturation) - Chest X-ray with mild-moderate alterations or normal. - Patients who give their verbal informed consent in front of witnesses, which will be reflected in the patients' medical records. - Oxygen desaturation below 93% or P0₂ < 62. - Moderate-severe dyspnea or significant respiratory or general deterioration that makes admission advisable. - Chest X-ray with multifocal infiltrates. - Insulin-dependent diabetes with poor control or glycaemia in the emergency room test greater than 300 mg/ml (fasting or not). - Other significant comorbidities: Severe renal failure (creatinine clearance < 30 mL/min); cirrhosis or chronic liver disease, poorly controlled hypertension. - Heart rhythm disturbances (including prolonged QT). - Severe immunosuppression (HIV infection, long-term use of immunosuppressive agents); cancer. - Pregnant or breast-feeding women. - Patients under use of glucocorticoids for other diseases. - History of allergy or intolerance to any of the drugs in the study (prednisone, azithromycin or hydroxychloroquine). - Patients who took one or more of the study drugs in the 7 days prior to study inclusion. - Patients taking non-suppressible drugs with risk of QT prolongation or significant interactions. - Patients unwilling or unable to participate until study completion. - Participation in another study. Eligible patients will be randomized to receive standard outpatient treatment only (group 1) or standard outpatient treatment plus prednisone (group 2). - Group 1: paracetamol 1 g/8 h (on demand) + hydroxychloroquine 400 mg/12h the first day, 200 mg/12 h for 4 days + azithromycin 500 mg/24h for 5 days. - Group 2: paracetamol 1 g/8 h (on demand) + hydroxychloroquine 400 mg/12h the first day, 200 mg/12 h for 4 days + azithromycin 500 mg/24h for 5 days + prednisone 60 mg / 24 h for 3 days, 30 mg / 24 h for 3 days and 15 mg / 24 h for 3 days. If the patient requires ambulatory observation, according to the protocol established in this respect in the Emergency Department, meets all the criteria for inclusion and none for exclusion, data will be taken by the person responsible on the data collection sheet. The main result is admission after 30 days. Secondary outcomes are 30-day ICU admission and hospital stay. The safety variable will be the occurrence of clinical symptoms or delirium related to the steroids. Also, the possible decompensations of diabetes will be measured. All tests will be on an intention-to-treat basis. Treatment will be assigned according to stratified randomization by the presence or absence of radiological data of lung involvement (previously performed by random sequence 1:1 generated with Epidat and kept hidden by opaque, sealed envelopes, which will only be opened after inclusion and basal measurement). Participants, caregivers and personnel responsible for outcomes measurement will not be blinded to group assignment, once the patient is included and the basal measurement performed, as per protocol design. The percentage of patients with incipient lung involvement is unknown, but given that pulmonary involvement already exists it is estimated to be around 20%. We consider that the intervention could reduce this percentage to 5%, so the necessary sample size would be 200 subjects (100 per group), with a power of 80% and an estimated loss percentage of 10%. The protocol with code TAC-COVID-19, version 2.0 on date: April 16, 2020 is approved by the Spanish Drug Agency (AEMPS) and the local Ethics Committee. The trial is in the recruitment phase. Recruitment began 19 April, 2020 and is anticipated to be complete by April 2021. The trial was registered under the title "OUTPATIENT TREATMENT OF EARLY PULMONARY COVID19 WITH CORTICOSTEROIDS AS AN OPPORTUNITY TO MODIFY THE COURSE OF THE DISEASE" with EudraCT number 2020-001622-64 , registered on 3 April 2020. 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.

This study contains population size or sample size information

Outpatient treatment of COVID-19 with steroids in the phase of mild pneumonia without the need for admission as an opportunity to modify the course of the disease: A structured summary of a randomised controlled trial.

The aim of this study is to explore the effectiveness and safety of oral corticosteroids (prednisone) in the treatment of early stage SARS-Cov-2 pneumonia in patients who do not yet meet hospital admission criteria. Randomized clinical trial, controlled, open, parallel group, to evaluate the effectiveness of steroids in adult patients with confirmed COVID-19, with incipient pulmonary involvement, without hospital admission criteria. Patients will be stratified by the presence or not of radiological data on pneumonia. We will include patients with early stage SARS-Cov-2 pneumonia who do not meet hospital admission criteria from the reference hospital, the Hospital Universitario de Burgos, in the region of Castilla y León, Spain. Patients will be followed-up by specialist physicians and Primary Health Care professionals. - Men and women. - Age between 18 and 75 years old. - Diagnosed SARS-CoV-2 infection, by PCR and/or IgM+ antibody test and/or antigen test. - Clinical diagnosis of lung involvement: (respiratory symptoms +/- pathological auscultation +/- O2 desaturation) - Chest X-ray with mild-moderate alterations or normal. - Patients who give their verbal informed consent in front of witnesses, which will be reflected in the patients' medical records. - Oxygen desaturation below 93% or P0₂ < 62. - Moderate-severe dyspnea or significant respiratory or general deterioration that makes admission advisable. - Chest X-ray with multifocal infiltrates. - Insulin-dependent diabetes with poor control or glycaemia in the emergency room test greater than 300 mg/ml (fasting or not). - Other significant comorbidities: Severe renal failure (creatinine clearance < 30 mL/min); cirrhosis or chronic liver disease, poorly controlled hypertension. - Heart rhythm disturbances (including prolonged QT). - Severe immunosuppression (HIV infection, long-term use of immunosuppressive agents); cancer. - Pregnant or breast-feeding women. - Patients under use of glucocorticoids for other diseases. - History of allergy or intolerance to any of the drugs in the study (prednisone, azithromycin or hydroxychloroquine). - Patients who took one or more of the study drugs in the 7 days prior to study inclusion. - Patients taking non-suppressible drugs with risk of QT prolongation or significant interactions. - Patients unwilling or unable to participate until study completion. - Participation in another study. Eligible patients will be randomized to receive standard outpatient treatment only (group 1) or standard outpatient treatment plus prednisone (group 2). - Group 1: paracetamol 1 g/8 h (on demand) + hydroxychloroquine 400 mg/12h the first day, 200 mg/12 h for 4 days + azithromycin 500 mg/24h for 5 days. - Group 2: paracetamol 1 g/8 h (on demand) + hydroxychloroquine 400 mg/12h the first day, 200 mg/12 h for 4 days + azithromycin 500 mg/24h for 5 days + prednisone 60 mg / 24 h for 3 days, 30 mg / 24 h for 3 days and 15 mg / 24 h for 3 days. If the patient requires ambulatory observation, according to the protocol established in this respect in the Emergency Department, meets all the criteria for inclusion and none for exclusion, data will be taken by the person responsible on the data collection sheet. The main result is admission after 30 days. Secondary outcomes are 30-day ICU admission and hospital stay. The safety variable will be the occurrence of clinical symptoms or delirium related to the steroids. Also, the possible decompensations of diabetes will be measured. All tests will be on an intention-to-treat basis. Treatment will be assigned according to stratified randomization by the presence or absence of radiological data of lung involvement (previously performed by random sequence 1:1 generated with Epidat and kept hidden by opaque, sealed envelopes, which will only be opened after inclusion and basal measurement). Participants, caregivers and personnel responsible for outcomes measurement will not be blinded to group assignment, once the patient is included and the basal measurement performed, as per protocol design. The percentage of patients with incipient lung involvement is unknown, but given that pulmonary involvement already exists it is estimated to be around 20%. We consider that the intervention could reduce this percentage to 5%, so the necessary sample size would be 200 subjects (100 per group), with a power of 80% and an estimated loss percentage of 10%. The protocol with code TAC-COVID-19, version 2.0 on date: April 16, 2020 is approved by the Spanish Drug Agency (AEMPS) and the local Ethics Committee. The trial is in the recruitment phase. Recruitment began 19 April, 2020 and is anticipated to be complete by April 2021. The trial was registered under the title "OUTPATIENT TREATMENT OF EARLY PULMONARY COVID19 WITH CORTICOSTEROIDS AS AN OPPORTUNITY TO MODIFY THE COURSE OF THE DISEASE" with EudraCT number 2020-001622-64 , registered on 3 April 2020. 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.

