SciaticaPhase 3NCT00317447
The Efficacy of Oral Steroids in the Treatment of Acute Sciatica
A Phase 3 study testing Oral Prednisone in people with Sciatica, run by Kaiser Permanente at 1 site in United States.
Trial summary
Sciatica (lumbosacral radiculopathy) is a common diagnosis in primary care, occurring in approximately one percent of all patients with acute low back pain. (1, 2) Traditional treatment generally involves pain control (acetominophen, NSAID's, or narcotics), activity as tolerated, and time. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 20 to 60 years
- Conditions the study is for
- Sciatica
- What is being tested?
- Oral Prednisone
- Type of treatment
- Pill or oral medicine
- How many people
- 160 participants
- Where
- 1 siteUnited States
- Study dates
- Feb 2002to Apr 2004
- Phase
- Phase 3
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 20 to 60 years
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult
Who may be able to join
- A diagnosis of acute sciatica as determined by the principle investigator based on the following criteria:
- unilateral leg pain extending below the knee (with or without strength, sensory, or reflex changes); and
- a positive straight leg raising sign (defined as as pain radiating from the buttock to below the knee with elevation of the leg between zero and sixty degrees)
- recruited into the study within one week of the onset of symptoms
Who cannot join
- Current pregnancy
- A history of:
- diabetes renal failure upper gastro-intestinal bleed major psychiatric disease
- Presence of any 'red flag' symptoms suggestive of more serious underlying disease as defined by the United States Agency for Healthcare Policy Research document: "Acute Low Back Problems In Adults" (11) including:
- a history of cancer
- unexplained weight loss
Show all 10Show fewer
- fever or chills
- night sweats
- a history of intravenous drug use, saddle anesthesia, bowel or bladder incontinence, bone pathology, or a Neurologic emergency.
- Any condition that the principle investigator thought might jeopardize the patient's safety
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
Official title: Oral Steroids in the Treatment of Acute Sciatica A Randomized Controlled Study
Sciatica (lumbosacral radiculopathy) is a common diagnosis in primary care, occurring in approximately one percent of all patients with acute low back pain. (1, 2) Traditional treatment generally involves pain control (acetominophen, NSAID's, or narcotics), activity as tolerated, and time. (1, 3-8 ) The general consensus is that fifty percent of patients with sciatica recover within six weeks, and that ninety percent are better in twelve weeks.(4, 8) Those patients with intractable pain or progressive neurologic symptoms usually receive epidural steroid injections and, if necessary, decompressive laminectomy or discectomy. (2, 8, 9)
Low back pain and sciatica result in tremendous losses to our society in terms of decreased productivity and cost of treatment. (1, 12) Oral steroids are inexpensive and relatively safe medications that, if effective in reducing the pain and disability associated with sciatica, could improve the quality of patients' lives, and result in significant cost savings to society at large. We hypothesize that the use of oral steroids to treat acute sciatica will speed patients' recovery as measured by: changes in physical findings, rates of return to work and activities of daily living, pain and disability assessment scores, and decreases in the use of narcotic and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID's), and in the need for epidural injection or surgical intervention.
Read the detailed description
Inclusion Criteria
To be included in this study patients had to have a diagnosis of acute sciatica as determined by the principle investigator based on the following criteria: unilateral leg pain extending below the knee (with or without strength, sensory, or reflex changes), and a positive straight leg raising sign (defined as as pain radiating from the buttock to below the knee with elevation of the leg between zero and sixty degrees). Patients had to be between twenty and sixty years of age, and had to be entered in [recruited into] the study within one week of the onset of their symptoms.
Exclusion Criteria
Patients were excluded from the study if they were pregnant or had a history of diabetes, renal failure, upper gastro-intestinal bleed, or major psychiatric disease. Patients also had to be free of symptoms suggesting more serious underlying disease as defined by the United States Agency for Healthcare Policy Research document: "Acute Low Back Problems In Adults". (11) "Red Flag" symptoms" included: a history of cancer, unexplained weight loss, fever or chills, night sweats, a history of intravenous drug use, saddle anesthesia, bowel or bladder incontinence, bone pathology, or a Neurologic emergency. Additionally, patients could be excluded for any condition that the principle investigator thought might jeopardize their safety.
Randomization and Blinding
Once the diagnosis of acute sciatica had been confirmed, subjects were randomized to receive either a nine day tapering course of prednisone or placebo capsules. The principle investigator and research nurse were blinded as to group assignment. All subjects received current standard therapy for sciatica, including: a NSAID (ibuprofen, naproxen, etodolac, or nambumetone), narcotics if needed (hydrocodone, propoxyphene, oxycodone, or morphine), activity as tolerated, and a referral for physical therapy.
