Sedentary LifestyleNCT02825303
Mid-term Effect of a Novel Sit-to-stand Workplace (ACTIVE OFFICE) on Cognitive and Physiological Parameters
A study testing Workplace consisting of two height-adjustable desks in people with Sedentary Lifestyle and Worksite, run by University of Applied Sciences Upper Austria at 1 site in Austria.
Trial summary
Prolonged sitting is a risk factor for cardiovascular and musculoskeletal diseases, diabetes, several types of cancer and all-cause mortality. In combination with static and awkward postures, the prevalence of musculoskeletal diseases can increase further. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 to 60 yearsHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Sedentary Lifestyle, Worksite
- What is being tested?
- Workplace consisting of two height-adjustable desks
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 18 participants
- Where
- 1 siteAustria
- Study dates
- Jan 2014to Mar 2015
- Phase
- Interventional
- 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 18 to 60 years
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult
Who may be able to join
- Healthy Caucasian (no acute or chronic diseases)
- Normal weight or slightly overweight (BMI: 18.5 - 27.5 kg/m²)
- Regularly working in sedentary office environments
- Regular computer users
- Fluent German speakers
- Consented to participate
Who cannot join
- Heavily overweight \& Obesity (BMI > 27.5 kg/m²)
- Short office stay duration (< 8 h / day or < 20 h / week)
- Experience in sit-to-stand workstations
- Acute or chronic diseases
- Inability to stand
- Visual impairments that had not been corrected
Show all 10Show fewer
- Color blindness
- People planning to change their physical activity level
- Regular smokers (> 1 cigarette /day)
- Not consented to participate
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
Austria1 site
University of Applied Sciences Upper Austria
Linz, Upper Austria, 4020
About this study
Prolonged sitting is a risk factor for cardiovascular and musculoskeletal diseases, diabetes, several types of cancer and all-cause mortality. In combination with static and awkward postures, the prevalence of musculoskeletal diseases can increase further. Although the implementation of sit-to-stand or active workstations can help to reduce sitting time, improve physical activity at work and promote health benefits, it might also lead to changes in cognitive functions such as productivity The purpose of this study is to evaluate the mid-term effect of a novel two desk sit-to-stand workplace on sitting time as well as physiological and cognitive parameters for healthy people of working age in comparison to their traditional workplace.
Read the detailed description
Measurements were made both in the field and in a laboratory. Field measurements were made and processed continuously over the 23-week intervention period. Laboratory measurements were made on two different days, one day prior to intervention, and one day following intervention (due to cross-over design, each subject underwent 4 total days of laboratory measurements). Field measurements were collected automatically at the participants' workstation in their working office.
Laboratory tests were conducted in a controlled, simulated work-space located at the University of Applied Sciences Campus Linz. All laboratory measurements were made in a controlled laboratory at the campus site Linz of the University of Applied Sciences Upper Austria. Temperature, air flow, humidity, lighting conditions (artificial light only) and noise level were controlled and set to be consistent with the subjects' typical working environment.
During the laboratory measurements, subjects either stood or sat upright in an ergonomic office chair, according to the study protocol. Subjects were encouraged to work as fast and as accurately as they could. To ensure identical testing conditions between subjects and to not unduly influence physiological parameters such as salivary cortisol level or heart rate variability, subjects were required to minimize excessive movement (e.g. standing up during the sitting periods).
In the first (initial) phase, participants were familiarized with the study protocol. Sitting time and weekly physical activity were determined via the IPAQ-questionnaire. Examples of each cognitive test implemented in the cognitive phase were executed according to their guidelines. A 30 minute break in a sitting posture was used to ascertain baseline heart-rate and cortisol level. Baseline heart-rate was calculated after a 20 minute rest for a 5 minute interval and saliva samples were collected at the end (30min) of the break.
In the second (cognitive) phase subjects participated in a test battery containing five blocks. Each block consisted of a working speed test (text editing task), an attentional test (d2R-test of attention) and a reaction time test (Stroop-test). These tests lasted for 30 minutes to fulfill recommendations regarding postural changes. To simulate "common" working conditions (computer based and non-computer based tasks), digital (text editing task, Stroop-test) as well as pen \& paper (d2R-test) versions of the implemented tests were used. All blocks were executed in alternating postures (sit - stand - sit - stand - sit) and at the end of each block - after a 5 minute break - salivary samples were collected. The order of posture was not changed within groups or time.
