Search

Background: Depression is viewed as a major and increasing public health issue, as it causes high distress in the people experiencing it and considerable financial costs to society. Efforts are being made to reduce this burden by preventing depression. A critical component of this strategy is the ability to assess the individual level and profile of risk for the development of major depression. This paper presents the cost-effectiveness of a personalized intervention based on the risk of developing depression carried out in primary care, compared with usual care.Methods: Cost-effectiveness analyses are nested within a multicentre, clustered, randomized controlled trial of a personalized intervention to prevent depression. The study was carried out in 70 primary care centres from seven cities in Spain. Two general practitioners (GPs) were randomly sampled from those prepared to participate in each centre (i.e. 140 GPs), and 3326 participants consented and were eligible to participate. The intervention included the GP communicating to the patient his/her individual risk for depression and personal risk factors and the construction by both GPs and patients of a psychosocial programme tailored to prevent depression. In addition, GPs carried out measures to activate and empower the patients, who also received a leaflet about preventing depression. GPs were trained in a 10- to 15-h workshop. Costs were measured from a societal and National Health care perspective. Qualityadjustedlife years were assessed using the EuroQOL five dimensions questionnaire. The time horizon was 18 months.Results: With a willingness-to-pay threshold of €10,000 (£8568) the probability of cost-effectiveness oscillated from 83% (societal perspective) to 89% (health perspective). If the threshold was increased to €30,000 (£25,704), the probability of being considered cost-effective was 94% (societal perspective) and 96%, respectively (health perspective). The sensitivity analysis confirmed these results.Conclusions: Compared with usual care, an intervention based on personal predictors of risk of depression implemented by GPs is a cost-effective strategy to prevent depression. This type of personalized intervention in primary care should be further developed and evaluated.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01151982. Registered on June 29, 2010. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Rates of perinatal depression (antenatal and postnatal depression) in South Asia are among the highest in the world. The delivery of effective psychological treatments for perinatal depression through existing health systems is a challenge due to a lack of human resources. This paper reports on a trial protocol that aims to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the Thinking Healthy Programme delivered by peers (Thinking Healthy Programme Peer-delivered; THPP), for women with moderate to severe perinatal depression in rural and urban settings in Pakistan and India.Methods/design: THPP is evaluated with two randomised controlled trials: a cluster trial in Rawalpindi, Pakistan, and an individually randomised trial in Goa, India. Trial participants are pregnant women who are registered with the lady health workers in the study area in Pakistan and pregnant women attending outpatient antenatal clinics in India. They will be screened using the patient health questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) for depression symptoms and will be eligible if their PHQ-9 is equal to or greater than 10 (PHQ-9 ≥ 10). The sample size will be 560 and 280 women in Pakistan and India, respectively. Women in the intervention arm (THPP) will be offered ten individual and four group sessions (Pakistan) or 6-14 individual sessions (India) delivered by a peer (defined as a mother from the same community who is trained and supervised in delivering the intervention). Women in the control arm (enhanced usual care) will receive health care as usual, enhanced by providing the gynaecologist or primary-health facilities with adapted WHO mhGAP guidelines for depression treatment, and providing the woman with her diagnosis and information on how to seek help for herself. The primary outcomes are remission and severity of depression symptoms at the 6-month postnatal follow-up. Secondary outcomes include remission and severity of depression symptoms at the 3-month postnatal follow-up, functional disability, perceived social support, breastfeeding rates, infant height and weight, and costs of health care at the 3- and 6-month postnatal follow-ups. The primary analysis will be intention-to-treat.Discussion: The trials have the potential to strengthen the evidence on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of an evidence-based psychological treatment recommended by the World Health Organisation and delivered by peers for perinatal depression. The trials have the unique opportunity to overcome the shortage of human resources in global mental health and may advance our understanding about the use of peers who work in partnership with the existing health systems in low-resource settings.Trial Registration: Pakistan Trial: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02111915 (9 April 2014) India Trial: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02104232 (1 April 2014). