Shoulder DislocationProTEDSNCT03442803
Propofol Target-Controlled Infusion in Emergency Department Sedation
A study of Shoulder Dislocation, run by NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde at 4 sites in United Kingdom.
Trial summary
There exists continued controversy over the use of propofol in Emergency Department procedural sedation, this is despite its widespread existence in clinical practice for at least a decade. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 to 65 yearsHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Shoulder Dislocation
- Type of treatment
- Injection or infusion, Medical device
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 20 participants
- Where
- 4 sitesUnited Kingdom
- Study dates
- 3 Apr 2017to 31 Dec 2018
- 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 65 years
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Aged 18-65 years
- Clinical and/or radiological evidence of acute anterior shoulder dislocation
- ASA I or II
- Fasted ≥ 90mins2,3,27,28
- Weight ≥50kg
Who cannot join
- Inability to provide or refusal of informed consent
- Previous attempt at reduction during the same presentation
- Previously enrolled in the study
- Clinical and/or radiological evidence of acute posterior shoulder dislocation
- Clinical and/or radiological evidence of concomitant ipsilateral upper limb fracture (with the exception of an isolated avulsion fracture of the greater tuberosity or a fracture of the glenoid labrum)
- Concomitant multi-system injury
Show all 14Show fewer
- History of difficult intubation/airway surgery
- ASA grade III, IV or V
- Haemodynamic instability
- Pregnancy
- Contraindication to sedation
- Allergy to study drugs or eggs
- Clinician decision
- Morphine administration within the preceding 20minutes prior to starting TCI (can be included if >20minutes)
Trial locations and contacts
4 sites in 1 country.
United Kingdom4 sites, 4 recruiting
- Recruiting
Glasgow Royal Infirmary
Glasgow, G4 0SF
Sile MacGlone
- Recruiting
Queen Elizabeth University Hospital
Glasgow, G51 4TF
Claire McGroarty
- Recruiting
Hairmyres Hospital
Glasgow, G75 8RG
Fiona M Burton
- Recruiting
Royal Alexandra Hospital
Paisley, PA2 9PN
Alasdair Corfield
About this study
Official title: Propofol Target-controlled Infusion Versus Usual Care for the Sedation of Adult Patients With Acute Shoulder Dislocation in the Emergency Department
There exists continued controversy over the use of propofol in Emergency Department procedural sedation, this is despite its widespread existence in clinical practice for at least a decade. These concerns are not limited to the ED setting and are primarily related to the pharmacological properties of the drug itself and its potential for harm. The bolus administration of propofol, aimed at a target of sedation, offers several advantages over more traditional agents, yet these advantages are also its limitations. The use of a target-controlled infusion may provide the sedationist with greater control over the pharmacokinetics of propofol and thus reduce the rate of adverse incidents.
This feasibility study aims to use a pragmatic design to test the safety and efficacy of propofol TCI whilst assessing the practicalities of it's use in the ED. If it proves to be feasible then the researchers plan to proceed to a multi centre pilot study to gather information to adequately power a larger randomised multi centre trial.
Read the detailed description
Procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) has long been a core skill of the Emergency Physician, although over the last decade, developments in patient monitoring and the use of newer sedative and analgesic agents have served to improve both safety and efficacy. Despite these advances and their consolidation into well-designed guidelines concern regarding the safety of ED PSA persists.
More specifically, concerns have been raised regarding the use of propofol, an ultra-short acting anaesthetic agent. The practice of using sub-anaesthetic doses of propofol to achieve sedation in ED PSA originated around the turn of the millennium and has since become the most common choice of sedative in the ED. Propofol offers a number of advantages as a sedative agent, including; a short onset and recovery time, amnesiac properties and good efficacy. The cost of these properties is in part, a narrow therapeutic range.
When given as a bolus, propofol will induce a spectrum of states up to and including general anaesthesia, dependent on the dosage. The correlation between dose and effect varies based on several patient factors. Whilst targeting a state of sedation it is possible for the operator to 'overshoot' moving rapidly from Conscious Sedation to Deep Sedation to General Anaesthesia. The inadvertent induction of general anesthesia may result in unanticipated complication.
