Comparison of the Tolerability of Two Formulations of Hypertonic Saline in Cystic Fibrosis Patients

August 9, 2012 updated by: Ospedale Civile Ca' Foncello
The purpose of this study is to compare the tolerability and acceptability of a formulation containing Hypertonic saline 7% (HS) alone and a formulation containing HS and Hyaluronic acid 0.1% in a population of Cystic Fibrosis (CF) patients who already showed poor tolerance to HS.

Study Overview

Status

Status

Indicates the current recruitment status or the expanded access status.
Completed

Conditions

Conditions

The disease, disorder, syndrome, illness, or injury that is being studied. On ClinicalTrials.gov, conditions may also include other health-related issues, such as lifespan, quality of life, and health risks.

Intervention / Treatment

Intervention / Treatment

A process or action that is the focus of a clinical study. Interventions include drugs, medical devices, procedures, vaccines, and other products that are either investigational or already available. Interventions can also include noninvasive approaches, such as education or modifying diet and exercise.

Study Type

Study Type

Describes the nature of a clinical study. Study types include interventional studies (also called clinical trials), observational studies (including patient registries), and expanded access.
Interventional

Enrollment (Actual)

Enrollment

The number of participants in a clinical study. The "anticipated" enrollment is the target number of participants that the researchers need for the study.
40

Phase

Phase

The stage of a clinical trial studying a drug or biological product, based on definitions developed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The phase is based on the study's objective, the number of participants, and other characteristics. There are five phases: Early Phase 1 (formerly listed as Phase 0), Phase 1, Phase 2, Phase 3, and Phase 4. Not Applicable is used to describe trials without FDA-defined phases, including trials of devices or behavioral interventions.
  • Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Locations

  • Italy
      • Treviso, Italy, 3100
        • Centro Fibrosi Cistica

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Eligibility Criteria

The key requirements that people who want to participate in a clinical study must meet or the characteristics they must have. Eligibility criteria consist of both inclusion criteria (which are required for a person to participate in the study) and exclusion criteria (which prevent a person from participating). Types of eligibility criteria include whether a study accepts healthy volunteers, has age or age group requirements, or is limited by sex.

Ages Eligible for Study

8 years and older (Child, Adult, Older Adult)

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Genders Eligible for Study

All

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  • diagnosis of Cystic Fibrosis (genotyping and sweat test)
  • > 8 year-old
  • clinically and therapeutically stable disease in the last 30 days;
  • Forced Expiratory Volume in one second (FEV1) ≥ 50% of predicted value;
  • intolerance (cough, throat irritation, saltiness) to previous administration of 5.8% hypertonic saline solution.

Exclusion Criteria:

  • decrease in FEV1 >15% after first inhalation of hypertonic saline;
  • Burkholderia cepacia infection;
  • infective exacerbation requiring antibiotic treatment in the 15 days preceding enrolment;
  • patient non compliant to standard therapy;
  • Lung transplant;
  • Patient unable to perform reproducible spirometry;
  • Intolerance to β2 bronchodilators;
  • Concurrent enrolment in other clinical trials;
  • Plasmatic creatinine and transaminases more than twice the normal values.

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

  • Allocation: Randomized
  • Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
  • Masking: Quadruple

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm

Participant Group / Arm

A group or subgroup of participants in a clinical trial that receives a specific intervention/treatment, or no intervention, according to the trial's protocol.
Intervention / Treatment

Intervention / Treatment

A process or action that is the focus of a clinical study. Interventions include drugs, medical devices, procedures, vaccines, and other products that are either investigational or already available. Interventions can also include noninvasive approaches, such as education or modifying diet and exercise.
Experimental: group A
Other: Inhalable Hypertonic saline 7% + Hyaluronan 0.1%
Administration of Inhalable Hypertonic saline 7% + Hyaluronan 0.1% 5 ml twice a day, after bronchodilator for one month.
Experimental: group B
Other: Inhalable Hypertonic saline 7%
Administration of Inhalable Hypertonic saline 7% 5 ml twice a day, after bronchodilator for one month.