This study does not contain population size information

Outpatient treatment of COVID-19 with steroids in the phase of mild pneumonia without the need for admission as an opportunity to modify the course of the disease: A structured summary of a randomised controlled trial.

The aim of this study is to explore the effectiveness and safety of oral corticosteroids (prednisone) in the treatment of early stage SARS-Cov-2 pneumonia in patients who do not yet meet hospital admission criteria. Randomized clinical trial, controlled, open, parallel group, to evaluate the effectiveness of steroids in adult patients with confirmed COVID-19, with incipient pulmonary involvement, without hospital admission criteria. Patients will be stratified by the presence or not of radiological data on pneumonia. We will include patients with early stage SARS-Cov-2 pneumonia who do not meet hospital admission criteria from the reference hospital, the Hospital Universitario de Burgos, in the region of Castilla y León, Spain. Patients will be followed-up by specialist physicians and Primary Health Care professionals. - Men and women. - Age between 18 and 75 years old. - Diagnosed SARS-CoV-2 infection, by PCR and/or IgM+ antibody test and/or antigen test. - Clinical diagnosis of lung involvement: (respiratory symptoms +/- pathological auscultation +/- O2 desaturation) - Chest X-ray with mild-moderate alterations or normal. - Patients who give their verbal informed consent in front of witnesses, which will be reflected in the patients' medical records. - Oxygen desaturation below 93% or P0₂ < 62. - Moderate-severe dyspnea or significant respiratory or general deterioration that makes admission advisable. - Chest X-ray with multifocal infiltrates. - Insulin-dependent diabetes with poor control or glycaemia in the emergency room test greater than 300 mg/ml (fasting or not). - Other significant comorbidities: Severe renal failure (creatinine clearance < 30 mL/min); cirrhosis or chronic liver disease, poorly controlled hypertension. - Heart rhythm disturbances (including prolonged QT). - Severe immunosuppression (HIV infection, long-term use of immunosuppressive agents); cancer. - Pregnant or breast-feeding women. - Patients under use of glucocorticoids for other diseases. - History of allergy or intolerance to any of the drugs in the study (prednisone, azithromycin or hydroxychloroquine). - Patients who took one or more of the study drugs in the 7 days prior to study inclusion. - Patients taking non-suppressible drugs with risk of QT prolongation or significant interactions. - Patients unwilling or unable to participate until study completion. - Participation in another study. Eligible patients will be randomized to receive standard outpatient treatment only (group 1) or standard outpatient treatment plus prednisone (group 2). - Group 1: paracetamol 1 g/8 h (on demand) + hydroxychloroquine 400 mg/12h the first day, 200 mg/12 h for 4 days + azithromycin 500 mg/24h for 5 days. - Group 2: paracetamol 1 g/8 h (on demand) + hydroxychloroquine 400 mg/12h the first day, 200 mg/12 h for 4 days + azithromycin 500 mg/24h for 5 days + prednisone 60 mg / 24 h for 3 days, 30 mg / 24 h for 3 days and 15 mg / 24 h for 3 days. If the patient requires ambulatory observation, according to the protocol established in this respect in the Emergency Department, meets all the criteria for inclusion and none for exclusion, data will be taken by the person responsible on the data collection sheet. The main result is admission after 30 days. Secondary outcomes are 30-day ICU admission and hospital stay. The safety variable will be the occurrence of clinical symptoms or delirium related to the steroids. Also, the possible decompensations of diabetes will be measured. All tests will be on an intention-to-treat basis. Treatment will be assigned according to stratified randomization by the presence or absence of radiological data of lung involvement (previously performed by random sequence 1:1 generated with Epidat and kept hidden by opaque, sealed envelopes, which will only be opened after inclusion and basal measurement). Participants, caregivers and personnel responsible for outcomes measurement will not be blinded to group assignment, once the patient is included and the basal measurement performed, as per protocol design. The percentage of patients with incipient lung involvement is unknown, but given that pulmonary involvement already exists it is estimated to be around 20%. We consider that the intervention could reduce this percentage to 5%, so the necessary sample size would be 200 subjects (100 per group), with a power of 80% and an estimated loss percentage of 10%. The protocol with code TAC-COVID-19, version 2.0 on date: April 16, 2020 is approved by the Spanish Drug Agency (AEMPS) and the local Ethics Committee. The trial is in the recruitment phase. Recruitment began 19 April, 2020 and is anticipated to be complete by April 2021. The trial was registered under the title "OUTPATIENT TREATMENT OF EARLY PULMONARY COVID19 WITH CORTICOSTEROIDS AS AN OPPORTUNITY TO MODIFY THE COURSE OF THE DISEASE" with EudraCT number 2020-001622-64 , registered on 3 April 2020. 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.

