Reported trial results for Pancreatitis
Every Pancreatitis trial Voxsanity tracks that has reported results to a public registry, newest first. These trials have finished, so they are not recruiting. Not medical advice.
44 trials have reported results.
AI generated results summary. Written by an AI model from the official source data and checked on a sample basis. It can contain mistakes, so confirm anything important against the original source. How we use AI
-
NCT03707431 · results posted 9 April 2026
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 90 young people with abdominal pain — 44 in a web-based pain education programme (called WebED) and 46 in a web-based cognitive behavioural therapy programme (called WebMAP, a structured online talking therapy). The trial measured how each programme related to changes in pain severity, daily functioning, quality of life, emotional wellbeing, pain self-confidence, and medication use, across three time points: the start of the study, straight after the programme ended, and six months later. The reported data shows that for the main measure — abdominal pain severity, scored on a scale of 0 to 4 where higher means more severe — both groups started with similar scores (WebED: 2.11, WebMAP: 1.74). By six months follow-up, both groups' scores had moved lower (WebED: 1.62, WebMAP: 1.48). For daily activity limitations (scored out of 36, higher meaning more difficulty), the starting scores were WebED 22.03 and WebMAP 20.47; at six months these were reported as WebED 24.24 and WebMAP 16.48. For quality of life (scored 0–100, higher meaning better), both groups showed scores moving upward over time across physical and emotional areas, with figures ranging broadly from the low 60s to low 70s by follow-up. For emotional distress (anxiety and depression, where a score above 60 is considered clinically elevated), most scores across both groups stayed around 48–51 throughout, though one figure in the depression data for WebMAP at one time point (10.19) appears unusual and may reflect a data reporting issue. For pain self-confidence (scored 7–35, higher meaning more confident), scores across both groups were broadly similar across all time points, ranging from around 19 to 23. For medication use, the number of participants reporting use in the previous seven days was also recorded, though the reported data was not broken down in a way that allows straightforward description of change over time. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
-
NCT05664074 · results posted 12 March 2026
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 192 people in total — 96 in each group. All 192 participants completed the study. The trial was comparing two pain-relieving medications given around the time of a procedure called ERCP (a scope procedure used to examine the bile and pancreatic ducts): one group received rectal indomethacin (a suppository) and the other received IV ketorolac (given through a drip). The main thing the trial was measuring was whether participants developed a complication called post-ERCP pancreatitis — an inflammation of the pancreas that can occur after this procedure. The reported data shows that, out of 96 people in the rectal indomethacin group, 15 developed post-ERCP pancreatitis. In the IV ketorolac group, also 96 people, 21 developed post-ERCP pancreatitis. The trial also looked at several subgroups — for example, among those who had dye injected into the pancreatic duct during the procedure, 14 out of 86 in the indomethacin group and 19 out of 83 in the ketorolac group developed pancreatitis. Among those with a "native papilla" (meaning the opening into the duct had not been previously altered), 11 out of 36 in the indomethacin group and 15 out of 33 in the ketorolac group developed pancreatitis. Among those who had a specific cut made in the pancreatic opening (pancreatic sphincterotomy), 9 out of 25 in the indomethacin group and 13 out of 19 in the ketorolac group developed pancreatitis. For those who received a small internal tube (stent) placed in the pancreatic duct, 5 out of 51 in the indomethacin group and 8 out of 53 in the ketorolac group developed pancreatitis. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
-
NCT03609944 · results posted 30 December 2025
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT03609944) enrolled 148 people in total — 73 in one group and 75 in the other. Participants were randomly assigned to one of two procedures: an ultrasound-guided procedure called EUS combined with a sham (inactive) procedure, or EUS combined with a procedure called ERCP with minor endoscopic sphincterotomy (miES), which involves a small cut in a duct opening in the digestive system. The trial was measuring whether the second procedure could reduce the number of future episodes of acute pancreatitis (sudden, painful inflammation of the pancreas) compared to the sham procedure. The reported data shows that, for the primary outcome — new episodes of acute pancreatitis occurring more than 30 days after the procedure — 32 out of 71 participants in the EUS + Sham group experienced a further episode, compared with 26 out of 69 participants in the EUS + ERCP with miES group. For a secondary outcome, the trial tracked how often pancreatitis episodes occurred over time (called an incidence rate ratio — essentially a number comparing how frequently attacks happened before versus after the procedure, relative to the other group). The reported figure was 0.304 for the EUS + Sham group and 0.246 for the EUS + ERCP with miES group. No further breakdown of these figures was provided in the submitted data. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
-
NCT04232670 · results posted 24 September 2025
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial involved 14 people in total — 6 in one group and 8 in another. The trial was looking at two different procedures for people with pancreatic pain: one group received an ultrasound-guided injection procedure (called EUS) combined with a sham (inactive) version of a second procedure, while the other group received the same ultrasound-guided injection combined with an active pancreatic procedure called endotherapy. The main thing being measured was how much participants' daily pain scores changed over 90 days, using a standard 0–10 pain rating scale where 0 means no pain and 10 means the worst pain imaginable. The reported data shows that, on average, people in the sham combination group reported a 36.6% reduction in their daily pain scores compared to where they started, while people in the active endotherapy combination group reported a 53.7% reduction on average. These figures represent the change between the two weeks before the 90-day mark and the two weeks at the very start of the trial. It is worth noting that this was a very small study with only 14 participants, and no secondary outcome measure data was included in the structured results provided. One participant in the sham group did not complete the study, while all 8 participants in the endotherapy group did. The reported data shows only the percentage changes in pain scores as measured within this specific trial — no other outcomes were reported in the data submitted. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
-
NCT06098729 · results posted 17 September 2025
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT06098729) involved 24 people who used a digital exercise application. Twenty-three of the 24 participants completed the study, with one person not finishing. The trial was measuring three main things: how much time participants spent using the app to exercise, how satisfied they were with it, and how accurately the app could predict when a person was likely to stop exercising for a period of time. It also looked at participants' motivation to be physically active, how many minutes of moderate to vigorous physical activity they did each week (measured by a hip-worn movement tracker), and gathered interview-based feedback. The reported data shows that, on average, participants used the app to exercise for 168 minutes per week — above the clinically recommended amount of 150 minutes per week noted in the study description. For satisfaction, participants rated the app at 4.0 out of 5, where 1 meant very dissatisfied and 5 meant very satisfied. The app's ability to predict when someone was about to stop exercising was reported at 70% accuracy — above the 50% that would be no better than random chance, though below the study's stated goal of 80%. For motivation to be physically active, the reported average score was 60.1 out of 100. The movement tracker also recorded an average of 168 minutes per week of moderate to vigorous physical activity. For the interview-based measure, the reported data shows 4 themes were identified, though further detail on those themes was not reported in the structured data. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
-
NCT05251233 · results posted 6 May 2025
