AzTrials
AzTrials

SyncopePATCH-EDNCT02683174

Diagnostic Yield of an Ambulatory Patch Monitor in Unexplained Emergency Department Syncope: A Pilot Study (PATCH-ED)

A study testing Novel ambulatory patch (ZIO® XT Patch) and BNP and hs-troponin I at 0 and 3 hours post ED attendance in people with Syncope, run by NHS Lothian at 1 site in United Kingdom.

Completed

Finished. The study has ended and is not enrolling. Results may be posted on the official record.

Official record
Search all trials

Trial summary

Syncope is a common Emergency Department (ED) presentation but the underlying diagnosis is not apparent in 60% of patients after assessment and serious adverse event rate is 7% at one month with most having acute cardiovascular events, also more likely to be unexplained after ED assessment. Read more about this study

Who is it for?
Ages 16 years and older
Conditions the study is for
Syncope
What is being tested?
Novel ambulatory patch (ZIO® XT Patch) and BNP and hs-troponin I at 0 and 3 hours post ED attendance
Type of treatment
Medical device
Could I receive a placebo?
No, everyone receives an active treatment
How many people
86 participants
Where
1 siteUnited Kingdom
Study dates
1 Nov 2015to 13 Sep 2017
Phase
Interventional
Are there results?
Yes, posted in the registrySummary in the doctors' view

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 16 years and older
  • All sexes
  • No healthy volunteers
  • Child, Adult, Older adult

Who may be able to join

  • Patients aged 16 years or over presenting within 6 hours of an episode of syncope and whose syncope remains unexplained after ED assessment. Syncope will be defined as a transient loss of consciousness (TLOC) with inability to maintain postural tone and immediate complete spontaneous recovery without medical intervention (to preexisting mental status and neurologic function)

Who cannot join

  • Obvious underlying cause after ED assessment,
  • Alcohol or illicit drugs as presumptive cause of TLOC [24],
  • Epileptic seizure as presumptive cause of TLOC (seizure activity with a >15 min witness reported post-ictal phase) [24],
  • Stroke ⁄ transient ischemic attack as presumptive cause of TLOC [24],
  • Head trauma followed by TLOC [24],
  • Hypoglycemia as presumptive cause of TLOC [24],
Show all 19Show fewer
  • No consent i.e. patient lacking capacity,
  • Previous recruitment into the study,
  • Patient in custody or prison.
  • Obvious underlying causes will be defined as:
  • Clinical history of vasovagal syncope i.e. pre-syncope symptoms and low-risk patient according to current ESC guidelines [14],
  • Arrhythmia on ED ECG thought to have caused syncope,
  • Arrhythmia on pre-hospital ECG causing syncope,
  • Pulmonary embolism (PE) diagnosed on Computed Tomography Pulmonary Angiography (CTPA; or equivalent e.g. symptoms of PE plus positive leg ultrasound scan/ventilation-perfusion scan/echo),
  • Postural hypotension (postural drop >20 mmHg in ED with symptoms during test and suggestive history),
  • Myocardial Infarction [25],
  • CT brain or clinical signs/symptoms in ED showing cerebrovascular accident or subarachnoid haemorrhage,
  • Evidence of haemorrhage in ED thought to have caused syncope,
  • Other obvious cause of syncope apparent in ED.

Trial locations and contacts

1 site in 1 country.

United Kingdom1 site
  • Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh

    Edinburgh, Midlothian, EH16 4SA

Other trials in United Kingdom

About this study

Official title: Diagnostic Yield of an Ambulatory Patch Monitor in Emergency Department Syncope Patients Unexplained After Emergency Department Evaluation: A Pilot Study (PATCH-ED)