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

Outpatient treatment of COVID-19 with steroids in the phase of mild pneumonia without the need for admission as an opportunity to modify the course of the disease: A structured summary of a randomised controlled trial.

The aim of this study is to explore the effectiveness and safety of oral corticosteroids (prednisone) in the treatment of early stage SARS-Cov-2 pneumonia in patients who do not yet meet hospital admission criteria. Randomized clinical trial, controlled, open, parallel group, to evaluate the effectiveness of steroids in adult patients with confirmed COVID-19, with incipient pulmonary involvement, without hospital admission criteria. Patients will be stratified by the presence or not of radiological data on pneumonia. We will include patients with early stage SARS-Cov-2 pneumonia who do not meet hospital admission criteria from the reference hospital, the Hospital Universitario de Burgos, in the region of Castilla y León, Spain. Patients will be followed-up by specialist physicians and Primary Health Care professionals. - Men and women. - Age between 18 and 75 years old. - Diagnosed SARS-CoV-2 infection, by PCR and/or IgM+ antibody test and/or antigen test. - Clinical diagnosis of lung involvement: (respiratory symptoms +/- pathological auscultation +/- O2 desaturation) - Chest X-ray with mild-moderate alterations or normal. - Patients who give their verbal informed consent in front of witnesses, which will be reflected in the patients' medical records. - Oxygen desaturation below 93% or P0₂ < 62. - Moderate-severe dyspnea or significant respiratory or general deterioration that makes admission advisable. - Chest X-ray with multifocal infiltrates. - Insulin-dependent diabetes with poor control or glycaemia in the emergency room test greater than 300 mg/ml (fasting or not). - Other significant comorbidities: Severe renal failure (creatinine clearance < 30 mL/min); cirrhosis or chronic liver disease, poorly controlled hypertension. - Heart rhythm disturbances (including prolonged QT). - Severe immunosuppression (HIV infection, long-term use of immunosuppressive agents); cancer. - Pregnant or breast-feeding women. - Patients under use of glucocorticoids for other diseases. - History of allergy or intolerance to any of the drugs in the study (prednisone, azithromycin or hydroxychloroquine). - Patients who took one or more of the study drugs in the 7 days prior to study inclusion. - Patients taking non-suppressible drugs with risk of QT prolongation or significant interactions. - Patients unwilling or unable to participate until study completion. - Participation in another study. Eligible patients will be randomized to receive standard outpatient treatment only (group 1) or standard outpatient treatment plus prednisone (group 2). - Group 1: paracetamol 1 g/8 h (on demand) + hydroxychloroquine 400 mg/12h the first day, 200 mg/12 h for 4 days + azithromycin 500 mg/24h for 5 days. - Group 2: paracetamol 1 g/8 h (on demand) + hydroxychloroquine 400 mg/12h the first day, 200 mg/12 h for 4 days + azithromycin 500 mg/24h for 5 days + prednisone 60 mg / 24 h for 3 days, 30 mg / 24 h for 3 days and 15 mg / 24 h for 3 days. If the patient requires ambulatory observation, according to the protocol established in this respect in the Emergency Department, meets all the criteria for inclusion and none for exclusion, data will be taken by the person responsible on the data collection sheet. The main result is admission after 30 days. Secondary outcomes are 30-day ICU admission and hospital stay. The safety variable will be the occurrence of clinical symptoms or delirium related to the steroids. Also, the possible decompensations of diabetes will be measured. All tests will be on an intention-to-treat basis. Treatment will be assigned according to stratified randomization by the presence or absence of radiological data of lung involvement (previously performed by random sequence 1:1 generated with Epidat and kept hidden by opaque, sealed envelopes, which will only be opened after inclusion and basal measurement). Participants, caregivers and personnel responsible for outcomes measurement will not be blinded to group assignment, once the patient is included and the basal measurement performed, as per protocol design. The percentage of patients with incipient lung involvement is unknown, but given that pulmonary involvement already exists it is estimated to be around 20%. We consider that the intervention could reduce this percentage to 5%, so the necessary sample size would be 200 subjects (100 per group), with a power of 80% and an estimated loss percentage of 10%. The protocol with code TAC-COVID-19, version 2.0 on date: April 16, 2020 is approved by the Spanish Drug Agency (AEMPS) and the local Ethics Committee. The trial is in the recruitment phase. Recruitment began 19 April, 2020 and is anticipated to be complete by April 2021. The trial was registered under the title "OUTPATIENT TREATMENT OF EARLY PULMONARY COVID19 WITH CORTICOSTEROIDS AS AN OPPORTUNITY TO MODIFY THE COURSE OF THE DISEASE" with EudraCT number 2020-001622-64 , registered on 3 April 2020. 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.

This study does not have any quantitative outcomes

Outpatient treatment of COVID-19 with steroids in the phase of mild pneumonia without the need for admission as an opportunity to modify the course of the disease: A structured summary of a randomised controlled trial.

