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.
FaR-RMS is an over-arching study for children and adults with newly diagnosed and relapsed rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS)
Study to investigate the safety and activity of NEO-PTC-01 in patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma. NEO-PTC-01 is an autologous personalized T cell (PTC) product for adoptive cell therapy that is manufactured ex vivo and targets neoantigens displayed on the patient's tumor and the tumor microenvironment. The study will be conducted in two parts, Part 1 (Dose Finding) and Part 2 (Dose Expansion). The dose-finding part of the study will test two doses of NEO-PTC-01 and will be structured according to a 3+3 dose escalation design. After the highest tolerated NEO-PTC-01 dose is identified, 2 additional evaluations in Part 1 are planned, a cohort to investigate NEO-PTC-01 in combination with interleukin (IL)-2 and another cohort introducing α programmed cell death protein 1 (αPD-1) therapy. The dose expansion part of the study will test the dose deemed to be safe in the dose-finding part of the study in an expanded cohort of patients to further define the safety of NEO-PTC-01.
The current diagnostic process of colonic motility disorders often takes a long time and involves multiple invasive, painful and/or unnecessary diagnostic procedures. To improve this diagnostic process, the potential of Electro-Entero-Graphy (EEnG) is investigated. During the EEnG procedure, several surface electrodes are positioned (under ultrasound guidance) on the abdomen so that electrical activity originating in the colon can be measured. Measurements will be performed after a period of fasting (when the colon is 'silent') and just after a meal (when the colon is moving) in both participants suffering from colonic motility disorders and healthy controls. It is hypothesized that these measurements are an indication of colonic motility and can be used as a diagnostic tool for colonic motility disorders. It is also hypothesized that this EEnG procedure is not more burdensome than the Gold Standard procedures for diagnosing colonic motility disorders. This will be assessed using questionnaires.
This study, A3921210 is designed to evaluate the efficacy, safety and pharmacokinetics (PK) of tofacitinib in pediatric participants with moderately to severely active UC. In the US and EU, patients with prior TNFi failure or intolerance will be enrolled. Outside of the US or EU, patients having had inadequate response or intolerance to oral or IV corticosteroids or azathioprine or 6-mercaptopurine or TNFi will be enrolled. All eligible participants will initially receive open label tofacitinib at a dose expected to produce equivalent systemic exposure to that observed in adults receiving 5 mg BID with the option for individual dose increase to 10 mg BID adult dose equivalent if dose escalation criteria are met. The primary objective of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of tofacitinib based on remission in pediatric participants with moderately to severely active UC. The primary endpoint is remission by central read Mayo score following 44 weeks in the maintenance phase. Remission is defined by a Mayo score of 2 points or lower, with no individual subscore exceeding 1 point and a rectal bleeding subscore of 0. The study Design is an open-label Phase 3 study that includes a screening period of up to 4-weeks duration, an 8-week or 16-week induction phase, a 44-week maintenance phase, and a 24-month extension phase for pediatric participants with moderately to severely active UC. Participants will have a follow-up visit 4 weeks after the last dose of study intervention and a telephone contact 8 weeks later to assess for any adverse events (AEs)/serious adverse events (SAEs). The total maximum duration of this study will be up to 180 weeks.
The purpose of this study is to assess the safety profile of relatlimab plus nivolumab in combination with platinum doublet chemotherapy (PDCT) and to determine if nivolumab plus relatlimab in combination with PDCT improves overall response rate (ORR) when compared to nivolumab plus PDCT in participants with previously untreated Stage IV or recurrent non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).
