There are about 5161 clinical studies being (or have been) conducted in Norway. 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.
Do very elderly adults wish intensive care in the event of acute life-threatening illness and are their next of kin able to predict these preferences? Very elderly patients are a steeply increasing patient population in intensive care units (ICUs), but the overall benefit of intensive care for these patients remains controversial. Will ICU admission improve survival and quality of life, or will it prolong suffering and delay natural death? Little is known about very elderly Norwegians life sustaining treatment (LST) preferences in these situations where treatment benefit is uncertain. This project aims to improve critically ill very elderly patients' ICU trajectories by bringing forth knowledge about their treatment preferences, their family members' ability to predict these preferences, and by directing attention to the challenges of consent to critical care in cases of medical uncertainty. A selv administered, mailed survey will be distributed among 400 outpatients aged 80 years or older and their next of kin. Respondents will be recruited at the ophthalmologic, ear-nose-and-throat and orthopaedic outpatient clinics at Haukeland University Hospital Bergen, Norway. The investigators developed and validated a survey tool for this purpose, containing 3 hypothetical scenarios of acute life-threatening illness. The scenarios are randomly chosen from 20 hypothetical patient histories and are representative for ICU admission diagnoses in Norway and Europe. The participants will be asked for treatment choices, i.e. wishing admission to intensive care or not. A response option 'not wishing to engage in the treatment decision' is also provided. Furthermore, the questionnaire includes factors that may influence elderlies' treatment preferences and proxies' ability to predict these preferences including: demographics, religion, previous experience with and / or communication about critical illness, comorbidity, frailty, quality of life, and projections (i.e. the proxy's own treatment preferences). The respondents are requested to explain their choices by free-text comments after each scenario. They are also asked to elaborate how they wish next-of-kin should contribute to decision making in these cases. Additional space for free-text comments is provided in the end of the questionnaire. The study design is exploratory. Responses will be analysed with both quantitative statistics and qualitative methods.
Background: There is a need for standardized interventions in community rehabilitation that can improve everyday task performance for older adults with cognitive challenges after acquired brain injury. Older adults are often excluded from research due to strict inclusion criteria. It is critical for a sustainable health service system that these patients are empowered and reach their maximum level of independence. The Perceive, Recall, Plan and Perform System (PRPP) of Intervention can be applied by Occupational Therapists (OT) for clients with cognitive challenges to enhance mastery of needed or desired everyday tasks. There is no current evidence for the effectiveness of this intervention for this population. Purpose: A clinical trial to investigate the effectiveness of the PRPP intervention for older persons with cognitive impairments after brain injury in the context of community-based rehabilitation. Method: In PRPP intervention the OT uses systematically instructions in task training to support a client to use cognitive strategies efficiently. The everyday tasks used for training should be valued by the participant and useful in their rehabilitation. The tasks could include different parts of morning routines, simple or complex meal planning or preparation, use of cell phone, leisure activities, or other household and community activities. At best the skills are generalized throughout all everyday activities, and the OTs' role as a cognitive mediator fades as participants internalize the strategies. The participants receive PRPP intervention 3 times a week for 3 weeks, every session last for 45-60 minutes. The participants' task mastery and cognitive strategy use will be measured at least 5 times in each phase: baseline, intervention, after the intervention, and 4 weeks after the discharge from rehabilitation. The measurement scores at baseline act controls and are therefore compared with the other phases for the same participant. The same procedure will be repeated for the other participants, but then with a staggered intervention phase. A staggered intervention phase acts as a control between participants and allows to see if changes occur only when the intervention is introduced. Implications for practice: The investigators assume that this systematic intervention will improve everyday task performance, and will in turn contribute to empowerment and independence of older adults with cognitive challenges after brain injuries.
