PregnancyNCT01605474
Patient Satisfaction of Cervical Ripening in an Outpatient Setting
A study testing Patient discharged home after foley bulb placement. and Inpatient in people with Pregnancy, run by Cedars-Sinai Medical Center at 1 site in United States.
Trial summary
This study examines whether outpatient pre-induction cervical ripening improves patient satisfaction and is safe and effective. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 to 60 years, women onlyHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Pregnancy
- What is being tested?
- Patient discharged home after foley bulb placement. and Inpatient
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 800 participants
- Where
- 1 siteUnited States
- Study dates
- Apr 2012to Jul 2014
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 to 60 years
- Women only
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult
Who may be able to join
- term pregnancy
- singleton gestation
- cephalic presentation
- scheduled for an induction of labor (acceptable conditions include gestational diabetes, chronic hypertension)
Who cannot join
- placenta previa and/or accreta
- low lying placenta
- undiagnosed vaginal bleeding
- preeclampsia
- fetal anomaly
- intrauterine growth restriction
Show all 16Show fewer
- RH isoimmunization
- fetal demise
- rupture of membranes
- maternal heart disease
- known latex allergy
- active genital herpes infection
- previous uterine surgery
- limited access to a telephone
- excessive distance from the hospital, and/or
- unreliable transportation
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
United States1 site, 1 recruiting
- Recruiting
Cedars-Sinai Medical Center
Los Angeles, California, 90048
Tania F Esakoff, MD
Gregory W Lau, MD
About this study
Official title: Safety, Efficacy, and Patient Satisfaction of Cervical Ripening With Transcervical Use of the Foley Catheter in an Outpatient Setting
This study examines whether outpatient pre-induction cervical ripening improves patient satisfaction and is safe and effective.
Read the detailed description
Objective:
To compare inpatient versus outpatient preinduction cervical ripening in order to evaluate differences between each setting with respect to patient safety, satisfaction and cesarean rate.
Background:
Many women who require induction of labor present with an unripe cervix. This has been associated with a longer duration of labor as well as higher rates of failed induction resulting in cesarean delivery. These patients are also at higher risk for postpartum hemorrhage, blood transfusion, and cesarean hysterectomy. Preinduction cervical ripening is thought to improve the likelihood of a successful induction in women with an unripe cervix. Prolonged inductions of labor do not only lead to patient dissatisfaction but also use valuable resources such as available labor and delivery bed and nursing staff. This in turn overburdens labor and delivery resources which are already taxed. These issues contribute to increasing costs as well as decreasing patient satisfaction.
Prior studies have shown that moving preinduction cervical ripening from an inpatient setting to an outpatient setting can decrease costs significantly. It is also thought that 50% of all patients requiring induction of labor may be eligible for outpatient cervical ripening. Many of these studies have looked at PGE two preparations which are no longer commonly used. However, a study by Scisione et al. from November 2001 looked at the use of Trent cervical Foley catheter for this purpose. They had previously shown that a mechanical method, the Foley catheter, had significant advantages over preparations such as prepidil. Scisione et al. had also previously shown that in a randomized trial comparing misoprostol and Foley catheter for preinduction cervical ripening both were found to be equally effective. However, in the group who received the misoprostol, there was an increased risk of meconium passage in uterine contractile abnormalities.
The Foley catheter appears to be safe and efficacious. It also appears to be a good option for outpatient preinduction cervical ripening. One of the downsides of using a Foley catheter for preinduction cervical ripening is that it requires checking and readjusting. The economic benefits of outpatient cervical ripening and the social advantages for patients seem very promising. However, many women may need to return to the hospital as a result of anxiety or questions surrounding the use of the Foley catheter for preinduction cervical ripening.
In the study by Scisione et al. which involved 111 women, the primary outcome variable was a change in Bishop score. There was no statistically significant difference noted with respect to each of the groups. There were also no statistically significant differences with respect to a maximum dose of oxytocin used subsequently in labor nor was there a difference in the amount of time the Pitocin was used. No statistically significant differences were noted in the total induction times, cesarean delivery rates, and NICU admissions, Apgar scores or birth weights between groups. There were differences noted in the preinduction cervical ripening times between the different groups. Notably, the outpatient group had a longer preinduction cervical ripening time.