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT05251233) enrolled 56 people in total across three groups: 21 in a placebo group, 20 receiving a proton pump inhibitor (a type of medication commonly used to reduce stomach acid), and 15 in an "unassigned" group. The trial was looking at outcomes following a type of stomach surgery, with the main focus being on a condition called delayed gastric emptying — where the stomach takes longer than normal to move food through — measured using two different grading systems. By the end of the study, 14 people in the placebo group and 16 in the proton pump inhibitor group completed the trial. All 15 participants in the unassigned group did not complete it, though the reasons for this were not reported in the data provided. The reported data shows that when measuring delayed gastric emptying using both grading systems, 3 out of 14 participants in the placebo group and 6 out of 16 in the proton pump inhibitor group were recorded as having this outcome. For the secondary outcomes, surgical complications (as defined by one of the grading systems) were recorded in 8 placebo group participants and 11 in the proton pump inhibitor group. The trial also tracked something called "90-day marginal ulcer-free survival" — essentially, the estimated proportion of participants who had not developed a certain type of stomach ulcer within 90 days. The reported data shows this figure was approximately 0.92 (or about 92%) for the placebo group and 0.875 (or about 87.5%) for the proton pump inhibitor group. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
-
NCT04816877 · results posted 22 November 2024
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT04816877) enrolled a very small number of participants — 3 people in the Patient Controlled Analgesia (PCA) group, where patients manage their own pain relief doses, and 4 people in the Physician Directed Analgesia (PDA) group, where doctors decide when and how much pain relief is given. One person in the PCA group did not complete the study, while all four in the PDA group did. The trial was measuring things like how long people stayed in hospital, how long before they could eat again, their pain scores, and how much opioid (strong pain relief) medication they received overall. The reported data shows that the average hospital stay was 12 days for the PCA group and 9.75 days for the PDA group. For the number of days before patients could eat or drink again, the PCA group averaged 3 days and the PDA group averaged 6.25 days. Pain was measured on a scale of 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst imaginable pain): over the first 24 hours, average scores were 5.5 (PCA) and 5.6 (PDA); over the full hospital stay, scores were reported as 2.1 (PCA) and 7.0 (PDA). The total amount of opioid medication used — measured in a standardised unit called morphine milligram equivalents — was 110 for the PCA group and 291 for the PDA group. The time taken to switch from intravenous (drip) pain relief to tablet-form pain relief was 2 days for the PCA group and 7.67 days for the PDA group. The reported data shows that zero participants in either group experienced opioid-related unwanted effects, though it is worth noting the overall numbers in this trial were very small. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
-
NCT04207060 · results posted 4 September 2024
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT04207060) enrolled 27 people in total — 13 in the indomethacin group and 14 in the placebo group. Indomethacin is an anti-inflammatory medicine, and the trial was looking at whether it influenced certain biological and symptom measures in people with a pancreas condition. The main thing being measured was the change in levels of a substance called Prostaglandin E2 (PGE2) — a chemical found in pancreatic fluid that is linked to inflammation — before and after the treatment period. A number of secondary measures were also tracked, including self-reported pain scores and quality of life. The reported data shows that, for the primary measure, PGE2 levels in pancreatic fluid fell by an average of 457.7 pg/ml (a unit of concentration) in the indomethacin group, and by 840.4 pg/ml in the placebo group. For the secondary pain measures, both groups reported lower pain scores after the study period: the indomethacin group's overall pain interference score (out of 70, where lower is better) changed by −2.9 points, compared with −0.4 points in the placebo group; and the pain composite score (out of 10) changed by −1.3 in the indomethacin group versus −0.5 in the placebo group. For mental health quality of life, the indomethacin group's score changed by −3.8 (a decrease in this score means a better result), while the placebo group's score changed by +0.1. Physical health quality of life scores changed by +1.6 in the indomethacin group and +1.4 in the placebo group — in this measure, a higher score represents a worse outcome, so both groups showed a very small worsening on average. It is worth noting that 2 participants in the indomethacin group did not complete the study, while all 14 placebo participants did, and the overall number of participants was quite small. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
-
NCT04863014 · results posted 22 May 2024
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT04863014) enrolled 21 participants in total — 10 received a placebo (an inactive substance) and 11 received the study drug, evinacumab. The trial ran for 52 weeks and was measuring changes in several blood fat and cholesterol markers, including triglycerides (a type of fat found in the blood), total cholesterol, and various proteins that help carry fats around the body (called apolipoproteins). Of the 21 people who started, 12 completed the study — 7 in the placebo group and 5 in the evinacumab group. The remaining 9 participants did not complete the trial, though the reasons were not detailed in the data provided here. The reported data shows the following percentage changes from the start of the study to week 52 in the evinacumab group: fasting triglycerides fell by about 92.9%, a protein called ApoC3 fell by about 73.8%, another protein called ApoB48 fell by about 92.1%, total cholesterol fell by about 57.6%, and non-HDL cholesterol (a broad measure of "non-good" cholesterol) fell by about 60.1%. However, one marker — ApoB100, another protein involved in carrying fats — was reported to have increased by about 225.1% in the evinacumab group. No percentage-change figures were reported for the placebo group across any of these measures, so a direct numerical comparison between the two groups cannot be made from the available data. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
-
NCT05162014 · results posted 18 March 2024
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial looked at real-world health records from people who had been prescribed one of two types of diabetes medication — empagliflozin or sulfonylureas (an older class of diabetes tablet). The study started with 72,661 people in the empagliflozin group and 422,018 in the sulfonylurea group. To make the two groups as comparable as possible, a statistical matching process was applied, leaving 72,621 people in each group for the main analysis. The trial was measuring how often people developed acute pancreatitis (a sudden, serious inflammation of the pancreas) while taking each medication. The reported data shows that the main outcome — the rate of acute pancreatitis — was measured as the number of new cases for every 1,000 years of patient follow-up time. For the empagliflozin group, the reported rate was 10.30 cases per 1,000 person-years. For the sulfonylurea group, the reported rate was 11.65 cases per 1,000 person-years. No other outcome measures were reported in the data submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
-
NCT03452228 · results posted 16 February 2023