To date, no consensus exists on which anterior surgical technique is more cost-effective to treat cervical degenerative disc disease (CDDD). The most commonly used surgical treatment for patients with single- or multilevel symptomatic CDDD is anterior cervical discectomy with fusion (ACDF). However, new complaints of radiculopathy and/or myelopathy commonly develop at adjacent levels, also known as clinical adjacent segment pathology (CASP). It remains unknown to what extent kinematics, surgery-induced fusion and natural history of disease play a role in its development. Anterior cervical discectomy with arthroplasty (ACDA) is thought to reduce the incidence of CASP by preserving motion in the operated segment. ACDA is often discouraged as the implant costs are higher whilst the clinical outcomes are similar to ACDF. However, preventing CASP might be a reason for ACDA to be a more cost-effective technique in the long-term. In this randomized controlled trial patients will be randomized to receive ACDF or ACDA in a 1:1 ratio. Adult patients with single- or multi-level CDDD and symptoms of radiculopathy and/or myelopathy will be included. The primary outcome is cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of both techniques from a societal perspective. Secondary objectives are the differences in clinical and radiological outcomes between the two techniques, as well as the qualitative process surrounding anterior decompression surgery. All outcomes will be measured at baseline and every 6 months till 4 years postoperatively. High quality evidence regarding the cost-effectiveness of both ACDA and ACDF is lacking, to date no prospective trials from a societal perspective exist. Considering the ageing of the population and the rising healthcare costs, the need for a solid clinical cost-effectiveness trial addressing this question is high.
The study is a global, multi-center safety and efficacy trial of epcoritamab, an antibody also known as EPKINLY™ and GEN3013 (DuoBody®-CD3xCD20). Epcoritamab will either be studied as: - Monotherapy, or - Combination therapy: - epcoritamab + venetoclax - epcoritamab + lenalidomide - epcoritamab + R-CHOP (i.e., rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin hydrochloride, vincristine and prednisone). The study includes patients with relapsed/refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia (R/R CLL)/small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL) and patients with Richter's Syndrome (RS). Study participants with R/R CLL/SLL are treated either with epcoritamab as monotherapy or epcoritamab + venetoclax. Study participants with RS are treated either with epcoritamab as monotherapy or epcoritamab + lenalidomide or epcoritamab + R-CHOP. The trial consists of two parts, a dose-escalation phase (phase Ib) and an expansion phase (phase II). Patients with RS are only included in the expansion phase.
Patients with HER2-positive primary breast cancer (BC) who do not achieve complete response after appropriate neoadjuvant therapy are at higher risk of disease recurrence. More effective treatment options are needed for this patient population. This study will examine the efficacy and safety of trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd) compared with trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) in high-risk patients with residual invasive breast cancer following neoadjuvant therapy.
Rationale: Haemorrhoidal disease is one of the most common anorectal disorders which affects nearly half of the general population1. Given the current numerous modalities the obvious question which needs to be answered is which treatment is the best. An interesting conclusion from a recent systematic review regarding operative procedures for haemorrhoidal disease is that all procedures have their own advantages and disadvantages. There is a need for evaluating treatment from the patient's point of view and transparency in surgical and non-surgical treatment outcome. So far there is no sufficiently large trial that meets that demand. Objective: To establish the best treatment of patients with symptomatic haemorrhoids grade III: haemorrhoidectomy versus rubber band ligation (RBL). Patient bound effectiveness, clinical effectiveness and cost-utility of both treatments is compared; primary outcome is quality of life at 24 months measured with the EQ-5D-5L with Dutch rating and recurrence at one year post procedure. The assumption is that treatment with rubber band ligation is equally effective in comparison with haemorrhoidectomy in terms of quality of life. Study design:Multicentre randomized controlled non-inferiority trial with cost-utility analysis. Two treatment protocols are compared: haemorrhoidectomy and rubber band ligation. Study population: Patients aged ≥ 18 years with symptomatic haemorrhoids gr III. Patients are recruited in multiple clinics during 18-24 months. Intervention: Participants are allocated to either rubber band ligation or haemorrhoidectomy. Main study parameters/endpoints: Primary outcome measure is quality of life at 24 months measured with the EQ-5D-5L with Dutch rating and recurrence at one year post procedure. Secondary outcomes are: complaint reduction with proctology specific patient-related outcome measure (HSS, PROM, PROMHISS), vaizey score, resumption of work, pain (VAS), complications and recurrence at two years.
Detection of AD biomarkers in tear fluid