In the aforementioned study, patients were asked to describe their discomfort during the preinduction cervical ripening phase using a visual analog test. This is based on a scale of 1 to 10 where 1 was noted as no discomfort or minimal discomfort and 10 was the worst pain imaginable. The outpatient group reported a median discomfort level of 4.8 where the inpatient group reported a discomfort level 3.9. These results were not statistically significant. Most of the discomfort was noted during Foley catheter placement.
With respect to the cesarean delivery rates between groups it is of note that there is a decrease noted by the authors of the study in the patients who underwent the outpatient cervical ripening versus those who underwent the inpatient cervical ripening. The authors of the study are unclear of the reason for this difference. However, this study was underpowered to detect this difference given that 284 patients would be needed in each group to reach adequate power to state whether the differences noted between groups is significant.
Demographically, there were no statistically significant differences between groups with respect maternal age, gravidity, distasteful age, amniotic fluid index, source of insurance. Based on the results of this study, if both methods are equally efficacious but the outpatient method leads to higher patient satisfaction, decreases inpatient resource use and leads to a decreased cesarean rate, it may be the preferred method of preinduction cervical ripening. Based on this hypothesis, the investigators would like to compare the use of the foley catheter for preinduction cervical ripening in an inpatient versus outpatient setting with respect to patient safety, satisfaction and cesarean rate.
At Cedars-Sinai, there are approximately 7000 deliveries per year. The induction rate approximates 22% which results in 1540 inductions per year. At the present time, these are all inpatients. Outpatient cervical ripening is not standard of care at Cedars-Sinai but it has been evaluated at other institutions and its safety has been validated. Advantages of an outpatient pre-induction cervical ripening includes shorter hospital stays, decreased cesarean section rates, improved patient comfort and satisfaction. With a reduced cesarean section rate, there is also the potential for decreased NICU admissions.
With respect to potential risks of an outpatient induction, they are similar to that of inpatient inductions. Risks of this procedure include rupture of amniotic membranes and active labor. Both of which would result in admission and delivery.
Methods:
A randomized controlled trial is planned in women with a term gestation in the vertex presentation, a reactive nonstress test, an amniotic fluid index above five, and a Bishop score of no more than five. The primary outcome variable will be a change in Bishop score as well as patient satisfaction. The secondary outcome will be change in cesarean section rates. There will be two groups in the study: those who undergo inpatient cervical ripening and those who undergo outpatient cervical ripening. A Foley catheter with a 30 mL balloon will be placed through the cervix on gentle traction in each group in the usual fashion that is currently used.
The outpatient group will be discharged home with written instructions. These patients will also be instructed to return 12 hours after placement for their induction. The inpatient group will be kept in the hospital during the same time period for their cervical ripening.
Exclusion criteria include the following: placenta previa and/or accreta, low lying placenta, undiagnosed vaginal bleeding, preeclampsia, fetal anomaly, intrauterine growth restriction, RH isoimmunization, fetal demise, rupture of membranes, maternal heart disease, known latex allergy, active genital herpes infection, previous uterine surgery, limited access to a telephone, excessive distance from the hospital, and/ or unreliable transportation.
Upon presentation to labor and delivery an initial assessment will be conducted and the history and physical examination completed by the house staff. An amniotic fluid index would also be obtained and if the amniotic fluid index is less than five the patient would not be considered a candidate for the study. If the patient remains a candidate, the procedure for Foley catheter placement will be explained to the patient. Prior to placement of the Foley, a digital exam will be performed and a Bishop score assigned by the attending or senior-level resident. A number 16 Foley catheter with a 30 mL balloon will be inserted into the endocervical canal under direct visualization via a speculum exam or by blind placement. The Foley catheter will be advanced to or passed through the internal os and subsequently filled with 30 mL of sterile water. The catheter will then be placed on gentle traction by taping the catheter to the medial portion of the thigh. The nonstress test will be performed before and after Foley catheter placement. If the fetal heart rate is reactive and there is no sign of uterine tachysystole, uterine hypertonus or non-reassuring fetal testing, then the patient will be randomized to either group.
- Conditions
- Pregnancy
- Being tested
- Patient discharged home after foley bulb placement., Inpatient
- Keywords
- foley catheter, foley bulb, induction of labor, labor
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Patient discharged home after foley bulb placement.Other
Also called Foley bulb (16 French)
The patient will be discharged home after fetal status is evaluated and noted to be reassuring. A 16 French foley bulb insufflated with 30 cc of normal saline will be placed and secured to the patient's inner thigh.