Study Design
Upon entering the study all patients underwent physical exam with attention to: straight leg raising test (positive or negative), contralateral straight leg raising (positive or negative), knee and ankle stretch reflexes (0-3+), foot sensation (normal or decreased), strength (0-5) of quadriceps, foot dorsiflexors, foot plantar flexors, and ability to perform five heel lifts (0-5). Patients also completed three written instruments: a "12 Item Health Status Questionnaire" (13), a "Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire" (14), and a "Roland-Morris Pain Rating Scale" (14). Also noted at the intake visit and each subsequent visit were the number of hours each patient was working or, if they were not employed or were retired, their estimated percent of daily living activities they were able to accomplish. Lastly, note was made of whether the patient had undergone epidural steroid injection or surgical intervention since the previous visit. Each patient underwent the same exam and completed the same questionnaires weekly for four weeks post recruitment, and then monthly for five months. This led to a total of 6 months of follow-up.
All patients received non-steroidal anti-inflammatory medication and narcotic medication if needed for pain control. Patients randomized to the study group received tapering course of prednisone: 60 mg for three days, 40 mg for three days, and 20 mg for three days. Patients randomized to the control (placebo) group received capsules identical in appearance to the prednisone capsules but containing an inert filler substance. Patients were questioned at each visit to determine whether they were taking their study medication (first nine days of the study) and whether they were still taking non-steroidal or narcotic medication (entire study).
Patients were encouraged to begin non-weight-bearing aerobic activities such as swimming and/or bike riding as soon as their pain had subsided to a reasonable degree. At this point, patients generally also referred to see a physical therapist.
Patients who had rapid improvement and were under fifty generally did not have any imaging studies performed. Project staff ordered plain films of the lumbosacral spine for most patients over age 50 . Irrespective of age, patients who had intractable pain or progressive neurologic symptoms generally had plain films of the lumbosacral spine done and also underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). A separate analysis of pain level ratings, narcotic and NSAID use, and return to work rates, was performed for this subgroup with the thought that they probably represented patients with the most severe nerve root inflammation and that the effects of oral prednisone might be more or less obvious in this group.
Statistical power analysis
Statistical power analysis was performed with the primary outcome of return to work within 14 days of the intervention. The proportion of the control group returning to work was hypothesized to be 50%. Oral prednisone was hypothesized to have a 50% treatment effect, resulting in a 75% rate of return to work within 14 days. Using chi square with continuity correction, statistical power analysis found that a (study and control group) sample size of 80 per subgroup would have a power of 88% to find this difference (i.e., between 50% and 75%)statistically significant at p<.05.
- Conditions
- Sciatica
- Being tested
- Oral Prednisone
- Keywords
- Sciatica, Lower back pain, Prednisone, Randomized, controlled clinical trial
- Medical subject headings
- Sciatica, Low Back Pain
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Oral PrednisoneDrug
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Physical examination findings:
straight leg raising test (positive or negative)
contralateral straight leg raising (positive or negative)
knee and ankle stretch reflexes (0-3+)
foot sensation (normal or decreased)
strength (0-5) of quadriceps
foot dorsiflexors
foot plantar flexors
ability to perform five heel lifts (0-5)
Written instruments:
HSQ 12 (Health Status Questionaire)(13)
Roland-Morris Disability Questionaire (14)
Roland-Morris Pain Rating Scale (14)
Secondary outcomes (4)
Number of hours/week of work
Estimated percent of daily living activities subjects were able to accomplish
Epidural steroid injection
Surgical intervention
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted24 Apr 2006 (estimated)
- Study startFeb 2002
- Study completionApr 2004
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (13)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for SciaticaStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by Kaiser PermanenteThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase 3
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Double blind
- Enrolment
- 160 participants
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Kaiser Permanente
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Investigators
- Richard Holve, MD, Principal investigator, Kaiser Permanente
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT00317447
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- Oral Steroid Tx Acute Sciatica
- Status last verified
- Apr 2006
- First submitted
- 20 Apr 2006
- Last updated
- 24 Apr 2006
- Results posted
- No
Publications
Frymoyer JW. Back pain and sciatica. N Engl J Med. 1988 Feb 4;318(5):291-300. doi: 10.1056/NEJM198802043180506. No abstract available.
