Kris Mounts
|Subscribers
About
Dianabol Cycle For Perfect Results: The Preferred Steroid Of Titans
A Prospective Randomized Trial of a Nutritional Supplement on Muscle Mass in Adults Engaged in Resistance Training
Item Details
Population 250 healthy adults (18–55 y), BMI 20–30 kg/m², who are beginning or maintaining a structured resistance‑training program (≥3 sessions/wk). Exclusion: metabolic disease, musculoskeletal injury, use of anabolic agents, pregnancy, known allergy to supplement ingredients.
Intervention 1 g/day of the active blend (e.g., whey protein isolate + HMB + vitamin D₃) mixed with water/juice; identical in flavor, color, and packaging to placebo.
Comparator Placebo: microcrystalline cellulose + inert excipients, same appearance/taste.
Randomisation & Blinding Computer‑generated block randomisation (block size = 4 or 6), stratified by sex; allocation concealed in sequentially numbered opaque envelopes. Participants, investigators, outcome assessors, and statisticians blinded.
Follow‑up Baseline, 12 weeks (primary endpoint), optional 24 weeks for safety.
Primary Endpoint Change from baseline to week 12 in the 1RM strength of a major muscle group (e.g., leg press).
| Secondary Endpoints | • Muscular hypertrophy: change in thigh cross‑sectional area by MRI/CT.
• Functional performance: time‑to‑complete 5×5 m sprint, vertical jump height.
• Patient‑reported outcomes: International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ), quality of life SF‑36.
• Adverse events and tolerability. |
| Statistical Analysis | ANCOVA adjusting for baseline values; intention‑to‑treat principle. Sample size calculated to detect a 5 kg difference in strength with 80 % power, assuming SD = 10 kg → n ≈ 64 per arm (total 128). |
---
3. Feasibility and Ethical Considerations
Consideration Potential Issue Mitigation
Recruitment of healthy volunteers High screening burden, low prevalence of truly "healthy" adults (pre‑existing conditions). Use large community outreach; offer comprehensive health check to all applicants.
Retention over 2 years Participant fatigue from repeated visits and tests. Provide flexible scheduling, transport assistance, small monetary incentives, regular communication.
Adverse events Potential serious side‑effects (e.g., severe liver injury). Immediate medical evaluation; stopping rules; data safety monitoring board (DSMB).
Data integrity & privacy Sensitive health data must be protected. Robust electronic data capture with encryption, de‑identification protocols, restricted access.
Regulatory compliance Adherence to ICH GCP and local regulations. External audit readiness; thorough documentation of SOPs, training records.
---
6. Statistical Analysis Plan
7.1 Primary Efficacy Endpoint
Proportion of participants achieving ≥ 15% reduction in ALT at any point during the 12‑month treatment period (binary outcome).
Analysis:
Compare proportions between groups using a chi‑square test or Fisher’s exact test if counts are small.
Estimate risk difference and odds ratio with 95% confidence intervals.
7.2 Secondary Efficacy Endpoints
Mean change in ALT, AST, bilirubin, albumin from baseline to month 12:
- Analysed using a mixed‑effects linear model (fixed effects: treatment group, time; random effect: subject).
- Adjust for baseline values as covariates.
Proportion of patients with ≥25% reduction in ALT at any visit:
- Categorical analysis similar to primary endpoint.
Change in liver stiffness (if measured by elastography):
- Same mixed‑effects approach.
7.3 Safety Endpoints
Incidence and severity of adverse events (AEs) compared between groups using a chi‑square test or Fisher’s exact test for rare events.
Laboratory abnormalities (e.g., transaminase elevation >5× ULN): summarized descriptively, with time-to-event analysis if appropriate.
7.4 Handling Missing Data
Use multiple imputation under the assumption of missing at random (MAR) for primary outcome if loss to follow‑up is substantial.
Sensitivity analyses: pattern‑mixture models and worst‑case scenarios.
8. Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications
Informed Consent
- Participants must be fully aware that the study involves a novel therapy with uncertain benefits and risks.
- Consent forms should detail potential side effects (e.g., liver dysfunction) and procedures for monitoring and management.
Risk–Benefit Assessment
- Given limited pre‑clinical data, a thorough review by an independent Data Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) is mandatory.
- The study design should minimize exposure to the investigational drug until safety signals are confirmed.
Equity of Access
- Consider whether participants will have access to continued treatment after trial completion, especially if efficacy is proven.
- Address potential disparities in enrollment (e.g., language barriers, socioeconomic status).
Regulatory Oversight and Transparency
- Full disclosure of all pre‑clinical findings, including any adverse events or limitations.
- Adherence to Good Clinical Practice (GCP) guidelines and local regulatory requirements.
Ethical Review and Informed Consent
- The Institutional Review Board (IRB)/Ethics Committee must scrutinize the risk–benefit profile given the limited data.
- Participants’ consent forms should clearly explain that efficacy is unproven, potential risks are unknown, and alternatives exist.
In summary, while a Phase I trial could be justified if the investigational product exhibits an acceptable safety profile in pre‑clinical studies (e.g., low toxicity, appropriate pharmacokinetics), the decision must rest on robust data. If such data are lacking or insufficient, ethical and regulatory frameworks would likely bar progression to human testing. Consequently, before advancing, researchers should invest heavily in comprehensive animal toxicology, dose‑finding, PK/PD studies, and mechanistic investigations to meet the stringent criteria required for a Phase I trial.
