BackgroundOsteoarthritis (OA) of the hip and knee are among the most common chronic conditions, resulting in substantial pain and functional limitations. Adequate management of OA requires a combination of medical and behavioral strategies. However, some recommended therapies are under-utilized in clinical settings, and the majority of patients with hip and knee OA are overweight and physically inactive. Consequently, interventions at the provider-level and patient-level both have potential for improving outcomes. This manuscript describes two ongoing randomized clinical trials being conducted in two different health care systems, examining patient-based and provider-based interventions for managing hip and knee OA in primary care.Methods / DesignOne study is being conducted within the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system and will compare a Combined Patient and Provider intervention relative to usual care among n = 300 patients (10 from each of 30 primary care providers). Another study is being conducted within the Duke Primary Care Research Consortium and will compare Patient Only, Provider Only, and Combined (Patient + Provider) interventions relative to usual care among n = 560 patients across 10 clinics. Participants in these studies have clinical and / or radiographic evidence of hip or knee osteoarthritis, are overweight, and do not meet current physical activity guidelines. The 12-month, telephone-based patient intervention focuses on physical activity, weight management, and cognitive behavioral pain management. The provider intervention involves provision of patient-specific recommendations for care (e.g., referral to physical therapy, knee brace, joint injection), based on evidence-based guidelines. Outcomes are collected at baseline, 6-months, and 12-months. The primary outcome is the Western Ontario and McMasters Universities Osteoarthritis Index (self-reported pain, stiffness, and function), and secondary outcomes are the Short Physical Performance Test Protocol (objective physical function) and the Patient Health Questionnaire-8 (depressive symptoms). Cost effectiveness of the interventions will also be assessed.DiscussionResults of these two studies will further our understanding of the most effective strategies for improving hip and knee OA outcomes in primary care settings.Trial registrationNCT01130740 (VA); NCT 01435109 (NIH)
Melatonin is commonly used for sleep and jetlag at low doses. However, there is less documentation on the safety of higher doses, which are being increasingly used for a wide variety of conditions, including more recently COVID-19 prevention and treatment. The aim of this review was to investigate the safety of higher doses of melatonin in adults. Medline, Scopus, Embase and PsycINFO databases from inception until December 2019 with convenience searches until October 2020. Randomised controlled trials investigating high-dose melatonin (≥10 mg) in human adults over 30 years of age were included. Two investigators independently abstracted articles using PRISMA guidelines. Risk of bias was assessed by a committee of three investigators. 79 studies were identified with a total of 3861 participants. Studies included a large range of medical conditions. The metaanalysis was pooled data using a random effects model. The outcomes examined were the number of adverse events (AEs), serious adverse events (SAEs) and withdrawals due to AEs. A total of 29 studies (37%) made no mention of the presence or absence of AEs. Overall, only four studies met the pre-specified low risk of bias criteria for meta-analysis. In that small subset, melatonin did not cause a detectable increase in SAEs (Rate Ratio = 0.88 [0.52, 1.50], p = .64) or withdrawals due to AEs (0.93 [0.24, 3.56], p = .92), but did appear to increase the risk GTN1139625). ACM is supported by the NHMRC Centre of Research Excellence to Optimise Sleep in Brain Ageing and Neurodegeneration (CogSleep). NSM's time was funded by a salary from the University of Sydney of AEs such as drowsiness, headache and dizziness (1.40 [1.15, 1.69], p < .001).Overall, there has been limited AE reporting from high-dose melatonin studies.Based on this limited evidence, melatonin appears to have a good safety profile.Better safety reporting in future long-term trials is needed to confirm this as our confidence limits were very wide due to the paucity of suitable data.
OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the effectiveness of Helping Invested Families Improve Veterans' Experiences Study (HI-FIVES), a skills training program for caregivers of persons with functional or cognitive impairments. DESIGN: A two-arm RCT. SETTING: Single Veterans Affairs Medical Center. PARTICIPANTS: Patients and their primary caregivers referred in the past 6 months to home and communitybased services or geriatrics clinic. INTERVENTION: All caregivers received usual care. Caregivers in HI-FIVES also received five training calls and four group training sessions. MAIN MEASURES: Cumulative patient days at home 12 months post-randomization, defined as days not in an emergency department, inpatient hospital, or post-acute facility. Secondary outcomes included patients' total VA health care costs, caregiver and patient rating of the patient's experience of VA health care, and caregiver depressive symptoms. RESULTS: Of 241 dyads, caregivers' (patients') mean age was 61 (73) years, 54% (53%) Black and 89% (4%) female. HI-FIVES was associated with a not statistically significant 9% increase in the rate of days at home (95% CI 0.72, 1.65; mean difference 1 day over 12 months). No significant differences were observed in health care costs or caregiver depressive symptoms. Model-estimated mean baseline patient experience of VA care (scale of 0-10) was 8.43 (95% CI 8.16, 8.70); the modeled mean difference between HI-FIVES and controls at 3 months was 0.29 (p = .27), 0.31 (p = 0.26) at 6 months, and 0.48 (p = 0.03) at 12 months. For caregivers, it was 8.34 (95% CI 8.10, 8.57); the modeled mean difference at 3 months was 0.28 (p = .18), 0.53 (p < .01) at 6 months, and 0.46 (p = 0.054) at 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: HI-FIVES did not increase patients' days at home; it showed sustained improvements in caregivers' and patients' experience of VA care at clinically significant levels, nearly 0.5 points. The training holds promise in increasing an important metric of care quality-reported experience with care.