Syncope is a common Emergency Department (ED) presentation but the underlying diagnosis is not apparent in 60% of patients after assessment and serious adverse event rate is 7% at one month with most having acute cardiovascular events, also more likely to be unexplained after ED assessment. Many cardiovascular events are due to arrhythmia, difficult for clinicians to diagnose, as examination and Electrocardiogram (ECG) findings may both be normal and symptoms have resolved by the time the patient gets to the ED. Currently establishing a cardiac arrhythmia as the cause of syncope rests on correlating the arrhythmia with symptoms using monitoring devices such as Holter but these all have significant drawbacks. The clinical challenge in the ED is therefore to identify the moderate and high-risk patients and refer them for further investigation and monitoring if appropriate. The logistics of arranging follow up within a timely period of the patient's ED visit is often problematic for a variety of reasons including availability of timely specialty outpatient appointments, a lack of consensus of the specialty to whom the syncope patient should be referred (cardiology, medicine, neurology, general practice) and availability of Holter and other monitoring devices. For this reason most high and medium risk patients are admitted to hospital.

Previous syncope clinical decision rules have not been well adopted due to their lack of sensitivity and specificity probably due to the varied and heterogeneous nature of potentially serious causes. However, the majority of patients with syncope have no serious underlying pathology and do not require hospitalisation. Rather than continued attempts at risk stratification of outcome based on presentation, more research is required into how we can better improve diagnosis and therefore treatment in order to provide improved patient benefit. We believe that ambulatory patch monitoring will allow better and earlier arrhythmia detection and plan to assess the ability of a 14-day ambulatory patch to detect serious arrhythmic outcomes at 90 days.

Read the detailed description

There are around 650,000 ED syncope presentations a year in the United Kingdom (UK). Serious underlying conditions can present with syncope and one-month serious adverse outcome is around 7% with 50% being cardiovascular. The treating ED clinician is not always able to rule out serious pathology as the patient is commonly fully recovered on arrival in the ED, despite the underlying cause being potentially life threatening should it recur again. Whilst most patients do not have a serious underlying cause and therefore do not require hospitalisation, the concern of the ED clinician about missing a serious underlying cause (especially cardiovascular ones) means that 50% of syncope patients are admitted to hospital.

Despite research identifying high-risk demographic, historical and examination variables, clinical decision rules have not been well adopted due to their lack of sensitivity and specificity probably due to the varied and heterogeneous nature of potentially serious causes. Rather than continued attempts at risk stratification of outcome based on presentation, more research is required into how we can better improve diagnosis and therefore treatment in order to provide improved patient benefit.

Cardiovascular causes of syncope fall into two main categories, arrhythmia (e.g. ventricular tachycardia (VT), 2nd degree Mobitz II, 3rd degree atrioventricular block or symptomatic bradycardia) and structural (e.g. aortic stenosis). It is arrhythmia that is most difficult for the ED clinician to diagnose in the ED as examination and presenting Electrocardiogram ECG may both be normal. It is for this reason that arrhythmia makes up a large number of subsequent serious outcomes in syncope patients whose syncopal cause is unexplained after ED assessment.

The current main method for establishing a cardiac arrhythmia as the cause of syncope rests on the correlation of the arrhythmia with symptoms (which will have resolved by the time the patient gets to the ED). The clinical challenge in the ED is therefore to identify the moderate and high-risk patients and refer them for further investigation and monitoring if appropriate. The logistics of arranging follow up within a timely period of the patient's ED visit is often problematic for a variety of reasons including availability of timely specialty outpatient appointments, a lack of consensus of the specialty to whom the syncope patient should be referred (cardiology, medicine, neurology, general practice) and availability of Holter and other monitoring devices. For this reason most high and medium risk patients are admitted to hospital.

The investigation of cardiac arrhythmias is usually initiated with the Holter monitor which uses a continuous recording over a 24 or 48-hour period. The Holter allows detection of baseline rhythm, arrhythmia and conduction abnormalities. Holters however are bulky and inconvenient for the patient to wear, the transmission of data is not patient dependent and non-compliance with both device use and maintaining a written symptom log, limits its diagnostic utility. The lack of extended monitoring reduces diagnostic yield to typically less than 20%. Bass reported a diagnostic yield of 15% with 24-hour Holter monitoring that did not increase even if the device was applied for 72 hours.