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT03452228) tested a medicine called evinacumab, given by drip into a vein (intravenous infusion) every four weeks, in people with very high levels of triglycerides (a type of fat) in the blood. The trial had two back-to-back stages: a 12-week "double-blind" stage (where neither participants nor researchers knew who received evinacumab or a dummy treatment called a placebo), followed by a 12-week "single-blind" stage (where researchers knew, but participants did not, that everyone received evinacumab). A total of 52 people started the double-blind stage — 17 on placebo and 35 on evinacumab — and 47 people went on to the single-blind stage. Participants were grouped into three sub-groups (Cohorts 1, 2 and 3) based on the underlying cause of their high triglycerides. The trial measured changes in fasting triglyceride levels, as well as symptoms and other markers. The reported data shows that the main (primary) result focused on Cohort 3 participants after 12 weeks of double-blind treatment. In that cohort, those who had received placebo during the double-blind stage had triglycerides that were reported as 19.2% higher than their starting level, while those who received evinacumab had triglycerides that were reported as 37.2% lower than their starting level. For the secondary outcomes, the reported data shows that across all participants who received evinacumab during the double-blind stage, triglyceride levels were reported to be between roughly 33% and 53% lower than starting levels at various time points measured between weeks 2 and 12, while the placebo group's levels remained close to their starting point or slightly higher. During the later single-blind stage — when all participants received evinacumab — reductions of around 38–39% below starting levels were reported. Looking at sub-groups, Cohorts 2 and 3 showed reported reductions of up to approximately 85%, while Cohort 1 showed smaller reported reductions. The reported data also shows changes in symptom questionnaire scores. On a scale measuring abdominal and digestive symptoms (scored 0–100, where lower means fewer symptoms), small reductions were reported in all groups (around 0.1 to 0.7 points), with the placebo and evinacumab double-blind groups showing very similar changes. On a questionnaire about dietary behaviour, the reported changes were also small and close to zero across all groups. For the pancreas imaging measure (a scan used to look for signs of inflammation), the reported numbers were close between groups, and the data as submitted does not allow a straightforward plain-English comparison of those figures. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
-
NCT01543256 · results posted 9 January 2023
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 164 people in total — 80 in a group that received metal stents and 84 in a group that received plastic stents. Stents are small tubes placed inside a bile duct to hold it open. The trial was looking at whether a narrowing in the bile duct (called a stricture) could be resolved over a 24-month period, comparing these two types of stents. Of those who started, 62 in the metal stent group and 70 in the plastic stent group completed the study. The reported data shows that, for the main outcome — whether the bile duct stricture was considered resolved at 24 months — 47 out of 80 participants in the metal stent group and 54 out of 84 in the plastic stent group met the criteria for resolution. For the secondary outcomes, the reported data shows that serious unwanted events thought to be related to the device or procedure occurred in 19 participants in the metal stent group and 16 in the plastic stent group. The average number of internal camera procedures (called ERCPs, used to access the bile duct) performed over 24 months was reported as 2.6 in the metal stent group and 3.9 in the plastic stent group. The average number of stents placed throughout the study was 2.3 in the metal stent group and 6.7 in the plastic stent group. The stents were successfully placed in the right position in 79 out of 80 participants in the metal stent group and 82 out of 84 in the plastic stent group. The reported average length of stent placement and removal procedures was 26 minutes for the metal stent group and 28 minutes for the plastic stent group. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
-
NCT02797067 · results posted 26 May 2022
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 1,370 people in total — 685 in each group. Participants were randomly assigned to receive either indomethacin (a type of anti-inflammatory medicine given as a suppository) or glycerin (a plain suppository used as a comparison) before or after a procedure called ESWL (extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy), which uses sound waves to break up stones in the pancreas. The main thing the trial was measuring was how many people in each group developed pancreatitis (inflammation of the pancreas) after the procedure. The reported data shows that, for the primary measure, 60 out of 685 people in the indomethacin group were recorded as developing post-procedure pancreatitis, compared with 84 out of 685 in the glycerin group. For the secondary measures, the trial also looked at a condition called asymptomatic hyperamylasemia — meaning a rise in a specific enzyme (amylase) in the blood without any obvious symptoms — where 189 people in the indomethacin group and 197 in the glycerin group were recorded with this finding. Among those who did develop pancreatitis, the reported data shows that in the indomethacin group 59 cases were classified as mild and 1 as moderate, while in the glycerin group 79 were mild and 5 were moderate; no severe cases were recorded in either group. Other complications such as bleeding, infection, and stone-related blockage were also tracked, with small numbers reported across both groups. The data for the subgroup analysis of risk factors was not reported in the structured results. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
-
NCT02743364 · results posted 4 January 2022
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT02743364) enrolled a total of 8 participants — 6 in the simvastatin group and 2 in the placebo group. All 8 participants completed the study. The trial was looking at whether simvastatin, a commonly used cholesterol-lowering medicine, had any measurable effect on the pancreas in people with chronic pancreatitis (long-term inflammation of the pancreas). The main thing being measured was a change in the pancreas's ability to produce bicarbonate (a fluid the pancreas normally releases to help digestion), tested using a camera-based procedure called an endoscopic pancreatic function test. The reported data shows that over the six-month study period, the simvastatin group had an average drop of 8.20 mmol/l in peak bicarbonate levels — where a drop indicates a worsening of pancreatic function — while the placebo group had an average rise of 5.50 mmol/l. For a secondary measure using ultrasound scoring of the pancreas (on a scale of 0–96, where higher scores indicate more signs of pancreatitis), both groups showed the same small change of 0.5 points. Regarding hospital readmissions related to pancreatitis, the reported data shows 5 out of 6 participants in the simvastatin group and 1 out of 2 in the placebo group were readmitted. Quality-of-life scores and certain biological markers in blood and pancreatic fluid were also measured and reported, with results varying across both groups, though the very small number of participants makes these figures difficult to interpret in a broader context. It is worth noting that with only 8 participants total, this was a very small study — likely a pilot or feasibility trial — and the reported data was not submitted with any statistical analysis conclusions. The biomarker measurements for serum and pancreatic secretions were reported as fluorescent intensity readings (a laboratory measure of concentration), and while figures were recorded for both groups, no further detail was provided in the submitted results. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
-
NCT03401190 · results posted 7 December 2021
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT03401190) involved 21 people in total who had been diagnosed with acute pancreatitis (a sudden inflammation of the pancreas) along with signs of a body-wide inflammatory response or low oxygen levels. Participants were divided into three groups: a low-dose group (8 people), a high-dose group (6 people), and a standard care group (7 people). The trial was testing a medicine called CM4620-IE, given alongside standard care in the two treatment groups, and was primarily looking at how often, how long, and how seriously unwanted medical events occurred during the study period. The reported data shows that for the primary focus — tracking unwanted medical events — 7 people in the low-dose group, 5 in the high-dose group, and 3 in the standard care group experienced at least one such event. On the secondary measurements, the reported data shows that when it came to tolerating solid food by the end of the study period, 8 people in the low-dose group, 5 in the high-dose group, and 3 in the standard care group reached that point. Regarding a body-wide inflammatory response (SIRS) still being present at the end of the study, the numbers reported were 1 person in the low-dose group, 4 in the high-dose group, and 5 in the standard care group. For the scan-based measure of pancreas condition (a scoring system rating severity from 0–10), and for blood marker levels (IL-6), figures were also reported across the groups, though the breakdown across multiple time points makes direct plain-English summary of each sub-figure difficult without risk of misrepresentation — the full detail is available on ClinicalTrials.gov. It is worth noting that this was a small study with fewer than 10 people in each group, and the reported data does not include any statistical comparisons between groups. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
-
NCT02577640 · results posted 12 November 2021
