There are about 3753 clinical studies being (or have been) conducted in Hong Kong. The country of the clinical trial is determined by the location of where the clinical research is being studied. Most studies are often held in multiple locations & countries.
The purpose of this study is to compare the combination of erlotinib and pemetrexed versus either pemetrexed alone and erlotinib alone, in terms of progression-free survival (time until the objective worsening of the disease) in patients who have never smoked and have locally advanced or metastatic Nonsquamous Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer who have failed a first-line chemotherapy treatment.
This single arm study will continue drug safety surveillance, and assessment of adherence, in patients with postmenopausal osteoporosis who have received monthly oral Bonviva in ML19930, the BonAdAsia study. All patients completing 6 months in ML19930 will continue to receive Bonviva (150mg po, monthly) for an additional 6 months. The anticipated time on study treatment is 3-12 months, and the target sample size is 500+ individuals.
The primary objective of the study was to demonstrate overall survival improvement for aflibercept + docetaxel compared to docetaxel + placebo as second line treatment for participants with locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The secondary objectives were to compare other efficacy parameters, to assess the overall safety of the two treatment arms, to assess the pharmacokinetics of intravenous (IV) aflibercept in this participant population and to determine immunogenicity of IV aflibercept in all participants.
Background: Paracetamol and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) such as ibuprofen are commonly used oral analgesics in emergency departments (ED) not only in Hong Kong but throughout the world. There are no large-scale (n>100), prospective, randomised studies comparing paracetamol with ibuprofen in the management of acute soft tissue injury. As paracetamol is cheaper than most NSAIDs, may be as effective in the management of acute pain and possibly with fewer adverse effects, a large-scale, randomised, controlled trial is needed to answer questions of relative analgesic efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness. Previous comparative studies on NSAIDS have been done in this unit and have suggested equivalence between two NSAIDs and paracetamol, but numbers were small and drug doses were modest. Objective: To compare the efficacy, safety and cost between oral ibuprofen and paracetamol in pain control for acute soft tissue injuries in an ED setting Design: Prospective, double-blind, randomised controlled trial with three arms: oral paracetamol with placebo; oral ibuprofen with placebo; paracetamol and ibuprofen in combination Participants: 783 subjects having sustained isolated soft tissue limb injury without significant fracture presenting to the ED of Prince of Wales Hospital Main outcome measures: Pain relief profiles of paracetamol, ibuprofen and the combination of both; adverse effect profiles of paracetamol, ibuprofen and the combination of both; overall cost effectiveness of paracetamol, ibuprofen and the combination of both from the perspective of the healthcare provider
The main objective of the trial is to compare Invasive Disease-Free Survival (IDFS) of patients randomised to treatment with adjuvant chemotherapy alone or to adjuvant chemotherapy with 1 year of bevacizumab. The secondary objectives of this trial are to: - compare Overall Survival (OS), Breast Cancer-Free Interval (BCFI), Disease- Free Survival (DFS) and Distant Disease-Free Survival (DDFS) of patients randomised to treatment with adjuvant chemotherapy alone or to adjuvant chemotherapy in combination with 1 year of bevacizumab - evaluate the safety and tolerability of bevacizumab An exploratory sub-study (not reported here) was to identify biomarkers (from tumour or serum) predictive of toxicity and for the level of benefit from the addition of bevacizumab to standard adjuvant systemic treatment.
The purpose of this Phase III study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of oral salmon calcitonin in the treatment of patients with osteoporosis
Primary objective was to demonstrate overall survival improvement with aflibercept compared to placebo in patients receiving docetaxel / prednisone for metastatic androgen-independent prostate cancer (MAIPC). The secondary objectives were: - To assess the efficacy of aflibercept compared to placebo on other parameters such prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level, cancer related pain, progression free survival (PFS), tumor-based and skeletal events and health-related quality of life (HRQL); - To assess the overall safety in both treatment arms; - To determine the pharmacokinetics of intravenous (IV) aflibercept in this population; - to determine immunogenicity of IV aflibercept.
The objectives of this Phase I/II study are to assess the safety and immunogenicity of two different dose levels of a non-adjuvanted H5N1 influenza vaccine in a healthy young adult population. Subjects will be randomized 1:1 to receive two intramuscular injections (21 days apart) of the vaccine containing either 3.75 µg or 7.5 µg H5N1 hemagglutinin (HA) antigen in a non-adjuvanted formulation. Subjects will be monitored for safety and for antibody response to the vaccine. A data safety monitoring board will review the safety data after the first and second vaccination.
The purpose of this study is to assess the ability of eltrombopag to maintain a platelet count sufficient to facilitate initiation of antiviral therapy, to minimise antiviral therapy dose reductions and to avoid permanent discontinuation of antiviral therapy. The clinical benefit of eltrombopag will be measured by the proportion of subjects who are able to achieve a Sustained Virological Response (SVR).
The main objective of the study was to evaluate the antiviral activity of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (tenofovir DF) monotherapy versus emtricitabine (FTC) plus tenofovir DF combination therapy for the treatment of chronic hepatitis B (HBV) in participants in the immune tolerant phase of HBV infection. The efficacy of tenofovir DF monotherapy versus FTC plus tenofovir DF combination therapy was evaluated for suppression of the virus (decrease in HBV DNA), serological response (generation of antibodies to the virus), biochemical response (changes in liver enzymes), and the development of drug-resistant mutations. The safety and tolerability of both tenofovir DF monotherapy and FTC plus tenofovir DF were evaluated by routine monitoring for adverse events and changes in laboratory parameters. Participants were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive tenofovir DF monotherapy or FTC plus tenofovir DF. All subjects were to continue on blinded study medication until the last subject reached Week 192. Participants who permanently discontinued study drug (on or before Week 192) were followed for a 24-week treatment-free follow-up period, or until initiation of alternative HBV therapy, whichever occurred first. Subjects who discontinued study drug on or after Week 48 because of hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) loss or seroconversion to antibody to hepatitis B surface antigen (anti-HBs), however, were to have returned for their regularly scheduled through Week 192 and every 16 weeks thereafter until the last subject reached Week 192.