For these reasons, the use of Holter monitors is not universal in medium and high-risk syncope patients. In one UK ED study, only 158 of 540 (29%) admitted syncope patients underwent 24 hour monitoring (which in the majority comprised ward telemetry rather than Holter). There are other devices available to the Cardiologist to investigate syncope patients who are classified as European Society of Cardiology (ESC) medium and high-risk and whose Holter investigation is unrevealing. Event recorders do not record a continuous ECG but require patient activation at the time of symptoms and must be applied to the chest wall at the time of the event and must be activated by the patient. A brief, typically 90-second, single lead ECG recording is captured and stored. Because of limited data storage capability, data must be transmitted to a monitoring centre for validation and analysis. Event recorders can be used for cardiac monitoring over longer periods of time but the big drawback is that they must be activated following symptom onset, which may be difficult to achieve if the patient has suffered syncope or an injury related to the event. Finally, these devices cannot be used to document asymptomatic arrhythmias.

External continuous loop recorders are attached to the patient by chest electrodes or a wristband. They continuously record the ECG but only save data if activated by the patient. The continuous looping memory feature allows the device to store a fixed length of pre-activation and post-event ECG data. Mobile cardiac telemetry systems provide up to 30 days of real-time continuous cardiac monitoring without the need for patient activation or data transmission. These devices are expensive, require electrodes and bulky recording devices, and produce a large amount of data, which requires sifting. Implantable loop recorders are surgically implanted subcutaneous devices that continuously record single-lead ECG signal through 2 electrodes. They are very expensive and necessitate an invasive surgical procedure. For patients admitted to hospital and who are placed on telemetry, there is also lack of consensus on the optimal duration of monitoring. Typically higher risk patients are monitored for 24 hours and discharged without a diagnosis if their ECG tracing has been uneventful during this time period.

In order to solve these problems, a novel ambulatory cardiac monitoring device that can easily be applied to ED patients has recently been developed. The ZIO®XT Patch (iRhythm Technologies, Inc. San Francisco, California; http://www.irhythmtech.com/zio-services.php) is non-invasive, water-resistant, has no leads or wires, is discrete to wear and has been approved for clinical use in the UK. It continuously monitors the heart for up to 14 days including during sleep, in the shower, and during moderate exercise and has a large button on top for patients to capture symptomatic events. When patients reach the end of their monitoring period, they simply mail the device back to the company where analysis is undertaken.

The ZIO®XT Patch is well tolerated for prolonged monitoring and compliance is excellent with studies demonstrating a mean monitoring wear time of 10.8 days (range 4-14 days) and 10.9 days (median 13.0 days). Barrett et al showed that 80% of patients who had worn a Holter monitor for 24 hours, and a ZIO®XT Patch for up to 14 days, preferred the ZIO Patch. Single channel ECG data quality is also excellent with one study showing more than 98% of the total recording time was analysable, and a second study showing a median analysable time of 99% of the total wear time. Compliance with returning the device is also good. In a study of 174 ED with indications for monitoring (syncope, dizziness and palpitations), all patients mailed back their devices.

Several studies have shown that ZIO®XT Patch has a higher diagnostic yield for arrhythmias than traditional 24-48 hour Holter monitoring and importantly can also efficiently characterise symptomatic patients without significant arrhythmia. The absence of an arrhythmia during syncope, palpitations or a triggered event does not by itself provide a definitive diagnosis but does allow the clinician to exclude an arrhythmia as a potential cause and is thus clinically useful. Over half of patients (53.4%) in one study did not have an arrhythmia despite a triggered event. This allows the clinician to potentially exclude an arrhythmia as an etiology of the patient's symptoms and potentially avoid further cardiac evaluation.

