[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"health-studies-list:{\"overallStatus\":[\"RECRUITING\",\"AVAILABLE\",\"NOT_YET_RECRUITING\"],\"leadSponsorName\":\"Air Force Military Medical University, China\",\"orderBy\":\"LastUpdateSubmitDate:desc\",\"size\":25,\"offset\":0}":3,"health-study-condition:":550},{"pageToken":4,"total":5,"offset":6,"count":5,"results":7},null,22,0,[8,48,76,106,130,154,181,207,229,254,280,301,327,350,373,395,418,442,462,484,505,529],{"id":9,"slug":10,"hasResults":11,"nctId":12,"briefTitle":13,"officialTitle":14,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":15,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":16,"minAge":17,"maxAge":18,"enrollmentInfo":19,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":22,"phases":23,"briefSummary":25,"conditions":26,"keywords":30,"overallStatus":35,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":36,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":37,"startDateStruct":40,"completionDateStruct":42,"leadSponsor":44,"locationsCount":47},"100644097","mesenteric-vein-access-for-opvt-related-recurrent-variceal-bleeding-an-ambispective-cohort-100644097",false,"NCT07666256","Mesenteric Vein Access for OPVT-Related Recurrent Variceal Bleeding: An Ambispective Cohort","Percutaneous Mesenteric Vein Access for Interventional Management of Recurrent Variceal Bleeding in Occlusive Portal Vein Thrombosis: An Ambispective Cohort Study","Inclusion Criteria\n\n1. Confirmed OPVT, as demonstrated by contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).\n2. History of at least two episodes of esophagogastric variceal bleeding.\n3. Ineligible for, or have previously failed, conventional transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) or percutaneous transhepatic\u002Ftranssplenic access approaches, including but not limited to extensive thrombosis of intrahepatic portal vein branches, prior splenectomy, or previous unsuccessful attempts.\n4. Child-Pugh score ≤12, with anticipated tolerance of the interventional procedure.\n\nExclusion Criteria\n\n1. Thrombosis or severe stenosis of the superior mesenteric vein (SMV), precluding its use as a percutaneous access route.\n2. Severe cardiac, pulmonary, or renal insufficiency that precludes tolerance of the procedure.\n3. Uncorrectable coagulopathy.\n4. Life expectancy \\\u003C3 months, or inability to comply with scheduled follow-up visits.","ALL","18 Years","75 Years",{"count":20,"type":21},15,"ESTIMATED","INTERVENTIONAL",[24],"NA","Occlusive portal vein thrombosis (OPVT) is defined as complete thrombosis of the main portal vein trunk, resulting in total interruption of portal venous inflow and representing the most severe form of portal vein thrombosis. A small proportion of patients may remain asymptomatic for prolonged periods because of sufficient collateral compensation; however, most develop complications of portal hypertension when collateral flow is inadequate, including gastroesophageal variceal bleeding and ascites. Among these, gastroesophageal variceal bleeding is the most life-threatening, and its management is more challenging-with a higher risk of rebleeding-than in patients without portal vein thrombosis.\n\nOcclusive portal vein thrombosis (OPVT) is defined as complete thrombosis of the main portal vein trunk, resulting in total interruption of portal venous inflow and representing the most severe form of portal vein thrombosis. A small proportion of patients may remain asymptomatic for prolonged periods because of sufficient collateral compensation; however, most develop complications of portal hypertension when collateral flow is inadequate, including gastroesophageal variceal bleeding and ascites. Among these, gastroesophageal variceal bleeding is the most life-threatening, and its management is more challenging-with a higher risk of rebleeding-than in patients without portal vein thrombosis.\n\nTransjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) is an effective minimally invasive therapy for portal hypertension-related complications; however, in OPVT, technical feasibility largely depends on successful portal vein recanalization. To improve TIPS success in OPVT, our group-together with domestic and international investigators-has explored several adjunctive access routes and technical modifications, including percutaneous transhepatic or transsplenic portal vein recanalization TIPS (PVR-TIPS); transjugular portal cavernous collateral-caval shunt (TCCS); transjugular mesenteric-caval shunt (TMCS); transjugular spleno-caval shunt (TSCS); and surgically assisted hybrid procedures. Although these strategies have improved technical success rates to some extent, their applicability remains limited. In patients with extensive thrombosis involving intrahepatic portal vein branches, in those without a feasible splenic venous puncture route, or in patients with prior splenectomy, percutaneous transhepatic and transsplenic approaches are often not possible. Moreover, in patients with poor hepatic reserve and\u002For ascites, laparotomy-assisted hybrid procedures substantially increase invasiveness and perioperative risk.\n\nIn this context, the present project aims to systematically investigate and evaluate ultrasound-guided percutaneous mesenteric vein (MV) puncture as an adjunctive access strategy for interventional treatment of OPVT. This technique uses ultrasound-guided percutaneous puncture of the MV to establish antegrade portal venous access, thereby facilitating subsequent portal vein recanalization and\u002For shunt creation.",[27,28,29],"Occlusive Portal Vein Thrombosis (OPVT)","Cavernous Transformation of Portal Vein","Gastroesophageal Varices Bleeding",[31,28,32,33,34],"Occlusive portal vein thrombosis (OPVT)","Esophageal and gastric variceal bleeding","Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt","Superior Mesenteric Vein","NOT_YET_RECRUITING","2026-06-18",{"date":38,"type":39},"2026-06-24","ACTUAL",{"date":41,"type":21},"2026-07-01",{"date":43,"type":21},"2028-06-30",{"name":45,"class":46},"Air Force Military Medical University, China","OTHER",1,{"id":49,"slug":50,"hasResults":11,"nctId":51,"briefTitle":52,"officialTitle":53,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":54,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":16,"minAge":17,"maxAge":55,"enrollmentInfo":56,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":22,"phases":58,"briefSummary":59,"conditions":60,"keywords":4,"overallStatus":66,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":67,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":68,"startDateStruct":70,"completionDateStruct":72,"leadSponsor":74,"locationsCount":75},"100598434","indomethacin-vs-diclofenac-for-preventing-pep-100598434","NCT07071441","Indomethacin vs Diclofenac for Preventing PEP","Rectal Indomethacin Versus Diclofenac for Prevention of Post-ERCP Panceratitis (IDPPP2): A Multicenter, Double-blind, Randomized, Control Trial","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* 18-90 years old patients with native papilla who planned to undergo ERCP\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Previous biliary sphincterotomy and papillary large balloon dilation\n* Planned for placements of pancreatic duct stents (eg. pancreatic duct strictures, planned ampullectomy)\n* Allergy to NSAIDs\n* The administration of NSAIDs within 7 days\n* Not suitable for NSAIDs administration (gastrointestinal hemorrhage within 4 weeks, renal dysfunction \\[Cr \\>1.4mg\u002Fdl=120umol\u002Fl\\]; presence of coagulopathy before the procedure)\n* Acute pancreatitis within 7 days before ERCP or acute pancreatitis with obvious Pancreatic edema and peripancreatic fluid collections\n* Hemodynamical instability\n* Pregnancy or lactation\n* Unable to give informed consent","90 Years",{"count":57,"type":21},4050,[24],"Pancreatitis is the most common and serious complication following post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and is associated with occasional mortality, extended hospital stays, and increased healthcare expenses. Preprocedural administration of rectal non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) was demonstrated to be an effective and convenient strategy for post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). Furthermore, several meta-analyses found that only 100mg indomethacin and diclofenac could effectively reduce PEP. Therefore, updated international clinical practice guidelines uniformly recommended administration of 100mg indomethacin or diclofenac in patients without contradictions. However, it was unclear which one of the two drug is more superior.\n\nA recent meta-analysis suggested 100mg rectal diclofenac was more efficacious than same-dose rectal indomethacin in PEP prevention (relative risk (RR) 0·59, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 0·40-0·89). Based on the results, we conducted a multicenter, double-blind, control trial to investigate whether 100mg diclofenac is superior than same-dose indomethacin. This trial planned to enroll 3612 patients in total. However, in the first interim analysis, PEP occurred in 53 patients (8.8%) of 600 patients allocated to diclofenac group and 37 patients (6.1%) of 604 patients allocated to indomethacin group (relative risk (RR) 1.44; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.96-2.16, p=0.074). Thus, the trial was stopped according to the futility rule of conditional power. However, it was worth noticing that PEP tended to be higher in diclofenac group than that in indomethacin group. A sample size of 1204 was under power to draw the conclusion of significantly lower PEP rate in indomethacin group and thus a new trial with larger sample size of sufficient power is predicted to prove the superiority of indomethacin over diclofenac. Here we conducted a multicenter, randomized, double-blind trial to investigate whether 100mg indomethacin is superior to 100mg diclofenac in preventing PEP.",[61,62,63,64,65],"ERCP","Pancreatitis","Non-steroidal Anti-inflammatory (NSAID)","Indomethacin","Diclofenac","RECRUITING","2026-06-12",{"date":69,"type":39},"2026-06-15",{"date":71,"type":39},"2025-06-01",{"date":73,"type":21},"2026-12-31",{"name":45,"class":46},20,{"id":77,"slug":78,"hasResults":11,"nctId":79,"briefTitle":80,"officialTitle":81,"acronym":82,"eligibilityCriteria":83,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":16,"minAge":17,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":84,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":86,"phases":4,"briefSummary":87,"conditions":88,"keywords":92,"overallStatus":35,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":99,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":100,"startDateStruct":102,"completionDateStruct":103,"leadSponsor":105,"locationsCount":47},"100641557","endoscopic-vs-non-endoscopic-drainage-for-benign-gallbladder-diseases-in-high-risk-patients-or-patients-desiring-gallbladder-preservation-100641557","NCT07649811","Endoscopic vs Non-endoscopic Drainage for Benign Gallbladder Diseases in High-risk Patients or Patients Desiring Gallbladder Preservation","Efficacy and Safety Evaluation of Endoscopic Treatment for Benign Gallbladder Diseases: A Multicenter Prospective Cohort Study","GB-PRESERVE","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Age ≥ 18 years, and voluntarily signed the informed consent form;\n* Radiologically confirmed symptomatic benign gallbladder disease (symptomatic gallbladder stones, gallbladder polyps meeting surgical indications, acute cholecystitis TG18 Grade I\u002FII); and meeting any of the following specific population criteria:\n\n  1. High-risk surgical patients: ASA classification ≥ III, or presence of severe comorbidities that significantly increase the risk of laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC);\n  2. Patients with concomitant common bile duct stones (CBDS) and a strong desire for gallbladder preservation: presence of CBDS confirmed by MRCP\u002FERCP examination, and still strongly requesting the preservation of gallbladder function after being fully informed.