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled a total of 11 participants, who were divided into groups receiving increasing amounts of a soy bread intervention. Four people were in the first dose group, three in the second, three in the third, and one in a final "maximally tolerated dose" group. The trial was designed to test how well participants could tolerate different dose levels of the soy bread, and to look at changes in a blood marker linked to inflammation (called TNF-alpha, a type of protein the body produces as part of an immune response). The reported data shows that the primary outcome — called "dose limiting toxicities," meaning symptoms that were bothersome enough to stop a participant from completing their assigned course — recorded zero such events across all four groups. In other words, no participants in any group were reported to have stopped due to these kinds of symptoms. Ten of the eleven participants were recorded as having completed the trial; one participant in the first dose group did not complete it, though the reason was not reported in the data provided. The reported data shows that for the secondary outcome, blood levels of the inflammation-related protein TNF-alpha were measured before and after the soy bread was introduced. During the dose escalation phase, the reported figures were 2.67 and 2.38 (in units of pg/mL, a standard way of measuring tiny amounts in the blood) at two time points. During the maximally tolerated dose phase, the figures reported were 7.0 and 7.2 pg/mL. No further breakdown of these figures by individual dose group was reported in the submitted data. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
-
NCT02318134 · results posted 14 April 2021
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 60 people — 30 in a group that received faecal microbiota transplantation (FMT, a procedure where gut bacteria from a healthy donor are transferred to a patient) and 30 in a control group who did not receive FMT. Almost all participants completed the study (28 in the FMT group and 29 in the control group). The trial was looking at gut function recovery in people with a serious condition, using a scoring system called the Gastrointestinal Failure (GIF) score, where a score of zero means the gut is working well enough to absorb more than half of required tube feeding with no dangerous pressure build-up in the abdomen. The reported data shows that, for the main outcome, 12 out of 30 participants in the FMT group and 14 out of 30 in the control group achieved a GIF score of zero, meaning their gut function reached that target level. For the secondary outcomes — which were additional things the trial tracked — the reported numbers were broadly similar between the two groups across several measures. Infectious complications (such as infections in or around the pancreas, bloodstream, lungs, or urinary tract) were reported in 15 FMT participants and 16 control participants. Organ failures (such as breathing, kidney, or circulation problems) were reported in similar numbers across both groups. The reported data shows that the median time spent in intensive care was 9 days for the FMT group and 11 days for the control group, and total hospital stay was reported as 18.5 days versus 23 days respectively. Three participants in the FMT group and four in the control group died during the study period. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
-
NCT01441492 · results posted 31 August 2020
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT01441492) enrolled 399 people who had undergone surgery — 197 were assigned to a "no drains" group and 202 to a "drains" group. Of those, 170 and 174 respectively completed the study. The trial was measuring whether using surgical drains (tubes sometimes left in the body after an operation to remove fluid) made a difference to the rate and seriousness of complications in the 60 days following surgery. The reported data shows that for the main outcome — the number of patients who experienced at least one complication rated at a moderate level or above within 60 days — 72 out of 170 people in the "no drains" group and 76 out of 174 people in the "drains" group met that threshold. For more serious complications (a higher severity level), the reported numbers were 44 in the "no drains" group and 51 in the "drains" group. The median number of complications per patient (that is, the middle value when all patients' counts are lined up) was reported as 1 in both groups. The median complication severity grade was also reported as 1 in both groups across all patients, though among only those who actually experienced complications the figures were 4 (no drains) and 3 (drains). The reported data also shows that within 90 days, 2 deaths were recorded in the "no drains" group and none in the "drains" group. For serious adverse events — complications considered especially significant by the study's own definition — 2 occurred in the "no drains" group and none in the "drains" group. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
-
NCT02869893 · results posted 7 August 2020
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 57 healthy participants, with 50 completing the study and 7 not completing it. The trial was measuring how the pancreas responds to a substance called secretin — which normally triggers the pancreas to release fluid — using a type of MRI scan. The researchers were looking at things like how much fluid the pancreas produced, how stiff the pancreatic tissue appeared on imaging, and the overall size (volume) of the pancreas. These measurements in healthy people appear to have been gathered as a reference point. The reported data shows that, on average, healthy participants produced around 79 millilitres (mL) of fluid from the pancreas following the secretin injection, as measured by the MRI scan at set time points (1, 5, and 15 minutes after the injection). For the additional measurements, the reported data shows an average pancreatic tissue stiffness of 1.7 kilopascals (kPa) — kilopascals being a standard unit used to describe how firm or flexible tissue appears on this type of scan. The average volume of pancreatic tissue was reported as 46 mL. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
-
NCT01424215 · results posted 12 May 2020
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial involved 100 people in total — 50 in each of two groups. One group had a procedure using an ICG (fluorescent dye) injection combined with a special imaging scope (called Spyscope), while the other group had a standard surgical technique called the "Critical View" approach. The trial was measuring how long gallbladder removal surgery took, and specifically how quickly the surgeon could identify the key structures during the operation. The reported data shows that, for the main measurement — the time from the start of dissection until the gallbladder was fully removed — the ICG/Spyscope group had an average of 51.6 minutes, compared to 44.4 minutes for the standard technique group. For the secondary measurement — the time until the surgeon was able to identify the relevant structures — the ICG/Spyscope group averaged 17.1 minutes, while the standard technique group averaged 20.2 minutes. These are simply the average times recorded for each group as submitted to the registry; no other outcome data was reported in the structured results. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
-
NCT01014390 · results posted 19 February 2020
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 187 participants, all of whom received a device called the WallFlex Biliary RX Fully Covered (FC) Stent System — a type of tube placed in the bile duct to help keep it open. Of the 187 people who started the trial, 177 completed it, and 10 did not complete it (the reasons were not detailed in the reported data). The trial was a single-group study, meaning everyone received the same device with no comparison group. The main thing the trial set out to measure was called "stent removability" — specifically, whether the stent could be removed using an internal camera procedure (endoscopy) without serious problems related to the removal, tracked from the time of removal up to one month afterwards. The reported data shows that out of the 187 participants who started, 132 participants had their stent removal recorded as meeting this definition. No further breakdown of the outcome — such as what happened in the remaining cases or why the numbers differ — was included in the data reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. There were no secondary outcome measure results included in the submitted data. It is worth noting that this was a single-arm trial (everyone received the same treatment), so the reported numbers describe what was observed in this one group only, with no direct comparison to another treatment or device. The reported data shows only what was measured and counted in this specific study population. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
Read the full trial page · View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
-
NCT01967888 · results posted 9 October 2019