The principle complications associated with accidental over-sedation or general anesthesia relate to the patency of the patient's airway. The reported frequency of airway complications during ED PSA with propofol range from 5.0% to 9.4%7, this includes a rate of supplemental ventilation of between 3.0% and 9.4%, with oxygen desaturation occurring in between 5% and 7% of cases12. In addition, the bolus administration of propofol may result in transient hypotension. Despite being a relatively short lived effect, this may be pronounced in those with intravascular volume depletion or in the elderly, and in some may be profound, with one series demonstrating that 3.5% of those undergoing PSA with propofol experience ≥ 20% falls in blood pressure. At first inspection the reported rate of complication may appear low, and has by some been interpreted as evidence of the relative safety of ED PSA, however alternative views have been expressed in the context of much lower rates of adverse events seen in elective painful procedures requiring conscious sedation. This is compounded by the non-standard way in which adverse events have been reported across studies.
A potential solution to the adverse events experienced with the bolus administration of propofol is the use of a target-controlled infusion (TCI). This method is widely used in anaesthetic practice and whilst the PK remains the same irrespective of if you give a bolus or infusion of propofol, TCI allows the titration in perhaps a more controlled manner.
The aim when administering propofol, as with any drug, is to induce a desired clinical effect, in this context a level of sedation. As previously alluded to, when administering propofol in a bolus fashion or as a fixed rate infusion, without regard to those factors which cause biologic variability (e.g. age, gender, weight), it is difficult to accurately and consistently predict clinical effect. The development, in the early 1990's, of computer assisted infusion devices, for the first time, allowed the clinician to target a plasma concentration, with the pump automatically altering the rate of infusion based on a pre-programmed pharmacokinetic model. These target-controlled infusion (TCI) devices have undergone significant development and are now in widespread clinical use. Their operation uses a mathematical mode that reflects a theoretical 'three-compartment' model that may comprise the central compartment (plasma), and two peripheral compartments (highly perfused tissue e.g. brain and poorly perfused tissue e.g. adipose). In a state of equilibrium, propofol will diffuse between compartments at a constant rate. These rate constants have been used in pharmacokinetic models to mathematically predict the plasma concentration and latterly the effect site concentration, in this case that in the brain.
In practical terms, TCI allows the operator to more accurately target a specific clinical effect. When propofol is administered as a bolus, the operator is likely to either under-dose, delivering an insufficient effect site concentration, or over-dose, exceeding the desired effect site concentration. TCI allows the operator to titrate to effect and then to maintain a steady state, potentially eliminating the risk of 'over shooting' and reducing the rate of adverse events. TCI is not without limitation. PK models are an estimate as they have been derived from a healthy population but any inherent inaccuracy is consistent in different populations and accounted for by careful titration.
The use of propofol TCI has been studied in a number of settings, including gastrointestinal endoscopy, dental surgery, oocyte retrieval and bronchoscopy. To our knowledge propofol TCI in sedation has not been studied in an ED setting. Trials have demonstrated a good safety profile for propofol TCI, with at least one large randomised-controlled trial in an endoscopy setting, showing a reduction in both respiratory and cardiovascular adverse events in comparison to the bolus administration of propofol. Unfortunately, trials to date have suffered from a high degree of heterogeneity, leading the Cochrane review, on the subject of propofol TCI versus manually controlled infusion in both general anaesthesia and sedation, to conclude that there was insufficient evidence to make firm recommendations regarding its use in clinical practice.
- Conditions
- Shoulder Dislocation
- Being tested
- Target-Controlled Infusion
- Keywords
- sedation, Emergency Department, Target Controlled infusion, propofol
- Medical subject headings
- Shoulder Dislocation, Emergencies
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Target-Controlled InfusionDevice
Propofol Target-Controlled Infusion
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Propofol TCI | Experimental | Delivery of Propofol via a Target-controlled infusion pump for procedural sedation. Receives: Device: Target-Controlled Infusion |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Patient satisfaction
Patient satisfaction score using a VAS with the question, "How satisfied were you with the procedure? Please mark on the line below with a vertical mark." The scale ranges from not satisfied to very satisfied.
Measured: Patient satisfaction will be assessed when patient is fully awake, this will be recorded on one single occasion, on average 30minutes after the procedure.
Secondary outcomes (4)
Nursing Opinion of the Patient Experience
Nursing opinion of the Patient experience using a VAS with the question "How would you rate the patient's experience of the procedure whilst sedated? Please mark on the line below with a vertical mark." The scale ranges from poor experience to excellent experience.