In the third (final) phase participants were asked to estimate their workload by means of the NASA-TLX questionnaire followed by a 30 minute resting phase in a sitting posture. During both 30 min resting phases (initial \& final) participants watched documentaries and were encouraged not to talk.
Salivary samples were collected after each break during the study protocol and on the following morning, 20 minutes after waking up, to ascertain cortisol awakening response (CAR). Salivary samples were centrifuged and stored at -80 °C for subsequent testing using a chemiluminescent immunoassay.
Heart-rate and trunk movements were measured from the start of the study protocol until the CAR measurement.
- Conditions
- Sedentary Lifestyle, Worksite
- Being tested
- Workplace consisting of two height-adjustable desks
- Keywords
- postural changes, Height adjustable desk, Prolonged sitting, Cognitive performance
- Medical subject headings
- Sedentary Behavior
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Workplace consisting of two height-adjustable desksOther
Desk arrangements: self-determined by the participants Desk equipment: depending on pre-intervention condition - 1 or 2 screens per desk Build-up: one day prior to the intervention period at the location of the workplace Adjustment: together with the study leader
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Novel workplace - first half | Experimental | Intervention: A novel two-desk sit-to-stand workstation for 23 weeks; provided within the first half of the study. Traditional workstation within the second half of the study. Receives: Other: Workplace consisting of two height-adjustable desks |
| Novel workplace - second half | Experimental | Intervention: A novel two-desk sit-to-stand workstation for 23 weeks; provided within the second half of the study. Traditional workstation within the frist half of the study. Receives: Other: Workplace consisting of two height-adjustable desks |
| Control group | No intervention | Control group subjects did not encounter any changes in their regular office environments. Traditional workstation for both halves of the study. |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Daily sitting time
Changes in sitting time after 23 weeks in the experimental group compared with its own control period and the control group. Measuring methods: International Physical Activity Questionaire (IPAQ); self developed tracking software at the participants' workplace
Measured: baseline and 23 weeks
Secondary outcomes (1)
Cognitive performance (composite outcome)
Changes in cognitive performance after 23 weeks in the experimental group compared with its own control period and the control group. Measuring methods: Digital color-word-conflict stroop test, d2R-test of attention, text editing task, NASA-TLX
Measured: baseline and 23 weeks
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted7 Jul 2016 (estimated)
- Study startJan 2014
- Primary completionMar 2015
- Study completionMar 2015
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (11)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Sedentary LifestyleStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- 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 N/A
- Primary purpose
- Prevention
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Crossover
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 18 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- University of Applied Sciences Upper Austria
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- University of Vienna
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Bernhard Schwartz, University of Applied Sciences Upper Austria
- Investigators
- Bernhard Schwartz, MSc, Study director, University of Applied Sciences Upper Austria
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT02825303
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- AO-8735-1
- Other IDs
- 834185
- Status last verified
- Jul 2016
- First submitted
- 4 Jul 2016
- Last updated
- 15 Jul 2016
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- Individual data sharing
- Yes: Data resulting from this study will be analyzed and published in the PIs' PhD-thesis and journal articles.
Publications
Neuhaus M, Healy GN, Dunstan DW, Owen N, Eakin EG. Workplace sitting and height-adjustable workstations: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Prev Med. 2014 Jan;46(1):30-40. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2013.09.009.
PubMed 24355669Commissaris DA, Konemann R, Hiemstra-van Mastrigt S, Burford EM, Botter J, Douwes M, Ellegast RP. Effects of a standing and three dynamic workstations on computer task performance and cognitive function tests. Appl Ergon. 2014 Nov;45(6):1570-8. doi: 10.1016/j.apergo.2014.05.003. Epub 2014 Jun 17.
PubMed 24951234Bates ME, Lemay EP Jr. The d2 Test of attention: construct validity and extensions in scoring techniques. J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2004 May;10(3):392-400. doi: 10.1017/S135561770410307X.