Researchers are looking for a better way to treat hemophilia A. Hemophilia A is a genetic disorder where the body does not create enough of a protein called clotting factor 8 (FVIII) present in the blood. People with hemophilia A may bleed for a long time from minor wounds, have painful bleeding into joints, or have internal bleeding. In severe hemophilia A (clotting factor 8 levels less than 1%) bleedings are more likely to happen. In this study researchers want to learn more about the treatment called BAY94-9027. BAY94-9027 is an injectable medicine used to replace missing clotting factor 8. In BAY94-9027 the clotting factor 8 has been pegylated (combined with a substance called polyethylene glycol (PEG)). This is to make the treatment last longer in the body so that less injections are required. BAY94-9027 is already available for the prevention and treatment of bleeding in adults and children who are 12 years and older. BAY 94-9027 is also called Jivi. BAY94-9027 is not yet available for children aged 7 to less than 12 years. One potential specific risk of pegylated drugs is that proteins in the blood called antibodies are built. These may attach to the pegylation part of the drug and this in turn may lead to allergic reactions and the drug not working as well as it should during first 4 infusions. In studies that have been done so far, this has been seen in some children younger than six years, but not in 29 children aged 6 to less than 12 years treated with BAY94-9027. Further safety information related to how the body reacts to BAY94-9027 is however still needed for this age group. The main purpose of this study is to learn how safe BAY94-9027 is (safety) and how it affects the body (tolerability) in previously treated children with severe hemophilia A who are between 7 to less than 12 years. To answer this question, the researchers will study information about two medical problems of special interest, if allergic reactions occur (also called hypersensitivity) and if the drug is not working as well as it should (also called loss of efficacy) during the first 4 infusions. Allergic reactions may range from mild local reactions to widespread effects such as shortness of breath, skin rashes and low blood pressure. Only allergic reactions related to the study treatment will be considered. The assessment if loss of efficacy occurred will be based on the occurrence of bleeding, the clotting factor 8 level in blood after injection called recovery, clotting factor 8 inhibitor tests and measurement of antibodies against the PEG. The study has two parts, A and B. Part A takes 6 months and part B takes 18 months. In part A the participants will receive two injections of BAY94-9027 per week. In part B, the number of injections may be decreased, with up to five days between the injections. The participants in this study will visit the study site around 14 times and will have 15 phone visits. In part A, visit 1 is for screening. Visits 2 to 5 take place twice a week for two weeks. Visit 6 two weeks after visit 5, visits 7 to 10 take place monthly with visit 11 six weeks after visit 10. In part B, site visits will occur on month 9, 12, 18 and 24 and phone calls every month between the site visits. The participants' and their caregivers will record in an electronic patient diary information about when the study treatment was given and bleeding episodes that have happened. During the study, the study doctors and their team will - take blood samples, - do physical examinations, - review the participants' electronic diary - ask questions about the participants' quality of life, - ask the participants questions about how they are feeling and what adverse events they are having An adverse event is a medical problem that happens during the study. Doctors keep track of all adverse events that happen in study, even if they do not think the adverse events might be related to the study treatments.
The purpose of this study is to evaluate zilovertamab vedotin with respect to objective response rate and duration of response per Lugano Response Criteria as assessed by blinded independent central review (BICR). Safety and tolerability will also be evaluated in this Phase 2, single arm, interventional study.
Induction of labor is an increasingly used intervention in obstetrics due to expanding indications, which more often includes relatively healthy women with uncomplicated pregnancies. While induction of labor traditionally is offered in an inpatient setting, a shift towards an outpatient setting is increasing despite insufficient evidence regarding safety and effectiveness. Oral misoprostol is easy for the pregnant women to administer and the risk of uterine hyperstimulation with fetal heart rate changes is found to be low. Strong evidence concludes that oral misoprostol is preferable as an induction agent and is recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO). The investigators will perform a multicenter randomized-controlled trial comparing labor induction in an outpatient versus inpatient setting, aiming to increase knowledge on outpatient induction of labor with oral misoprostol. The study is based on experiences and findings from a recently performed pilot trial and targets a large group of relatively healthy pregnant women where induction of labor is decided. The investigators hypothesize that women induced in an outpatient setting will be more satisfied than women induced in an inpatient setting.