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Suspected or confirmed gallbladder malignancy;\n* Complications requiring emergency surgical intervention (gangrene, perforation, diffuse peritonitis);\n* Uncorrectable severe coagulation dysfunction;\n* Presence of severe anatomical deformity or obstruction of the stomach, duodenum, or esophagus, where the endoscope is expected to be unable to reach the target site (papilla or pericholecystic area);\n* Significant gallbladder atrophy (longitudinal diameter \\\u003C 4 cm or anteroposterior diameter \\\u003C 2 cm);\n* Pregnant or lactating women;\n* Previous history of cholecystectomy;\n* Presence of psychiatric disorders or any condition that prevents cooperation with treatment and follow-up;\n* Unwilling or unable to sign the informed consent form.",{"count":85,"type":21},220,"OBSERVATIONAL","Common gallbladder conditions like gallstones, polyps, and gallbladder inflammation are typically treated by surgically removing the gallbladder. However, surgery may be too risky for elderly patients or those with severe medical conditions, and some patients strongly prefer to keep their gallbladder.\n\nNewer, less-invasive endoscopic treatments can drain the gallbladder to treat inflammation without surgery. However, after successful drainage, doctors currently do not know whether it is better to leave a stent inside for long-term drainage or to actively remove the gallbladder stones using an endoscope.\n\nThis multicenter study will follow patients in a real-world setting to compare these two approaches: the endoscopic treatment group (stone removal after drainage) and the non-endoscopic treatment group (long-term drainage alone). The goal is to evaluate which method is safer and more effective over the long term, helping doctors make better clinical decisions and improve patients' quality of life.",[89,90,91],"Gallbladder Diseases","Cholecystitis, Acute","Cholelithiasis",[93,94,95,96,97,98],"EUS-GBD","ET-GBD","PT-GBD","Gallbladder Preservation","High Surgical Risk","Endoscopic Drainage","2026-06-11",{"date":101,"type":39},"2026-06-16",{"date":41,"type":21},{"date":104,"type":21},"2027-12-31",{"name":45,"class":46},{"id":107,"slug":108,"hasResults":11,"nctId":109,"briefTitle":110,"officialTitle":111,"acronym":112,"eligibilityCriteria":113,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":16,"minAge":17,"maxAge":18,"enrollmentInfo":114,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":22,"phases":116,"briefSummary":117,"conditions":118,"keywords":120,"overallStatus":66,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":122,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":123,"startDateStruct":125,"completionDateStruct":127,"leadSponsor":129,"locationsCount":47},"100612423","comparison-of-underdilated-versus-standard-tips-in-preventing-variceal-rebleeding-in-patients-with-cirrhosis-100612423","NCT07253389","Comparison of Underdilated Versus Standard TIPS in Preventing Variceal Rebleeding in Patients With Cirrhosis","Comparison of Underdilated Versus Standard Transjugular Intrahepatic Portosystemic Shunt in Preventing Rebleeding From Esophagogastric Varices in Patients With Cirrhosis in Chinese Tertiary Hospitals: Protocol for a Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial","UVR-TIPS","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n1\\. Age 18-75 years. 2. Diagnosis of liver cirrhosis according to the 2023 Consensus Opinion on the Clinical Diagnosis and Treatment of Liver Cirrhosis in China (Chinese Society of Gastroenterology). Diagnosis is based on clinical manifestations and imaging findings; histological confirmation is required if the diagnosis remains inconclusive.\n\n3\\. High-risk acute variceal bleeding, defined as any of the following:\n\n1. High-risk acute esophageal or type 1 gastroesophageal variceal bleeding, including: Child-Pugh grade B with a score \\> 7 and endoscopic evidence of active bleeding; Child-Pugh grade C with a score \\\u003C 14.\n2. Hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) \\> 20 mmHg during bleeding.\n3. Early rebleeding within 5 days.\n4. Bleeding uncontrolled despite pharmacological and endoscopic therapy. 4. History of esophageal or gastric variceal bleeding with failure of standard first-line treatment \\[endoscopy combined with non-selective beta-blockers (NSBB)\\]; or first hemorrhage accompanied by grade 2 ascites and\u002For portal vein thrombosis; GOV2 or IGV1 gastric variceal bleeding; ectopic variceal bleeding; or bleeding from refractory portal hypertensive gastropathy.\n\n5\\. Planned TIPS procedure. 6. Ability and willingness to provide written informed consent.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n1. Budd-Chiari syndrome or other causes of non-cirrhotic portal hypertension.\n2. Current or prior malignancy, including hepatocellular carcinoma or malignancies of other organs.\n3. Complete thrombosis of the main portal vein.\n4. Severe psychiatric or neurologic disorders (e.g., uncontrolled epilepsy, dementia).\n5. Prior liver resection or liver transplantation.\n6. Prior TIPS or surgical portosystemic shunt.\n7. Pregnancy or lactation.\n8. Any contraindication to TIPS, including:\n\n(1) Congestive heart failure (New York Heart Association class C or D, or left ventricular ejection fraction \\\u003C 50%).\n\n(2) Severe pulmonary hypertension (mean pulmonary artery pressure \\> 45 mmHg as measured invasively).\n\n(3) Uncontrolled systemic infection. (4) Severe overt hepatic encephalopathy (OHE) with unmodifiable spontaneous portosystemic shunt.\n\n9.Acute hemorrhage with a MELD score ≥ 30 and\u002For arterial lactate \\> 12 mmol\u002FL, or presence of acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF).\n\n10\\. Systemic conditions requiring ongoing glucocorticoid or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) therapy.",{"count":115,"type":21},648,[24],"Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) is a key therapeutic intervention for complications of portal hypertension. However, the risk of post-procedural hepatic encephalopathy (HE) limits its broader clinical application. In the management of gastroesophageal variceal bleeding, the primary goal of TIPS is to reduce the portosystemic pressure gradient (PPG) to less than 12 mmHg (16 cmH₂O), which defines the standard TIPS procedure. The investigators hypothesize that, in patients undergoing TIPS for the prevention of variceal rebleeding, stent underdilation using a 6-mm balloon (underdilated TIPS) will not increase the risk of rebleeding but may reduce the incidence of overt HE and attenuate liver injury. To test this hypothesis, the investigators have designed a prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled trial.",[119,29],"Liver Cirrhosis",[119,32,33,121],"Hepatic encephalopathy","2026-06-06",{"date":124,"type":39},"2026-06-09",{"date":126,"type":39},"2025-10-20",{"date":128,"type":21},"2029-09-30",{"name":45,"class":46},{"id":131,"slug":132,"hasResults":11,"nctId":133,"briefTitle":134,"officialTitle":134,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":135,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":16,"minAge":17,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":136,"targetDuration":138,"studyType":86,"phases":4,"briefSummary":139,"conditions":140,"keywords":142,"overallStatus":66,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":147,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":148,"startDateStruct":150,"completionDateStruct":152,"leadSponsor":153,"locationsCount":47},"100639119","efficacy-and-safety-of-sirt-y90-in-combination-with-atezo--bev-for-unresectable-hepatocellular-carcinoma-100639119","NCT07610551","Efficacy and Safety of SIRT-Y90 in Combination With Atezo + Bev for Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Age ≥18 years old A diagnosis of unresectable HCC was made. HCC can be diagnosed clinically or pathologically.