PubMed 2961994Scheer SJ, Radack KL, O'Brien DR Jr. Randomized controlled trials in industrial low back pain relating to return to work. Part 2. Discogenic low back pain. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1996 Nov;77(11):1189-97. doi: 10.1016/s0003-9993(96)90147-1.
PubMed 8931535USDHHS, Agency for Health Care Policy and Research. Acute low back problems in adults. Rockville, MD: AHCPR; 1994. AHCPR pub number 95-0642
Daniels JM 2nd. Treatment of occupationally acquired low back pain. Am Fam Physician. 1997 Feb 1;55(2):587-96, 601-2.
PubMed 9054226Deyo RA. Conservative therapy for low back pain. Distinguishing useful from useless therapy. JAMA. 1983 Aug 26;250(8):1057-62.
PubMed 6224032Deyo RA. Back pain revisited. Newer thinking on diagnosis and therpapy. Consultant 1993 Feb:88-97
Griffin G, Tudiver F, Grant WD. Do NSAIDs help in acute or chronic low back pain? Am Fam Physician. 2002 Apr 1;65(7):1319-21. No abstract available.
PubMed 11996413Weber H. The natural history of disc herniation and the influence of intervention. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1994 Oct 1;19(19):2234-8; discussion 2233. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199410000-00022.
PubMed 7809761Kraemer J. Natural course and prognosis of intervertebral disc diseases. International Society for the Study of the Lumbar Spine Seattle, Washington, June 1994. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1995 Mar 15;20(6):635-9. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199503150-00001.
PubMed 7604337Guo HR, Tanaka S, Halperin WE, Cameron LL. Back pain prevalence in US industry and estimates of lost workdays. Am J Public Health. 1999 Jul;89(7):1029-35. doi: 10.2105/ajph.89.7.1029.
PubMed 10394311Radosevich DM. An abbreviated health status questionnaire: the HSQ12. The Newsletter of the Health Outcomes Institute. 1995;2:1-4
Roland M, Morris R. A study of the natural history of back pain. Part I: development of a reliable and sensitive measure of disability in low-back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1983 Mar;8(2):141-4. doi: 10.1097/00007632-198303000-00004. No abstract available.
PubMed 6222486Elashoff JD, NQuery Advisor Version 2.0, 2000, Statistical Solutions, Saugus MA
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 24 Apr 2006. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Oral Steroids in the Treatment of Acute Sciatica A Randomized Controlled Study
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT00317447
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- Oral Steroid Tx Acute Sciatica
- Conditions
- Sciatica
- Keywords
- Sciatica, Lower back pain, Prednisone, Randomized, controlled clinical trial
- Phase
- Phase 3
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 160 participants
- Lead sponsor
- Kaiser PermanenteUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- Feb 2002
- Study completion
- Apr 2004
- First posted
- 24 Apr 2006 (estimated)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
Sciatica (lumbosacral radiculopathy) is a common diagnosis in primary care, occurring in approximately one percent of all patients with acute low back pain. (1, 2) Traditional treatment generally involves pain control (acetominophen, NSAID's, or narcotics), activity as tolerated, and time. (1, 3-8 ) The general consensus is that fifty percent of patients with sciatica recover within six weeks, and that ninety percent are better in twelve weeks.(4, 8) Those patients with intractable pain or progressive neurologic symptoms usually receive epidural steroid injections and, if necessary, decompressive laminectomy or discectomy. (2, 8, 9)
Low back pain and sciatica result in tremendous losses to our society in terms of decreased productivity and cost of treatment. (1, 12) Oral steroids are inexpensive and relatively safe medications that, if effective in reducing the pain and disability associated with sciatica, could improve the quality of patients' lives, and result in significant cost savings to society at large. We hypothesize that the use of oral steroids to treat acute sciatica will speed patients' recovery as measured by: changes in physical findings, rates of return to work and activities of daily living, pain and disability assessment scores, and decreases in the use of narcotic and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID's), and in the need for epidural injection or surgical intervention.
Detailed description
Inclusion Criteria
To be included in this study patients had to have a diagnosis of acute sciatica as determined by the principle investigator based on the following criteria: unilateral leg pain extending below the knee (with or without strength, sensory, or reflex changes), and a positive straight leg raising sign (defined as as pain radiating from the buttock to below the knee with elevation of the leg between zero and sixty degrees). Patients had to be between twenty and sixty years of age, and had to be entered in [recruited into] the study within one week of the onset of their symptoms.