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT01967888) looked at a medicine called reparixin in people who had undergone a procedure called islet autotransplantation — where insulin-producing cells are taken from a person's own pancreas and transplanted back into them, usually after the pancreas is removed. A total of 52 people received reparixin and 52 received a placebo (a dummy treatment with no active ingredient). The main thing the trial was measuring was how many people in each group no longer needed insulin injections one year after the transplant, based on specific blood sugar targets being met. The reported data shows that at one year after the transplant, 20.0% of participants in the reparixin group and 21.2% of participants in the placebo group had reached insulin independence — meaning they did not need to take insulin for 14 or more days in a row while keeping their blood sugar within the set targets. For the secondary measures, the trial also tracked a substance called C-peptide (a marker of the body's own insulin production) and daily insulin use. The reported data shows the C-peptide levels at both 75 days and 365 days after transplant were numerically lower in the reparixin group than the placebo group. Average daily insulin use was also slightly lower in the reparixin group at both time points, though the numbers were close. Blood glucose levels measured during a standard meal test at 75 days were reported as slightly lower in the reparixin group (157 mg/dL) compared to the placebo group (167 mg/dL). These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
-
NCT03245619 · results posted 20 September 2019
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial tested a drug called GSK3335065 and was designed to run in three parts (Part A, Part B, and Part C). The trial was set up to look at a range of doses — some given as tablets and some given directly into a vein — and compared these against a placebo (a dummy treatment with no active ingredient). Based on the data submitted, only Part A appears to have enrolled participants: 5 people received placebo, 6 received the 0.1 mg dose, 6 received the 0.25 mg dose, and 1 received the 1.3 mg dose. The reported data shows that Parts B and C recorded zero participants starting, completing, or leaving the trial, suggesting those parts of the study did not proceed. The reported outcome numbers for Part A focus on two main things that were being tracked: unexpected medical events (called adverse events, or AEs) and serious unexpected medical events (called serious adverse events, or SAEs). According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, in the placebo group, 3 out of 5 participants experienced an adverse event, while 0 experienced a serious adverse event. In the 0.1 mg GSK3335065 group, 4 out of 6 participants had an adverse event and 0 had a serious adverse event. In the 0.25 mg group, 3 out of 6 had an adverse event and 0 had a serious adverse event. In the 1.3 mg group, 1 out of 1 participant had an adverse event and also 1 had a serious adverse event. For blood test results flagged as potentially noteworthy, the reported data shows no participants in any group crossed the thresholds of concern that the trial had pre-specified. It is worth noting that no outcome data was submitted for Parts B or C, and no secondary outcome measure data appears in the submitted results. The reasons for Parts B and C not proceeding are not explained in the data as reported. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
-
NCT01912716 · results posted 18 June 2019
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT01912716) enrolled 1,037 people in total — 522 in the high-dose group and 515 in the standard-dose group. The trial was comparing two different doses of a medicine called indomethacin (200 mg versus 100 mg) to see whether either dose was associated with a difference in the number of people who developed a complication called post-ERCP pancreatitis — that is, pancreas inflammation occurring after a common bile duct procedure known as an ERCP. All 1,037 participants completed the study. The reported data shows that, for the main thing being measured (the number of people who developed post-ERCP pancreatitis), 76 out of 515 people in the standard 100 mg dose group developed this complication, compared with 65 out of 522 people in the high-dose 200 mg group. For the secondary measure — looking specifically at people who developed a more serious (moderate or severe) form of this complication — the reported data shows 28 participants in the standard-dose group and 28 participants in the high-dose group experienced this outcome. No other outcome figures were reported in the submitted results. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
-
NCT02849704 · results posted 3 May 2019
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 24 people with chronic pancreatitis (a long-term condition where the pancreas is inflamed and does not work properly) and 24 healthy volunteers, for a total of 48 participants. The trial was measuring how well the body absorbs fat and energy from food, comparing the two groups. It used three different methods to do this: a blood test that tracks a type of fat in the bloodstream over time (called HA AUC — essentially a score for how much fat is absorbed), a stool test that calculated what percentage of eaten fat was actually absorbed, and a stool energy test that measured how many calories were lost in the stool. For people with chronic pancreatitis already taking a digestive enzyme medicine called PERT, there was also a short washout period (where they stopped the medicine for 3 days) before measurements began. The reported data shows the following for the comparison between the two groups at baseline. On the blood fat absorption test, the chronic pancreatitis group had a score of 8.3 (in the units used by the test), compared to 17.7 for the healthy group. For the percentage of dietary fat absorbed, the chronic pancreatitis group absorbed an average of 90.9% of the fat they ate, compared to 95.4% in the healthy group. For stool energy loss, the chronic pancreatitis group had a stool energy reading of 5,728 calories per gram of stool, compared to 5,171 for the healthy group. The reported data also includes results for the chronic pancreatitis group after they took a digestive enzyme medicine called Creon36™. After taking the medicine, their blood fat absorption score was reported as 9.4, their percentage of dietary fat absorbed was reported as 93%, and their stool energy reading was reported as 5,702 calories per gram of stool. The data does not include a "before Creon36™" figure reported separately in this section of the results, so a direct before-and-after comparison figure was not reported in the data provided. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
-
NCT02487225 · results posted 23 January 2019
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT02487225) looked at a medication called pentoxifylline compared to a placebo (a dummy treatment with no active ingredient) in people who were hospitalised. The trial enrolled 45 people in the pentoxifylline group and 38 in the placebo group — 83 participants in total. It was measuring changes in four substances found in the blood that are linked to inflammation: C-reactive protein (CRP), and three signalling proteins called TNF-alpha, IL-6, and IL-8. These were measured at the time of admission and again after one week. It is worth noting that a large number of participants did not complete the study — 27 in the pentoxifylline group and 30 in the placebo group did not finish. The reported data shows the following figures after one week. For CRP (normally below 3 mg/L), the pentoxifylline group had a reading of 86.2 mg/L and the placebo group 75.8 mg/L, while the baseline (starting) figures were 116.4 and 127.2 mg/L respectively. For TNF-alpha (normally 5–27.2 pg/mL), the one-week readings were 1.9 for pentoxifylline and 1.8 for placebo, compared to starting values of 4.3 and 1.9. For IL-6, the one-week readings were 107.9 pg/mL (pentoxifylline) and 89.1 pg/mL (placebo), with starting values of 81.8 and 88.6. For IL-8, one-week readings were 43.7 pg/mL (pentoxifylline) and 31.5 pg/mL (placebo), with starting values of 45.9 and 32.1. No additional statistical details were reported in the submitted data. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
-
NCT00782795 · results posted 11 December 2017