The aim of this study is to explore the effectiveness and safety of oral corticosteroids (prednisone) in the treatment of early stage SARS-Cov-2 pneumonia in patients who do not yet meet hospital admission criteria. Randomized clinical trial, controlled, open, parallel group, to evaluate the effectiveness of steroids in adult patients with confirmed COVID-19, with incipient pulmonary involvement, without hospital admission criteria. Patients will be stratified by the presence or not of radiological data on pneumonia. We will include patients with early stage SARS-Cov-2 pneumonia who do not meet hospital admission criteria from the reference hospital, the Hospital Universitario de Burgos, in the region of Castilla y León, Spain. Patients will be followed-up by specialist physicians and Primary Health Care professionals. - Men and women. - Age between 18 and 75 years old. - Diagnosed SARS-CoV-2 infection, by PCR and/or IgM+ antibody test and/or antigen test. - Clinical diagnosis of lung involvement: (respiratory symptoms +/- pathological auscultation +/- O2 desaturation) - Chest X-ray with mild-moderate alterations or normal. - Patients who give their verbal informed consent in front of witnesses, which will be reflected in the patients' medical records. - Oxygen desaturation below 93% or P0₂ < 62. - Moderate-severe dyspnea or significant respiratory or general deterioration that makes admission advisable. - Chest X-ray with multifocal infiltrates. - Insulin-dependent diabetes with poor control or glycaemia in the emergency room test greater than 300 mg/ml (fasting or not). - Other significant comorbidities: Severe renal failure (creatinine clearance < 30 mL/min); cirrhosis or chronic liver disease, poorly controlled hypertension. - Heart rhythm disturbances (including prolonged QT). - Severe immunosuppression (HIV infection, long-term use of immunosuppressive agents); cancer. - Pregnant or breast-feeding women. - Patients under use of glucocorticoids for other diseases. - History of allergy or intolerance to any of the drugs in the study (prednisone, azithromycin or hydroxychloroquine). - Patients who took one or more of the study drugs in the 7 days prior to study inclusion. - Patients taking non-suppressible drugs with risk of QT prolongation or significant interactions. - Patients unwilling or unable to participate until study completion. - Participation in another study. Eligible patients will be randomized to receive standard outpatient treatment only (group 1) or standard outpatient treatment plus prednisone (group 2). - Group 1: paracetamol 1 g/8 h (on demand) + hydroxychloroquine 400 mg/12h the first day, 200 mg/12 h for 4 days + azithromycin 500 mg/24h for 5 days. - Group 2: paracetamol 1 g/8 h (on demand) + hydroxychloroquine 400 mg/12h the first day, 200 mg/12 h for 4 days + azithromycin 500 mg/24h for 5 days + prednisone 60 mg / 24 h for 3 days, 30 mg / 24 h for 3 days and 15 mg / 24 h for 3 days. If the patient requires ambulatory observation, according to the protocol established in this respect in the Emergency Department, meets all the criteria for inclusion and none for exclusion, data will be taken by the person responsible on the data collection sheet. The main result is admission after 30 days. Secondary outcomes are 30-day ICU admission and hospital stay. The safety variable will be the occurrence of clinical symptoms or delirium related to the steroids. Also, the possible decompensations of diabetes will be measured. All tests will be on an intention-to-treat basis. Treatment will be assigned according to stratified randomization by the presence or absence of radiological data of lung involvement (previously performed by random sequence 1:1 generated with Epidat and kept hidden by opaque, sealed envelopes, which will only be opened after inclusion and basal measurement). Participants, caregivers and personnel responsible for outcomes measurement will not be blinded to group assignment, once the patient is included and the basal measurement performed, as per protocol design. The percentage of patients with incipient lung involvement is unknown, but given that pulmonary involvement already exists it is estimated to be around 20%. We consider that the intervention could reduce this percentage to 5%, so the necessary sample size would be 200 subjects (100 per group), with a power of 80% and an estimated loss percentage of 10%. The protocol with code TAC-COVID-19, version 2.0 on date: April 16, 2020 is approved by the Spanish Drug Agency (AEMPS) and the local Ethics Committee. The trial is in the recruitment phase. Recruitment began 19 April, 2020 and is anticipated to be complete by April 2021. The trial was registered under the title "OUTPATIENT TREATMENT OF EARLY PULMONARY COVID19 WITH CORTICOSTEROIDS AS AN OPPORTUNITY TO MODIFY THE COURSE OF THE DISEASE" with EudraCT number 2020-001622-64 , registered on 3 April 2020. 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.

This study has a target drug

Outpatient treatment of COVID-19 with steroids in the phase of mild pneumonia without the need for admission as an opportunity to modify the course of the disease: A structured summary of a randomised controlled trial.