Measured: Immediately after procedure
Incidence and severity of adverse events per World Society of Intravenous Anaesthesia adverse event reporting tool
A standardised adverse event reporting tool that categories the outcome and severity of adverse events. Outcomes can either be minimal risk outcome, moderate risk outcome, sentinel outcome or other. The severity will either be sentinel adverse event, moderate risk adverse event, minor risk adverse event or minimal risk adverse event.
Measured: Duration of sedation, on average 40 minutes
Time from commencement of sedation to fit for discharge as per Royal College of Emergency Medicine guidelines outlining fit for discharge.
Time in minutes taken for the patient to be fit for discharge after commencement of sedation, completion of procedure and cessation of sedation.
A patient is deemed fit for discharge when they have satisfied the following criteria as defined by the Royal College of Emergency Medicine:
- Patient returned to their baseline level of consciousness
- Vital signs are within normal limits for that patient.
- Respiratory status is not compromised.
- Pain and discomfort have been addressed.
- Patient returned to their baseline level of consciousness
- Vital signs are within normal limits for that patient.
- Respiratory status is not compromised.
- Pain and discomfort have been addressed.
Measured: End of the patient's Emergency Department attendance post procedure and prior to discharge, on average 3 hours.
% of patients recruited vs % of patients approached
% of patients recruited vs % of patients approached
Measured: At the point in their attendance when approached for consent to be recruited, on average 30 minutes into their attendance.
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted22 Feb 2018
- Study start3 Apr 2017
- Primary completion31 Dec 2018 (estimated)
- Study completion31 Dec 2018 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (2)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Shoulder DislocationStudies 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
- Other
- Allocation
- Not applicable
- Intervention model
- Single group
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 20 participants (estimated)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- C. R. Bard
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
- Investigators
- Fiona M Burton, MBChB, FRECM, Principal investigator, Hairmyres Hospital
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT03442803
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- GN16AE183
- Acronym
- ProTEDS
- Status last verified
- Feb 2018
- First submitted
- 12 Feb 2018
- Last updated
- 22 Feb 2018
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Publications
Burton FM, Lowe DJ, Millar J, Corfield AR, Watson MJ, Sim MAB. Propofol Target-Controlled Infusion in Emergency Department Sedation (ProTEDS): a multicentre, single-arm feasibility study. Emerg Med J. 2021 Mar;38(3):205-210. doi: 10.1136/emermed-2020-209686. Epub 2020 Dec 9.
PubMed 33298604Burton FM, Lowe DJ, Millar J, Corfield AR, Sim MAB. A study protocol for a feasibility study: Propofol Target-Controlled Infusion in Emergency Department Sedation (ProTEDS)-a multi-centre feasibility study protocol. Pilot Feasibility Stud. 2019 Feb 18;5:27. doi: 10.1186/s40814-019-0412-y. eCollection 2019.
PubMed 30820338
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 22 Feb 2018. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Propofol Target-controlled Infusion Versus Usual Care for the Sedation of Adult Patients With Acute Shoulder Dislocation in the Emergency Department
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT03442803
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- ProTEDS / GN16AE183
- Conditions
- Shoulder Dislocation
- Keywords
- sedation, Emergency Department, Target Controlled infusion, propofol
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Unknown status
- Enrolment
- 20 participants (estimated)
- Lead sponsor
- NHS Greater Glasgow and ClydeUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- C. R. Bard
- Study start
- 3 Apr 2017 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 31 Dec 2018 (estimated)
- Study completion
- 31 Dec 2018 (estimated)
- First posted
- 22 Feb 2018 (actual)
- 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.
There exists continued controversy over the use of propofol in Emergency Department procedural sedation, this is despite its widespread existence in clinical practice for at least a decade. These concerns are not limited to the ED setting and are primarily related to the pharmacological properties of the drug itself and its potential for harm. The bolus administration of propofol, aimed at a target of sedation, offers several advantages over more traditional agents, yet these advantages are also its limitations. The use of a target-controlled infusion may provide the sedationist with greater control over the pharmacokinetics of propofol and thus reduce the rate of adverse incidents.
This feasibility study aims to use a pragmatic design to test the safety and efficacy of propofol TCI whilst assessing the practicalities of it's use in the ED. If it proves to be feasible then the researchers plan to proceed to a multi centre pilot study to gather information to adequately power a larger randomised multi centre trial.
Detailed description
Procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) has long been a core skill of the Emergency Physician, although over the last decade, developments in patient monitoring and the use of newer sedative and analgesic agents have served to improve both safety and efficacy. Despite these advances and their consolidation into well-designed guidelines concern regarding the safety of ED PSA persists.
