South Burlington

Researchers are evaluating insulin icodec, a once-weekly insulin injection, compared to insulin glargine, a once-daily injection, in adults with type 1 diabetes. The study aims to see how well weekly insulin icodec controls blood sugar levels compared to daily insulin glargine when both are combined with insulin aspart. This phase 3 study will last about 26 weeks, or roughly 8.5 months. Participants will receive either insulin icodec or insulin glargine, both given as subcutaneous injections. All participants will also use insulin aspart as a subcutaneous injection. The study compares these two insulin regimens to assess their effects on blood sugar control over the 26-week period. During the study, researchers will monitor changes in glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) from the start of the study to week 26. Participants will follow the study protocol including self-measured plasma glucose profiles. Safety and efficacy will be evaluated throughout the treatment period to understand the impact of the insulin regimens on blood sugar control and participant health.

Researchers are evaluating the safety and effectiveness of Armour Thyroid compared to synthetic T4 treatment in adults with primary hypothyroidism who are currently stable on synthetic T4. The study focuses on assessing how well patients respond to dose conversion from synthetic T4 therapy to Armour Thyroid. This trial is conducted as a Phase 2/3 multicenter, double-blind, randomized, active-controlled study. Participants receive either Armour Thyroid in oral capsule or tablet form or synthetic T4 capsules. They must have been on a stable dose of synthetic T4 for at least 12 months before screening, with a dose of at least 25 mcg daily. The study compares both treatments over time to evaluate efficacy and safety in maintaining thyroid function. During the study, researchers monitor thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) levels to measure treatment response at week 55. They also track any adverse events related to the treatments for up to approximately 90 weeks. Participants undergo regular assessments to ensure safety and effectiveness throughout the study period.

Researchers are exploring if one treatment method is better than another for people with lateral elbow pain, also known as tennis elbow. This study focuses on patients referred for lateral elbow tendinopathy and compares a traditional treatment approach with a non-traditional method called the "Think in Nerve Length and Layers" (TINLL) technique. Participants are assigned to either group based on their past treatments for this pain. Participants in the traditional treatment group receive weekly treatments for 4 to 6 weeks that may include stretching and strengthening wrist extensors, soft tissue work, joint mobilization, taping, ergonomic advice, electrical nerve stimulation, and wrist splinting. The TINLL group receives treatment once every 1 to 2 weeks for 4 to 6 weeks with techniques such as joint and tendon mobilization, elastic taping for muscles and nerves, muscle stretching and strengthening exercises, and ergonomic strategies. Both groups follow home exercise programs tailored to their treatments. After 4 weeks, participants can choose to switch groups if they wish. Participants undergo assessments at the start, 2 weeks, and 4 weeks, which include tests measuring pain, grip strength, and function related to tennis elbow. These evaluations use patient surveys and physical strength tests. Six months after treatment, participants will be contacted by phone to discuss their pain, function, and use of taping or exercises. The study monitors progress over the treatment period and long-term follow-up to compare the effectiveness of the two treatment approaches.

Hospitalization and treatment for cardiovascular disease often lead to disability in older adults. This research aims to improve recovery of aerobic fitness and physical function in older patients through a novel high intensity training program. The study focuses on older adults enrolled in cardiac rehabilitation who have recently experienced a heart attack or undergone procedures like angioplasty, stent placement, or valve replacement. It compares traditional moderate intensity training to a new combined high intensity interval aerobic and resistance training. Participants will be randomly assigned to either a high intensity training group (HIIT combined with high intensity resistance training) or a moderate intensity training group (MICT combined with moderate intensity resistance training). Both groups will take part in Phase 2 cardiac rehabilitation. The study evaluates which training approach better improves aerobic fitness and physical function, addressing the unique needs of older adults recovering from cardiac events. During the study, researchers will measure changes in aerobic fitness and physical function within four months after the initial assessment. Participants' progress will be tracked using tests like the 30-second sit-to-stand test. The study includes monitoring adherence to exercise programs and safety. The overall goal is to reduce disability and improve clinical outcomes in older adults recovering from cardiovascular events by optimizing rehabilitation strategies.