\n\nAt least one Atezo plus Bev administration and one cycle of SIRT-Y90 treatment. At least one visit was recorded after the initiation of Atezo + Bev and SIRT-Y90\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Concomitant cancers other than BCC were diagnosed before or at the start of Atezo + Bev or SIRT-Y90 Participate in an interventional clinical study before or at the time of initiation of treatment with Atezo + Bev or SIRT-Y90",{"count":137,"type":21},50,"1 Year","This study adopted a bidirectional cohort study design. On the one hand, the previous clinical data, treatment exposure and clinical endpoint events of the enrolled patients were retrospectively collected. On the other hand, prospective regular follow-up was conducted from the date of enrollment to continuously observe long-term recurrence, progression and survival outcomes, and analyze the correlation between related factors and prognosis. The primary objective of this study was to describe the efficacy and safety of SIRT-Y90 in combination with atezolizumab and bevacizumab in adult patients with unresectable HCC in China. Medical records from approximately eight sites in China will be used.",[141],"HCC - Hepatocellular Carcinoma",[143,144,145,146],"Hepatocellular Carcinoma","SIRT-Y90","Atezolizumab","Bevacizumab","2026-05-20",{"date":149,"type":39},"2026-05-28",{"date":151,"type":39},"2022-02-09",{"date":73,"type":21},{"name":45,"class":46},{"id":155,"slug":156,"hasResults":11,"nctId":157,"briefTitle":158,"officialTitle":159,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":160,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":16,"minAge":17,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":161,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":22,"phases":163,"briefSummary":165,"conditions":166,"keywords":168,"overallStatus":66,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":173,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":174,"startDateStruct":176,"completionDateStruct":178,"leadSponsor":180,"locationsCount":47},"100636745","phase-2-alternating-haic-and-systemic-chemotherapy-with-or-without-adebrelimab-and-apatinib-for-unresectable-biliary-tract-cancer-100636745","NCT07569679","Alternating HAIC and Systemic Chemotherapy With or Without Adebrelimab and Apatinib for Unresectable Biliary Tract Cancer","A Prospective, Real-World Study of Alternating Hepatic Arterial Infusion Chemotherapy and Systemic Chemotherapy With or Without Adebrelimab and Apatinib in Patients With Unresectable Biliary Tract Cancer","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n1. Age ≥ 18 years at the time of enrollment.\n2. Histologically or cytologically confirmed diagnosis unresectable, locally advanced, or metastatic BTC, including intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, and gallbladder cancer.\n3. No prior systemic therapy for BTC, including chemotherapy, immunotherapy, or small-molecule targeted therapy.\n4. Patients with disease recurrence ≥6 months after curative resection and completion of adjuvant therapy (chemotherapy or radiotherapy) are eligible.\n5. Adequate liver function: defined as Child-Pugh Class A (score 5-6) or well-compensated Class B (score ≤7).\n6. Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1.\n7. At least one measurable lesion as defined by RECIST 1.1.\n8. Assessed by the investigator as being able to tolerate and comply with the study treatment regimen.\n9. Provision of written informed consent, voluntarily agreeing to participate after full explanation of the study protocol.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n1. Hepatic tumor burden occupying ≥50% of total liver volume.\n2. History of liver transplantation.\n3. Major surgery or invasive procedure (excluding intravenous catheter placement or percutaneous drainage) within 4 weeks prior to enrollment.\n4. History or evidence of clinically significant bleeding, including: bleeding \\>30 mL within 3 months prior to enrollment (including hematemesis, melena, or hematochezia), hemoptysis (\\>5 mL of fresh blood) within 4 weeks prior to enrollment, or thromboembolic events (including stroke or transient ischemic attack) within the past 12 months.\n5. Known active infection with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV).\n6. Pregnant (a positive pregnancy test prior to study drug administration) or breastfeeding women.\n7. Any condition, in the investigator's judgment, that could compromise patient satety, affect the assessment of study outcomes, or lead to premature discontinuation. this includes, but is not limited to: active alcohol or substance abuse, severe uncontrolled comorbidities, significant laboratory abnormalities, or social\u002Ffamily circumstances that could interfere with protocol compliance.",{"count":162,"type":21},124,[164],"PHASE2","This prospective real-world study aims to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of an alternating treatment regimen combining hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy (HAIC) with systemic chemotherapy, with or without adebrelimab and apatinib, in patients with unresectable biliary tract cancer receiving first-line treatment. The study comprises two cohorts: one receiving alternating HAIC and systemic chemotherapy alongside adebrelimab and apatinib, and the other receiving alternating HAIC and systemic chemotherapy alone. Treatment allocation follows real-world clinical decision-making. Patients will be monitored throughout the treatment period to assess tumor response, survival outcomes, and safety profiles. The study aims to generate evidence on the clinical benefits of integrating immunotherapy and targeted therapy into HAIC-based regimens for this patient population.",[167],"Biliary Tract Cancer",[167,169,170,171,172],"First-Line Treatment","HAIC","Adebrelimab","Apatinib","2026-04-29",{"date":175,"type":39},"2026-05-06",{"date":177,"type":39},"2025-12-10",{"date":179,"type":21},"2028-12-30",{"name":45,"class":46},{"id":182,"slug":183,"hasResults":11,"nctId":184,"briefTitle":185,"officialTitle":186,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":187,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":16,"minAge":188,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":189,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":86,"phases":4,"briefSummary":191,"conditions":192,"keywords":195,"overallStatus":66,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":199,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":200,"startDateStruct":201,"completionDateStruct":203,"leadSponsor":205,"locationsCount":206},"100636664","factors-for-prolonged-hospital-stays-in-patients-undergoing-ercp-100636664","NCT07568626","Factors for Prolonged Hospital Stays in Patients Undergoing ERCP","Factors Associated With Prolonged Hospital Stay in Elderly Patients Undergoing Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography: A Prospective, Multicenter Cohort Study","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n1. Patient age ≥ 65 years\n2. Scheduled to undergo ERCP procedure\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n1. Severe cognitive dysfunction\n2. Severe hearing impairment\n3. Known or suspected gastrointestinal perforation\n4. Hemodynamic instability\n5. Pregnant or lactating women\n6. Unable to sign the informed consent form","65 Years",{"count":190,"type":21},504,"Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is a crucial minimally invasive technique for the diagnosis and treatment of biliary and pancreatic diseases. However, it remains technically demanding and carries a postoperative adverse event (AE) rate exceeding 10% (e.g., pancreatitis, bleeding, and perforation), which subsequently leads to prolonged length of stay (LOS) and increased healthcare costs. With the rapid acceleration of population aging, the clinical demand for ERCP among the elderly has surged. Although ERCP is generally considered safe for older adults, advanced age also increases the risk of ERCP-related AEs and prolonged LOS. While previous studies investigated the outcomes of ERCP in elderly patients, those studies were predominantly retrospective, accompanied by selection bias. Moreover, insufficient factors were included in those retrospective studies. Importantly, some aging-related parameters, such as frailty, functional reserve, cognitive and psychological status, were not included in previous studies. Therefore, we conducted a prospective, multicenter cohort study aimed at investigating outcomes in elderly patients undergoing ERCP and comprehensive factors (patient-related, procedure-related, and geriatric factors) associated with adverse outcomes.",[193,194],"Post-ERCP Adverse Events","ERCP Complications",[196,197,198,61],"Elderly","Length of Stay","Adverse Events","2026-04-28",{"date":175,"type":39},{"date":202,"type":39},"2026-02-15",{"date":204,"type":21},"2027-01-01",{"name":45,"class":46},2,{"id":208,"slug":209,"hasResults":11,"nctId":210,"briefTitle":211,"officialTitle":212,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":213,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":16,"minAge":17,"maxAge":188,"enrollmentInfo":214,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":22,"phases":215,"briefSummary":217,"conditions":218,"keywords":4,"overallStatus":35,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":222,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":223,"startDateStruct":225,"completionDateStruct":227,"leadSponsor":228,"locationsCount":47},"100634088","early-phase-1-efficacy-and-safety-of-cd19-car--t-cells-in-the-treatment-of-relapsedrefractory-autoimmune-nephropathy-100634088","NCT07535138","Efficacy and Safety of CD19 CAR-γδ T Cells in the Treatment of Relapsed\u002FRefractory Autoimmune Nephropathy","A Clinical Study on the Safety and Efficacy of CD19-Targeted Universal CAR-γδ T Cells in Relapsed\u002FRefractory Autoimmune Nephropathy","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Common Inclusion Criteria:\n\n  1. Age ≥18 years and ≤65 years;\n  2. Agree to participate in this study and sign the informed consent form;\n  3. Major organ function must meet the following criteria (exceptions are allowed for abnormalities associated with active autoimmune diseases):\n\n     1. Liver function: ALT, AST or ALP level ≤3 × ULN (upper limit of normal), bilirubin ≤2 × ULN;\n     2. Renal function: eGFR ≥30 mL\u002Fmin\u002F1.73m²;\n     3. Pulmonary function: blood oxygen saturation (without oxygen inhalation) ≥92%;\n     4. Cardiac function: hemodynamically stable, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≥55%;\n     5. Peripheral blood function: neutrophil count ≥1×10\\^9\u002FL, hemoglobin ≥60 g\u002FL, platelets ≥30×10\\^9\u002FL;\n  4. Subjects of childbearing potential (including males and females) must agree to use medically acceptable effective contraceptive measures during the study period and for at least 1 year after CAR-T cell infusion.\n* Primary Membranous Nephropathy:\n\n  1. Diagnosed with primary membranous nephropathy (PMN) by renal biopsy within 18 months before screening;\n  2. Meet the current clinical criteria for refractory PMN: after 6 months of systemic treatment with immunosuppressive regimens recommended by the KDIGO guidelines (including steroids, cyclophosphamide, calcineurin inhibitors, anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies, etc.), persistent 24-hour urinary protein ≥3.5g and not reduced to less than 50% of the baseline level;\n  3. Relapsed PMN: after achieving complete or partial remission with the above immunosuppressive regimens, 24-hour urinary protein re-elevated to ≥ 3.5g.