PubMed 15147597Best JR, Nagamatsu LS, Liu-Ambrose T. Improvements to executive function during exercise training predict maintenance of physical activity over the following year. Front Hum Neurosci. 2014 May 27;8:353. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2014.00353. eCollection 2014.
PubMed 24904387Hennig J, Friebe J, Ryl I, Kramer B, Bottcher J, Netter P. Upright posture influences salivary cortisol. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2000 Jan;25(1):69-83. doi: 10.1016/s0306-4530(99)00037-2.
PubMed 10633536Van der Elst W, Van Boxtel MP, Van Breukelen GJ, Jolles J. The Stroop color-word test: influence of age, sex, and education; and normative data for a large sample across the adult age range. Assessment. 2006 Mar;13(1):62-79. doi: 10.1177/1073191105283427.
PubMed 16443719Lynch BM. Sedentary behavior and cancer: a systematic review of the literature and proposed biological mechanisms. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2010 Nov;19(11):2691-709. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-10-0815. Epub 2010 Sep 10.
PubMed 20833969Owen N, Sparling PB, Healy GN, Dunstan DW, Matthews CE. Sedentary behavior: emerging evidence for a new health risk. Mayo Clin Proc. 2010 Dec;85(12):1138-41. doi: 10.4065/mcp.2010.0444. No abstract available.
PubMed 21123641Brown WJ, Miller YD, Miller R. Sitting time and work patterns as indicators of overweight and obesity in Australian adults. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2003 Nov;27(11):1340-6. doi: 10.1038/sj.ijo.0802426.
PubMed 14574344Schwartz B, Kapellusch JM, Baca A, Wessner B. Medium-term effects of a two-desk sit/stand workstation on cognitive performance and workload for healthy people performing sedentary work: a secondary analysis of a randomised controlled trial. Ergonomics. 2019 Jun;62(6):794-810. doi: 10.1080/00140139.2019.1577497. Epub 2019 Apr 7.
PubMed 30762479Schwartz B, Kapellusch JM, Schrempf A, Probst K, Haller M, Baca A. Effect of a novel two-desk sit-to-stand workplace (ACTIVE OFFICE) on sitting time, performance and physiological parameters: protocol for a randomized control trial. BMC Public Health. 2016 Jul 15;16:578. doi: 10.1186/s12889-016-3271-y.
PubMed 27422158
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 15 Jul 2016. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Mid-term Effect of a Novel Sit-to-stand Workplace (ACTIVE OFFICE) on Cognitive and Physiological Parameters
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT02825303
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- AO-8735-1
- Conditions
- Sedentary Lifestyle, Worksite
- Keywords
- postural changes, Height adjustable desk, Prolonged sitting, Cognitive performance
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 18 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- University of Applied Sciences Upper AustriaUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- University of Vienna
- Study start
- Jan 2014
- Primary completion
- Mar 2015 (actual)
- Study completion
- Mar 2015 (actual)
- First posted
- 7 Jul 2016 (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.
Prolonged sitting is a risk factor for cardiovascular and musculoskeletal diseases, diabetes, several types of cancer and all-cause mortality. In combination with static and awkward postures, the prevalence of musculoskeletal diseases can increase further. Although the implementation of sit-to-stand or active workstations can help to reduce sitting time, improve physical activity at work and promote health benefits, it might also lead to changes in cognitive functions such as productivity The purpose of this study is to evaluate the mid-term effect of a novel two desk sit-to-stand workplace on sitting time as well as physiological and cognitive parameters for healthy people of working age in comparison to their traditional workplace.
Detailed description
Measurements were made both in the field and in a laboratory. Field measurements were made and processed continuously over the 23-week intervention period. Laboratory measurements were made on two different days, one day prior to intervention, and one day following intervention (due to cross-over design, each subject underwent 4 total days of laboratory measurements). Field measurements were collected automatically at the participants' workstation in their working office.
Laboratory tests were conducted in a controlled, simulated work-space located at the University of Applied Sciences Campus Linz. All laboratory measurements were made in a controlled laboratory at the campus site Linz of the University of Applied Sciences Upper Austria. Temperature, air flow, humidity, lighting conditions (artificial light only) and noise level were controlled and set to be consistent with the subjects' typical working environment.