The aim of this study is to explore the effectiveness and safety of oral corticosteroids (prednisone) in the treatment of early stage SARS-Cov-2 pneumonia in patients who do not yet meet hospital admission criteria. Randomized clinical trial, controlled, open, parallel group, to evaluate the effectiveness of steroids in adult patients with confirmed COVID-19, with incipient pulmonary involvement, without hospital admission criteria. Patients will be stratified by the presence or not of radiological data on pneumonia. We will include patients with early stage SARS-Cov-2 pneumonia who do not meet hospital admission criteria from the reference hospital, the Hospital Universitario de Burgos, in the region of Castilla y León, Spain. Patients will be followed-up by specialist physicians and Primary Health Care professionals. - Men and women. - Age between 18 and 75 years old. - Diagnosed SARS-CoV-2 infection, by PCR and/or IgM+ antibody test and/or antigen test. - Clinical diagnosis of lung involvement: (respiratory symptoms +/- pathological auscultation +/- O2 desaturation) - Chest X-ray with mild-moderate alterations or normal. - Patients who give their verbal informed consent in front of witnesses, which will be reflected in the patients' medical records. - Oxygen desaturation below 93% or P0₂ < 62. - Moderate-severe dyspnea or significant respiratory or general deterioration that makes admission advisable. - Chest X-ray with multifocal infiltrates. - Insulin-dependent diabetes with poor control or glycaemia in the emergency room test greater than 300 mg/ml (fasting or not). - Other significant comorbidities: Severe renal failure (creatinine clearance < 30 mL/min); cirrhosis or chronic liver disease, poorly controlled hypertension. - Heart rhythm disturbances (including prolonged QT). - Severe immunosuppression (HIV infection, long-term use of immunosuppressive agents); cancer. - Pregnant or breast-feeding women. - Patients under use of glucocorticoids for other diseases. - History of allergy or intolerance to any of the drugs in the study (prednisone, azithromycin or hydroxychloroquine). - Patients who took one or more of the study drugs in the 7 days prior to study inclusion. - Patients taking non-suppressible drugs with risk of QT prolongation or significant interactions. - Patients unwilling or unable to participate until study completion. - Participation in another study. Eligible patients will be randomized to receive standard outpatient treatment only (group 1) or standard outpatient treatment plus prednisone (group 2). - Group 1: paracetamol 1 g/8 h (on demand) + hydroxychloroquine 400 mg/12h the first day, 200 mg/12 h for 4 days + azithromycin 500 mg/24h for 5 days. - Group 2: paracetamol 1 g/8 h (on demand) + hydroxychloroquine 400 mg/12h the first day, 200 mg/12 h for 4 days + azithromycin 500 mg/24h for 5 days + prednisone 60 mg / 24 h for 3 days, 30 mg / 24 h for 3 days and 15 mg / 24 h for 3 days. If the patient requires ambulatory observation, according to the protocol established in this respect in the Emergency Department, meets all the criteria for inclusion and none for exclusion, data will be taken by the person responsible on the data collection sheet. The main result is admission after 30 days. Secondary outcomes are 30-day ICU admission and hospital stay. The safety variable will be the occurrence of clinical symptoms or delirium related to the steroids. Also, the possible decompensations of diabetes will be measured. All tests will be on an intention-to-treat basis. Treatment will be assigned according to stratified randomization by the presence or absence of radiological data of lung involvement (previously performed by random sequence 1:1 generated with Epidat and kept hidden by opaque, sealed envelopes, which will only be opened after inclusion and basal measurement). Participants, caregivers and personnel responsible for outcomes measurement will not be blinded to group assignment, once the patient is included and the basal measurement performed, as per protocol design. The percentage of patients with incipient lung involvement is unknown, but given that pulmonary involvement already exists it is estimated to be around 20%. We consider that the intervention could reduce this percentage to 5%, so the necessary sample size would be 200 subjects (100 per group), with a power of 80% and an estimated loss percentage of 10%. The protocol with code TAC-COVID-19, version 2.0 on date: April 16, 2020 is approved by the Spanish Drug Agency (AEMPS) and the local Ethics Committee. The trial is in the recruitment phase. Recruitment began 19 April, 2020 and is anticipated to be complete by April 2021. The trial was registered under the title "OUTPATIENT TREATMENT OF EARLY PULMONARY COVID19 WITH CORTICOSTEROIDS AS AN OPPORTUNITY TO MODIFY THE COURSE OF THE DISEASE" with EudraCT number 2020-001622-64 , registered on 3 April 2020. 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.

This study does not have a target drug

Outpatient treatment of COVID-19 with steroids in the phase of mild pneumonia without the need for admission as an opportunity to modify the course of the disease: A structured summary of a randomised controlled trial.

The aim of this study is to explore the effectiveness and safety of oral corticosteroids (prednisone) in the treatment of early stage SARS-Cov-2 pneumonia in patients who do not yet meet hospital admission criteria. Randomized clinical trial, controlled, open, parallel group, to evaluate the effectiveness of steroids in adult patients with confirmed COVID-19, with incipient pulmonary involvement, without hospital admission criteria. Patients will be stratified by the presence or not of radiological data on pneumonia. We will include patients with early stage SARS-Cov-2 pneumonia who do not meet hospital admission criteria from the reference hospital, the Hospital Universitario de Burgos, in the region of Castilla y León, Spain. Patients will be followed-up by specialist physicians and Primary Health Care professionals. - Men and women. - Age between 18 and 75 years old. - Diagnosed SARS-CoV-2 infection, by PCR and/or IgM+ antibody test and/or antigen test. - Clinical diagnosis of lung involvement: (respiratory symptoms +/- pathological auscultation +/- O2 desaturation) - Chest X-ray with mild-moderate alterations or normal. - Patients who give their verbal informed consent in front of witnesses, which will be reflected in the patients' medical records. - Oxygen desaturation below 93% or P0₂ < 62. - Moderate-severe dyspnea or significant respiratory or general deterioration that makes admission advisable. - Chest X-ray with multifocal infiltrates. - Insulin-dependent diabetes with poor control or glycaemia in the emergency room test greater than 300 mg/ml (fasting or not). - Other significant comorbidities: Severe renal failure (creatinine clearance < 30 mL/min); cirrhosis or chronic liver disease, poorly controlled hypertension. - Heart rhythm disturbances (including prolonged QT). - Severe immunosuppression (HIV infection, long-term use of immunosuppressive agents); cancer. - Pregnant or breast-feeding women. - Patients under use of glucocorticoids for other diseases. - History of allergy or intolerance to any of the drugs in the study (prednisone, azithromycin or hydroxychloroquine). - Patients who took one or more of the study drugs in the 7 days prior to study inclusion. - Patients taking non-suppressible drugs with risk of QT prolongation or significant interactions. - Patients unwilling or unable to participate until study completion. - Participation in another study. Eligible patients will be randomized to receive standard outpatient treatment only (group 1) or standard outpatient treatment plus prednisone (group 2). - Group 1: paracetamol 1 g/8 h (on demand) + hydroxychloroquine 400 mg/12h the first day, 200 mg/12 h for 4 days + azithromycin 500 mg/24h for 5 days. - Group 2: paracetamol 1 g/8 h (on demand) + hydroxychloroquine 400 mg/12h the first day, 200 mg/12 h for 4 days + azithromycin 500 mg/24h for 5 days + prednisone 60 mg / 24 h for 3 days, 30 mg / 24 h for 3 days and 15 mg / 24 h for 3 days. If the patient requires ambulatory observation, according to the protocol established in this respect in the Emergency Department, meets all the criteria for inclusion and none for exclusion, data will be taken by the person responsible on the data collection sheet. The main result is admission after 30 days. Secondary outcomes are 30-day ICU admission and hospital stay. The safety variable will be the occurrence of clinical symptoms or delirium related to the steroids. Also, the possible decompensations of diabetes will be measured. All tests will be on an intention-to-treat basis. Treatment will be assigned according to stratified randomization by the presence or absence of radiological data of lung involvement (previously performed by random sequence 1:1 generated with Epidat and kept hidden by opaque, sealed envelopes, which will only be opened after inclusion and basal measurement). Participants, caregivers and personnel responsible for outcomes measurement will not be blinded to group assignment, once the patient is included and the basal measurement performed, as per protocol design. The percentage of patients with incipient lung involvement is unknown, but given that pulmonary involvement already exists it is estimated to be around 20%. We consider that the intervention could reduce this percentage to 5%, so the necessary sample size would be 200 subjects (100 per group), with a power of 80% and an estimated loss percentage of 10%. The protocol with code TAC-COVID-19, version 2.0 on date: April 16, 2020 is approved by the Spanish Drug Agency (AEMPS) and the local Ethics Committee. The trial is in the recruitment phase. Recruitment began 19 April, 2020 and is anticipated to be complete by April 2021. The trial was registered under the title "OUTPATIENT TREATMENT OF EARLY PULMONARY COVID19 WITH CORTICOSTEROIDS AS AN OPPORTUNITY TO MODIFY THE COURSE OF THE DISEASE" with EudraCT number 2020-001622-64 , registered on 3 April 2020. 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.