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 25 people in total — 17 were given pioglitazone (a medication) and 8 were given a sugar pill (placebo). The trial was measuring how blood sugar regulation changed over time in participants who had received a kidney transplant and were being treated with a drug called tacrolimus, which can affect how the body handles sugar. Specifically, researchers tracked whether participants' blood sugar control was normal, impaired (somewhere in between normal and diabetes), or consistent with diabetes, at 24 weeks and again at 48 weeks. They also measured how sensitive participants' bodies were to insulin, and how well the insulin-producing cells in the pancreas were working. The reported data shows that at 24 weeks, of those taking pioglitazone, 4 participants had normal blood sugar, 4 had impaired blood sugar control, and 8 met the criteria for diabetes. In the placebo group at 24 weeks, 2 had normal blood sugar, 3 had impaired control, and 2 met the diabetes criteria. At 48 weeks, in the pioglitazone group, 5 had normal blood sugar, 5 had impaired control, and 6 met the diabetes criteria; in the placebo group, 2 had normal blood sugar, 2 had impaired control, and 2 met the diabetes criteria. For insulin sensitivity (measured on a numeric scale where a higher number suggests greater sensitivity), the reported data shows the pioglitazone group scored 0.35 at 24 weeks and 0.36 at 48 weeks, compared with 0.26 and 0.21 respectively for the placebo group. For the secondary measures — how well insulin-producing cells were functioning and how resistant to insulin participants were — the reported numbers were broadly similar between the two groups at both time points, with no large numerical differences recorded. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
-
NCT02116309 · results posted 1 November 2017
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 960 people in total — 482 in one group and 478 in the other. All participants were undergoing a procedure called ERCP (a type of internal examination of the bile and pancreatic ducts) and were at risk of a complication called post-ERCP pancreatitis, which is inflammation of the pancreas that can occur after the procedure. One group received a rectal suppository of a medicine called indomethacin on its own, while the other group received the same suppository plus a spray of a medicine called epinephrine applied directly during the procedure. The trial was measuring how many people in each group went on to develop this complication. The reported data shows that in the group who received indomethacin only, 31 out of 482 participants developed post-ERCP pancreatitis. In the group who received indomethacin plus the epinephrine spray, 32 out of 477 participants developed the same complication. For the more serious ("severe") form of this condition — meaning a hospital stay of more than 10 days or additional procedures needed — the reported data shows 4 cases in the indomethacin-only group and 7 cases in the combination group. No other outcome figures were reported in the submitted data. These numbers describe what was counted in this particular study; the trial was not designed to test individual medicines in isolation, and the figures apply only to the group of people who took part. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
-
NCT01221311 · results posted 1 May 2017
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 112 people in total — 57 in a group that received a fully covered metallic stent and 55 in a group that received a plastic stent. All participants completed the study period with no dropouts recorded. The trial was measuring what researchers called "early clinical success," which meant that when the stent or stents were removed (after up to 12 months of stent treatment), imaging showed the narrowing in the area being treated had resolved. Anyone who still had a narrowing after 12 months was counted as a clinical failure. The reported data shows that, in the fully covered metallic stent group, 50 out of 57 participants met the definition of early clinical success. In the plastic stent group, 41 out of 55 participants met that same definition. No other outcome measures were included in the structured results data submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov, so further detail beyond these figures is not available from this source. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
-
NCT00727740 · results posted 18 January 2017
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial involved 117 people in total — 56 who received indomethacin (an anti-inflammatory medicine) and 61 who received a placebo (an inactive treatment). The trial was looking at rates of a condition called post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) — that is, inflammation of the pancreas that can occur after a medical procedure called an ERCP (a procedure used to examine the digestive tract). Specifically, the trial measured whether there was a reduction in the percentage of participants who developed this complication. The reported data shows that one primary outcome was measured: the change in the rate of pancreatitis between the start of the study and 24 hours later. For the indomethacin group, the reported figure was 16.1 percentage points, meaning that is the calculated reduction in the proportion of participants with pancreatitis in that group over that time. For the placebo group, the reported figure was 4.9 percentage points. It is worth noting that the data as submitted describes these as reductions from baseline, rather than the raw number of people who developed pancreatitis. No secondary outcome data was reported in the submitted results. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
-
NCT01551095 · results posted 12 October 2016
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 7 participants, and all 7 completed the study with none dropping out. The trial looked at a procedure called PEGJ — a type of feeding tube inserted through the abdomen — and tracked two things: whether participants experienced certain side effects in the week following the procedure, and whether the feeding tube moved out of position within three weeks of being placed. The reported data shows that, one week after the procedure, participants were contacted and asked about three specific symptoms: abdominal pain, nausea, and vomiting. According to the results, zero participants reported abdominal pain, zero reported nausea, and one participant reported vomiting. For the secondary measure, an abdominal X-ray was taken three weeks after the procedure to check whether the feeding tube had shifted (described as "retrograde migration"). The reported data shows that zero out of 7 participants had the tube move out of position by that point. It is worth noting that this was a very small study with only 7 participants, and the results reflect only what was measured and recorded in this specific group. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
-
NCT01774604 · results posted 20 September 2016
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 449 people in total — 223 who received indomethacin (an anti-inflammatory medicine given as a suppository) and 226 who received a placebo (an inactive dummy treatment). All 449 participants completed the study. The trial was measuring whether indomethacin could reduce the number of people who developed pancreatitis (inflammation of the pancreas) after a procedure called an ERCP, which is a technique used to examine and treat problems in the bile ducts and pancreas. The reported data shows that, for the main outcome, 16 out of 223 people in the indomethacin group developed pancreatitis after the procedure, compared with 11 out of 226 people in the placebo group. For the secondary outcomes, when pancreatitis cases were broken down by severity: in the indomethacin group, all 16 cases were classed as mild, with none classed as moderate-severe or severe; in the placebo group, 9 cases were classed as mild, 1 as moderately severe, and 1 as severe. The reported data also shows that gastrointestinal (gut) bleeding occurred in 4 people in the indomethacin group and 6 people in the placebo group. Deaths from any cause within 30 days were recorded as 0 in the indomethacin group and 3 in the placebo group. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
-
NCT00688662 · results posted 28 July 2016
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial looked at two approaches to a procedure called ERCP (a scope procedure used to examine the bile and pancreatic ducts) — one version that included a small cut called a sphincterotomy, and one that did not. A total of 141 people were assigned to the group that had ERCP with the cut, and 73 were assigned to the group without it. Of those, 118 and 55 people respectively completed the study. The trial was measuring whether people reached a "success" outcome — defined as having low pain scores (using something called the RAPID score) at 9 and 12 months after the procedure, without needing further procedures or ongoing prescription pain medicines for stomach pain. The reported data shows that, looking at the primary measure of success at 12 months, 23% of people in the ERCP-with-sphincterotomy group were counted as reaching the success definition, compared with 37% in the ERCP-without-sphincterotomy group. The trial also looked separately at people who had an abnormal pressure reading in a valve near the bile duct (called abnormal sphincter manometry — meaning the valve was measured as being unusually tight). Among those people, the reported data shows a success rate of 24% in the group that had the cut, compared with 33% in the group that did not. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
-
NCT02189252 · results posted 20 June 2016