InpatientOther
Also called Foley Bulb (16 French)
The patients will not be discharged home after assessment and placement of the foley catheter.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Outpatient Cervical Ripening | Active comparator | Patients who are randomized to this arm will be allowed discharged home for 12 hours after fetal status is assessed and noted to be reassuring with the foley bulb in place. They will return sooner if they experience rupture of membranes or enter active labor or if the foley bulb falls out. Receives: Other: Patient discharged home after foley bulb placement. |
| Inpatient Cervical Ripening | No intervention | In this arm, the fetus will be assessed and a foley bulb placed but these patients will be kept in the hospital. Receives: Other: Inpatient |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Cesarean section rate
Cesarean delivery rate between groups
Measured: 2 years
Secondary outcomes (3)
Patient satisfaction (Pain /discomfort)
Patient satisfaction. Administering a questionaire on which the patient will rate her pain/discomofrt during the placement of the foley bulb and her pain/discomfort while undergoing labor. The Wong Baker Faces scale will be used to assess this measure.
Measured: 2 year
Apgar scores
Apgar scores
Measured: 2 years
NICU admissions
Neonatal ICU admissions after delivery
Measured: 2 years
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted25 May 2012 (estimated)
- Study startApr 2012
- Primary completionJul 2014 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (1)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for PregnancyStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by Cedars-Sinai Medical CenterThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Single group
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 800 participants (estimated)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Cedars-Sinai Medical Center
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Gregory W. Lau, MD, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center
- Investigators
- Tania Esaoff, MD, Principal investigator, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Maternal Fetal Medicine
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT01605474
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- Pro00026352
- Status last verified
- May 2012
- First submitted
- 18 May 2012
- Last updated
- 25 May 2012
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- Yes
Publications
Sciscione AC, Muench M, Pollock M, Jenkins TM, Tildon-Burton J, Colmorgen GH. Transcervical Foley catheter for preinduction cervical ripening in an outpatient versus inpatient setting. Obstet Gynecol. 2001 Nov;98(5 Pt 1):751-6. doi: 10.1016/s0029-7844(01)01579-4.
PubMed 11704164
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 25 May 2012. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Safety, Efficacy, and Patient Satisfaction of Cervical Ripening With Transcervical Use of the Foley Catheter in an Outpatient Setting
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT01605474
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- Pro00026352
- Conditions
- Pregnancy
- Keywords
- foley catheter, foley bulb, induction of labor, labor
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Unknown status
- Enrolment
- 800 participants (estimated)
- Lead sponsor
- Cedars-Sinai Medical CenterUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- Apr 2012
- Primary completion
- Jul 2014 (estimated)
- First posted
- 25 May 2012 (estimated)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
This study examines whether outpatient pre-induction cervical ripening improves patient satisfaction and is safe and effective.
Detailed description
Objective:
To compare inpatient versus outpatient preinduction cervical ripening in order to evaluate differences between each setting with respect to patient safety, satisfaction and cesarean rate.
Background:
Many women who require induction of labor present with an unripe cervix. This has been associated with a longer duration of labor as well as higher rates of failed induction resulting in cesarean delivery. These patients are also at higher risk for postpartum hemorrhage, blood transfusion, and cesarean hysterectomy. Preinduction cervical ripening is thought to improve the likelihood of a successful induction in women with an unripe cervix. Prolonged inductions of labor do not only lead to patient dissatisfaction but also use valuable resources such as available labor and delivery bed and nursing staff. This in turn overburdens labor and delivery resources which are already taxed. These issues contribute to increasing costs as well as decreasing patient satisfaction.
Prior studies have shown that moving preinduction cervical ripening from an inpatient setting to an outpatient setting can decrease costs significantly. It is also thought that 50% of all patients requiring induction of labor may be eligible for outpatient cervical ripening. Many of these studies have looked at PGE two preparations which are no longer commonly used. However, a study by Scisione et al. from November 2001 looked at the use of Trent cervical Foley catheter for this purpose. They had previously shown that a mechanical method, the Foley catheter, had significant advantages over preparations such as prepidil. Scisione et al. had also previously shown that in a randomized trial comparing misoprostol and Foley catheter for preinduction cervical ripening both were found to be equally effective. However, in the group who received the misoprostol, there was an increased risk of meconium passage in uterine contractile abnormalities.