This study has a target disease

Outpatient treatment of COVID-19 with steroids in the phase of mild pneumonia without the need for admission as an opportunity to modify the course of the disease: A structured summary of a randomised controlled trial.

The aim of this study is to explore the effectiveness and safety of oral corticosteroids (prednisone) in the treatment of early stage SARS-Cov-2 pneumonia in patients who do not yet meet hospital admission criteria. Randomized clinical trial, controlled, open, parallel group, to evaluate the effectiveness of steroids in adult patients with confirmed COVID-19, with incipient pulmonary involvement, without hospital admission criteria. Patients will be stratified by the presence or not of radiological data on pneumonia. We will include patients with early stage SARS-Cov-2 pneumonia who do not meet hospital admission criteria from the reference hospital, the Hospital Universitario de Burgos, in the region of Castilla y León, Spain. Patients will be followed-up by specialist physicians and Primary Health Care professionals. - Men and women. - Age between 18 and 75 years old. - Diagnosed SARS-CoV-2 infection, by PCR and/or IgM+ antibody test and/or antigen test. - Clinical diagnosis of lung involvement: (respiratory symptoms +/- pathological auscultation +/- O2 desaturation) - Chest X-ray with mild-moderate alterations or normal. - Patients who give their verbal informed consent in front of witnesses, which will be reflected in the patients' medical records. - Oxygen desaturation below 93% or P0₂ < 62. - Moderate-severe dyspnea or significant respiratory or general deterioration that makes admission advisable. - Chest X-ray with multifocal infiltrates. - Insulin-dependent diabetes with poor control or glycaemia in the emergency room test greater than 300 mg/ml (fasting or not). - Other significant comorbidities: Severe renal failure (creatinine clearance < 30 mL/min); cirrhosis or chronic liver disease, poorly controlled hypertension. - Heart rhythm disturbances (including prolonged QT). - Severe immunosuppression (HIV infection, long-term use of immunosuppressive agents); cancer. - Pregnant or breast-feeding women. - Patients under use of glucocorticoids for other diseases. - History of allergy or intolerance to any of the drugs in the study (prednisone, azithromycin or hydroxychloroquine). - Patients who took one or more of the study drugs in the 7 days prior to study inclusion. - Patients taking non-suppressible drugs with risk of QT prolongation or significant interactions. - Patients unwilling or unable to participate until study completion. - Participation in another study. Eligible patients will be randomized to receive standard outpatient treatment only (group 1) or standard outpatient treatment plus prednisone (group 2). - Group 1: paracetamol 1 g/8 h (on demand) + hydroxychloroquine 400 mg/12h the first day, 200 mg/12 h for 4 days + azithromycin 500 mg/24h for 5 days. - Group 2: paracetamol 1 g/8 h (on demand) + hydroxychloroquine 400 mg/12h the first day, 200 mg/12 h for 4 days + azithromycin 500 mg/24h for 5 days + prednisone 60 mg / 24 h for 3 days, 30 mg / 24 h for 3 days and 15 mg / 24 h for 3 days. If the patient requires ambulatory observation, according to the protocol established in this respect in the Emergency Department, meets all the criteria for inclusion and none for exclusion, data will be taken by the person responsible on the data collection sheet. The main result is admission after 30 days. Secondary outcomes are 30-day ICU admission and hospital stay. The safety variable will be the occurrence of clinical symptoms or delirium related to the steroids. Also, the possible decompensations of diabetes will be measured. All tests will be on an intention-to-treat basis. Treatment will be assigned according to stratified randomization by the presence or absence of radiological data of lung involvement (previously performed by random sequence 1:1 generated with Epidat and kept hidden by opaque, sealed envelopes, which will only be opened after inclusion and basal measurement). Participants, caregivers and personnel responsible for outcomes measurement will not be blinded to group assignment, once the patient is included and the basal measurement performed, as per protocol design. The percentage of patients with incipient lung involvement is unknown, but given that pulmonary involvement already exists it is estimated to be around 20%. We consider that the intervention could reduce this percentage to 5%, so the necessary sample size would be 200 subjects (100 per group), with a power of 80% and an estimated loss percentage of 10%. The protocol with code TAC-COVID-19, version 2.0 on date: April 16, 2020 is approved by the Spanish Drug Agency (AEMPS) and the local Ethics Committee. The trial is in the recruitment phase. Recruitment began 19 April, 2020 and is anticipated to be complete by April 2021. The trial was registered under the title "OUTPATIENT TREATMENT OF EARLY PULMONARY COVID19 WITH CORTICOSTEROIDS AS AN OPPORTUNITY TO MODIFY THE COURSE OF THE DISEASE" with EudraCT number 2020-001622-64 , registered on 3 April 2020. 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.

This study does not have a target disease

Inspiratory muscle training during treatment with corticosteroids in humans.