During the laboratory measurements, subjects either stood or sat upright in an ergonomic office chair, according to the study protocol. Subjects were encouraged to work as fast and as accurately as they could. To ensure identical testing conditions between subjects and to not unduly influence physiological parameters such as salivary cortisol level or heart rate variability, subjects were required to minimize excessive movement (e.g. standing up during the sitting periods).
In the first (initial) phase, participants were familiarized with the study protocol. Sitting time and weekly physical activity were determined via the IPAQ-questionnaire. Examples of each cognitive test implemented in the cognitive phase were executed according to their guidelines. A 30 minute break in a sitting posture was used to ascertain baseline heart-rate and cortisol level. Baseline heart-rate was calculated after a 20 minute rest for a 5 minute interval and saliva samples were collected at the end (30min) of the break.
In the second (cognitive) phase subjects participated in a test battery containing five blocks. Each block consisted of a working speed test (text editing task), an attentional test (d2R-test of attention) and a reaction time test (Stroop-test). These tests lasted for 30 minutes to fulfill recommendations regarding postural changes. To simulate "common" working conditions (computer based and non-computer based tasks), digital (text editing task, Stroop-test) as well as pen \& paper (d2R-test) versions of the implemented tests were used. All blocks were executed in alternating postures (sit - stand - sit - stand - sit) and at the end of each block - after a 5 minute break - salivary samples were collected. The order of posture was not changed within groups or time.
In the third (final) phase participants were asked to estimate their workload by means of the NASA-TLX questionnaire followed by a 30 minute resting phase in a sitting posture. During both 30 min resting phases (initial \& final) participants watched documentaries and were encouraged not to talk.
Salivary samples were collected after each break during the study protocol and on the following morning, 20 minutes after waking up, to ascertain cortisol awakening response (CAR). Salivary samples were centrifuged and stored at -80 °C for subsequent testing using a chemiluminescent immunoassay.
Heart-rate and trunk movements were measured from the start of the study protocol until the CAR measurement.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Prevention
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Crossover
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 3
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Novel workplace - first half | Experimental | Other: Workplace consisting of two height-adjustable desksIntervention: A novel two-desk sit-to-stand workstation for 23 weeks; provided within the first half of the study. Traditional workstation within the second half of the study. |
| Novel workplace - second half | Experimental | Other: Workplace consisting of two height-adjustable desksIntervention: A novel two-desk sit-to-stand workstation for 23 weeks; provided within the second half of the study. Traditional workstation within the frist half of the study. |
| Control group | No intervention | –Control group subjects did not encounter any changes in their regular office environments. Traditional workstation for both halves of the study. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 to 60 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult
Key inclusion criteria (6 listed)
- Healthy Caucasian (no acute or chronic diseases)
- Normal weight or slightly overweight (BMI: 18.5 - 27.5 kg/m²)
- Regularly working in sedentary office environments
- Regular computer users
- Fluent German speakers
Key exclusion criteria (10 listed)
- Heavily overweight \& Obesity (BMI > 27.5 kg/m²)
- Short office stay duration (< 8 h / day or < 20 h / week)
- Experience in sit-to-stand workstations
- Acute or chronic diseases
- Inability to stand
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Workplace consisting of two height-adjustable desksDesk arrangements: self-determined by the participants Desk equipment: depending on pre-intervention condition - 1 or 2 screens per desk Build-up: one day prior to the intervention period at the location of the workplace Adjustment: together with the study leader | Other | Novel workplace - first half, Novel workplace - second half |
Primary outcome
Daily sitting time
Time frame: baseline and 23 weeks
Changes in sitting time after 23 weeks in the experimental group compared with its own control period and the control group. Measuring methods: International Physical Activity Questionaire (IPAQ); self developed tracking software at the participants' workplace
1 secondary outcome
Cognitive performance (composite outcome)
Time frame: baseline and 23 weeks
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 15 Jul 2016.
- Background: PubMed 24355669Neuhaus M, Healy GN, Dunstan DW, Owen N, Eakin EG. Workplace sitting and height-adjustable workstations: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Prev Med. 2014 Jan;46(1):30-40. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2013.09.009.