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 15 participants in total, split across four treatment sequence groups (4, 4, 3, and 4 people respectively). It was a crossover-style study, meaning participants took different treatments at different points in time. The trial was measuring how much of two omega-3 fatty acids — EPA (eicosapentaenoic acid) and DHA (docosahexaenoic acid) — entered the bloodstream after taking one of three treatments: Epanova at a 2 g dose, Epanova at a 4 g dose, or Lovaza at a 4 g dose. Two participants did not complete the first period of the study, though the data does not report the reasons why. The reported data shows that, for the main (primary) outcomes, the combined EPA and DHA levels measured over a 24-hour period (a way of tracking how much of a substance the body absorbs over time) were 17,000 hr·nmol/mL for Epanova 2 g, 18,000 hr·nmol/mL for Epanova 4 g, and 12,500 hr·nmol/mL for Lovaza 4 g. The reported peak blood concentration of combined EPA and DHA was 1,090 nmol/mL for Epanova 2 g, 1,200 nmol/mL for Epanova 4 g, and 712 nmol/mL for Lovaza 4 g. For the secondary outcomes, when EPA and DHA were looked at separately, the reported data shows that EPA absorption figures were higher for both Epanova doses compared to Lovaza 4 g, while DHA absorption figures were somewhat higher for Lovaza 4 g compared to both Epanova doses. Peak DHA blood concentrations were broadly similar across all three treatments (116, 118, and 128 µg/mL respectively). These numbers reflect what was measured in the blood under the specific conditions of this small trial and should not be interpreted as a general statement about any of these products. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
-
NCT02002650 · results posted 27 May 2016
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 2,600 people in total — 1,297 in the "Pre-ERCP Group" and 1,303 in the "Post-ERCP Group." All participants completed the study with no drop-outs recorded. The trial was looking at whether the timing of a rectal suppository (given either before or after an ERCP procedure — a type of internal examination of the bile ducts and pancreas) made a difference to the rate of a complication called post-ERCP pancreatitis, which is inflammation of the pancreas that can occur after the procedure. The reported data shows that in the Pre-ERCP Group (suppository given before the procedure), 47 out of 1,297 participants were recorded as developing post-ERCP pancreatitis. In the Post-ERCP Group (suppository given after the procedure), 100 out of 1,303 participants were recorded with this outcome. For the secondary outcome — cases classed as moderate-to-severe pancreatitis, meaning those requiring a hospital stay of four days or more, or involving serious complications — the reported data shows 11 participants in the Pre-ERCP Group and 23 participants in the Post-ERCP Group met this definition. It is important to note that these numbers describe what was observed and recorded in this specific trial population. The data was not reported with additional context such as statistical comparisons in the structured results provided here, so no further figures are available to share. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
-
NCT01945138 · results posted 13 January 2016
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial (NCT01945138) enrolled 14 people in total — 7 in a control group and 7 in a "closed loop insulin" group (an automated insulin delivery system). All 14 participants completed the study. The trial was measuring blood sugar (glucose) levels over a study period, looking at things like the average blood sugar, how much blood sugar levels varied up and down, how often blood sugar stayed within a target range, and how much time blood sugar spent below a low threshold. The reported data shows that the closed loop insulin group had an average blood sugar reading of 111 mg/dL (milligrams per decilitre, a standard unit for measuring sugar in the blood), compared to 130 mg/dL in the control group. The variation in blood sugar — measured by something called a standard deviation (a way of showing how much readings spread around the average) — was reported as 14.1 mg/dL for the closed loop group versus 21.0 mg/dL for the control group. A continuous glucose monitor (a device that tracks blood sugar automatically throughout the day) recorded average readings of 114 mg/dL for the closed loop group and 125 mg/dL for the control group, with similar spread figures of 20.1 and 21.0 mg/dL respectively. The reported data also shows that the closed loop group spent about 89.2% of the time with blood sugar in the target range of 70–140 mg/dL, compared to 70.6% for the control group. For time spent below 70 mg/dL (a low blood sugar level), a calculation called "area under the curve" — which captures both how low and how long blood sugar stayed below that threshold — was reported as 146 units for the closed loop group versus 1,615 units for the control group. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
-
NCT00559364 · results posted 12 March 2014
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 50 people in total — 30 received a pancreatic enzyme supplement called Viokase®, and 20 received a placebo (a dummy treatment with no active ingredient). The trial was measuring how well the body absorbs fat from food, which is a common problem for people whose pancreas does not produce enough digestive enzymes. Nearly all participants finished the trial: 29 out of 30 in the Viokase® group and all 20 in the placebo group completed it. The main thing being measured was called the "coefficient of fat absorption" — essentially, the percentage of fat eaten in food that the body successfully absorbed rather than passing it out in stools. The reported data shows that the Viokase® group had an average fat absorption figure of 85.52%, compared with 58.02% in the placebo group. For the secondary measurements, the reported data shows that people in the Viokase® group had an average of 1.93 stools per day, while the placebo group averaged 2.33 stools per day. Regarding stool consistency, the Viokase® group's stools were reported as approximately 5% hard, 46% formed/normal, 48% soft, and 1% watery, while the placebo group's stools were reported as approximately 1% hard, 37% formed/normal, 55% soft, and 6% watery. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
-
NCT00736073 · results posted 19 April 2013
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial involved 73 people in total — 34 in the medication group (who received a drug called aprepitant before and after a procedure called ERCP) and 39 in the placebo group (who received a dummy treatment). ERCP is a medical procedure used to examine and treat problems in the digestive system, and one known complication is inflammation of the pancreas, called pancreatitis. The trial was measuring how often this complication occurred in each group, as well as pain levels after the procedure and hospitalisations related to abdominal pain. The reported data shows that when it came to the main thing being measured — cases of pancreatitis after the procedure — both groups had the same number: 7 cases each. For the secondary outcome looking at pain after the procedure unrelated to pancreatitis, no numerical results were reported in the data submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov. For the other secondary outcome, the reported data shows that 6 participants in the medication group and 9 participants in the placebo group were hospitalised within 7 days of the procedure for abdominal pain that did not meet the criteria for pancreatitis. It is worth noting that all 73 participants who started the trial completed it, with no dropouts recorded in either group. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
-
NCT00956839 · results posted 14 March 2013
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 40 adults across three groups to compare different ways of giving vitamin D3 to people with low vitamin D levels. Fourteen people were assigned to receive a 300,000-unit injection into the muscle, thirteen received a 600,000-unit injection into the muscle, and thirteen received vitamin D3 by mouth (oral). By the end of the study, 11, 13, and 10 people respectively completed the trial — meaning a small number in two of the groups did not finish. The main thing the trial was measuring was the proportion of participants in each group whose blood vitamin D level rose above 30 ng/ml (nanograms per millilitre), which is a commonly used threshold in blood testing. The reported data shows that in the 300,000-unit injection group, 85% of participants reached that level. In the 600,000-unit injection group, 29% reached that level. In the oral vitamin D3 group, 0% reached that level by the end of the study period. The trial also tracked blood calcium levels (a mineral that can be affected by vitamin D) at the start and at one, three, and six months. The reported data shows calcium readings across all three groups ranged narrowly between approximately 9.20 and 9.56 mg/dL across all time points, with no dramatic differences noted between groups at any stage. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