Exclusion Criteria
Patients were excluded from the study if they were pregnant or had a history of diabetes, renal failure, upper gastro-intestinal bleed, or major psychiatric disease. Patients also had to be free of symptoms suggesting more serious underlying disease as defined by the United States Agency for Healthcare Policy Research document: "Acute Low Back Problems In Adults". (11) "Red Flag" symptoms" included: a history of cancer, unexplained weight loss, fever or chills, night sweats, a history of intravenous drug use, saddle anesthesia, bowel or bladder incontinence, bone pathology, or a Neurologic emergency. Additionally, patients could be excluded for any condition that the principle investigator thought might jeopardize their safety.
Randomization and Blinding
Once the diagnosis of acute sciatica had been confirmed, subjects were randomized to receive either a nine day tapering course of prednisone or placebo capsules. The principle investigator and research nurse were blinded as to group assignment. All subjects received current standard therapy for sciatica, including: a NSAID (ibuprofen, naproxen, etodolac, or nambumetone), narcotics if needed (hydrocodone, propoxyphene, oxycodone, or morphine), activity as tolerated, and a referral for physical therapy.
Study Design
Upon entering the study all patients underwent physical exam with attention to: straight leg raising test (positive or negative), contralateral straight leg raising (positive or negative), knee and ankle stretch reflexes (0-3+), foot sensation (normal or decreased), strength (0-5) of quadriceps, foot dorsiflexors, foot plantar flexors, and ability to perform five heel lifts (0-5). Patients also completed three written instruments: a "12 Item Health Status Questionnaire" (13), a "Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire" (14), and a "Roland-Morris Pain Rating Scale" (14). Also noted at the intake visit and each subsequent visit were the number of hours each patient was working or, if they were not employed or were retired, their estimated percent of daily living activities they were able to accomplish. Lastly, note was made of whether the patient had undergone epidural steroid injection or surgical intervention since the previous visit. Each patient underwent the same exam and completed the same questionnaires weekly for four weeks post recruitment, and then monthly for five months. This led to a total of 6 months of follow-up.
All patients received non-steroidal anti-inflammatory medication and narcotic medication if needed for pain control. Patients randomized to the study group received tapering course of prednisone: 60 mg for three days, 40 mg for three days, and 20 mg for three days. Patients randomized to the control (placebo) group received capsules identical in appearance to the prednisone capsules but containing an inert filler substance. Patients were questioned at each visit to determine whether they were taking their study medication (first nine days of the study) and whether they were still taking non-steroidal or narcotic medication (entire study).
Patients were encouraged to begin non-weight-bearing aerobic activities such as swimming and/or bike riding as soon as their pain had subsided to a reasonable degree. At this point, patients generally also referred to see a physical therapist.
Patients who had rapid improvement and were under fifty generally did not have any imaging studies performed. Project staff ordered plain films of the lumbosacral spine for most patients over age 50 . Irrespective of age, patients who had intractable pain or progressive neurologic symptoms generally had plain films of the lumbosacral spine done and also underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). A separate analysis of pain level ratings, narcotic and NSAID use, and return to work rates, was performed for this subgroup with the thought that they probably represented patients with the most severe nerve root inflammation and that the effects of oral prednisone might be more or less obvious in this group.
Statistical power analysis
Statistical power analysis was performed with the primary outcome of return to work within 14 days of the intervention. The proportion of the control group returning to work was hypothesized to be 50%. Oral prednisone was hypothesized to have a 50% treatment effect, resulting in a 75% rate of return to work within 14 days. Using chi square with continuity correction, statistical power analysis found that a (study and control group) sample size of 80 per subgroup would have a power of 88% to find this difference (i.e., between 50% and 75%)statistically significant at p<.05.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Double blind
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 20 to 60 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult
Key inclusion criteria (4 listed)
- A diagnosis of acute sciatica as determined by the principle investigator based on the following criteria:
- unilateral leg pain extending below the knee (with or without strength, sensory, or reflex changes); and
- a positive straight leg raising sign (defined as as pain radiating from the buttock to below the knee with elevation of the leg between zero and sixty degrees)
- recruited into the study within one week of the onset of symptoms
Key exclusion criteria (10 listed)
- Current pregnancy
- diabetes renal failure upper gastro-intestinal bleed major psychiatric disease
- Presence of any 'red flag' symptoms suggestive of more serious underlying disease as defined by the United States Agency for Healthcare Policy Research document: "Acute Low Back Problems In Adults" (11) including:
- a history of cancer
- unexplained weight loss
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Oral Prednisone | Drug | – |
Primary outcome
Physical examination findings:
straight leg raising test (positive or negative)
contralateral straight leg raising (positive or negative)
knee and ankle stretch reflexes (0-3+)
foot sensation (normal or decreased)
strength (0-5) of quadriceps
foot dorsiflexors
foot plantar flexors
ability to perform five heel lifts (0-5)
Written instruments:
HSQ 12 (Health Status Questionaire)(13)
Roland-Morris Disability Questionaire (14)
Roland-Morris Pain Rating Scale (14)
4 secondary outcomes
Number of hours/week of work
Estimated percent of daily living activities subjects were able to accomplish
Epidural steroid injection
Surgical intervention
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 24 Apr 2006.