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Primary Outcome Measures

In a clinical study's protocol, the planned outcome measure that is the most important for evaluating the effect of an intervention/treatment. Most clinical studies have one primary outcome measure, but some have more than one.
Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Comparison of the judgement on global pleasure of the inhalation between the two treatment groups
Time Frame: The outcome measure was assessed at day 1, day 7, day 14, day 21, and day 28 of the four-weeks treatment period. For each time-point we operated a comparison between the two groups.
A judgment on acceptability and global pleasure of the inhalation was weekly reported by patients on a diary, expressed on a 1-10 scale: a score lower than 6 was considered unfavourable.
The outcome measure was assessed at day 1, day 7, day 14, day 21, and day 28 of the four-weeks treatment period. For each time-point we operated a comparison between the two groups.
Comparison of the symptom cough between the two treatment groups
Time Frame: The outcome measure was assessed at day 1, day 7, day 14, day 21, and day 28 of the four-weeks treatment period. For each time-point we operated a comparison between the two groups.
A judgement on the symptom cough, one of the most important causes of HS intolerance and poor compliance to HS treatment, was weekly reported by patients on a diary, as assessed on a scale of four grades (absent, mild, moderate, severe).
The outcome measure was assessed at day 1, day 7, day 14, day 21, and day 28 of the four-weeks treatment period. For each time-point we operated a comparison between the two groups.
Comparison of the sensation of saltiness between the two treatment groups
Time Frame: The outcome measure was assessed at day 1, day 7, day 14, day 21, and day 28 of the four-weeks treatment period. For each time-point we operated a comparison between the two groups.
A judgement on the sensation of saltiness, one of the most important causes of HS intolerance and poor compliance to HS treatment, was weekly reported by patients on a diary, as assessed on a scale of four grades (absent, mild, moderate, severe).
The outcome measure was assessed at day 1, day 7, day 14, day 21, and day 28 of the four-weeks treatment period. For each time-point we operated a comparison between the two groups.
Comparison of the sensation of throat irritation between the two treatment groups
Time Frame: The outcome measure was assessed at day 1, day 7, day 14, day 21, and day 28 of the four-weeks treatment period. For each time-point we operated a comparison between the two groups.
A judgement on the sensation of throat irritation, one of the most important causes of HS intolerance and poor compliance to HS treatment, was weekly reported by patients on a diary, as assessed on a scale of four grades (absent, mild, moderate, severe).
The outcome measure was assessed at day 1, day 7, day 14, day 21, and day 28 of the four-weeks treatment period. For each time-point we operated a comparison between the two groups.

Secondary Outcome Measures

Secondary Outcome Measures

In a clinical study's protocol, a planned outcome measure that is not as important as the primary outcome measure for evaluating the effect of an intervention but is still of interest. Most clinical studies have more than one secondary outcome measure.
Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Comparison of Delta FEV1 between the two treatment groups
Time Frame: day 1 and day 28 of the four-weeks treatment

Secondary outcome was the effect on respiratory function. A sequence of spirometries was performed as follows. A spirometry was performed in basal conditions, then 400 ug of salbutamol were administered and spirometry was performed again after 15 minutes. Whitin 30 minutes, the first dose of the randomized formulation was administered for 15 minutes and a third spirometry was performed 30 minutes after the inhalation. This sequence was repeated 4 weeks later, with the administration of the last dose of treatment.

Delta FEV1 was calculated as follows: [(FEV1 after randomized solution inhalation - FEV1 after bronchodilator)/FEV1 after bronchodilator]x 100. Delta FEV1 was the outcome measure used to compare the two groups of treatment both at the first dose of the four-weeks treatment and at the end (last dose)of the four-weeks treatment.
day 1 and day 28 of the four-weeks treatment

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Sponsor

Sponsor

The organization or person who initiates the study and who has authority and control over the study.
Ospedale Civile Ca' Foncello

Publications and helpful links

The person responsible for entering information about the study voluntarily provides these publications. These may be about anything related to the study.