In a previous study performed by us, functional alterations in the inspiratory muscles were evaluated in patients receiving corticosteroids for diseases other than respiratory. We have shown that patients who received high-dose steroids for several weeks developed inspiratory muscle weakness that was reversible following withdrawal of the drug treatment. The present study was designed to evaluate the ability of specific inspiratory muscle training (SIMT) to prevent the effects of a therapeutic dosage of corticosteroids on inspiratory muscle function in patients receiving the drug for diseases other than pulmonary, with no underlying respiratory or muscular disease. Twelve patients, 5 men and 7 women, with ages ranging from 19 to 41 years, who received corticosteroids for diseases other than respiratory were recruited into two groups: 6 patients were assigned to the control group and got sham training and 6 patients received SIMT while receiving corticosteroids in a single-blind group-comparative trial. In both groups, there was no difference between the post-treatment and pretreatment values as regard to the FEV1/FVC relationship. However, in the control group but not in the training group, there was a small but significant decrease, from 99.2 +/- 3.0 to 94.3 +/- 2.8 (mean +/- SEM, p < 0.01) in FEV1 (percent of predicted normal values) and from 103.5 +/- 4.0 to 88.7 +/- 3.1 (p < 0.001) in the FVC, following treatment. All subjects had normal inspiratory muscle strength, as expressed by the maximal inspiratory mouth pressure (PImax) at residual volume, and inspiratory muscle endurance as expressed by the relationship between peak pressure and the PImax before treatment. Following administration of corticosteroids, there was a gradual decrease in both inspiratory muscle strength (from 117.5 +/- 9.4 to 80.5 +/- 3.3 cm H2O, p < 0.005) and endurance (from 82.7 +/- 2.6 to 40.2 +/- 1.7%, p < 0.001) in the control group. On the contrary, despite corticosteroid therapy, there were no significant changes in the inspiratory muscle function in the patients whose inspiratory muscles were specifically trained. We conclude that corticosteroids have a significant deteriorating effect on respiratory muscle function in humans. This weakness is preventable by using SIMT during corticosteroid treatment.

This study has a cohort study or clinical trial

Inspiratory muscle training during treatment with corticosteroids in humans.

In a previous study performed by us, functional alterations in the inspiratory muscles were evaluated in patients receiving corticosteroids for diseases other than respiratory. We have shown that patients who received high-dose steroids for several weeks developed inspiratory muscle weakness that was reversible following withdrawal of the drug treatment. The present study was designed to evaluate the ability of specific inspiratory muscle training (SIMT) to prevent the effects of a therapeutic dosage of corticosteroids on inspiratory muscle function in patients receiving the drug for diseases other than pulmonary, with no underlying respiratory or muscular disease. Twelve patients, 5 men and 7 women, with ages ranging from 19 to 41 years, who received corticosteroids for diseases other than respiratory were recruited into two groups: 6 patients were assigned to the control group and got sham training and 6 patients received SIMT while receiving corticosteroids in a single-blind group-comparative trial. In both groups, there was no difference between the post-treatment and pretreatment values as regard to the FEV1/FVC relationship. However, in the control group but not in the training group, there was a small but significant decrease, from 99.2 +/- 3.0 to 94.3 +/- 2.8 (mean +/- SEM, p < 0.01) in FEV1 (percent of predicted normal values) and from 103.5 +/- 4.0 to 88.7 +/- 3.1 (p < 0.001) in the FVC, following treatment. All subjects had normal inspiratory muscle strength, as expressed by the maximal inspiratory mouth pressure (PImax) at residual volume, and inspiratory muscle endurance as expressed by the relationship between peak pressure and the PImax before treatment. Following administration of corticosteroids, there was a gradual decrease in both inspiratory muscle strength (from 117.5 +/- 9.4 to 80.5 +/- 3.3 cm H2O, p < 0.005) and endurance (from 82.7 +/- 2.6 to 40.2 +/- 1.7%, p < 0.001) in the control group. On the contrary, despite corticosteroid therapy, there were no significant changes in the inspiratory muscle function in the patients whose inspiratory muscles were specifically trained. We conclude that corticosteroids have a significant deteriorating effect on respiratory muscle function in humans. This weakness is preventable by using SIMT during corticosteroid treatment.

This study does not have any cohorts or clinical trial

Inspiratory muscle training during treatment with corticosteroids in humans.

In a previous study performed by us, functional alterations in the inspiratory muscles were evaluated in patients receiving corticosteroids for diseases other than respiratory. We have shown that patients who received high-dose steroids for several weeks developed inspiratory muscle weakness that was reversible following withdrawal of the drug treatment. The present study was designed to evaluate the ability of specific inspiratory muscle training (SIMT) to prevent the effects of a therapeutic dosage of corticosteroids on inspiratory muscle function in patients receiving the drug for diseases other than pulmonary, with no underlying respiratory or muscular disease. Twelve patients, 5 men and 7 women, with ages ranging from 19 to 41 years, who received corticosteroids for diseases other than respiratory were recruited into two groups: 6 patients were assigned to the control group and got sham training and 6 patients received SIMT while receiving corticosteroids in a single-blind group-comparative trial. In both groups, there was no difference between the post-treatment and pretreatment values as regard to the FEV1/FVC relationship. However, in the control group but not in the training group, there was a small but significant decrease, from 99.2 +/- 3.0 to 94.3 +/- 2.8 (mean +/- SEM, p < 0.01) in FEV1 (percent of predicted normal values) and from 103.5 +/- 4.0 to 88.7 +/- 3.1 (p < 0.001) in the FVC, following treatment. All subjects had normal inspiratory muscle strength, as expressed by the maximal inspiratory mouth pressure (PImax) at residual volume, and inspiratory muscle endurance as expressed by the relationship between peak pressure and the PImax before treatment. Following administration of corticosteroids, there was a gradual decrease in both inspiratory muscle strength (from 117.5 +/- 9.4 to 80.5 +/- 3.3 cm H2O, p < 0.005) and endurance (from 82.7 +/- 2.6 to 40.2 +/- 1.7%, p < 0.001) in the control group. On the contrary, despite corticosteroid therapy, there were no significant changes in the inspiratory muscle function in the patients whose inspiratory muscles were specifically trained. We conclude that corticosteroids have a significant deteriorating effect on respiratory muscle function in humans. This weakness is preventable by using SIMT during corticosteroid treatment.

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

Inspiratory muscle training during treatment with corticosteroids in humans.