Camm et al showed in a study on patients with arrhythmogenic right ventricular dysplasia (ARVD), that over the total wear time of both devices, the ZIO®XT Patch detected more premature ventricular contraction events than a 24 hour Holter monitor. Barrett et al showed ZIO®XT Patch had a 57% greater diagnostic yield than a 24 hour Holter monitor, and Schreiber at al demonstrated an overall diagnostic yield of 63% in ED patients with indications for monitoring. This study also showed that 48% of patients had ≥1 arrhythmia and 10% were symptomatic at the time of their arrhythmia. Median time to first arrhythmia was 1.0 days (IQR 0.2-2.8) and median time to first symptomatic arrhythmia was 1.5 days (IQR 0.4-6.7). 54% of symptomatic patients did not have any arrhythmia during their triggered events.

In a study looking at ZIO®XT Patch use in outpatients with clinical indications for monitoring (15% of whom had syncope), of the 60% of patients who had an arrhythmia detected, 30% had their first arrhythmia and 51% had their first symptom-triggered arrhythmia occur after the initial 48-hour period. Mean time to first arrhythmia was 1.7 days (median 0.8) and mean time to first symptomatic arrhythmia was 3.0 days (median 2.1).

This novel ambulatory cardiac monitoring device should allow much earlier arrhythmia detection in more patients allowing better diagnosis and subsequent treatment.

Conditions
Syncope
Being tested
Novel ambulatory patch (ZIO® XT Patch), BNP and hs-troponin I at 0 and 3 hours post ED attendance
Keywords
syncope
Medical subject headings
Syncope

What participants receive

What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.

  • Novel ambulatory patch (ZIO® XT Patch)Device

    All enrolled patients will be fitted with a novel ambulatory patch (ZIO® XT Patch)

  • BNP and hs-troponin I at 0 and 3 hours post ED attendanceBiological

    All patients will have quantification of hs-troponin I (ARCHITECTSTAT high-sensitivity troponin I assay) and BNP (ALERE TRIAGE point-of-care BNP test; ALERE, San Diego, USA; www.alere.co.uk) at 0 and 3 hours post ED attendance.

Study groups in NCT02683174
Study groupRoleWhat they receive
Single study armExperimentalAll enrolled patients will be fitted with a novel ambulatory patch (ZIO®Patch), which continuously records heartbeats for up to 14 days. Brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) and hs-troponin I at 0 and 3 hours post ED attendance
Receives: Device: Novel ambulatory patch (ZIO® XT Patch); Biological: BNP and hs-troponin I at 0 and 3 hours post ED attendance

What is being measured

The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.

  1. Number of Ambulatory Patch Monitor Participants Having Significant Symptomatic Arrhythmia

    Significant arrhythmia will be defined as:

    • Non-symptomatic ventricular tachycardia < 30 seconds,
    • Symptomatic sinus bradycardia < 60 beats/minute (but >40 or less than 30 seconds),
    • Asymptomatic sinus bradycardia < 40 beats/minute,
    • Sick sinus syndrome with alternating sinus bradycardia and tachycardia,
    • Sinus pause > 3 seconds (but less than 6 seconds),
    • Symptomatic Mobitz type I atrioventricular heart block,
    • Junctional/idioventricular rhythm,
    • Symptomatic supraventricular tachycardia with rate > 100/minute,
    • Symptomatic atrial flutter/fibrillation with ventricular rate >100/min,
    • Symptomatic atrial flutter/fibrillation with ventricular rate <60/min

    Arrhythmias will also be defined as symptomatic (i.e. concurrent light-headedness/dizziness, syncope/presyncope with arrhythmia) or asymptomatic.

    Measured: 90 days

Secondary outcomes (6)
  1. Median Time to Detection of Significant Symptomatic Arrhythmia

    Median time to detection of significant symptomatic arrhythmia by ambulatory patch monitor

    Measured: 90 days

  2. Number of Participants With Arrhythmia

    Prevalence of arrhythmia including serious significant arrhythmia, significant arrhythmia and symptomatic arrhythmia in ED syncope patients unexplained after ED evaluation.

    Measured: 90 days

  3. Number of Participants Who Agreed or Strongly Agreed That the Patch Monitor Was Easy to Use.

    Number of participants who agreed or strongly agreed that the patch monitor was easy to use. Patient patch satisfaction (postal questionnaire).