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Using patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to assess Quality of Life (QoL) is well established, but commonly-used PROM item-sets do not necessarily capture what all respondents consider important. Measuring complex constructs is particularly difficult in randomised controlled trials (RCTs). The Mother-Generated Index (MGI) is a validated antenatal and postnatal QoL instrument in which the variables and scores are completely respondent-driven. This paper reports on the feasibility and acceptability of the MGI in an RCT, and compares the resulting variables and QoL scores with more commonly used instruments.Methods: The single-page MGI was included at the end of a ten page questionnaire pack and posted to the RCT participants at baseline (28-32 weeks' gestation) and follow-up (six weeks postnatal). Feasibility and acceptability were assessed by ease of administration, data entry and completion rates. Variables cited by women were analysed thematically. MGI QoL scores were compared with outcomes from the EQ-5D-3 L; Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale; Satisfaction With Life Scale; and State Trait Anxiety Inventory.Results: Six hundred and seventy eight pregnant women returned the pack at baseline; 668 completed the MGI (98.5%); 383/400 returns at follow up included a completed MGI (95.7%). Quantitative data were scanned into SPSS using a standard data scanning system, and were largely error-free; qualitative data were entered manually. The variables recorded by participants on the MGI forms incorporated many of those in the comparison instruments, and other outcomes commonly used in intrapartum trials, but they also revealed a wider range of issues affecting their quality of life. These included financial and work-related worries; moving house; and concerns over family illness and pets. The MGI scores demonstrated low-to-moderate correlation with other tools (all r values p < .01).Conclusions: Without face-to-face explanation and at the end of a long questionnaire, the MGI was feasible to use, and acceptable to RCT participants. It allowed individual participants to include issues that were important to them, but which are not well captured by existing tools. The MGI unites the explanatory power of qualitative research with the comparative power of quantitative designs, is inexpensive to administer, and requires minimal linguistic and conceptual translation.Trial Registration: ISRCTN27575146 (date assigned 23 March 2011). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Attrition is problematic in trials, and may be exacerbated in longer studies, telehealth trials and participants with depression - three features of The Healthlines Study. Advance notification, including a photograph and using action-oriented email subject lines might increase response rates, but require further investigation. We examined the effectiveness of these interventions in three embedded Healthlines studies.Methods: Based in different trial sites, participants with depression were alternately allocated to be pre-called or not ahead of the 8-month follow-up questionnaire (Study 1), randomized to receive a research team photograph or not with their 12-month questionnaire (Study 2), and randomized to receive an action-oriented ('ACTION REQUIRED') or standard ('Questionnaire reminder') 12-month email reminder (Study 3). Participants could complete online or postal questionnaires, and received up to five questionnaire reminders. The primary outcome was completion of the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9). Secondary outcome measures were the number of reminders and time to questionnaire completion.Results: Of a total of 609 Healthlines depression participants, 190, 251 and 231 participants were included in Studies 1-3 (intervention: 95, 126 and 115), respectively. Outcome completion was ≥90 % across studies, with no differences between trial arms (Study 1: OR 0.38, 95 % CI 0.07-2.10; Study 2: OR 0.84, 95 % CI 0.26-2.66; Study 3: OR 0.53 95 % CI 0.19-1.49). Pre-called participants were less likely to require a reminder (48.4 % vs 62.1 %, OR 0.41, 95 % CI 0.21-0.78), required fewer reminders (adjusted difference in means -0.67, 95 % CI -1.13 to -0.20), and completed follow-up quicker (median 8 vs 15 days, HR 1.35, 95 % CI 1.00-1.82) than control subjects. There were no significant between-group differences in Studies 2 or 3.Conclusions: Eventual response rates in this trial were high, with no further improvement from these interventions. While the photograph and email interventions were ineffective, pre-calling participants reduced time to completion. This strategy might be helpful when the timing of study completion is important. Researchers perceived a substantial benefit from the reduction in reminders with pre-calling, despite no overall decrease in net effort after accounting for pre-notification.Trial Registration: Current Clinical Trials ISRCTN14172341. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The study aimed to determine the efficacy of melatonin supplementation for sleep disturbances in patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI).Methods: This is a randomised double-blind placebo-controlled two-period two-treatment (melatonin and placebo) crossover study. Outpatients were recruited from Epworth and Austin Hospitals Melbourne, Australia. They had mild to severe TBI (n = 33) reporting sleep disturbances post-injury (mean age 37 years, standard deviation 11 years; 67% men). They were given prolonged-release melatonin formulation (2 mg; Circadin®) and placebo capsules for 4 weeks each in a counterbalanced fashion separated by a 48-hour washout period. Treatment was taken nightly 2 hours before bedtime. Serious adverse events and side-effects were monitored.Results: Melatonin supplementation significantly reduced global Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index scores relative to placebo, indicating improved sleep quality [melatonin 7.68 vs. placebo 9.47, original score units; difference -1.79; 95% confidence interval (CI), -2.70 to -0.88; p ≤ 0.0001]. Melatonin had no effect on sleep onset latency (melatonin 1.37 vs. placebo 1.42, log units; difference -0.05; 95% CI, -0.14 to 0.03; p = 0.23). With respect to the secondary outcomes, melatonin supplementation increased sleep efficiency on actigraphy, and vitality and mental health on the SF-36 v1 questionnaire (p ≤ 0.05 for each). Melatonin decreased anxiety on the Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale and fatigue on the Fatigue Severity Scale (p ≤ 0.05 for both), but had no significant effect on daytime sleepiness on the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (p = 0.15). No serious adverse events were reported.Conclusions: Melatonin supplementation over a 4-week period is effective and safe in improving subjective sleep quality as well as some aspects of objective sleep quality in patients with TBI.Trial Registration: Identifier: 12611000734965; Prospectively registered on 13 July 2011. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Concerning gaps in the HIV care continuum compromise individual and population health. We evaluated a combination intervention strategy (CIS) targeting prevalent barriers to timely linkage and sustained retention in HIV care in Mozambique.Methods and Findings: In this cluster-randomized trial, 10 primary health facilities in the city of Maputo and Inhambane Province were randomly assigned to provide the CIS or the standard of care (SOC). The CIS included point-of-care CD4 testing at the time of diagnosis, accelerated ART initiation, and short message service (SMS) health messages and appointment reminders. A pre-post intervention 2-sample design was nested within the CIS arm to assess the effectiveness of CIS+, an enhanced version of the CIS that additionally included conditional non-cash financial incentives for linkage and retention. The primary outcome was a combined outcome of linkage to care within 1 month and retention at 12 months after diagnosis. From April 22, 2013, to June 30, 2015, we enrolled 2,004 out of 5,327 adults ≥18 years of age diagnosed with HIV in the voluntary counseling and testing clinics of participating health facilities: 744 (37%) in the CIS group, 493 (25%) in the CIS+ group, and 767 (38%) in the SOC group. Fifty-seven percent of the CIS group achieved the primary outcome versus 35% in the SOC group (relative risk [RR]CIS vs SOC = 1.58, 95% CI 1.05-2.39). Eighty-nine percent of the CIS group linked to care on the day of diagnosis versus 16% of the SOC group (RRCIS vs SOC = 9.13, 95% CI 1.65-50.40). There was no significant benefit of adding financial incentives to the CIS in terms of the combined outcome (55% of the CIS+ group achieved the primary outcome, RRCIS+ vs CIS = 0.96, 95% CI 0.81-1.16). Key limitations include the use of existing medical records to assess outcomes, the inability to isolate the effect of each component of the CIS, non-concurrent enrollment of the CIS+ group, and exclusion of many patients newly diagnosed with HIV.Conclusions: The CIS showed promise for making much needed gains in the HIV care continuum in our study, particularly in the critical first step of timely linkage to care following diagnosis.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01930084. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Bell's palsy or acute idiopathic lower motor neurone facial paralysis is characterized by sudden onset paralysis or weakness of the muscles to one side of the face controlled by the facial nerve. While there is high level evidence in adults demonstrating an improvement in the rate of complete recovery of facial nerve function when treated with steroids compared with placebo, similar high level studies on the use of steroids in Bell's palsy in children are not available. The aim of this study is to assess the utility of steroids in Bell's palsy in children in a randomised placebo-controlled trial.Methods/design: We are conducting a randomised, triple-blinded, placebo controlled trial of the use of prednisolone to improve recovery from Bell's palsy at 1 month. Study sites are 10 hospitals within the Australian and New Zealand PREDICT (Paediatric Research in Emergency Departments International Collaborative) research network. 540 participants will be enrolled. To be eligible patients need to be aged 6 months to < 18 years and present within 72 hours of onset of clinician diagnosed Bell's palsy to one of the participating hospital emergency departments. Patients will be excluded in case of current use of or contraindications to steroids or if there is an alternative diagnosis. Participants will receive either prednisolone 1 mg/kg/day to a maximum of 50 mg/day or taste matched placebo for 10 days. The primary outcome is complete recovery by House-Brackmann scale at 1 month. Secondary outcomes include assessment of recovery using the Sunnybrook scale, the emotional and functional wellbeing of the participants using the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory and Child Health Utility 9D Scale, pain using Faces Pain Scale Revised or visual analogue scales, synkinesis using a synkinesis assessment questionnaire and health utilisation costs at 1, 3 and 6 months. Participants will be tracked to 12 months if not recovered earlier. Data analysis will be by intention to treat with primary outcome presented as differences in proportions and an odds ratio adjusted for site and age.Discussion: This large multicenter randomised trial will allow the definitive assessment of the efficacy of prednisolone compared with placebo in the treatment of Bell's palsy in children.Trial Registration: The study is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12615000563561 (1 June 2015). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Pragmatic trials of implementation interventions focus on evaluating whether an intervention changes professional behaviour under real-world conditions rather than investigating the mechanism through which change occurs. Theory-based process evaluations conducted alongside pragmatic randomised trials address this by assessing whether the intervention changes theoretical constructs proposed to mediate change. The Ontario Printed Educational Materials (PEM) cluster trial was designed to increase family physicians' guideline-recommended prescription of thiazide diuretics. The trial found no intervention effect. Using the theory of planned behaviour (TPB), we hypothesised that changes in thiazide prescribing would be reflected in changes in intention, consistent with changes in attitude and subjective norm, with no change to their perceived behavioural control (PBC), and tested this alongside the RCT.Methods: We developed and sent TPB postal questionnaires to a random sub-sample of family physicians in each trial arm 2 months before and 6 months after dissemination of the PEMs. We used analysis of covariance to test for group differences using a 2 × 3 factorial design. We content-analysed an open-ended question about perceived barriers to thiazide prescription. Using control group data, we tested whether baseline measures of TPB constructs predicted self-reported thiazide prescribing at follow-up.Results: Four hundred twenty-six physicians completed pre- and post-intervention questionnaires. Baseline scores on measures of TPB constructs were high: intention mean = 5.9 out of 7 (SD = 1.4), attitude mean = 5.8 (SD = 1.1), subjective norm mean = 5.8 (SD = 1.1) and PBC mean = 6.2 (SD = 1.0). The arms did not significantly differ post-intervention on any of the theory-based constructs, suggesting a possible ceiling effect. Content analysis of perceived barriers suggested post-intentional barriers to prescribing thiazides most often focused on specific patient clinical characteristics and potential side effects. Baseline intention (β = 0.63, p < 0.01) but not PBC (β = 0.04, p = 0.78) predicted 42.6 % of the variance in self-reported behaviour at follow-up in the control group.Conclusions: Congruent with the Ontario Printed Educational Messages trial results and aligned with the TPB, we saw no impact of the intervention on any TPB constructs. The theoretical basis of this evaluation suggests possible explanations for the failure of the PEM intervention to change professional behaviour, which can directly inform the design and content of future theory-based PEM interventions to change professional behaviour.Trial Registration: ISRCTN, Canada ISRCTN72772651. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) are commonly used for the treatment of anemia due to chronic kidney disease (CKD) and end stage renal disease (ESRD). Patients often lack an understanding of the potential risks and benefits of ESAs, despite government mandated education on this topic. Decision aids are tools commonly used to discuss important information in health care settings. To address this knowledge gap, we designed this study to evaluate the effectiveness of a novel ESA decision aid at promoting informed shared decision making (ISDM) between patients and providers related to ESA use for CKD- and ESRD-related anemia.Methods: Using the principles of informed shared decision making theory, we designed and piloted an ESA decision aid intended to increase CKD and ESRD patient understanding of the potential risks and benefits of ESAs. Informed by the findings during development, the ESA decision aid was modified and finalized for testing. We will perform a randomized clinical trial to assess if administration of the ESA decision aid improves patient understanding of the risks and benefits of ESA use compared to control patients receiving standard care. Participants with either CKD or ESRD and who are receiving ESAs will be eligible for participation. The primary outcome is patients' score on the Patient Anemia Knowledge in Kidney Disease (PAKKD) survey assessed at enrollment and 3 months after. Secondary outcomes include decisional conflict related to ESAs, and patient satisfaction with provider communication.Discussion: The Anemia Risk Communication for patients with Kidney Disease (ARC-KD) study will assess the effectiveness of a novel ESA decision aid to improve patient understanding of ESA use to manage CKD- and ESRD-related anemia. This decision aid is the first resource targeted to improve patient understanding of anemia management in the kidney health context. With the increasing options available for anemia management, this will serve as an important foundation to evolve in the future to optimize anemia-related shared decision making.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01992926 . Registered 11/14/2013. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There is currently little patient information on bronchiectasis, a chronic lung disease with rising prevalence. Previous work shows that patients and their families want more information, which could potentially improve their understanding and self-management. Using interviews and focus groups, we have co-developed a novel patient and carer information resource, aiming to meet their identified needs. The aims and objectives are: 1. To assess the potential impact of the information resource 2. To evaluate and refine the intervention 3. To establish the feasibility of carrying out a multi-centre randomised controlled trial to determine its effect on understanding, self-management and health outcomesMethods/design: This is a feasibility study, with a single-centre, randomised controlled trial design, comparing use of a novel patient information resource to usual care in bronchiectasis. Additionally, patients and carers will be invited to focus groups to discuss their views on both the intervention itself and the trial process. The study duration for each participant will be 3 months from the study entry date. A total of 70 patients will be recruited to the study, and a minimum of 30 will be randomised to each arm. Ten participants (and their carers if applicable) will be invited to attend focus groups on completion of the study visits. Participants will be adults with bronchiectasis diagnosed as per national bronchiectasis guidelines. Once consented, participants will be randomised to the intervention or control arm using random permuted blocks to ensure treatment group numbers are evenly balanced. Randomisation will be web-based. Those randomised to the intervention will receive the information resource (website and booklet) and instructions on its use. Outcome measures (resource satisfaction, resource use and alternative information seeking, quality of life questionnaires, unscheduled healthcare visits, exacerbation frequency, bronchiectasis knowledge questionnaire and lung function tests) will be recorded at baseline, 2 weeks and 3 months.Discussion: All outcome measures will be used in assessing feasibility and acceptability of a future definitive trial. Feasibility outcomes include recruitment, retention and study scale form completion rates. Focus groups will strengthen qualitative data for resource refinement and to identify participant views on the trial process, which will also inform feasibility assessments. Questionnaires will also be used to evaluate and refine the resource.Trial Registration: ISRCTN84229105. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Management of long-term depression is a significant problem in primary care populations with considerable on-going morbidity, but few studies have focused on this group.Aims: To evaluate whether structured, nurse-led proactive care of patients with chronic depression in primary care improves outcomes.Method: Participants with chronic/recurrent major depression or dysthymia were recruited from 42 UK general practices and randomised to general practitioner (GP) treatment as usual or nurse intervention over 2 years (the ProCEED trial, trial registration:ISRCTN36610074).Results: In total 282 people received the intervention and there were 276 controls. At 24 months there was no significant improvement in Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II) score or quality of life (Euroquol-EQ-VAS), but a significant improvement in functional impairment (Work and Social Activity Schedule, WSAS) of 2.5 (95% CI 0.6-4.3,P= 0.010) in the intervention group. The impact per practice-nurse intervention session was -0.37 (95% CI -0.68 to -0.07,P= 0.017) on the BDI-II score and 70.33 (95% CI 70.55 to -0.10,P= 0.004) on the WSAS score, indicating that attending all 10 intervention sessions could lead to a BDI-II score reduction of 3.7 points compared with controls.Conclusions: The intervention improved functioning in these patients, the majority of whom had complex long-term difficulties, but only had a significant impact on depressive symptoms in those engaging with the full intervention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Erosive lichen planus affecting the vulva (ELPV) is a relatively rare, chronic condition causing painful raw areas in the vulvovaginal region. Symptoms are pain and burning, which impact upon daily living. There is paucity of evidence regarding therapy. A 2012 Cochrane systematic review found no randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in this field. Topically administered corticosteroids are the accepted first-line therapy: however, there is uncertainty as to which second-line treatments to use. Several systemic agents have been clinically noted to show promise for ELPV refractory to topically administered corticosteroids but there is no RCT evidence to support these. The 'hELP' study is a RCT with an internal pilot phase designed to provide high-quality evidence.Methods/design: The objective is to test whether systemic therapy in addition to standard topical therapy is a beneficial second-line treatment for ELPV. Adjunctive systemic therapies used are hydroxychloroquine, methotrexate, mycophenolate mofetil and prednisolone. Topical therapy plus a short course of prednisolone given orally is considered the comparator intervention. The trial is a four-armed, open-label, pragmatic RCT which uses a blinded independent clinical assessor. To provide 80 % power for each comparison, 96 participants are required in total. The pilot phase aims to recruit 40 participants. The primary clinical outcome is the proportion of patients achieving treatment success at 6 months. 