\n* Lupus Nephritis:\n\n  1. Diagnosed with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) before screening, in accordance with the 2019 EULAR\u002FACR classification criteria for systemic lupus erythematosus;\n  2. Diagnosed with lupus nephritis (LN) by renal biopsy within 18 months before screening, with pathological classification consistent with ISN\u002FRPS lupus nephritis class III\u002FIV (with or without class V);\n  3. SLEDAI-2000 score ≥6 at screening with at least 1 A grade or at least 2 B grades in the BILAG 2004 index; or SLEDAI-2000 score ≥8 at screening;\n  4. Meet the current clinical criteria for refractory LN: after standardized full-dose and full-course high-dose glucocorticoid plus hydroxychloroquine therapy combined with at least 2 immunosuppressive agents of different mechanisms (cyclophosphamide, mycophenolate mofetil, calcineurin inhibitors, etc.), or 1 immunosuppressive agent plus 1 biologic agent (belimumab, anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody, telitacicept, etc.), meet either of the following: ① After 3 months of standardized treatment, 24-hour urinary protein ≥1.5g and not reduced to less than 50% of baseline; ② After 6 months of standardized treatment, prednisone (or equivalent) cannot be tapered to 5 mg\u002Fday;\n  5. Relapsed LN: after achieving complete or partial remission with induction remission therapy, disease activity re-increased during maintenance therapy, requiring re-adjustment of the treatment regimen (including increasing glucocorticoid dose or re-initiating induction remission therapy).\n* IgA Nephropathy:\n\n  1. Diagnosed with IgA nephropathy by renal biopsy within 18 months before screening;\n  2. Meet the current clinical criteria for refractory IgA nephropathy: on the basis of standardized ACEI\u002FARB treatment, after 6 months of systemic immunosuppressive therapy recommended by the KDIGO guidelines (steroids, immunosuppressants, biologics), 24-hour urinary protein ≥0.5g and not reduced to less than 50% of baseline, or eGFR decreased by more than 50% within 3 months;\n  3. Two consecutive 24-hour urinary protein measurements \\> 0.5g with an interval of ≥ 2 weeks after achieving clinical remission with the above immunosuppressive therapy.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n1. Subjects with life-threatening conditions (e.g., catastrophic antiphospholipid syndrome, acute severe renal failure) assessed by the investigator as unsuitable for enrollment in this study;\n2. History of alcohol or drug abuse within 24 weeks prior to screening;\n3. History of malignant tumors other than B-cell lymphoma, except for the following: malignancies confirmed to be cured or in remission for ≥5 years, radically resected basal cell carcinoma or squamous cell carcinoma of the skin, and carcinoma in situ at any site;\n4. Major surgery (including joint surgery) within 24 weeks prior to screening, or planned surgery within 24 weeks after enrollment;\n5. Complicated with overlapping mixed connective tissue disease, or other diseases that affect the assessment of disease activity;\n6. Active hepatitis B or hepatitis C virus infection, defined as: subjects positive for hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) and\u002For hepatitis B core antibody (HBcAb) with peripheral blood high-sensitivity HBV DNA quantification above the lower limit of detection; subjects with peripheral blood high-sensitivity HBV DNA quantification below the lower limit of detection may be enrolled only if the investigator provides appropriate prophylactic antiviral therapy; individuals positive for hepatitis C virus (HCV) antibody with positive peripheral blood high-sensitivity HCV RNA quantification;\n7. Coinfection with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), human T-cell leukemia virus (HTLV), Treponema pallidum, cytomegalovirus (CMV), or complicated with selective IgA deficiency;\n8. Uncontrolled active infection (e.g., active pulmonary tuberculosis, etc., excluding simple urinary tract infection and bacterial pharyngitis); prophylactic administration of antibiotics, antiviral or antifungal agents is permitted;\n9. Clinical signs of herpes or varicella-zoster virus infection (especially varicella, herpes zoster) within 12 weeks prior to screening;\n10. History of major cardiovascular diseases within 6 months prior to screening, including NYHA class III or IV heart failure, myocardial infarction, angioplasty or stenting, unstable angina, uncontrolled or symptomatic atrial arrhythmia, any ventricular arrhythmia, or other clinically significant cardiac diseases;\n11. History of symptomatic deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism within 6 months prior to screening;\n12. Central nervous system disorders caused by autoimmune or non-autoimmune diseases (including epilepsy, psychiatric disorders, organic brain syndrome, cerebrovascular accident, encephalitis, central nervous system vasculitis);\n13. Pregnant or lactating women;\n14. Hypersensitivity to any component of the CAR-γδ T cell product (including fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, tocilizumab);\n15. Administration of live vaccines within 6 weeks prior to the start of conditioning therapy;\n16. Participation in other clinical trials within 3 months prior to screening;\n17. Any other conditions deemed by the investigator to render the subject ineligible for enrollment in this clinical trial.",{"count":20,"type":21},[216],"EARLY_PHASE1","This study is a single-arm, single-center, open-label, dose-escalation exploratory clinical study designed to evaluate the safety, tolerability, and preliminary efficacy of CD19 CAR-γδ T cells. The subjects enrolled in this study are patients with relapsed\u002Frefractory autoimmune nephropathy, including lupus nephritis, IgA nephropathy, and membranous nephropathy. This study adopts a standard \"3+3\" design to assess the recommended dose (RD) and identify dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs). The treatment process is as follows: subjects who meet the inclusion criteria will receive lymphodepletion conditioning, followed by a single intravenous infusion of CD19 CAR-γδ T cells. The primary objective of this study is to evaluate the safety profile of this cellular therapy, including the incidence of DLTs, maximum tolerated dose (MTD) or RD, as well as the incidence and severity of treatment-related adverse events and clinically significant abnormal laboratory test results after CAR-γδ T cell infusion (including the incidence of cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS)). The planned follow-up duration of this study is 1 years.",[219,220,221],"Membranous Nephropathy","Lupus Nephritis (LN)","IgA Nephropathy (IgAN)","2026-04-09",{"date":224,"type":39},"2026-04-16",{"date":226,"type":21},"2026-05-01",{"date":179,"type":21},{"name":45,"class":46},{"id":230,"slug":231,"hasResults":11,"nctId":232,"briefTitle":233,"officialTitle":234,"acronym":235,"eligibilityCriteria":236,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":16,"minAge":237,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":238,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":22,"phases":240,"briefSummary":241,"conditions":242,"keywords":4,"overallStatus":66,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":247,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":248,"startDateStruct":250,"completionDateStruct":252,"leadSponsor":253,"locationsCount":47},"100621032","frequency-of-electrical-acupoint-stimulation-on-hypotension-in-tavr-patients-100621032","NCT07365345","Frequency of Electrical Acupoint Stimulation on Hypotension in TAVR Patients","The Influence of Electrical Acupoint Stimulation at Different Frequencies on Hemodynamics During Anesthesia Induction in Patients Undergoing TAVR Surgery","FRESH-T","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* The age of the patients is 60 years or older;\n* Patients who are scheduled to undergo TAVR surgery under general anesthesia;\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Body mass index less than 18 kg\u002Fm2 or greater than 30 kg\u002Fm2;\n* Hemodynamic instability (severe arrhythmia, decompensated heart failure);\n* Hypotension after admission requiring intervention with vasoactive drugs;\n* Severe liver or kidney dysfunction;\n* Those who are contraindicated for electrical stimulation, including those with local skin damage, infection, or having implanted electrophysiological devices in the body.","60 Years",{"count":239,"type":21},150,[24],"Within 30 minutes before anesthesia, acupoint electrical stimulation at different frequencies were applied at Neiguan, Jian Shi, and Baihui. The changes in blood pressure during the anesthesia induction period were compared between the high-frequency group and the low-frequency group.",[243,244,245,246],"Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR)","Hemodynamic Stability","Anesthesia Induction","Electro-acupuncture","2026-03-22",{"date":249,"type":39},"2026-03-25",{"date":251,"type":39},"2026-01-30",{"date":73,"type":21},{"name":45,"class":46},{"id":255,"slug":256,"hasResults":11,"nctId":257,"briefTitle":258,"officialTitle":259,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":260,"healthyVolunteers":261,"sex":16,"minAge":17,"maxAge":18,"enrollmentInfo":262,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":22,"phases":264,"briefSummary":266,"conditions":267,"keywords":271,"overallStatus":35,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":273,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":274,"startDateStruct":276,"completionDateStruct":278,"leadSponsor":279,"locationsCount":47},"100627882","phase-1-evaluation-of-the-outcome-of-fecal-microbiota-transplantation-100627882","NCT07454408","Evaluation of the Outcome of Fecal Microbiota Transplantation","A Clinical Randomized Controlled Study on the Prevention and Treatment of Drug-refractory Hepatic Encephalopathy After TIPS With Fecal Microbiota Transplantation","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Aged between 18 and 75 years old\n* Patients who have experienced esophageal-gastric variceal bleeding or recurrent refractory ascites and meet the inclusion criteria, and for whom conservative treatment has failed, are planned to undergo elective TIPS surgery\n* Patients with recurrent hepatic encephalopathy (HE) after transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS), despite treatment with lactulose and rifaximin (at least 2 episodes of West Haven grade ≥2 HE within 6 months under lactulose and rifaximin intervention)\n* Provided written informed consent from the patient\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Malignant tumors of the liver, gastrointestinal tract or other systems\n* Uncontrolled severe active infection (\\>grade 2) or sepsis\n* Spontaneous bacterial peritonitis\n* Complicated with severe cardiac, renal or pulmonary insufficiency\n* Other neuropsychiatric diseases, including dementia\n* Budd-Chiari syndrome\n* Alcohol dependence or use of psychotropic drugs (benzodiazepines, opioids, etc.)