    Measured: 90 days

  4. Median Device Wear Time

    Patch compliance described by median device wear time

    Measured: 14 days

  5. Number of Participants With Significant Arrhythmia Requiring Referral.

    Number of participants with significant underlying arrhythmic pathology on ambulatory patch monitoring requiring referral.

    Measured: 90 days

  6. Number of Participants With All Cause Serious Outcome

    All cause serious outcome will be a composite of:

    • All cause death,
    • Major adverse cardiac events [MACE]
    • Myocardial infarction [25],
    • Significant arrhythmia [25],
    • Significant Structural Heart Disease [23],
    • Positive Electrophysiology Study Findings [25]
    • Permanent pacemaker or defibrillator placement,
    • Coronary artery bypass graft or coronary artery stent,
    • Cardiac valve surgery,
    • Elective cardioversion in the absence of objective evidence that tachyarrhythmia is responsible for the syncope,
    • Balloon-pump insertion,
    • Heart transplant,
    • Initiation of anti-arrhythmia medical therapy,
    • Ventricular assist device

    Measured: 90 days

Timeline

From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.

  1. First posted17 Feb 2016 (estimated)
  2. Study start1 Nov 2015
  3. Primary completion13 Jun 2017
  4. Study completion13 Sep 2017

Resources

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
Diagnosis
Allocation
Not applicable
Intervention model
Single group
Masking
None (open label)
Enrolment
86 participants (actual)
IDs, dates and publications
ClinicalTrials.gov ID
NCT02683174
Sponsor's protocol ID
2015/0225
Other IDs
179127, 19511
Acronym
PATCH-ED
Status last verified
Sep 2016
First submitted
5 Feb 2016
Last updated
3 Dec 2019
Data monitoring committee
No
Individual data sharing
Yes: Data will be available from 6 months after final publication

Publications

  • Reed MJ, Newby DE, Coull AJ, Prescott RJ, Jacques KG, Gray AJ. The ROSE (risk stratification of syncope in the emergency department) study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010 Feb 23;55(8):713-21. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2009.09.049.

    PubMed 20170806
  • Reed MJ, Henderson SS, Newby DE, Gray AJ. One-year prognosis after syncope and the failure of the ROSE decision instrument to predict one-year adverse events. Ann Emerg Med. 2011 Sep;58(3):250-6. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2010.12.021. Epub 2011 Feb 2.

    PubMed 21288597
  • Martin TP, Hanusa BH, Kapoor WN. Risk stratification of patients with syncope. Ann Emerg Med. 1997 Apr;29(4):459-66. doi: 10.1016/s0196-0644(97)70217-8.

    PubMed 9095005
  • Oh JH, Hanusa BH, Kapoor WN. Do symptoms predict cardiac arrhythmias and mortality in patients with syncope? Arch Intern Med. 1999 Feb 22;159(4):375-80. doi: 10.1001/archinte.159.4.375.

    PubMed 10030311
  • Colivicchi F, Ammirati F, Melina D, Guido V, Imperoli G, Santini M; OESIL (Osservatorio Epidemiologico sulla Sincope nel Lazio) Study Investigators. Development and prospective validation of a risk stratification system for patients with syncope in the emergency department: the OESIL risk score. Eur Heart J. 2003 May;24(9):811-9. doi: 10.1016/s0195-668x(02)00827-8.

    PubMed 12727148
  • Sarasin FP, Hanusa BH, Perneger T, Louis-Simonet M, Rajeswaran A, Kapoor WN. A risk score to predict arrhythmias in patients with unexplained syncope. Acad Emerg Med. 2003 Dec;10(12):1312-7. doi: 10.1111/j.1553-2712.2003.tb00003.x.

    PubMed 14644781
  • Quinn JV, Stiell IG, McDermott DA, Sellers KL, Kohn MA, Wells GA. Derivation of the San Francisco Syncope Rule to predict patients with short-term serious outcomes. Ann Emerg Med. 2004 Feb;43(2):224-32. doi: 10.1016/s0196-0644(03)00823-0.

