Anaphylactic drug reactions are rare and often serious events. The Botulinum toxin A, marketed as BOTOX®, was recently approved by the Food and Drug Administration for cervical dystonia and glabellar wrinkles, after its approved use and success with blepharospasm, strabismus, and disorders of the 7th cranial nerve. It has been well received due to its efficacy in improving facial lines. This case report documents the first death associated with a Botox-lidocaine mixture given to a woman for chronic neck and back pain. Based on the medical records, autopsy, and laboratory findings, the cause of death was determined to be anaphylaxis to the Botox-lidocaine mixture. The history, indications, off-label uses and possible future applications of Botox are reviewed as well as the uses and complications of lidocaine. Although the anaphylaxis cannot be definitively proven to be due to Botox alone, this case warns of an adverse reaction related to Botox, a drug that is rapidly expanding in range of use as well as increased usage.
ObjectivesEvaluate current data sharing activities of UK publicly funded Clinical Trial Units (CTUs) and identify good practices and barriers.Study Design and SettingWeb-based survey of Directors of 45 UK Clinical Research Collaboration (UKCRC)–registered CTUs.ResultsTwenty-three (51%) CTUs responded: Five (22%) of these had an established data sharing policy and eight (35%) specifically requested consent to use patient data beyond the scope of the original trial. Fifteen (65%) CTUs had received requests for data, and seven (30%) had made external requests for data in the previous 12 months. CTUs supported the need for increased data sharing activities although concerns were raised about patient identification, misuse of data, and financial burden. Custodianship of clinical trial data and requirements for a CTU to align its policy to their parent institutes were also raised. No CTUs supported the use of an open access model for data sharing.ConclusionThere is support within the publicly funded UKCRC-registered CTUs for data sharing, but many perceived barriers remain. CTUs are currently using a variety of approaches and procedures for sharing data. This survey has informed further work, including development of guidance for publicly funded CTUs, to promote good practice and facilitate data sharing.
BackgroundIndividual participant data (IPD) from completed clinical trials should be responsibly shared to support efficient clinical research, generate new knowledge and bring benefit to patients. The Medical Research Council (MRC) Hubs for Trials Methodology Research (HTMR) has developed guidance to facilitate the sharing of IPD from publicly funded clinical trials.MethodsDevelopment of the guidance was completed over four phases which included a focussed review of policy documents, a web-based survey of the UK Clinical Research Collaboration (CRC) Registered Clinical Trials Units (CTU) Network, participation of an expert committee and an open consultation with the UKCRC Registered CTU Network. The project was funded by the MRC HTMR (MR/L004933/1-R39).ResultsGood practice principles include: (i) the use of a controlled access approach, using a transparent and robust system to review requests and provide secure data access; (ii) seeking consent for sharing IPD from trial participants in all future clinical trials with adequate assurance that patient privacy and confidentiality can be maintained; and (iii) establishing an approach to resource the sharing of IPD which would include support from trial funders, sponsor organisations and users of IPD. The guidance has been endorsed by Cancer Research UK, MRC Methodology Research Programme Advisory Group, Wellcome Trust and the Executive Group of the UKCRC Registered CTU Network. The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) has confirmed it is supportive of the application of this guidance.ConclusionsImplementation of these principles will improve transparency, increase the coherent sharing of IPD from publicly funded trials, and help publicly funded trials to adhere to trial funder and journal requirements for data sharing.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12916-015-0532-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
BackgroundSciatica is a common condition reported to affect over 3% of the UK population at any time and is often caused by a prolapsed intervertebral disc (PID). Although the duration and severity of symptoms can vary, pain persisting beyond 6 weeks is unlikely to recover spontaneously and may require investigation and treatment. Currently, there is no specific care pathway for sciatica in the National Health Service (NHS), and no direct comparison exists between surgical microdiscectomy and transforaminal epidural steroid injection (TFESI). The NERVES (NErve Root block VErsus Surgery) trial aims to address this by comparing clinical and cost-effectiveness of surgical microdiscectomy and TFESI to treat sciatica secondary to a PID.Methods/designA total of 163 patients were recruited from NHS out-patient clinics across the UK and randomised to either microdiscectomy or TFESI. Adult patients (aged 16–65 years) with sciatic pain endured for between 6 weeks and 12 months are eligible if their symptoms have not been improved by at least one form of conservative (non-operative) treatment and they are willing to provide consent. Patients will be excluded if they present with neurological deficit or have had previous surgery at the same level. The primary outcome is patient-reported disability measured using the Oswestry Disability Questionnaire (ODQ) score at 18 weeks post randomisation and secondary outcomes include disability and pain scales using numerical pain ratings, modified Roland-Morris and Core Outcome Measures Index at 12-weekly intervals, and patient satisfaction at 54 weeks. Cost-effectiveness and quality of life (QOL) will be assessed using the EQ-5D-5 L and self-report cost data at 12-weekly intervals and Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) data. Adverse event data will be collected. Analysis will follow the principle of intention-to-treat.DiscussionNERVES is the first trial to evaluate the comparative clinical and cost-effectiveness of microdiscectomy to local anaesthetic and steroid administered via TFESI. The results of this research may facilitate the development of an evidence-based treatment strategy for patients with sciatica.Trial registrationISRCTN, ID: ISRCTN04820368. Registered on 5 June 2014.EudraCT EudraCT2014–002751-25. Registered on 8 October 2014.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s13063-018-2677-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.