-
NCT01142128 · results posted 21 February 2013
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 8 participants in total. The study was looking at abdominal (belly) pain related to a pancreas condition, and was designed to compare different treatment combinations — a medication called Nexium (used to reduce stomach acid) and/or a pancreatic enzyme supplement called Viokase 16 — to understand what role each might play in managing that pain. Participants were assigned to one of four groups: Nexium alone, a placebo (dummy pill) instead of Nexium alone, Viokase 16 combined with Nexium, or Viokase 16 combined with a placebo instead of Nexium. The reported data shows that of the 8 people who started the trial, only 4 completed it, and 4 did not complete it. Regarding the actual pain measurements — which were the primary things the trial set out to record — no numerical results were submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov for any of the four groups. This means the outcome data for the main questions the trial was trying to answer has not been reported, and no figures are available to describe. Additionally, no secondary outcome data was included in the submitted results. Because the trial was very small (only 8 participants across all groups, with as few as 0 in one group) and the key result figures were not reported, it is not possible to draw any conclusions from this data about the treatments studied. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
-
NCT00820612 · results posted 12 February 2013
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial involved 602 people in total — 307 who received a placebo (an inactive treatment) and 295 who received indomethacin, a type of anti-inflammatory medicine. The trial was looking at whether indomethacin could reduce the number of people who developed pancreatitis (inflammation of the pancreas) after a procedure called ERCP, which is a procedure used to examine and treat problems in the bile ducts and pancreas. All participants who started the trial completed it. The reported data shows that post-ERCP pancreatitis was diagnosed when a person had new upper abdominal pain, a significant rise in pancreatic enzymes in their blood, and needed to stay in hospital for at least two nights after the procedure. According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, 52 out of 307 people in the placebo group were reported as developing post-ERCP pancreatitis, compared with 27 out of 295 people in the indomethacin group. No other outcome measures were included in the submitted results data, so figures beyond this primary measure were not reported. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
View reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗ · Linked publication on PubMed ↗
-
NCT01236053 · results posted 4 August 2011
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this was a large observational study (sometimes called a case-control study) that looked at whether people who had been prescribed the medicine gabapentin were more or less likely to have been diagnosed with various types of cancer compared to people who had not been diagnosed with cancer. The study was not a traditional clinical trial where people were given a treatment — instead, researchers looked back through existing health records. In total, the study included over 179,000 people diagnosed with cancer across several cancer types (including stomach, anal, lung, bone/joint, breast, penile, bladder, nervous system, pancreatic, renal, and all cancers combined), alongside roughly 1.7 million people without those diagnoses who were used as a comparison group. The reported data shows the number of people in each group who had been prescribed gabapentin, broken down in several ways: whether they had ever been prescribed it, how many prescriptions they received, how long they took it, and how much of the medicine they received in total. The study also looked at these figures with and without a "2-year lag" — meaning that in one version of the analysis, prescriptions written in the two years just before a cancer diagnosis were left out, to account for the possibility that some people may have been prescribed gabapentin for pain that turned out to be an early sign of cancer. For example, in the all-cancer group (without the 2-year lag), 804 cancer cases and 6,507 comparison participants had been exposed to gabapentin, while 178,334 cancer cases and 1,704,443 comparison participants had not. Similar breakdowns were reported across different levels of dose, duration, and number of prescriptions, as well as for stomach cancer separately. The reported data does not include any other cancer-specific outcome numbers beyond the all-cancer and stomach cancer results. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
-
NCT01138124 · results posted 7 January 2011
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this study looked at whether there was any link between the medication gabapentin and two types of cancer — pancreatic cancer and renal (kidney) cancer. It was an observational study, meaning researchers looked back at existing health records rather than giving people a treatment. The study compared people who had been diagnosed with one of these cancers ("cases") against similar people who had not been diagnosed ("controls"). In total, 3,149 pancreatic cancer cases were compared with 30,026 controls, and 1,981 renal cancer cases were compared with 19,046 controls. All participants completed the study. The reported data shows that, for pancreatic cancer, 56 out of 3,149 cases had been prescribed gabapentin at some point before their diagnosis, compared with 253 out of 30,026 controls. When a two-year buffer was applied — meaning only gabapentin prescriptions recorded more than two years before diagnosis were counted (to avoid counting prescriptions that might have been given for early cancer symptoms rather than an unrelated reason) — those numbers dropped to 24 cases and 143 controls. The reported data also shows breakdowns by how many prescriptions people received, how long they took gabapentin, and the total amount (dose) they were prescribed, with the numbers split into three roughly equal groups from lowest to highest exposure. For renal cancer, 32 out of 1,981 cases had gabapentin exposure compared with 166 out of 19,046 controls; with the two-year buffer applied, this was 13 cases versus 76 controls. The reported data shows counts of how many people in each group had various levels of gabapentin exposure — low, medium, and high — across the different ways exposure was measured (number of prescriptions, length of time, and total dose). No further summary statistics beyond these participant counts were reported in the structured results submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
-
NCT00414908 · results posted 16 September 2009
According to the results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, this trial enrolled 54 people in total — 25 in the pancrelipase (an enzyme replacement) group and 29 in the placebo (inactive treatment) group. Almost all participants finished the study (24 and 28 respectively, with one person in each group not completing it). The trial was measuring how well the body absorbed fat and protein from food, by comparing levels at the start of the study to levels at the end of a treatment period. It also looked at stool (bowel motion) patterns and abdominal pain. The reported data shows that the main measure — called the Coefficient of Fat Absorption, which tracks what percentage of the fat eaten is actually absorbed by the body — increased by around 32 percentage points in the pancrelipase group, compared to around 9 percentage points in the placebo group. For protein absorption (measured similarly using nitrogen), the pancrelipase group showed a reported increase of about 35 percentage points versus about 9 percentage points in the placebo group. The reported data also shows that the amount of fat passed out in stools fell by roughly 147 grams in the pancrelipase group compared to about 35 grams in the placebo group, and stool nitrogen dropped by about 18 grams versus about 6 grams. Average daily stool frequency fell by 0.55 in the pancrelipase group, while it rose slightly (by 0.20) in the placebo group. For abdominal pain — rated on a scale from 0 (none) to 3 (severe) — the reported data shows 12 pancrelipase participants and 8 placebo participants reported no pain, while no one in the pancrelipase group and 1 person in the placebo group reported severe pain. These are the results as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov. They are not medical advice — always discuss what they mean for you with your doctor.
See the full Pancreatitis page · What changed recently
Not medical advice. These are results as reported by the trial sponsor to a public registry, summarised in plain English. They describe what a trial recorded, not whether a treatment is suitable for any person. Verify anything important against the original registry record and discuss what it means for you with your doctor.