In a previous study performed by us, functional alterations in the inspiratory muscles were evaluated in patients receiving corticosteroids for diseases other than respiratory. We have shown that patients who received high-dose steroids for several weeks developed inspiratory muscle weakness that was reversible following withdrawal of the drug treatment. The present study was designed to evaluate the ability of specific inspiratory muscle training (SIMT) to prevent the effects of a therapeutic dosage of corticosteroids on inspiratory muscle function in patients receiving the drug for diseases other than pulmonary, with no underlying respiratory or muscular disease. Twelve patients, 5 men and 7 women, with ages ranging from 19 to 41 years, who received corticosteroids for diseases other than respiratory were recruited into two groups: 6 patients were assigned to the control group and got sham training and 6 patients received SIMT while receiving corticosteroids in a single-blind group-comparative trial. In both groups, there was no difference between the post-treatment and pretreatment values as regard to the FEV1/FVC relationship. However, in the control group but not in the training group, there was a small but significant decrease, from 99.2 +/- 3.0 to 94.3 +/- 2.8 (mean +/- SEM, p < 0.01) in FEV1 (percent of predicted normal values) and from 103.5 +/- 4.0 to 88.7 +/- 3.1 (p < 0.001) in the FVC, following treatment. All subjects had normal inspiratory muscle strength, as expressed by the maximal inspiratory mouth pressure (PImax) at residual volume, and inspiratory muscle endurance as expressed by the relationship between peak pressure and the PImax before treatment. Following administration of corticosteroids, there was a gradual decrease in both inspiratory muscle strength (from 117.5 +/- 9.4 to 80.5 +/- 3.3 cm H2O, p < 0.005) and endurance (from 82.7 +/- 2.6 to 40.2 +/- 1.7%, p < 0.001) in the control group. On the contrary, despite corticosteroid therapy, there were no significant changes in the inspiratory muscle function in the patients whose inspiratory muscles were specifically trained. We conclude that corticosteroids have a significant deteriorating effect on respiratory muscle function in humans. This weakness is preventable by using SIMT during corticosteroid treatment.

This study does not have any comparison patient group

Inspiratory muscle training during treatment with corticosteroids in humans.

In a previous study performed by us, functional alterations in the inspiratory muscles were evaluated in patients receiving corticosteroids for diseases other than respiratory. We have shown that patients who received high-dose steroids for several weeks developed inspiratory muscle weakness that was reversible following withdrawal of the drug treatment. The present study was designed to evaluate the ability of specific inspiratory muscle training (SIMT) to prevent the effects of a therapeutic dosage of corticosteroids on inspiratory muscle function in patients receiving the drug for diseases other than pulmonary, with no underlying respiratory or muscular disease. Twelve patients, 5 men and 7 women, with ages ranging from 19 to 41 years, who received corticosteroids for diseases other than respiratory were recruited into two groups: 6 patients were assigned to the control group and got sham training and 6 patients received SIMT while receiving corticosteroids in a single-blind group-comparative trial. In both groups, there was no difference between the post-treatment and pretreatment values as regard to the FEV1/FVC relationship. However, in the control group but not in the training group, there was a small but significant decrease, from 99.2 +/- 3.0 to 94.3 +/- 2.8 (mean +/- SEM, p < 0.01) in FEV1 (percent of predicted normal values) and from 103.5 +/- 4.0 to 88.7 +/- 3.1 (p < 0.001) in the FVC, following treatment. All subjects had normal inspiratory muscle strength, as expressed by the maximal inspiratory mouth pressure (PImax) at residual volume, and inspiratory muscle endurance as expressed by the relationship between peak pressure and the PImax before treatment. Following administration of corticosteroids, there was a gradual decrease in both inspiratory muscle strength (from 117.5 +/- 9.4 to 80.5 +/- 3.3 cm H2O, p < 0.005) and endurance (from 82.7 +/- 2.6 to 40.2 +/- 1.7%, p < 0.001) in the control group. On the contrary, despite corticosteroid therapy, there were no significant changes in the inspiratory muscle function in the patients whose inspiratory muscles were specifically trained. We conclude that corticosteroids have a significant deteriorating effect on respiratory muscle function in humans. This weakness is preventable by using SIMT during corticosteroid treatment.

This study has human subjects

Inspiratory muscle training during treatment with corticosteroids in humans.

In a previous study performed by us, functional alterations in the inspiratory muscles were evaluated in patients receiving corticosteroids for diseases other than respiratory. We have shown that patients who received high-dose steroids for several weeks developed inspiratory muscle weakness that was reversible following withdrawal of the drug treatment. The present study was designed to evaluate the ability of specific inspiratory muscle training (SIMT) to prevent the effects of a therapeutic dosage of corticosteroids on inspiratory muscle function in patients receiving the drug for diseases other than pulmonary, with no underlying respiratory or muscular disease. Twelve patients, 5 men and 7 women, with ages ranging from 19 to 41 years, who received corticosteroids for diseases other than respiratory were recruited into two groups: 6 patients were assigned to the control group and got sham training and 6 patients received SIMT while receiving corticosteroids in a single-blind group-comparative trial. In both groups, there was no difference between the post-treatment and pretreatment values as regard to the FEV1/FVC relationship. However, in the control group but not in the training group, there was a small but significant decrease, from 99.2 +/- 3.0 to 94.3 +/- 2.8 (mean +/- SEM, p < 0.01) in FEV1 (percent of predicted normal values) and from 103.5 +/- 4.0 to 88.7 +/- 3.1 (p < 0.001) in the FVC, following treatment. All subjects had normal inspiratory muscle strength, as expressed by the maximal inspiratory mouth pressure (PImax) at residual volume, and inspiratory muscle endurance as expressed by the relationship between peak pressure and the PImax before treatment. Following administration of corticosteroids, there was a gradual decrease in both inspiratory muscle strength (from 117.5 +/- 9.4 to 80.5 +/- 3.3 cm H2O, p < 0.005) and endurance (from 82.7 +/- 2.6 to 40.2 +/- 1.7%, p < 0.001) in the control group. On the contrary, despite corticosteroid therapy, there were no significant changes in the inspiratory muscle function in the patients whose inspiratory muscles were specifically trained. We conclude that corticosteroids have a significant deteriorating effect on respiratory muscle function in humans. This weakness is preventable by using SIMT during corticosteroid treatment.

This study does not have human subjects