Multicenter, single-arm retrospective and prospective registry is being conducted to confirm the clinical performance and safety of GORE® VIABAHN® VBX Balloon Expandable Endoprosthesis when used as a Bridging Stent with Branched and Fenestrated Endografts in the Treatment of Aortic Aneurysms Involving the Renal-Mesenteric Arteries.
The overall aim is to assess the feasibility and acceptability of collecting data on the patients and carers perception of care as well as to prospectively monitor end of life care.
The LIVACOR - Trial is a European wide, randomized controlled, open-label, multicenter trial. Patients with synchronous colorectal liver metastases (CRLMs) and primary colorectal tumor are considered eligible and will be randomized between minimally invasive (MI) combined or staged colorectal resection (all colectomies, including high anterior resection) and liver resection of up to three segments.
During 2018, 2019, and 2020, the reported TBE-cases have increased markedly in Norway. Surveillance studies conducted by the Norwegian Institute of Public Health demonstrate that cases are associated with tick bites in the coastal areas of the Agder, Buskerud, and Vestfold and Telemark counties There is a urgent need for more knowledge of the consequences of TBE in Norway, in particular the identification of patients at risk of long-term sequela. Hence, the overall objective of this project is to gain more knowledge about the natural course of TBE in Norway, and its impact on long-term health-related quality of life and associated factors. Clinical data, biological sampling and PROMs are collected from TBE-infected patients admitted to three hospitals within the epidemic region in Norway.
The study rationale is to provide evidence for early, safe and effective pain management in the ambulance service with non-invasive and fast acting analgesics. Low-dose methoxyflurane and intranasal fentanyl are non-invasive medications that are well-suited for use by ambulance personnel under difficult pre-hospital settings. This is a randomized, controlled, open label, three-arm, non-inferiority, phase 3 drug trial performed in the ambulance service. The randomization will be 1:1:1 to the three treatment groups. Patients 18 years or older with acute pain with Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) ≥4 with normal physiology and capable of giving informed consent will be included null hypothesis (H0) (tested in hierarchic order a-b-c): 1. Methoxyflurane regimen is inferior to intranasal fentanyl regimen or 2. Methoxyflurane regimen is inferior to IV morphine regimen or 3. Intranasal fentanyl regimen is inferior to IV morphine regimen for treating moderate to severe pain, measured by reduction in Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) 10 minutes after administration. The study duration for each participant will be from ambulance scene arrival to patient handover in emergency department. Number of participants: Patient enrolment until successful inclusion of 270 per protocol patients. Primary endpoint is change in NRS from before administration (t0) to 10 minutes after start of administration (t10). The study intervention is one of the three IMPs: - Methoxyflurane: 3 ml inhalation, can be repeated once to a total dose of 6 ml. - Fentanyl intranasal spray: 100 µg IntraNasal, (patients >70 years 50 µg), can be repeated to maximum total dose 500 µg IN. - Morphine hydrochloride intravenous: 0.1 mg/kg IV (patients >70 years or fragile 0.05 mg/kg IV), can be repeated to a maximum total dose 0.5 mg/kg IV. Rescue analgesia is all analgesics other than the allocated IMP. If rescue medication is administered before the assessment of primary endpoint at 10 minutes, the patient will not be part of the per-protocol analysis. The hypothesis will be tested and the primary endpoint will be evaluated by the 95% confidence limits (95% CI), and a conclusion of non-inferiority will be made if the 95% CI of the estimated treatment difference fully lie within the inferiority margin. Non-inferiority is determined on the basis of a 1-sided equivalence t test on the per protocol population and confirmed, for sensitivity reasons, on the modified intention to treat population.