- Background: PubMed 24951234Commissaris DA, Konemann R, Hiemstra-van Mastrigt S, Burford EM, Botter J, Douwes M, Ellegast RP. Effects of a standing and three dynamic workstations on computer task performance and cognitive function tests. Appl Ergon. 2014 Nov;45(6):1570-8. doi: 10.1016/j.apergo.2014.05.003. Epub 2014 Jun 17.
- Background: PubMed 15147597Bates ME, Lemay EP Jr. The d2 Test of attention: construct validity and extensions in scoring techniques. J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2004 May;10(3):392-400. doi: 10.1017/S135561770410307X.
- Background: PubMed 24904387Best JR, Nagamatsu LS, Liu-Ambrose T. Improvements to executive function during exercise training predict maintenance of physical activity over the following year. Front Hum Neurosci. 2014 May 27;8:353. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2014.00353. eCollection 2014.
- Background: PubMed 10633536Hennig J, Friebe J, Ryl I, Kramer B, Bottcher J, Netter P. Upright posture influences salivary cortisol. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2000 Jan;25(1):69-83. doi: 10.1016/s0306-4530(99)00037-2.
- Background: PubMed 16443719Van der Elst W, Van Boxtel MP, Van Breukelen GJ, Jolles J. The Stroop color-word test: influence of age, sex, and education; and normative data for a large sample across the adult age range. Assessment. 2006 Mar;13(1):62-79. doi: 10.1177/1073191105283427.
- Background: PubMed 20833969Lynch BM. Sedentary behavior and cancer: a systematic review of the literature and proposed biological mechanisms. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2010 Nov;19(11):2691-709. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-10-0815. Epub 2010 Sep 10.
- Background: PubMed 21123641Owen N, Sparling PB, Healy GN, Dunstan DW, Matthews CE. Sedentary behavior: emerging evidence for a new health risk. Mayo Clin Proc. 2010 Dec;85(12):1138-41. doi: 10.4065/mcp.2010.0444. No abstract available.
- Background: PubMed 14574344Brown WJ, Miller YD, Miller R. Sitting time and work patterns as indicators of overweight and obesity in Australian adults. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2003 Nov;27(11):1340-6. doi: 10.1038/sj.ijo.0802426.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 30762479Schwartz B, Kapellusch JM, Baca A, Wessner B. Medium-term effects of a two-desk sit/stand workstation on cognitive performance and workload for healthy people performing sedentary work: a secondary analysis of a randomised controlled trial. Ergonomics. 2019 Jun;62(6):794-810. doi: 10.1080/00140139.2019.1577497. Epub 2019 Apr 7.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 27422158Schwartz B, Kapellusch JM, Schrempf A, Probst K, Haller M, Baca A. Effect of a novel two-desk sit-to-stand workplace (ACTIVE OFFICE) on sitting time, performance and physiological parameters: protocol for a randomized control trial. BMC Public Health. 2016 Jul 15;16:578. doi: 10.1186/s12889-016-3271-y.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: Yes. Data resulting from this study will be analyzed and published in the PIs' PhD-thesis and journal articles.
Related trials for Sedentary Lifestyle
Active, not recruiting
A Pilot Factorial Trial of an Integrated Lifestyle Intervention
Physical Inactivity, Overweight and Obesity
Recruiting
Yoga vs. Stretching-Strengthening: Physical Fitness in Sedentary Young Adults
Sedentary Lifestlye, Exercise
Active, not recruitingObservational study
A Longitudinal Cohort Study to Evaluate Cardiovascular Risk Factors and Disease in Haiti
Hypertension, Diabetes
Recruiting
Scalable TELeheaLth Cancer CARe: The STELLAR Program to Treat Cancer Risk Behaviors
Obesity, Smoking Cessation
Not yet recruiting
Be Well at Work-Plus: A Depression and Physical Activity Intervention for Hospital Service Workers (Aim 3)
Depression, Physical Inactivity
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.
Bernhard Schwartz, MSc study director
University of Applied Sciences Upper Austria
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Workplace consisting of two height-adjustable desks in people with Sedentary Lifestyle and Worksite, run by University of Applied Sciences Upper Austria at 1 site in Austria.
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 6 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 15 Jul 2016. 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 Austria. 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.
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?
Daily sitting time (time frame: baseline and 23 weeks). 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 NCT02825303, which also lists 11 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 15 Jul 2016.