There are about 13332 clinical studies being (or have been) conducted in Netherlands. 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.
This study test whether a Continuous Glucose Monitor can pickup differences in glucose (in the interstitial fluid) during a dietary intervention using meals with either a high with a low glycemic load.
The objective of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of multiple doses of upadacitinib monotherapy versus placebo in the treatment of adults with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD).
Dose escalation study to assess PK, safety and tolerability of INC280 when taken with food in patients with cMET dysregulated advanced solid tumors.
This study will investigate if a single shot of spinal morphine will increase patient satisfaction when compared to intravenous morphine in Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of LCZ696 titrated to a target dose of 200 mg twice daily, compared to ramipril titrated to a target dose of 5 mg twice daily.
A once-daily 'closed' triple FDC therapy of FF/UMEC/VI via a single ELLIPTA® dry powder inhaler (DPI) is being developed by GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) with the aim of providing a new treatment option for the management of asthma by improving lung function, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and symptom control over established combination therapies. This is a phase III, multi-center, active-controlled, double-blind, parallel-group study to compare the efficacy, safety and tolerability of the FDC of FF/UMEC/VI with the FDC of FF/VI. This study has 5 phases: Pre-Screening (Visit 0), Screening/Run-in, Enrolment/Stabilization, Randomization/Treatment, and Follow up. At Visit 1 (Screening), subjects meeting all protocol defined inclusion/exclusion criteria will enter a 3-week run-in period and will receive fixed dose inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting beta agonist (ICS/LABA) (fluticasone/salmeterol, 250/50 micrograms (mcg), via the DISKUS® DPI) one inhalation twice a day. At Visit 2 (Enrolment), eligible subjects will be enrolled into the 2-week stabilization period to receive FF/VI (100/25 mcg via the ELLIPTA DPI once a day, in the morning). At the conclusion of the stabilization period (Visit 3), all subjects who meet the pre-defined randomization criteria will be randomized 1:1:1:1:1:1 during the treatment period to receive either FF/UMEC/VI (100/62.5/25 mcg; 200/62.5/25 mcg; 100/31.25/25 mcg; 200/31.25/25 mcg) or FF/VI (100/25 mcg; 200/25 mcg) via the ELLIPTA DPI once daily in the morning. The duration of the treatment period is variable but will be a minimum of 24 weeks and a maximum of 52 weeks. Subjects will have up to 6 on-treatment clinic visits scheduled at Visits 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8/End of Study (EOS) (Weeks 0, 4, 12, 24, 36 and 52, respectively). A follow-up visit will be conducted approximately 7 days after the end of treatment period or, if applicable, after the early withdrawal visit. Subjects will be provided with short acting albuterol/salbutamol to be used on an as-needed basis (rescue medication) throughout the study. Approximately 2250 subjects will be randomized, with approximately 375 subjects randomized to each of the 6 double-blind treatment arms to ensure approximately 337 evaluable subjects per treatment arm. DISKUS and ELLIPTA are registered trademarks of GSK groups of companies.
Rationale: Oral vaccination is known to induce a systemic immune response as well as an immune response in mucosal tissues, and can therefore serve as a model to study systemic and mucosal immunity. In this study, the oral cholera vaccine Dukoral® was chosen as model vaccine. The kinetics of the immune response and the interaction with a raw milk matrix have been evaluated in a previous, pilot study (NL49042.081.14). Based on the outcomes of this pilot, in this study oral cholera vaccination will be applied to study the support of immunity by raw milk, compared to heat-treated milk. The study design has been optimised based on previous results: study duration is extended and sample size is based on relevant change and known variation in the primary outcome parameters. Infections are an important worldwide cause of death, both in elderly and young children. Therefore, support of immunity could help to reduce the incidence of infections. To screen the potential of specific foods or food ingredients to support immunity, oral vaccination can serve as a model. In a previous study, this model was developed using oral cholera vaccination in human adult volunteers. In that study, raw milk was shown to support the immune response to vaccination. In this follow-up study, the effect of raw milk will be compared with pasteurized and ultra-heat treated (UHT) milk. Objective: To investigate whether pasteurized milk and/or UHT milk are able to enhance the immune response as induced by oral cholera vaccination, in comparison to raw milk and to regular vaccination. Study design: The study is designed as a single-blind randomized controlled trial of 6 weeks. Study population: Healthy subjects of 18-50 years of age. Interventions: 1) Raw milk, obtained from farms that comply to the high quality requirements for production of raw milk, and that has been screened according to the safety criteria for raw milk; 2) commercially available full-fat UHT milk; 3) commercially available full-fat pasteurized milk.
This is a Phase 1b, double-blind (participants and Investigators), placebo-controlled, randomized, single-ascending dose, multi-center study to assess the safety, efficacy, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and pharmacodynamics (PD) of DS-1040b in participants with acute submassive pulmonary embolism.
Rationale: The last years, research focus has moved to immunostimulatory agents in order to restore or increase the functionality of the immune system during sepsis-induced immunoparalysis. Epidemiologic data show that prehospital use of low dose acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) is associated with improved outcome of sepsis. Experimental data indicate that ASA exerts pro-inflammatory effects during systemic inflammation. However, it remains to be determined whether treatment with ASA improves immune function once immunoparalysis has developed and whether prehospital use of low dose ASA prevents the development of immunoparalysis. In the former case, ASA is a potential immunostimulatory therapy that can treat sepsis-induced immunoparalysis. In the latter case, ASA may have a broader indication as an immunomodulating agent. Taken together, ASA might be a promising, cheap, well-known, and globally available agent to reduce the incidence of secondary infections and improve patient outcome in sepsis. Objective: - To determine whether acetylsalicylic acid treatment can reverse endotoxin tolerance, which is expressed as a decrease in pro-inflammatory cytokine levels between the first and second endotoxin challenge. - To determine whether acetylsalicylic acid prophylaxis can prevent endotoxin tolerance, which is expressed as a decrease in pro-inflammatory cytokine levels between the first and second endotoxin challenge. Study design: Double-blind randomized placebo-controlled pilot study in 30 healthy male volunteers during repeated experimental endotoxemia. All subjects will receive a 14 day course of study medication (low-dose ASA or placebo) and undergo experimental endotoxemia (lipopolysacharide (LPS), E.Coli type O113) on day 7 and on day 14. LPS is administrated using an initial bolus of 1ng/kg followed by continuous infusion at 1ng/kg/hr during 3 hours. Subjects are randomized in three study arms: 1. Treatment group: 7 days placebo / first endotoxemia / 7 days ASA 80 mg (loading dose on first day of 160mg) / second endotoxemia 2. Prophylaxis group: 7 days ASA 80 mg (loading dose on first day of 160mg) / first endotoxemia / 7 days ASA 80 mg / second endotoxemia 3. Placebo group: 7 days placebo / first endotoxemia / 7 days placebo / second endotoxemia
This study evaluates the addition of a quality improvement toolbox to an online audit and feedback intervention in Dutch intensive care units. The toolbox comprises for each quality indicator (e.g., percentage of patients per shift whose pain is measured) a list of potential bottlenecks in the care process (e.g., staff is unaware of the prevailing guidelines for measuring pain every shift), associated recommendations for actions to solve mentioned bottlenecks (e.g., organize an educational training session), and supporting materials to facilitate implementation of the actions (e.g., a slide show presentation discussing the importance and relevance of measuring pain every shift). Half of the participating intensive care units will only receive online feedback, while the other half will additionally gain access to the integrated toolbox to facilitate planning and executing actions.