\n* History of gastrointestinal surgery (e.g., colectomy) within 3 months before enrollment\n* Pregnant or lactating subjects\n* Poor compliance judged by the investigator\n* Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score \\>17\n* Tumor, immunodeficiency, or receiving immunosuppressive therapy within 3 months before enrollment\n* Patients who have used other prebiotics, probiotics or fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) before enrollment",true,{"count":263,"type":21},40,[265,164],"PHASE1","This study is a randomized, placebo-controlled, exploratory phase II clinical trial led by Professor Han Gyeong-ho from the Digestive Disease Hospital of Xi'an International Medical Center. The study enrolled 40 patients who had experienced recurrence of hepatic encephalopathy despite treatment with rifaximin and lactulose. These patients were randomly divided 1:1 into the experimental group and the control group. After obtaining informed consent from the patients, fecal microbiota transplantation or placebo control was performed. The fecal microbiota was sourced from the feces of healthy individuals who had a rich composition of the Muribaculaceae, Ruminococcaceae, and Bifidobacteriaceae families and did not contain pathogenic bacteria. The safety and efficacy of the treatment were followed up, and blood and fecal samples were collected for sequencing analysis. The aim was to provide new solutions for patients with hepatic encephalopathy who did not respond to the treatment with rifaximin and lactulose after TIPS surgery; and to explore the impact of microbiota changes and translocation on the recurrence of hepatic encephalopathy after TIPS surgery.",[268,269,270],"Hepatic Encephalopathy","Fecal Microbiota Transplantation","TIPS",[268,269,270,272],"FMT","2026-03-05",{"date":275,"type":39},"2026-03-06",{"date":277,"type":21},"2026-03-07",{"date":43,"type":21},{"name":45,"class":46},{"id":281,"slug":282,"hasResults":11,"nctId":283,"briefTitle":284,"officialTitle":285,"acronym":286,"eligibilityCriteria":287,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":16,"minAge":17,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":288,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":22,"phases":290,"briefSummary":291,"conditions":292,"keywords":4,"overallStatus":35,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":294,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":295,"startDateStruct":297,"completionDateStruct":299,"leadSponsor":300,"locationsCount":4},"100618287","crystalloid-vs-colloid-for-hemodynamics-during-anesthesia-induction-in-tavr-patients-100618287","NCT07329660","Crystalloid vs Colloid for Hemodynamics During Anesthesia Induction in TAVR Patients","The Impact of Different Preload Strategies on Hemodynamics During Anesthesia Induction in TAVR Patients","CHAIN-T","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Age ≥ 18 years;\n* Patients scheduled to undergo elective TAVR under general anesthesia;\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Allergy to hydroxyethyl starch, its components, and\u002For sodium lactate Ringer's solution, or a history of colloidal allergy;\n* Severe cardiac dysfunction (ejection fraction\\[EF\\] \\\u003C 35%);\n* Severe renal dysfunction (creatinine \\> 132 μg\u002FL and\u002For requiring renal replacement therapy);\n* Morbid obesity (body mass index\\[BMI\\] \\> 37.5 kg\u002Fm² or \\> 32.5 kg\u002Fm² with metabolic diseases);\n* Severe hepatic dysfunction ;\n* Severe electrolyte disturbances ;\n* Patients with preoperative intracranial hypertension requiring dehydration therapy;\n* Expected postoperative hospital stay \\\u003C 24 hours;\n* Patients scheduled for multiple surgeries during this hospitalization.",{"count":289,"type":21},116,[24],"The purpose of this study is to evaluate whether the administration of 5 ml\u002Fkg of colloid solution prior to anesthesia induction, compared with 5 ml\u002Fkg of lactated Ringer's solution, can reduce hemodynamic fluctuations during the induction period (defined as the first 15 minutes after induction) in patients undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR).",[293,244,245],"Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement","2026-02-25",{"date":296,"type":39},"2026-02-27",{"date":298,"type":21},"2026-02-16",{"date":73,"type":21},{"name":45,"class":46},{"id":302,"slug":303,"hasResults":11,"nctId":304,"briefTitle":305,"officialTitle":306,"acronym":307,"eligibilityCriteria":308,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":16,"minAge":17,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":309,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":22,"phases":310,"briefSummary":311,"conditions":312,"keywords":314,"overallStatus":35,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":319,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":320,"startDateStruct":322,"completionDateStruct":324,"leadSponsor":326,"locationsCount":4},"100618963","electrical-acupoint-stimulation-on-gastric-reflux-during-i-gel-ventilation-100618963","NCT07338448","Electrical Acupoint Stimulation on Gastric Reflux During I-gel Ventilation","The Effect of Electrical Acupoint Stimulation on Gastric Reflux During Anesthesia With I-gel Ventilation","ASGARD-igel","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* age ≥18 years old\n* scheduled for surgery under general anesthesia with igel ventilation\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* American society of anesthesiologists status higher than grade 3\n* history of gastrointestinal surgery\n* Currently taking acidic medications, or medications that affect gastric acid secretion or gastrointestinal motility\n* High risk of reflux or aspiration (e.g., symptomatic gastroesophageal reflux disease or hiatal hernia)\n* History of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV)\n* Intraoperative requirement of Trendelenburg position\n* Expected surgery duration exceeding 4 hours\n* Contraindications for acupoint electrical stimulation, such as patients with implanted electrophysiological devices, or skin infection\u002Flesions at acupoint sites",{"count":289,"type":21},[24],"This study will compare the effects of transcutaneous acupoint electrical stimulation versus no stimulation on intraoperative gastric reflux in patients undergoing general anesthesia with i-gel airway device ventilation.",[313],"Anesthesia",[315,316,317,318],"acupoint stimulation","general anesthesia","gastric reflux","igel","2026-01-03",{"date":321,"type":39},"2026-01-13",{"date":323,"type":21},"2026-01-12",{"date":325,"type":21},"2026-07-31",{"name":45,"class":46},{"id":328,"slug":329,"hasResults":11,"nctId":330,"briefTitle":331,"officialTitle":332,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":333,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":16,"minAge":17,"maxAge":18,"enrollmentInfo":334,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":22,"phases":336,"briefSummary":337,"conditions":338,"keywords":339,"overallStatus":66,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":342,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":343,"startDateStruct":345,"completionDateStruct":347,"leadSponsor":349,"locationsCount":47},"100616800","efficacy-and-safety-of-variceal-embolization-combined-with-partial-splenic-artery-embolization-for-variceal-bleeding-in-cavernous-transformation-of-portal-vein-100616800","NCT07310316","Efficacy and Safety of Variceal Embolization Combined With Partial Splenic Artery Embolization for Variceal Bleeding in Cavernous Transformation of Portal Vein.","A Retrospective Cohort Study : Efficacy and Safety of Variceal Embolization Combined With Partial Splenic Artery Embolization in the Treatment of Variceal Bleeding in Cavernous Transformation of Portal Vein.","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n1. Age 18-75 years;\n2. Diagnosis of cavernous transformation of the portal vein (CTPV) confirmed by at least one imaging modality (ultrasonography, CT, or MRI);\n3. Portal vein thrombosis (PVT) extending to the splenic vein (SV) and superior mesenteric vein (SMV);\n4. History of portal hypertension complicated by variceal bleeding, with recurrent bleeding despite pharmacological and endoscopic therapies;\n5. Treated with combined variceal embolization and partial splenic artery embolization;\n6. Availability of at least one postoperative follow-up examination with documented clinical data and survival status.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n1. Concomitant malignant tumor;\n2. Active infection",{"count":335,"type":21},26,[24],"The management of variceal bleeding in patients with cavernous transformation of portal vein (CTPV) generally adheres to the principles applied to cirrhotic portal hypertension, including pharmacological therapy, endoscopic intervention, transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS), and surgery. However, the distinct hemodynamic profile caused by portal vein occlusion in CTPV introduces specific therapeutic challenges: 1. Conventional pharmacological and endoscopic treatments often yield suboptimal outcomes. 2. Splenectomy with periesophagogastric devascularization is associated with significant complication rates and elevated perioperative mortality. 