The Foley catheter appears to be safe and efficacious. It also appears to be a good option for outpatient preinduction cervical ripening. One of the downsides of using a Foley catheter for preinduction cervical ripening is that it requires checking and readjusting. The economic benefits of outpatient cervical ripening and the social advantages for patients seem very promising. However, many women may need to return to the hospital as a result of anxiety or questions surrounding the use of the Foley catheter for preinduction cervical ripening.
In the study by Scisione et al. which involved 111 women, the primary outcome variable was a change in Bishop score. There was no statistically significant difference noted with respect to each of the groups. There were also no statistically significant differences with respect to a maximum dose of oxytocin used subsequently in labor nor was there a difference in the amount of time the Pitocin was used. No statistically significant differences were noted in the total induction times, cesarean delivery rates, and NICU admissions, Apgar scores or birth weights between groups. There were differences noted in the preinduction cervical ripening times between the different groups. Notably, the outpatient group had a longer preinduction cervical ripening time.
In the aforementioned study, patients were asked to describe their discomfort during the preinduction cervical ripening phase using a visual analog test. This is based on a scale of 1 to 10 where 1 was noted as no discomfort or minimal discomfort and 10 was the worst pain imaginable. The outpatient group reported a median discomfort level of 4.8 where the inpatient group reported a discomfort level 3.9. These results were not statistically significant. Most of the discomfort was noted during Foley catheter placement.
With respect to the cesarean delivery rates between groups it is of note that there is a decrease noted by the authors of the study in the patients who underwent the outpatient cervical ripening versus those who underwent the inpatient cervical ripening. The authors of the study are unclear of the reason for this difference. However, this study was underpowered to detect this difference given that 284 patients would be needed in each group to reach adequate power to state whether the differences noted between groups is significant.
Demographically, there were no statistically significant differences between groups with respect maternal age, gravidity, distasteful age, amniotic fluid index, source of insurance. Based on the results of this study, if both methods are equally efficacious but the outpatient method leads to higher patient satisfaction, decreases inpatient resource use and leads to a decreased cesarean rate, it may be the preferred method of preinduction cervical ripening. Based on this hypothesis, the investigators would like to compare the use of the foley catheter for preinduction cervical ripening in an inpatient versus outpatient setting with respect to patient safety, satisfaction and cesarean rate.
At Cedars-Sinai, there are approximately 7000 deliveries per year. The induction rate approximates 22% which results in 1540 inductions per year. At the present time, these are all inpatients. Outpatient cervical ripening is not standard of care at Cedars-Sinai but it has been evaluated at other institutions and its safety has been validated. Advantages of an outpatient pre-induction cervical ripening includes shorter hospital stays, decreased cesarean section rates, improved patient comfort and satisfaction. With a reduced cesarean section rate, there is also the potential for decreased NICU admissions.
With respect to potential risks of an outpatient induction, they are similar to that of inpatient inductions. Risks of this procedure include rupture of amniotic membranes and active labor. Both of which would result in admission and delivery.
Methods:
A randomized controlled trial is planned in women with a term gestation in the vertex presentation, a reactive nonstress test, an amniotic fluid index above five, and a Bishop score of no more than five. The primary outcome variable will be a change in Bishop score as well as patient satisfaction. The secondary outcome will be change in cesarean section rates. There will be two groups in the study: those who undergo inpatient cervical ripening and those who undergo outpatient cervical ripening. A Foley catheter with a 30 mL balloon will be placed through the cervix on gentle traction in each group in the usual fashion that is currently used.
The outpatient group will be discharged home with written instructions. These patients will also be instructed to return 12 hours after placement for their induction. The inpatient group will be kept in the hospital during the same time period for their cervical ripening.
Exclusion criteria include the following: placenta previa and/or accreta, low lying placenta, undiagnosed vaginal bleeding, preeclampsia, fetal anomaly, intrauterine growth restriction, RH isoimmunization, fetal demise, rupture of membranes, maternal heart disease, known latex allergy, active genital herpes infection, previous uterine surgery, limited access to a telephone, excessive distance from the hospital, and/ or unreliable transportation.
