South Burlington

Researchers are evaluating insulin icodec, a once-weekly insulin injection, compared to insulin glargine, a once-daily injection. This study focuses on adults with type 1 diabetes to see how well the weekly insulin controls blood sugar when combined with insulin aspart, which is taken 2 to 4 times daily. The trial aims to assess blood sugar control over about 8.5 months. Participants will be randomly assigned to receive either insulin icodec once a week with insulin aspart daily or insulin glargine once a day with insulin aspart daily. Both insulins are given as subcutaneous injections. The study is designed as a parallel comparison to evaluate the effects of these insulin regimens on blood sugar control. During the study, participants will have regular assessments including blood tests to measure HbA1c and glucose levels, monitoring of hypoglycemic episodes, and tracking of insulin doses and body weight. The primary outcome is the change in HbA1c from baseline to week 26. Secondary outcomes include time spent in target glucose ranges and frequency of low blood sugar events. The study will last about 8.5 months with ongoing monitoring to evaluate treatment effects and safety.

Researchers are evaluating the safety and effectiveness of Armour Thyroid compared to synthetic T4 in adults with primary hypothyroidism who have been stable on synthetic T4 treatment. The study will also assess how well patients tolerate switching from synthetic T4 to Armour Thyroid. This trial is a Phase 23, randomized, double-blind study sponsored by AbbVie to compare these two thyroid hormone replacement therapies. Participants will be randomly assigned to receive either Armour Thyroid or to alternate between Armour Thyroid and synthetic T4 for up to 81 weeks. The treatments are oral capsules or tablets taken daily, with doses carefully converted from their stable synthetic T4 dose. The study includes a dose-conversion period where dosage adjustments may be made to maintain appropriate thyroid hormone levels. During the study, participants will have regular blood tests to measure thyroid-stimulating hormone TSH levels, including at week 55 to see who achieves a target TSH response. Researchers will also monitor for any adverse events throughout the study, which lasts up to about 90 weeks. Dose adjustments and safety data will be tracked closely to understand treatment effects and tolerability over time.

Lateral elbow pain, often referred to as lateral elbow tendinopathy or tennis elbow, can greatly limit daily activities. This research compares two treatment approaches to see which might better help people with this condition. The study involves adults referred for lateral elbow pain and evaluates if the Think in Nerve Length and Layers TINLL method is more effective than traditional therapy techniques. Participants are assigned to one of two groups based on their previous treatments a traditional treatment group or a TINLL group. The traditional group receives weekly treatments for 4 to 6 weeks, including wrist extensor stretching and strengthening, soft tissue work, joint mobilization, taping, ergonomic advice, electrical nerve stimulation, and wrist splinting. The TINLL group has treatments every 1 to 2 weeks over 4 to 6 weeks, focusing on joint and tendon mobilization, elastic taping of muscles and nerves, stretching and strengthening of elbow and upper arm muscles, and ergonomic strategies. After one month, participants may choose to switch groups if they wish. Participants undergo assessments before treatment, at 2 weeks, 4 weeks, and at the end of treatment. These include pain rating scales, grip strength tests, pinch strength tests, and functional surveys common for elbow pain. Six months after treatment, follow-up calls assess pain, function, and use of taping or home exercises. The study monitors changes over time to understand how each treatment impacts pain and function in lateral elbow tendinopathy.

Cardiovascular disease often leads to hospitalization and disability in older adults. This research aims to improve recovery of aerobic fitness and physical function in older cardiac patients by comparing a new high intensity training program with the traditional moderate intensity cardiac rehabilitation exercises. The study focuses on older adults who have experienced recent heart events like myocardial infarction or percutaneous interventions, seeking better ways to reduce disability and improve health outcomes. Participants will be randomly assigned to one of two exercise programs a combined high intensity interval aerobic training HIIT with high intensity resistance training HIRT, or the usual moderate intensity continuous aerobic training MICT with moderate intensity resistance training MIRT used in cardiac rehabilitation. Both approaches are performed during Phase 2 cardiac rehabilitation following hospitalization. The study compares these two regimens to see which better improves aerobic capacity and physical function. During the study, participants aerobic fitness and physical function will be measured within four months after starting the exercise program. Tests include the 30-second sit-to-stand test and assessments of quality of life, depressive symptoms, executive function, physical function through a six-minute walk test, enjoyment of exercise, and anxiety. The study involves regular monitoring and safety assessments throughout to evaluate the effects of the training on participants recovery and functional abilities.