3. The feasibility of TIPS depends on sufficient portal venous inflow to ensure stent patency, while also carrying a risk of hepatic encephalopathy. Based on these considerations, the investigators hypothesize that for patients with extensive portal thrombosis and inadequate portal inflow who are ineligible for TIPS, a combination of variceal embolization and partial splenic artery embolization may reduce portal pressure and decrease the risk of esophagogastric variceal bleeding. To evaluate this hypothesis, a retrospective cohort study has been designed.",[28,29],[28,32,340,341],"Variceal Embolization","Partial Splenic Artery Embolization","2025-12-16",{"date":344,"type":39},"2025-12-30",{"date":346,"type":21},"2026-01-01",{"date":348,"type":21},"2026-09-30",{"name":45,"class":46},{"id":351,"slug":352,"hasResults":11,"nctId":353,"briefTitle":354,"officialTitle":355,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":356,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":16,"minAge":17,"maxAge":55,"enrollmentInfo":357,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":22,"phases":359,"briefSummary":360,"conditions":361,"keywords":4,"overallStatus":66,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":365,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":366,"startDateStruct":368,"completionDateStruct":370,"leadSponsor":372,"locationsCount":20},"100601962","rectal-nsaids-withwithout-pd-stent-for-pep-prevention-100601962","NCT07117318","Rectal NSAIDs With\u002FWithout PD Stent for PEP Prevention","Rectal Non-steroid Anti-inflammatory Drugs With or Without Prophylactic Pancreatic Duct Stent for Prevention of Post-ERCP Pancreatitis: a Multicenter, Randomized, Non-inferiority Trial","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* 18-90 years old patients with native papilla who planned to undergo ERCP\n* high-risk patients for post-ERCP pancreatitis must meet one or more following criteria: clinical suspicion of sphincter of Oddi dysfunction, a history of PEP, pancreatic sphincterotomy, precut sphincterotomy, difficult cannulation (\\>5 cannulation attempts, or \\>5mins cannulation time, or \\>1 unintentional pancreatic duct cannulation), or ballon dilatation of an intact biliary sphincter ≤ 1 min, double-wire cannulation. Additionally, patients were considered high-risk if they fulfilled two or more of the following minor criteria: female gender under 50 years old, a history of recurrent pancreatitis (two or more episodes), three or more contrast injections into the pancreatic duct with at least one injection reaching the tail of the pancreas, opacification of pancreatic acini, or brush cytology performed on the pancreatic duct.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Previous biliary sphincterotomy and papillary large balloon dilation\n* Planned for placements of pancreatic duct stents (eg. pancreatic duct strictures, planned ampullectomy)\n* Allergy to NSAIDs\n* The administration of NSAIDs within 7 days\n* Not suitable for NSAIDs administration (gastrointestinal hemorrhage within 4 weeks, renal dysfunction \\[Cr \\>1.4mg\u002Fdl=120umol\u002Fl\\]; presence of coagulopathy before the procedure)\n* Acute pancreatitis within 7 days before ERCP or acute pancreatitis with obvious Pancreatic edema and peripancreatic fluid collections\n* Hemodynamical instability\n* Pregnancy or lactation\n* high-risk patients with pancreatic duct wire passages",{"count":358,"type":21},1278,[24],"Pancreatitis is the most common and serious complication following post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and is associated with occasional mortality, extended hospital stays, and increased healthcare expenses. Rectal non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and pancreatic duct stent (PDS) placement were demonstrated to be effective strategyies to reduce PEP incidences, particlularly in high-risk patients for post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP).\n\nRectal NSAIDs were easy-to-use and safe, while PDS placement were technically complex and carried higher risks of adverse events. A previous network meta-analysis suggested rectal NSAIDs in combination with PDS placement did not differ from rectal NSAIDs alone in PEP prevention. To invesigate if rectal NSAIDs alone could obivate the need of PDS placement, a recent trial from Elmunzer et al. conducted a randomized trial to investigate if rectal NSAIDs alone was non-inferior to the combination of NSAIDs with PDS in high-risk patients. The trial found that the PEP incidence rate in combination group was significantly lower than that in NSAIDs alone group. However, post-hoc analysis of the study suggested that the combination strategy conferred significant benefits only in high-risk patients with pancreatic duct (PD) wire passage, but not in those with other risk factors. Therefore, we hypothesized that rectal NSAIDs alone may obivate the need of PDS in high-risk patients without PD wire passages. Here, we conducted a multicenter, randomized and non-inferiority trial to investigate whether rectal NSAIDs alone is non-inferior to NSAIDs plus PDS placement in high-risk patients without PD wire passages.",[362,363,364],"Post-ERCP Acute Pancreatitis","Non-steroid Anti-inflammatory Drugs","Pancreatic Duct Stent Placement","2025-12-01",{"date":367,"type":39},"2025-12-03",{"date":369,"type":39},"2025-07-01",{"date":371,"type":21},"2028-06-01",{"name":45,"class":46},{"id":374,"slug":375,"hasResults":11,"nctId":376,"briefTitle":377,"officialTitle":378,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":379,"healthyVolunteers":261,"sex":16,"minAge":17,"maxAge":380,"enrollmentInfo":381,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":86,"phases":4,"briefSummary":383,"conditions":384,"keywords":4,"overallStatus":66,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":387,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":388,"startDateStruct":390,"completionDateStruct":392,"leadSponsor":394,"locationsCount":47},"100525184","establishment-and-validation-of-a-clinical-predictive-model-for-gastrointestinal-cancer-screening-based-on-patient-related-risk-factors-100525184","NCT06118437","Establishment and Validation of a Clinical Predictive Model for Gastrointestinal Cancer Screening Based on Patient-related Risk Factors","Establishment and Validation of a Clinical Predictive Model for Gastrointestinal Cancer Screening Based on Patient-related Risk Factors: a Prospective, Multicenter Cross-sectional Study","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Individuals aged 18-80;\n* Undergoing both gastroscopy and colonoscopy simultaneously.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* History of esophageal, gastric, or colorectal cancer;\n* Suspicions of gastrointestinal obstruction or perforation;\n* History of gastrointestinal tract surgery;\n* Not suitable for endoscopic examination due to serious diseases or unstable hemodynamics;\n* Unavailable relevant information;\n* Pregnancy or lactation period;\n* Unavailable informed consent form.","80 Years",{"count":382,"type":21},1550,"Gastrointestinal tumors (esophageal cancer, gastric cancer, colorectal cancer) seriously threaten human health, with a high incidence rate and cancer related hope mortality. Digestive endoscopy is the main method for screening gastrointestinal tumors. Early screening of gastrointestinal tumors can improve the detection of early cancer and improve prognosis. The five-year survival rate of early stage tumors after comprehensive treatment can reach 90%, while the five-year survival rate of late stage tumors is less than 30%. Therefore, the screening of gastrointestinal tumors is very important.\n\nStudies have shown that there are similarities in risk factors for gastrointestinal tumors, such as age, gender, family history, smoking, alcohol consumption, etc. Currently, established digestive malignancies are targeted at a single malignant tumor. At present, there is a lack of understanding of the overall risk factors associated with gastrointestinal tumors and the establishment of relevant risk prediction models.\n\nTherefore, we conducted a prospective, multicenter cross-sectional study to explore the independent risk factors of combined gastrointestinal tumors and establish a risk prediction model for combined screening of gastrointestinal tumors.",[385,386],"Malignant Tumor of Digestive Tract","Risk Factors","2025-07-23",{"date":389,"type":39},"2025-07-24",{"date":391,"type":39},"2023-07-15",{"date":393,"type":21},"2025-07",{"name":45,"class":46},{"id":396,"slug":397,"hasResults":11,"nctId":398,"briefTitle":399,"officialTitle":400,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":401,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":16,"minAge":17,"maxAge":380,"enrollmentInfo":402,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":22,"phases":404,"briefSummary":405,"conditions":406,"keywords":4,"overallStatus":66,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":410,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":411,"startDateStruct":412,"completionDateStruct":414,"leadSponsor":416,"locationsCount":417},"100574196","effects-of-cognitive-behavioral-therapy-through-a-mobile-app-on-patients-with-refractory-functional-dyspepsia-100574196","NCT06756139","Effects of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Through a Mobile App on Patients With Refractory Functional Dyspepsia","Effects of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Through a Mobile App on Patients With Refractory Functional Dyspepsia: a Multicenter, Single-blinded, Randomized Controlled Trial","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n1. Age 18-80\n2. Refractory functional dyspepsia (patients with Rome IV functional dyspepsia remained symptomatic after treatment of 8 weeks of proton pump inhibitor and 4 weeks of prokinetics)\n3. Negative or unrelated-to-FD symptom findings of gastroscopy, upper abdominal ultrasound, Hp test and routine blood tests within the past 1 year.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n1. Severe mental illness (PHQ-9 ≥20 or GAD-7 ≥15) or suicidal ideation;\n2. Known hp infection, active gastrointestinal peptic ulcer, cholecystitis, gallstones, suspected or known bowel obstruction, gastroparesis, major gastrointestinal surgery etc.;\n3. Known or suspected malignant tumor, significant heart\u002Fbrain\u002Fliver\u002Fkidney diseases, obvious hematologic abnormalities or endocrine diseases etc., which may be -related to FD symptoms;\n4. Known or suspected drug-related FD (e.g.NSAIDs-related FD);\n5. Unable to access to mobile networks or unable to manage mobile APP properly.\n6. Allergy or other contradictions to flupenthixol or melitracen\n7. Taking any antipsychotics drugs or CBT interference within 12 weeks\n8. Pregnant or lactating women;\n9. Unable to provide informed consent.",{"count":403,"type":21},88,[24],"Functional dyspepsia (FD) is a common gastrointestinal disease, which is associated with decreased life quality and increased medical cost. Antipsychotic drugs were demonstrated to be effective in relieving symptoms in FD patients, especially for patients with refractory FD. However, the use of those drugs was associated with obvious adverse events. Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) has extensive applications and exhibited potential treatment effects in clinical practices, especially for treating anxiety, depression, pain or stress disorders. Several previous RCT studies have confirmed the effects of psychological intervention on improving dyspepsia in FD patients. Our hypothesis was that 8-week smartphone-based CBT would be non-inferior to conventional pharmacotherapy in reducing FD-related symptoms in patients with refactory FD.",[407,408,409],"Functional Dyspepsia","Self-help Mobile Cognitive Behavioral Therapy","Antipsychotic Drug","2025-06-27",{"date":369,"type":39},{"date":413,"type":39},"2024-11-01",{"date":415,"type":21},"2025-11-01",{"name":45,"class":46},7,{"id":419,"slug":420,"hasResults":11,"nctId":421,"briefTitle":422,"officialTitle":423,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":424,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":16,"minAge":425,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":426,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":22,"phases":428,"briefSummary":429,"conditions":430,"keywords":4,"overallStatus":66,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":434,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":435,"startDateStruct":437,"completionDateStruct":439,"leadSponsor":441,"locationsCount":47},"100571613","celecoxib-for-prevention-of-progression-in-peutz-jeghers-syndrome-100571613","NCT06722534","Celecoxib for Prevention of Progression in Peutz-Jeghers Syndrome","Celecoxib for Prevention of Progression in Peutz-Jeghers Syndrome: A Double-blind, Randomized, Placebo-controlled Trial","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n\\- Patients with PJS ≥ 8 years of age\n\nDiagnostic criteria for PJS: meeting any of the following criteria or presence of an STK11 gene variant:\n\n1. Two or more histologically confirmed PJS hamartomatous polyps;\n2. Any number of PJS polyps detected in an individual with a family history of PJS in close relative(s);\n3. Characteristic mucocutaneous pigmentation in an individual with a family history of PJS in close relative(s);\n4. Any number of PJS polyps in an individual with characteristic mucocutaneous pigmentation.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n1. Allergy to NSAIDs;\n2. Long-term use of any dose of NSAIDs, including aspirin or celecoxib, within 6 months prior to enrollment (willing to undergo a 3-month washout period to restore eligibility);\n3. Imaging indicate small intestinal polyps ≥ 3 cm in diameter, intestinal intussusception, intestinal obstruction or intestinal tumor at the time of enrollment;\n4. Surgical treatment for small intestinal polyps within 2 years prior to enrollment;\n5. Anticipated small bowel resection due to severe polyps within 6 months of enrollment;\n6. Receiving other medications for gastrointestinal polyps;\n7. Peptic ulcer within 3 months prior to enrollment;\n8. Unstable cardiorespiratory condition;\n9. Serious renal, hepatic or haematological dysfunction (creatinine \\>1.5 × ULN; ALT \\>1.5 × ULN, AST \\>1.5 × ULN, ALP \\>1.5 × ULN, TBIL \\>2 × ULN; haemoglobin \\\u003C10 g\u002FdL, platelet count \\\u003C100,000\u002FmL, white blood cells \\\u003C3000\u002FmL) or other systemic diseases are unsuitable for participation in this study;\n10. Pregnancy or breastfeeding;\n11. Unwilling or unable to sign the informed consent form","8 Years",{"count":427,"type":21},80,[24],"The Peutz-Jeghers Syndrome (PJS) is a rare autosomal dominant syndrome characterized by mucocutaneous pigmentations, multiple gastrointestinal hamartomatous polyps, and an elevated risk of developing malignancies. Patients with PJS often experience recurrent gastrointestinal polyps that gradually increase in number and size, requiring repeated treatments. As the disease progresses, most patients are forced to undergo multiple surgical or endoscopic treatments. Small bowel polyps develop in 60-90% of patients with PJS, and intussusception occurs in 65% of these patients. Currently, on-demand surgery or scheduled endoscopic polypectomy is the standard of care for the management of small bowel polyps, and among patients who have undergone an initial surgery, reoperation is performed in up to 40% within 5 years. In addition, 8-40% of patients develop small bowel polyp-related complications even with multiple endoscopic treatments. However, surgery and endoscopic treatments are associated with complications, including short bowel syndrome, intestinal adhesions, bowel perforation and bleeding, and health-related quality of life. These problems often lead to decreased patient compliance and even treatment resistance, which increases the risk of disease progression. Because surgical and endoscopic treatment do not completely eliminate the potential for future polyps or extraintestinal neoplasms, there is an unmet medical need for the identification and use of pharmacologic agents to delay endoscopic or surgical interventions.\n\nCyclooxygenase (COX) is overexpressed in hamartomatous polyp tissue from PJS individuals, which may provide an avenue for possible effective chemoprevention of polyp formation and growth in PJS. Celecoxib, a COX-2 inhibitor, has been shown to reduce polyp burden by 54% in PJS model mice. In addition, the study evaluated the treatment effect of celecoxib on six patients with PJS, two of whom experienced a reduction in gastric polyp burden after six months. These findings provide preliminary evidence that celecoxib may delay the progression of PJS as a potential pharmacological prophylaxis.\n\nInvestigators plan to conduct a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of celecoxib, and they will use a time-to-event analysis with a composite efficacy end point to determine whether celecoxib can delay disease progression or reduce the need for important endoscopic or surgical procedures in patients with PJS.",[431,432,433],"Peutz-Jeghers Syndrome","Celecoxib","Small Bowel Polyp","2025-05-28",{"date":436,"type":39},"2025-05-30",{"date":438,"type":39},"2025-02-01",{"date":440,"type":21},"2029-01-01",{"name":45,"class":46},{"id":443,"slug":444,"hasResults":11,"nctId":445,"briefTitle":446,"officialTitle":446,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":447,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":16,"minAge":17,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":448,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":86,"phases":4,"briefSummary":449,"conditions":450,"keywords":452,"overallStatus":66,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":454,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":455,"startDateStruct":457,"completionDateStruct":459,"leadSponsor":461,"locationsCount":47},"100502544","the-clinical-course-and-factors-for-the-progression-of-uninvestigated-dyspepsia-to-functional-dyspepsia-100502544","NCT05823636","The Clinical Course and Factors for the Progression of Uninvestigated Dyspepsia to Functional Dyspepsia","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Patients aged ≥ 18 years old who had first-onset dyspepsia with one or more symptoms of epigastric pain, epigastric burning, postprandial fullness, early satiation and that has lasted for more than 1 month to 3 months.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n1. Patients with local or systemic diseases which may cause dyspeptic symptoms:\n\n   Known active peptic ulcer, cholecystitis, gallstone, gastrointestinal obstruction, gastroparesis, and etc.\n2. Known acute or chronic injury of liver or kidney\n3. Obvious hematological abnormality, or endocrine and metabolic diseases\n4. Known malignancy; Obvious cardiovascular or cerebrovascular diseases (such as coronary heart disease, arrhythmia, cerebral infarction and etc.\n5. Other conditions which may be associated with dyspeptic symptoms (such as NSAIDs associated dyspepsia)\n6. organ failure defined by Marshall standard or severe psychiatric illnesses\n7. pregnancy or lactation\n8. unable to provide consent",{"count":85,"type":21},"Dyspepsia is one of the most common gastrointestinal diseases. This disease was defined as predominant epigastric pain lasting for at least 1 month, which can be accompanied with other symptoms, such as epigastric fullness, and early satiety. Despite dyspepsia symptoms lasting for ≥1 month represented clinical problem, a longer duration of 6 months or more after first-onset symptom was required for the diagnosis of functional dyspepsia based on ROME IV criteria. It was unclear about the natural procession of first-onset dyspepsia to functional dyspepsia assessed by Rome IV or Asia criteria and possible factors associated with this progression.",[451],"Dyspepsia",[407,453],"uninvestigated dyspepsia","2024-09-24",{"date":456,"type":39},"2024-09-26",{"date":458,"type":39},"2023-01-01",{"date":460,"type":21},"2025-12-31",{"name":45,"class":46},{"id":463,"slug":464,"hasResults":11,"nctId":465,"briefTitle":466,"officialTitle":467,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":468,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":16,"minAge":17,"maxAge":380,"enrollmentInfo":469,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":22,"phases":471,"briefSummary":473,"conditions":474,"keywords":4,"overallStatus":35,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":476,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":477,"startDateStruct":479,"completionDateStruct":481,"leadSponsor":483,"locationsCount":4},"100547217","phase-3-efficacy-and-safety-of-tacrolimus-in-combination-with-ripertamab-in-the-initial-treatment-of-patients-with-mcd-100547217","NCT06405100","Efficacy and Safety of Tacrolimus in Combination With Ripertamab in the Initial Treatment of Patients With MCD","Efficacy and Safety of Tacrolimus in Combination With Anti-CD20 Monoclonal Antibody (Ripertamab) in the Initial Treatment of Patients With Minimal Change Disease: a Multi-center Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n1. Age 18-80 years old;\n2. Primary minimal change disease confirmed by renal biopsy (Initial therapy);\n3. 24h-UTP\\>3.5g\u002Fd or PCR\\>3500mg\u002Fg, and serum albumin\\\u003C30g\u002FL;\n4. Agree to participate in the project and sign the informed consent.