- Background: PubMed 2961994Frymoyer JW. Back pain and sciatica. N Engl J Med. 1988 Feb 4;318(5):291-300. doi: 10.1056/NEJM198802043180506. No abstract available.
- Background: PubMed 8931535Scheer SJ, Radack KL, O'Brien DR Jr. Randomized controlled trials in industrial low back pain relating to return to work. Part 2. Discogenic low back pain. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1996 Nov;77(11):1189-97. doi: 10.1016/s0003-9993(96)90147-1.
- BackgroundUSDHHS, Agency for Health Care Policy and Research. Acute low back problems in adults. Rockville, MD: AHCPR; 1994. AHCPR pub number 95-0642
- Background: PubMed 9054226Daniels JM 2nd. Treatment of occupationally acquired low back pain. Am Fam Physician. 1997 Feb 1;55(2):587-96, 601-2.
- Background: PubMed 6224032Deyo RA. Conservative therapy for low back pain. Distinguishing useful from useless therapy. JAMA. 1983 Aug 26;250(8):1057-62.
- BackgroundDeyo RA. Back pain revisited. Newer thinking on diagnosis and therpapy. Consultant 1993 Feb:88-97
- Background: PubMed 11996413Griffin G, Tudiver F, Grant WD. Do NSAIDs help in acute or chronic low back pain? Am Fam Physician. 2002 Apr 1;65(7):1319-21. No abstract available.
- Background: PubMed 7809761Weber H. The natural history of disc herniation and the influence of intervention. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1994 Oct 1;19(19):2234-8; discussion 2233. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199410000-00022.
- Background: PubMed 7604337Kraemer J. Natural course and prognosis of intervertebral disc diseases. International Society for the Study of the Lumbar Spine Seattle, Washington, June 1994. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1995 Mar 15;20(6):635-9. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199503150-00001.
- Background: PubMed 10394311Guo HR, Tanaka S, Halperin WE, Cameron LL. Back pain prevalence in US industry and estimates of lost workdays. Am J Public Health. 1999 Jul;89(7):1029-35. doi: 10.2105/ajph.89.7.1029.
- BackgroundRadosevich DM. An abbreviated health status questionnaire: the HSQ12. The Newsletter of the Health Outcomes Institute. 1995;2:1-4
- Background: PubMed 6222486Roland M, Morris R. A study of the natural history of back pain. Part I: development of a reliable and sensitive measure of disability in low-back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1983 Mar;8(2):141-4. doi: 10.1097/00007632-198303000-00004. No abstract available.
Related trials for Sciatica
Recruiting
Effect of Transfer of Energy Capacitive and Resistive on Chronic Discogenic Sciatica
Lumbar Radiculopathy
Not yet recruiting
Selective Nerve Root Block Versus Sham to Reduce Surgery for Lumbar Disc Herniation
Lumbar Disc Herniation, Lumbar Radiculopathy
RecruitingPhase 1
Study to Evaluate Safety of C-1101 Versus Sterile Saline in Adults With Chronic Painful Lumbosacral Radiculopathy
Lumbosacral Radicular Pain, Sciatic Radiculopathy
Recruiting
Effect of Sensorimotor Training on Pain and Gait Performance in Patients With Discogenic Sciatica
Sciatica Due to Intervertebral Disc Disorder
Not yet recruiting
Randomized Evaluation of Lumbar Injection Effectiveness and Function
Lumbar Radiculopathy, Lumbar Disc Herniation
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Richard Holve, MD principal investigator
Kaiser Permanente
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A Phase 3 study testing Oral Prednisone in people with Sciatica, run by Kaiser Permanente at 1 site in United States.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 4 inclusion and 10 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 24 Apr 2006. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in United States. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
What does this phase mean?
Phase 3 studies compare the treatment with the current standard treatment or a placebo in a large group, to confirm how well it works and watch for side effects.
Not every study follows the same path, and some studies (observational studies, device studies) have no phase.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Physical examination findings:. The study lists 13 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT00317447, which also lists 13 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 24 Apr 2006.