Positively framed messages can improve CPAP adherence in patients with OSA in the short-term; however, strategies for implementing its long-term use need to be developed.
Modafinil is used internationally to treat residual sleepiness despite continuous positive airway pressure in obstructive sleep apnoea (res-OSA). In 2011, the European Medicines Agency removed the indication based on an unfavourable risk-benefit profile in two trials for efficacy and all accumulated safety data. We performed a meta-analysis of all randomised controlled trials of modafinil (or armodafinil) in res-OSA to quantify efficacy and safety.We systematically searched and assessed studies from major databases, conferences and trials registries to find randomised, placebo-controlled trials of modafinil/armodafinil for ≥2 weeks in adult res-OSA treating sleepiness.We analysed 10 of the 232 articles identified that met inclusion criteria (1466 patients). Modafinil/armodafinil improved the Epworth Sleepiness Scale score (2.2 points, 95% CI 1.5-2.9) and the Maintenance of Wakefulness Test over placebo (3 min, 95% CI 2.1-3.8 min). Modafinil/armodafinil tripled adverse events and doubled adverse events leading to withdrawal but did not increase serious adverse events (hospitalisations or death).Modafinil and armodafinil improve subjective and objective daytime sleepiness in res-OSA. We believe our analysis is a fairer analysis of the risk-benefit profile of this indication. Clinicians may want to use this data to balance the risks and benefits on a case-by-case basis with their patients.
Background Bloodstream infection is associated with high mortality and serious morbidity in preterm babies. Evidence from clinical trials shows that antimicrobial-impregnated central venous catheters (CVCs) reduce catheterrelated bloodstream infection in adults and children receiving intensive care, but there is a paucity of similar evidence for babies receiving neonatal intensive care. Methods This open-label, parallel-group, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial was done in 18 neonatal intensive care units in England. Newborn babies who needed a peripherally inserted CVC (PICC) were allocated randomly (1:1) to receive either a PICC impregnated with miconazole and rifampicin or a standard (non-antimicrobial-impregnated) PICC. Random allocation was done with a web-based program, which was centrally controlled to ensure allocation concealment. Randomisation sequences were computer-generated in random blocks of two and four, and stratified by site. Masking of clinicians to PICC allocation was impractical because rifampicin caused brown staining of the antimicrobial-impregnated PICC. However, participant inclusion in analyses and occurrence of outcome events were determined following an analysis plan that was specified before individuals saw the unblinded data. The primary outcome was the time from random allocation to first microbiologically confirmed bloodstream or cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) infection between 24 h after randomisation and 48 h after PICC removal or death. We analysed outcome data according to the intention-to-treat principle. We excluded babies for whom a PICC was not inserted from safety analyses, as these analyses were done with groups defined by the PICC used. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number 81931394. Findings Between Aug 12, 2015, and Jan 11, 2017, we randomly assigned 861 babies (754 [88%] born before 32 weeks of gestation) to receive an antimicrobial-impregnated PICC (430 babies) or standard PICC (431 babies). The median time to PICC removal was 8•20 days (IQR 4•77-12•13) in the antimicrobial-impregnated PICC group versus 7•86 days (5•00-12•53) days in the standard PICC group (hazard ratio [HR] 1•03, 95% CI 0•89-1•18, p=0•73), with 46 (11%) of 430 babies versus 44 (10%) of 431 babies having a microbiologically confirmed bloodstream or CSF infection. The time from random allocation to first bloodstream or CSF infection was similar between the two groups (HR 1•11, 95% CI 0•73-1•67, p=0•63). Secondary outcomes relating to infection, rifampicin resistance in positive blood or CSF cultures, mortality, clinical outcomes at neonatal unit discharge, and time to PICC removal were similar between the two groups, although rifampicin resistance in positive cultures of PICC tips was higher in the antimicrobial-impregnated PICC group (relative risk 3•51, 95% CI 1•16-10•57, p=0•018). 60 adverse events were reported from 49 (13%) patients in the antimicrobial-impregnated PICC group and 50 events from 45 (10%) babies in the standard PICC group. Interpretation We found no evidence of benefit or ha...
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.