Upon presentation to labor and delivery an initial assessment will be conducted and the history and physical examination completed by the house staff. An amniotic fluid index would also be obtained and if the amniotic fluid index is less than five the patient would not be considered a candidate for the study. If the patient remains a candidate, the procedure for Foley catheter placement will be explained to the patient. Prior to placement of the Foley, a digital exam will be performed and a Bishop score assigned by the attending or senior-level resident. A number 16 Foley catheter with a 30 mL balloon will be inserted into the endocervical canal under direct visualization via a speculum exam or by blind placement. The Foley catheter will be advanced to or passed through the internal os and subsequently filled with 30 mL of sterile water. The catheter will then be placed on gentle traction by taping the catheter to the medial portion of the thigh. The nonstress test will be performed before and after Foley catheter placement. If the fetal heart rate is reactive and there is no sign of uterine tachysystole, uterine hypertonus or non-reassuring fetal testing, then the patient will be randomized to either group.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Single group
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Outpatient Cervical Ripening | Active comparator | Other: Patient discharged home after foley bulb placement.Patients who are randomized to this arm will be allowed discharged home for 12 hours after fetal status is assessed and noted to be reassuring with the foley bulb in place. They will return sooner if they experience rupture of membranes or enter active labor or if the foley bulb falls out. |
| Inpatient Cervical Ripening | No intervention | Other: InpatientIn this arm, the fetus will be assessed and a foley bulb placed but these patients will be kept in the hospital. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 to 60 years
- Sex
- Female only
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult
Key inclusion criteria (4 listed)
- term pregnancy
- singleton gestation
- cephalic presentation
- scheduled for an induction of labor (acceptable conditions include gestational diabetes, chronic hypertension)
Key exclusion criteria (16 listed)
- placenta previa and/or accreta
- low lying placenta
- undiagnosed vaginal bleeding
- preeclampsia
- fetal anomaly
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Patient discharged home after foley bulb placement.Also: Foley bulb (16 French)The patient will be discharged home after fetal status is evaluated and noted to be reassuring. A 16 French foley bulb insufflated with 30 cc of normal saline will be placed and secured to the patient's inner thigh. | Other | Outpatient Cervical Ripening |
| InpatientAlso: Foley Bulb (16 French)The patients will not be discharged home after assessment and placement of the foley catheter. | Other | Inpatient Cervical Ripening |
Primary outcome
Cesarean section rate
Time frame: 2 years
Cesarean delivery rate between groups
3 secondary outcomes
Patient satisfaction (Pain /discomfort)
Time frame: 2 year
Apgar scores
Time frame: 2 years
NICU admissions
Time frame: 2 years
Results and safety
Results are not available in the source record.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 25 May 2012.
- Background: PubMed 11704164Sciscione AC, Muench M, Pollock M, Jenkins TM, Tildon-Burton J, Colmorgen GH. Transcervical Foley catheter for preinduction cervical ripening in an outpatient versus inpatient setting. Obstet Gynecol. 2001 Nov;98(5 Pt 1):751-6. doi: 10.1016/s0029-7844(01)01579-4.
Related trials for Pregnancy
Recruiting
Methylation Profiling in Self-Samples for Identification of (Epi)Genetic Biomarkers for Gynecological Cancers
Gynaecological Cancers, Ovarian Cancer
RecruitingPhase 1/2
Study of INBRX-106 and INBRX-106 in Combination With Pembrolizumab (Keytruda®) in Subjects With Locally Advanced or Metastatic Solid Tumors (Hexavalent OX40 Agonist)
Solid Tumor, Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer
RecruitingObservational study
Population Pharmacokinetics of Temocillin in Acute Enterobacterial Pyelonephritis in Children
Pyelonephritis
Active, not recruitingPhase 3
A Study of Belzutifan (MK-6482) in Combination With Lenvatinib Versus Cabozantinib for Treatment of Renal Cell Carcinoma (MK-6482-011)
Carcinoma, Renal Cell
Recruiting
Safety and Performance of UCon Patch Electrode
Urinary Incontinence, Urinary Incontinence, Urge
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Tania Esaoff, MD principal investigator
Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Maternal Fetal Medicine
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Patient discharged home after foley bulb placement. and Inpatient in people with Pregnancy, run by Cedars-Sinai Medical Center at 1 site in United States.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 4 inclusion and 16 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: status not confirmed, as of the sponsor's last update on 25 May 2012. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in United States. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
Results are not available in the source record.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
Contact Tania F Esakoff, MD (310-423-7568, tania.esakoff@cshs.org), or a site near the patient. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Cesarean section rate (time frame: 2 years). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT01605474, which also lists 1 linked publication.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 25 May 2012.