6 Clinical Trials for Adverse Effects, Drugs
The purpose of this study is to determine whether the implementation of pre-emptive pharmacogenomic (PGx) testing of a panel of clinically relevant PGx markers, to guide the dose and drug selection for 39 commonly prescribed drugs, will result in an overall reduction in the number of clinically relevant drug-genotype associated ADRs which are causally related to the initial drug of inclusion (referred to as 'index drug').
This study aims to compare two FDA approved medications (aripiprazole and risperidone) for the treatment of behavioral dysregulation in children with autism spectrum disorders. This trial, done in the context of routine clinical care, will seek to evaluate whether aripiprazole or risperidone is associated with more weight gain in children.
Inappropriate prescribing is the fundamental upstream driver of the opioid epidemic. Objective measures to determine the appropriateness of an opioid intervention, provide monitoring of the therapy for adequacy of dose and detection of tolerance or hyperalgesia would eliminate the subjective nature of opioid mediated pain management and obviate iatrogenic facilitation of opioid abuse. The present study is designed to objectively determine whether our device can pain type and determine analgesic efficacy thereby optimizing treatment selection and opioid management.
The purpose of this study is to examine the effectiveness of a technology-based intervention for managing nausea and vomiting in older adults with cancer. Participants will be randomized to either an intervention or control group. Outcomes such as symptom severity, quality of life, and resource use will be examined.
There has been a dramatic paradigm shift over the last 25 years within cancer care due to the onset of many new targeted therapies and a transition from inpatient to outpatient care. Hand in hand with this shift has been the increased development and use of oral anti-cancer drugs, including cytotoxic chemotherapies that patients self-administer at home versus administration of an intravenous product at an infusion center. One of the main drivers for the growth and popularity of oral chemotherapy has been patient preference. However, an incorrect assumption exists among patients that oral therapy is associated with minimal side effects. According to the 2008 NCCN Task Force Report on Oral Chemotherapy, "some patients may incorrectly assume that oral chemotherapy is not "real" chemotherapy and is more akin to taking a vitamin or antibiotic. Furthermore, patients must understand that oral equivalents of cytotoxic therapies, such as capecitabine, have side effects that are similar to their parenteral counterparts in this case, fluorouracil. The need to monitor for side effects and titrate dosages increases the complexity of oral chemotherapy regimens". Self-administration of these complex oral therapies causes patients to become more autonomous in their care, without medical supervision of doses between office visits. Due to the lack of oversight, there is a concern of compromised efficacy if patients take less than the prescribed doses, or increased, sometimes life-threatening, toxicity, often between office visits, if more than the prescribed dose is taken. Both daily dose and schedule can be complicated for patients to comprehend and follow. Capecitabine is a particularly complex oral chemotherapy, with 2 pill dose sizes, dosing by Body Surface Area (BSA), twice a day dosing, and days of on therapy and days off of therapy. For this reason, capecitabine has been chosen as the backbone for regimens that will be studied. As noted in section 5.3 capecitabine might be combined with other oral chemotherapies, Parenteral chemotherapy or radiation therapy. The investigators believe there is an opportunity in this space to improve oral chemotherapy adherence by walking patients through how and when to take their oral therapies remotely, as well as to better manage toxicity by gathering more information from the patient during their treatment.
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the hemodynamics and adverse event profile in comparison between two treatment arms, one using an admixture of propofol and etomidate at a ratio by volume of 25%/75% (P2E7), and one using an admixture of propofol and etomidate at a ratio by volume of 75%/25% (P7E2), for anesthesia during endoscopic procedures at the Clements University Hospital (CUH) endoscopy lab (Endo).