More specifically, concerns have been raised regarding the use of propofol, an ultra-short acting anaesthetic agent. The practice of using sub-anaesthetic doses of propofol to achieve sedation in ED PSA originated around the turn of the millennium and has since become the most common choice of sedative in the ED. Propofol offers a number of advantages as a sedative agent, including; a short onset and recovery time, amnesiac properties and good efficacy. The cost of these properties is in part, a narrow therapeutic range.
When given as a bolus, propofol will induce a spectrum of states up to and including general anaesthesia, dependent on the dosage. The correlation between dose and effect varies based on several patient factors. Whilst targeting a state of sedation it is possible for the operator to 'overshoot' moving rapidly from Conscious Sedation to Deep Sedation to General Anaesthesia. The inadvertent induction of general anesthesia may result in unanticipated complication.
The principle complications associated with accidental over-sedation or general anesthesia relate to the patency of the patient's airway. The reported frequency of airway complications during ED PSA with propofol range from 5.0% to 9.4%7, this includes a rate of supplemental ventilation of between 3.0% and 9.4%, with oxygen desaturation occurring in between 5% and 7% of cases12. In addition, the bolus administration of propofol may result in transient hypotension. Despite being a relatively short lived effect, this may be pronounced in those with intravascular volume depletion or in the elderly, and in some may be profound, with one series demonstrating that 3.5% of those undergoing PSA with propofol experience ≥ 20% falls in blood pressure. At first inspection the reported rate of complication may appear low, and has by some been interpreted as evidence of the relative safety of ED PSA, however alternative views have been expressed in the context of much lower rates of adverse events seen in elective painful procedures requiring conscious sedation. This is compounded by the non-standard way in which adverse events have been reported across studies.
A potential solution to the adverse events experienced with the bolus administration of propofol is the use of a target-controlled infusion (TCI). This method is widely used in anaesthetic practice and whilst the PK remains the same irrespective of if you give a bolus or infusion of propofol, TCI allows the titration in perhaps a more controlled manner.
The aim when administering propofol, as with any drug, is to induce a desired clinical effect, in this context a level of sedation. As previously alluded to, when administering propofol in a bolus fashion or as a fixed rate infusion, without regard to those factors which cause biologic variability (e.g. age, gender, weight), it is difficult to accurately and consistently predict clinical effect. The development, in the early 1990's, of computer assisted infusion devices, for the first time, allowed the clinician to target a plasma concentration, with the pump automatically altering the rate of infusion based on a pre-programmed pharmacokinetic model. These target-controlled infusion (TCI) devices have undergone significant development and are now in widespread clinical use. Their operation uses a mathematical mode that reflects a theoretical 'three-compartment' model that may comprise the central compartment (plasma), and two peripheral compartments (highly perfused tissue e.g. brain and poorly perfused tissue e.g. adipose). In a state of equilibrium, propofol will diffuse between compartments at a constant rate. These rate constants have been used in pharmacokinetic models to mathematically predict the plasma concentration and latterly the effect site concentration, in this case that in the brain.
In practical terms, TCI allows the operator to more accurately target a specific clinical effect. When propofol is administered as a bolus, the operator is likely to either under-dose, delivering an insufficient effect site concentration, or over-dose, exceeding the desired effect site concentration. TCI allows the operator to titrate to effect and then to maintain a steady state, potentially eliminating the risk of 'over shooting' and reducing the rate of adverse events. TCI is not without limitation. PK models are an estimate as they have been derived from a healthy population but any inherent inaccuracy is consistent in different populations and accounted for by careful titration.