'Success' is defined by a composite measure of Patient Global Assessment score of 0 or 1 on a 4-point scale plus improvement from baseline on clinical photographs scored by a clinician blinded to treatment allocation. Secondary clinical outcomes include 6-month assessment of: (1) Reduction in pain/soreness; (2) Global assessment of disease; (3) Response at other affected mucosal sites; (4) Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale scores; (5) Sexual function; (6) Health-related quality of life using 'Short Form 36' and 'Skindex-29' questionnaires; (7) Days of topical steroid use; (8) Treatment satisfaction; (9) Discontinuation of medications due to treatment failure; (10) Per participant cost of intervention in each treatment group. Adverse events will also be reported.Discussion: 'hELP' is the first RCT to address second-line treatment of ELPV. The trial has encountered unique methodological challenges and has required collaborative efforts of the UK Dermatology Clinical Trials Network alongside expert clinicians.Trial Registration: Current Controlled Trials: ISRCTN 81883379 . Date of registration 12 June 2014. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The effectiveness of mobile technology to improve medication adherence via customized Short Messaging Service (SMS) reminders for stroke has not been tested in resource poor areas. We designed a randomized controlled trial to test the effectiveness of SMS on improving medication adherence in stroke survivors in Pakistan.Methods: This was a parallel group, assessor-blinded, randomized, controlled, superiority trial. Participants were centrally randomized in fixed block sizes. Adult participants on multiple medications with access to a cell phone and stroke at least 4 weeks from onset (Onset as defined by last seen normal) were eligible. The intervention group, in addition to usual care, received reminder SMS for 2 months that contained a) Personalized, prescription tailored daily medication reminder(s) b) Twice weekly health information SMS. The Health Belief Model and Social Cognitive theory were used to design the language and content of messages. Frontline SMS software was used for SMS delivery. Medication adherence was self-reported and measured on the validated Urdu version of Morisky Medication Adherence Questionnaire. Multiple linear regression was used to model the outcome against intervention and other covariates. Analysis was conducted by intention-to-treat principle.Results: Two hundred participants were enrolled. 38 participants were lost to follow-up. After 2 months, the mean medication score was 7.4 (95 % CI: 7.2-7.6) in the intervention group while 6.7 (95 % CI: 6.4-7.02) in the control group. The adjusted mean difference (Δ) was 0.54 (95 % CI: 0.22-0.85). The mean diastolic blood pressure in the intervention group was 2.6 mmHg (95 % CI; -5.5 to 0.15) lower compared to the usual care group.Conclusion: A short intervention of customized SMS can improve medication adherence and effect stroke risk factors like diastolic blood pressure in stroke survivors with complex medication regimens living in resource poor areas.Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01986023 last accessed at https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01986023. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Osteoarthritis (OA) is a highly debilitating joint disease that causes progressive, irreversible damage to articular cartilage. OA takes a massive toll on society that has grown in recent decades, but no therapy has been shown to halt or reverse the progression of the disease. The critical need for better treatments and increased interest cellular therapies has spawned a new generation of "minimally manipulated" cell treatments. Autologous adipose tissue injections are among the most controversial of these new treatments. Despite a lack of clinical evidence, adipose tissue injections are often marketed as "stem cell" injections with wide-ranging regenerative benefits. The purpose of this study is to estimate the effect size of the treatment by comparing the efficacy of autologous fat to hyaluronic acid (HA). As a secondary aim, we will test for preliminary evidence of efficacy of autologous fat vs. HA.Methods: This is a prospective, single-center, parallel-group, randomized, controlled trial. Participants (n = 54) will receive either a single intra-articular, ultrasound-guided injection of autologous adipose tissue or a single intra-articular, ultrasound-guided injection of HA (1:1 ratio). Outcome data will be obtained at baseline, week-6 and month-6. The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain domain (WOMAC-A) will be used as the primary outcome measure. Secondary clinical outcome measures include WOMAC (full), clinical anchors (pain, function, and stiffness), and the 29-point Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®) profile. We will also take synovial fluid samples and assess sway velocity using a force plate, as well as analyze excess/discard adipose tissue to gain a better understanding of how intra-articular adipose tissue injections influence the biochemical environment of the joint.Discussion: Given the widespread use of intra-articular fat injections in the United States, it is critical that randomized, controlled human studies evaluating efficacy and biological activity be performed. This study is the first step in addressing this unmet need, but it is not without limitations. The most notable limitations of this study are its small size and lack of blinding, which predisposes the study to both investigator and participant bias.Trial Registration: NCT03242707 // HS-17-00365 // Registration Date (First Posted): August 8, 2018. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]