General Publications

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start

Study Start

The actual date on which the first participant was enrolled in a clinical study. The "anticipated" study start date is the date that the researchers think will be the study start date.
December 1, 2009

Primary Completion (Actual)

Primary Completion

The date on which the last participant in a clinical study was examined or received an intervention to collect final data for the primary outcome measure. Whether the clinical study ended according to the protocol or was terminated does not affect this date. For clinical studies with more than one primary outcome measure with different completion dates, this term refers to the date on which data collection is completed for all the primary outcome measures. The "anticipated" primary completion date is the date that the researchers think will be the primary completion date for the study.
June 1, 2011

Study Completion (Actual)

Study Completion

The date on which the last participant in a clinical study was examined or received an intervention/treatment to collect final data for the primary outcome measures, secondary outcome measures, and adverse events (that is, the last participant's last visit). The "anticipated" study completion date is the date that the researchers think will be the study completion date.
September 1, 2011

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

First Submitted

The date on which the study sponsor or investigator first submitted a study record to ClinicalTrials.gov. There is typically a delay of a few days between the first submitted date and the record's availability on ClinicalTrials.gov (the first posted date).
July 13, 2012

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

The date on which the study sponsor or investigator first submits a study record that is consistent with National Library of Medicine (NLM) quality control (QC) review criteria. The sponsor or investigator may need to revise and submit a study record one or more times before NLM's QC review criteria are met. It is the responsibility of the sponsor or investigator to ensure that the study record is consistent with the NLM QC review criteria.
August 2, 2012

First Posted (Estimate)

First Posted

The date on which the study record was first available on ClinicalTrials.gov after National Library of Medicine (NLM) quality control (QC) review has concluded. There is typically a delay of a few days between the date the study sponsor or investigator submitted the study record and the first posted date.
August 7, 2012

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Estimate)

Last Update Posted

The most recent date on which changes to a study record were made available on ClinicalTrials.gov. There may be a delay between when the changes were submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov by the study's sponsor or investigator (the last update submitted date) and the last update posted date.
August 10, 2012

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

The most recent date on which the study sponsor or investigator submitted changes to a study record that are consistent with National Library of Medicine (NLM) quality control (QC) review criteria. It is the responsibility of the sponsor or investigator to ensure that the study record is consistent with the NLM QC review criteria.
August 9, 2012

Last Verified

Last Verified

The most recent date on which the study sponsor or investigator confirmed the information about a clinical study on ClinicalTrials.gov as accurate and current. If a study with a recruitment status of recruiting; not yet recruiting; or active, not recruiting has not been confirmed within the past 2 years, the study's recruitment status is shown as unknown.
February 1, 2009

More Information

Terms related to this study

Additional Relevant MeSH Terms

Other Study ID Numbers

Other Study ID Numbers

Identifiers or ID numbers other than the NCT number that are assigned to a clinical study by the study's sponsor, funders, or others. These numbers may include unique identifiers from other trial registries and National Institutes of Health grant numbers.
  • HS/2009 HYANEB

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Clinical Trials on Cystic Fibrosis

Clinical Trials on Inhalable Hypertonic saline 7% + Hyaluronan 0.1%

Search Similar Trials

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

Conditions

Rare Diseases

Drug Interventions

Dietary Supplements

Sponsor/Collaborators

Locations

Cookie Settings

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. For more details carefully read our Privacy and Cookies Policy. ...>>>You can change your preferences or withdraw your consent at any time by deleting the cookies from your website or computer as described in the policy. Please accept it and choose your preferences by ticking the corresponding boxes in the "Manage Settings" section below. Please carefully read our Terms of Service before you proceed with using any part of this website.
«Manage Settings