The use of propofol TCI has been studied in a number of settings, including gastrointestinal endoscopy, dental surgery, oocyte retrieval and bronchoscopy. To our knowledge propofol TCI in sedation has not been studied in an ED setting. Trials have demonstrated a good safety profile for propofol TCI, with at least one large randomised-controlled trial in an endoscopy setting, showing a reduction in both respiratory and cardiovascular adverse events in comparison to the bolus administration of propofol. Unfortunately, trials to date have suffered from a high degree of heterogeneity, leading the Cochrane review, on the subject of propofol TCI versus manually controlled infusion in both general anaesthesia and sedation, to conclude that there was insufficient evidence to make firm recommendations regarding its use in clinical practice.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Other
- Allocation
- Not applicable
- Intervention model
- Single group
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 1
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Propofol TCI | Experimental | Device: Target-Controlled InfusionDelivery of Propofol via a Target-controlled infusion pump for procedural sedation. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 to 65 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (5 listed)
- Aged 18-65 years
- Clinical and/or radiological evidence of acute anterior shoulder dislocation
- ASA I or II
- Fasted ≥ 90mins2,3,27,28
- Weight ≥50kg
Key exclusion criteria (14 listed)
- Inability to provide or refusal of informed consent
- Previous attempt at reduction during the same presentation
- Previously enrolled in the study
- Clinical and/or radiological evidence of acute posterior shoulder dislocation
- Clinical and/or radiological evidence of concomitant ipsilateral upper limb fracture (with the exception of an isolated avulsion fracture of the greater tuberosity or a fracture of the glenoid labrum)
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Target-Controlled InfusionPropofol Target-Controlled Infusion | Device | Propofol TCI |
Primary outcome
Patient satisfaction
Time frame: Patient satisfaction will be assessed when patient is fully awake, this will be recorded on one single occasion, on average 30minutes after the procedure.
Patient satisfaction score using a VAS with the question, "How satisfied were you with the procedure? Please mark on the line below with a vertical mark." The scale ranges from not satisfied to very satisfied.
4 secondary outcomes
Nursing Opinion of the Patient Experience
Time frame: Immediately after procedure
Incidence and severity of adverse events per World Society of Intravenous Anaesthesia adverse event reporting tool
Time frame: Duration of sedation, on average 40 minutes
Time from commencement of sedation to fit for discharge as per Royal College of Emergency Medicine guidelines outlining fit for discharge.
Time frame: End of the patient's Emergency Department attendance post procedure and prior to discharge, on average 3 hours.
% of patients recruited vs % of patients approached
Time frame: At the point in their attendance when approached for consent to be recruited, on average 30 minutes into their attendance.
Results and safety
Results are not available in the source record.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 22 Feb 2018.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 33298604Burton FM, Lowe DJ, Millar J, Corfield AR, Watson MJ, Sim MAB. Propofol Target-Controlled Infusion in Emergency Department Sedation (ProTEDS): a multicentre, single-arm feasibility study. Emerg Med J. 2021 Mar;38(3):205-210. doi: 10.1136/emermed-2020-209686. Epub 2020 Dec 9.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 30820338Burton FM, Lowe DJ, Millar J, Corfield AR, Sim MAB. A study protocol for a feasibility study: Propofol Target-Controlled Infusion in Emergency Department Sedation (ProTEDS)-a multi-centre feasibility study protocol. Pilot Feasibility Stud. 2019 Feb 18;5:27. doi: 10.1186/s40814-019-0412-y. eCollection 2019.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Shoulder Dislocation
Recruiting
SMR Stemless Reverse vs SMR Reverse Shoulder System
Arthroplasty, Replacement
RecruitingObservational study
Prospective Descriptive Study of Injuries Associated to Anterior Shoulder Dislocations in Patients Over 40 Years
Anterior Glenohumeral Dislocations
Not yet recruiting
Early arthroscoPic Stabilization veRsus rehabilitatiOn of the Shoulder in Adolescents With a trauMatic First-time Anterior Shoulder Dislocation ePisode.
Shoulder Dislocation
Recruiting
Validation of an Upper Extremity Physical Performance Test Battery in Patients After Shoulder Dislocation
Return to Sport, Shoulder Dislocation or Subluxation
RecruitingObservational study
Exactech Proximal Humerus Fracture Plate System Post Market Clinical Follow-up
Proximal Humeral Fracture, Fracture Dislocation
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.
Fiona M Burton, MBChB, FRECM principal investigator
Hairmyres Hospital
4 sites in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study of Shoulder Dislocation, run by NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde at 4 sites in United Kingdom.
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 5 inclusion and 14 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: status not confirmed, as of the sponsor's last update on 22 Feb 2018. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 4 sites in United Kingdom. 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?
Results are not available in the source record.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
Contact Fiona M Burton, MBChB, FRCEM (+44 1355 584103, fionaburton@nhs.net), or a site near the patient. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Patient satisfaction (time frame: Patient satisfaction will be assessed when patient is fully awake, this will be recorded on one single occasion, on average 30minutes after the procedure.). 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 NCT03442803, which also lists 2 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 22 Feb 2018.