    PubMed 14747812
  • Quinn J, McDermott D, Stiell I, Kohn M, Wells G. Prospective validation of the San Francisco Syncope Rule to predict patients with serious outcomes. Ann Emerg Med. 2006 May;47(5):448-54. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2005.11.019. Epub 2006 Jan 18.

    PubMed 16631985
  • Costantino G, Perego F, Dipaola F, Borella M, Galli A, Cantoni G, Dell'Orto S, Dassi S, Filardo N, Duca PG, Montano N, Furlan R; STePS Investigators. Short- and long-term prognosis of syncope, risk factors, and role of hospital admission: results from the STePS (Short-Term Prognosis of Syncope) study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008 Jan 22;51(3):276-83. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2007.08.059.

    PubMed 18206736
  • Del Rosso A, Ungar A, Maggi R, Giada F, Petix NR, De Santo T, Menozzi C, Brignole M. Clinical predictors of cardiac syncope at initial evaluation in patients referred urgently to a general hospital: the EGSYS score. Heart. 2008 Dec;94(12):1620-6. doi: 10.1136/hrt.2008.143123. Epub 2008 Jun 2.

    PubMed 18519550
  • Cheung CC, Kerr CR, Krahn AD. Comparing 14-day adhesive patch with 24-h Holter monitoring. Future Cardiol. 2014 May;10(3):319-22. doi: 10.2217/fca.14.24.

    PubMed 24976467
  • Bass EB, Curtiss EI, Arena VC, Hanusa BH, Cecchetti A, Karpf M, Kapoor WN. The duration of Holter monitoring in patients with syncope. Is 24 hours enough? Arch Intern Med. 1990 May;150(5):1073-8.

    PubMed 2331188
  • Tattersall LC, Reed MJ. The inpatient management of syncope. Emerg Med J. 2010 Nov;27(11):870-2. doi: 10.1136/emj.2010.092924. Epub 2010 Aug 3.

    PubMed 20682959
  • Task Force for the Diagnosis and Management of Syncope; European Society of Cardiology (ESC); European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA); Heart Failure Association (HFA); Heart Rhythm Society (HRS); Moya A, Sutton R, Ammirati F, Blanc JJ, Brignole M, Dahm JB, Deharo JC, Gajek J, Gjesdal K, Krahn A, Massin M, Pepi M, Pezawas T, Ruiz Granell R, Sarasin F, Ungar A, van Dijk JG, Walma EP, Wieling W. Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of syncope (version 2009). Eur Heart J. 2009 Nov;30(21):2631-71. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehp298. Epub 2009 Aug 27. No abstract available.

    PubMed 19713422
  • Rosenberg MA, Samuel M, Thosani A, Zimetbaum PJ. Use of a noninvasive continuous monitoring device in the management of atrial fibrillation: a pilot study. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2013 Mar;36(3):328-33. doi: 10.1111/pace.12053. Epub 2012 Dec 13.

    PubMed 23240827

Questions about this trial

What is this clinical trial studying?

A study testing Novel ambulatory patch (ZIO® XT Patch) and BNP and hs-troponin I at 0 and 3 hours post ED attendance in people with Syncope, run by NHS Lothian at 1 site in United Kingdom.

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 1 inclusion and 19 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: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 3 Dec 2019. 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 Kingdom. 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?

Yes. Results are posted in the registry (first posted 3 Dec 2019). A summary is in the For doctors view, and the full results are on ClinicalTrials.gov.

How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?

The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.

What does the primary outcome measure?

Number of Ambulatory Patch Monitor Participants Having Significant Symptomatic Arrhythmia (time frame: 90 days). 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 NCT02683174, which also lists 21 linked publications.

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 3 Dec 2019.

Free account

Log in to keep searching

You’ve used your 3 free searches. AzTrials is free: log in or create a free account to keep searching clinical trials and save the ones you want to follow.

Create a free accountLog in