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n1. Secondary minimal change disease;\n2. eGFR\\\u003C60 mL\u002Fmin\u002F1.73m2;\n3. Had history of mental disease, dysnoesia, serious cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases, pulmonary insufficiency, malignant tumors or other major diseases that are not suitable for clinical experiments;\n4. Active bleeding in the gastrointestinal tract;\n5. Prior treatment with corticosteroids or other immunosuppressants;\n6. HBV, HCV, HIV or other untreated infections, congenital or acquired immunodeficiency diseases;\n7. Have been vaccinated with live vaccine in the past four weeks;\n8. Serum bilirubin \\> 3.6mg\u002Fdl for at least 1 month or liver function ≥3 times the upper limit of normal value;\n9. Allergic to prednisolone, tacrolimus, or ripertamab;\n10. Reluctance to use contraception or plan pregnancy\u002Flactation within 6 months of study completion;\n11. Had history of alcohol\u002Fdrug abuse;\n12. Unable to give informed consent.",{"count":470,"type":21},81,[472],"PHASE3","To evaluate the safety and efficacy of ripertamab and its combination with tacrolimus in the initial treatment of MCD to provide a treatment regimen with higher remission rates, lower recurrence rates, and fewer side effects in patients with MCD.",[475],"Minimal Change Disease","2024-05-04",{"date":478,"type":39},"2024-05-08",{"date":480,"type":21},"2024-05",{"date":482,"type":21},"2027-04",{"name":45,"class":46},{"id":485,"slug":486,"hasResults":11,"nctId":487,"briefTitle":488,"officialTitle":489,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":490,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":16,"minAge":17,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":491,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":22,"phases":493,"briefSummary":494,"conditions":495,"keywords":4,"overallStatus":66,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":497,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":498,"startDateStruct":500,"completionDateStruct":502,"leadSponsor":504,"locationsCount":47},"100478465","phase-3-efficacy-of-immunosuppressive-therapy-for-iga-nephropathy-with-stage-3-or-4-ckd-100478465","NCT05510323","Efficacy of Immunosuppressive Therapy for IgA Nephropathy With Stage 3 or 4 CKD","Efficacy and Safety of Immunosuppressive Therapy for IgA Nephropathy With Stage 3 or 4 Chronic Kidney Disease","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Biopsy-proven IgA nephropathy;\n* Proteinuria ≥1.0g\u002Fday while receiving maximum tolerated dose of RAS blockade;\n* Estimated glomerular filtration rate 15-60 ml\u002Fmin\u002F1.73\u002Fm2.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Indication or contraindication for immunosuppressive therapy with corticosteroids\n* Use of corticosteroids and other immunosuppressive drugs within the last 1 year\n* Current unstable kidney function for other reasons\n* Under 18 years old\n* Patients with secondary IgAN\n* Patients who are unlikely to comply with the study protocol in the view of the treating physician",{"count":492,"type":21},208,[472],"The purpose of this clinical trial is to evaluate the long-term efficacy and safety of low-dose oral corticosteroids combined with cyclophosphamide therapy and low-dose corticosteroids monotherapy, on a background of maximal RAS inhibitor therapy, for IgA nephropathy with stage 3 or 4 chronic kidney disease.",[496],"Glomerulonephritis, IGA","2024-05-03",{"date":499,"type":39},"2024-05-06",{"date":501,"type":39},"2024-02-01",{"date":503,"type":21},"2028-08",{"name":45,"class":46},{"id":506,"slug":507,"hasResults":11,"nctId":508,"briefTitle":509,"officialTitle":510,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":511,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":16,"minAge":512,"maxAge":380,"enrollmentInfo":513,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":22,"phases":515,"briefSummary":516,"conditions":517,"keywords":4,"overallStatus":66,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":521,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":522,"startDateStruct":524,"completionDateStruct":526,"leadSponsor":528,"locationsCount":47},"100530349","the-effect-of-aspirin-on-recurrent-acute-pancreatitis-100530349","NCT06185621","The Effect of Aspirin on Recurrent Acute Pancreatitis","The Effect of 100mg Aspirin on Recurrent Acute Pancreatitis: a Prospective Cohort Study","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Patients with with recurrent acute pancreatitis\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Less than 2 episodes of acute pancreatitis in the past year\n* Latrogenic AP (pancreatitis due to endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, surgery, or after other invasive treatment). Iatrogenic pancreatitis will not count as an episode of recurrent pancreatitis\n* Previous allergy to Non-Steroid Anti-inflammatory Drugs (NSAIDs)\n* Regularly taking aspirin or other NSAIDs \\>3 doses per week\n* Contradictions for the medications of NSAIDs, including Active peptic ulcer disease or gastrointestinal hemorrhage within 3 months or previous peptic ulcer, history of significant hepatic or renal disease, platelet count less than 100X10\\^9\u002FL or international normalized ratio (INR) \\>1.5)\n* Biliary stones\n* Receiving endoscopic sphincterotomy and\u002For pancreatic stent placement and\u002For cholecystectomy and\u002For pancreatic surgery after the latest pancreatitis or planning to undergo one of those interventions within preceding 2 years\n* Patients with the level of serum triglycerides of \\>5.65 mmol\u002FL and did not receive regular lipid-lowering therapy\n* Primary hyperparathyroidism has been well-treated after last episode of pancreatitis and recruitment or will be operated in \\\u003C2 years\n* Patients with previously heavy alcohol consumption (50g\u002Fday for men, 40g\u002Fday for women) and have not quit drinking, or have significant withdrawal symptoms\n* Pregnant or breastfeeding patients\n* Inability to give informed consents","14 Years",{"count":514,"type":21},23,[24],"Recurrent acute pancreatitis (RAP) was defined as two or more occurrences of acute pancreatitis, which was associated with higher percentages of morbidities and mortalities, lower patients' life quality and increased health-care costs. Current interventions, including cholecystectomy and abstain from drinking were reported to be effective methods for preventing the recurrences of biliary and alcoholic etiologies, respectively. However, there were no effective preventions for other etiologies, such as idiopathic etiologies. Non-steroid anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), including indomethacin, diclofenac and aspirin could inhibiting the inflammatory cascade of pancreatitis. In this study, we aimed at exploring the effects of 100mg aspirin on reducing the occurrences of recurrent acute pancreatitis.",[518,519,520],"Recurrent Acute Pancreatitis","Prevention","Aspirin","2023-12-15",{"date":523,"type":39},"2023-12-29",{"date":525,"type":39},"2023-11-01",{"date":527,"type":21},"2026-11-01",{"name":45,"class":46},{"id":530,"slug":531,"hasResults":11,"nctId":532,"briefTitle":533,"officialTitle":534,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":535,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":16,"minAge":17,"maxAge":18,"enrollmentInfo":536,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":22,"phases":538,"briefSummary":539,"conditions":540,"keywords":4,"overallStatus":66,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":542,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":543,"startDateStruct":545,"completionDateStruct":547,"leadSponsor":549,"locationsCount":47},"100518156","phase-3-gnt-induction-treatment-in-locally-advanced-npc-100518156","NCT06026878","GNT Induction Treatment in Locally Advanced NPC","Gemcitabine Combined With Nimotuzumab and Toripalimab as Induction Treatment Followed by Chemoradiotherapy for Locally Advanced Nasopharyngeal carcinoma-a Multicenter, Randomized Controlled Study","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n1. Age 18 to 75 years old.\n2. Pathologically or cytologically confirmed stage III-IVB nasopharyngeal keratinizing squamous cell carcinoma or non-keratinizing squamous cell carcinoma.\n3. Patients suitable for radical radiochemotherapy.\n4. ECOG PS score of 0-1.\n5. According to the RECIST 1.1 criteria, there is at least one measurable lesion. Basic hematological parameters are normal: white blood cell count ≥4×10\\^9\u002FL; absolute neutrophil count ≥1.5×10\\^9\u002FL; platelets ≥100×10\\^9\u002FL; hemoglobin ≥90 g\u002FL.\n6. Basically normal renal function: serum creatinine ≤1.5×ULN or creatinine clearance rate (CrCl) \\> 60 mL\u002Fmin (using the Cockcroft-Gault formula): For females: CrCl = (140-age) x weight (kg) x 0.85 \u002F (72 x Scr mg\u002Fdl) For males: CrCl = (140-age) x weight (kg) x 1.00 \u002F (72 x Scr mg\u002Fdl)\n7. Basically normal liver function: serum total bilirubin ≤1.5×ULN; aspartate aminotransferase (AST) ≤2.5×ULN; alanine aminotransferase (ALT) ≤2.5×ULN.\n8. Signed written informed consent.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n1. Patients who have previously undergone immunotherapy or targeted therapy.\n2. Participated in any other interventional clinical trials within 30 days before screening.\n3. History of other malignancies (except for cured skin basal cell carcinoma).\n4. History of primary immunodeficiency.\n5. Presence of uncontrolled concurrent diseases (such as heart failure, severe lung disease, severe liver disease, mental disease, etc.).\n6. Known HIV infection, active viral hepatitis, or tuberculosis.\n7. Major surgery within 90 days before the first dose of the study drug, or planned surgery.\n8. Allergic to the drugs used in this protocol or their components.\n9. Pregnant (confirmed by blood or urine HCG tests) or breastfeeding women, or those of childbearing age unwilling or unable to take effective contraceptive measures (applicable to both male and female subjects) until at least 6 months after the last trial treatment.\n10. The investigator believes the subject is not suitable for this study.\n11. Unwilling to participate in this study or unable to sign the informed consent form.\n12. Live vaccinations within 30 days of dosing.",{"count":537,"type":21},228,[472],"The goal of this clinical trial is to compare overall response rate between gemcitabine, nimotuzumab and toripalimab as induction treatment and gemcitabine combined with cisplatine in paitents with locally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma. It aims to answer whether gemcitabine, nimotuzumab and toripalimab as induction treatment show non-inferiority compared to GP induction chemotherapy. Participants will be randomly divided into two induction treatment groups.",[541],"Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma","2023-09-05",{"date":544,"type":39},"2023-09-07",{"date":546,"type":39},"2023-09-01",{"date":548,"type":21},"2027-09-30",{"name":45,"class":46},""]