Search

Objective: To assess the costs, effects, and cost-utility of an accelerated physiotherapy programme versus a standard physiotherapy programme following resurfacing hip arthroplasty. Design: A cost-utility analysis alongside a randomized controlled trial. Setting: A UK National Health Service hospital and patients' homes. Subjects: A total of 80 male resurfacing hip arthroplasty patients randomized post procedure to one of the two programmes. Interventions: The accelerated physiotherapy programme commenced in hospital with patients being fully weight bearing, without hip precautions, and following a range of exercises facilitating gait re-education, balance, and lower limb strength. Standard physiotherapy commenced in hospital, but hip precautions were used and exercises were only partially weight bearing. In both groups, patients continued with their exercises at home for an eight-week period. Main measures: Data on healthcare contacts were collected from patients to 12 months and costed using unit costs from national sources. Information was also collected on patients' costs. Health-related quality of life was measured using the EuroQol EQ-5D questionnaire and used to estimate quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) to 12 months. Mean costs and QALYs for each trial arm were compared. Results: On average, the accelerated physiotherapy programme was less expensive (mean cost difference −£200; 95% confidence interval: −£656 to £255) and more effective (mean QALY difference 0.13; 95% confidence interval: 0.05 to 0.21) than standard physiotherapy and had a high probability of being cost-effective. Conclusion: From the National Health Service perspective, an accelerated physiotherapy programme for male patients undergoing revision of total hip arthroplasty (RHA) is very likely to be cost-effective when compared to a standard physiotherapy programme. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives To design and evaluate the effectiveness of a pre-notification leaflet about research to increase recruitment to a randomized controlled trial (RCT). Methods A methodological, two-arm, RCT was conducted, embedded within an existing cohort RCT (REFORM). Participants were randomized for the embedded trial, using a 1:2 ratio (intervention : control) before being randomized for REFORM. Controls received a trial recruitment pack. The intervention group received an additional pre-notification leaflet 2-3 weeks before the recruitment pack. Primary and secondary analyses were conducted using relative risk, the Cox proportional hazards model and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Results Of the 1436 intervention group participants, 73 (5.1%) were randomized into the REFORM trial compared with 126 (4.4%) of the 2878 control group participants. The associated relative risk (1.16) was not statistically significant [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.88-1.56]. Return rate was not significantly increased (relative risk 1.10, 95% CI 0.92-1.28) nor time to return decreased (hazard ratio: 1.11, 95% CI 0.93-1.33). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios indicated the intervention may be cost-effective if the true estimate of effect was close to the upper bound of the associated 95% CI. Conclusion Pre-notification for potential trial participants demonstrated a small difference to randomization (0.7% difference) and return rates (1.1% difference) in favour of the intervention. Results should however be interpreted with caution as CIs for these estimates cross the point of no effect. Nevertheless, this research enhances existing evidence for pre-notification to increase recruitment rates, with further development and assessment of this potentially cost-effective intervention being recommended. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective Diclofenac is an effective and well-tolerated nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug ( NSAID) frequently used in the treatment of acute pain. Marketed formulations for parenteral administration usually contain 75 mg/3 mL of diclofenac sodium, which provide limited dosing flexibility, and are usually given intramuscularly. Methods We present a randomized, double-blind, active comparator- and placebo-controlled, parallel-group phase III multicenter study, investigating efficacy and tolerability of a new 1 mL-volume formulation of diclofenac sodium (25, 50 or 75 mg) containing hydroxypropyl-β-cyclodextrin ( HPβCD) as a solubility enhancer. This low-volume formulation allows subcutaneous ( SC), in addition to intramuscular ( IM) administration. Patients developing moderate-to-severe pain (≥ 50 mm on Visual Analogue Scale) after third molar extraction under local anesthesia were randomized to one of the 4 SC injections: 25 mg diclofenac HPβCD ( n = 77), 50 mg diclofenac HPβCD ( n = 76), 75 mg diclofenac HPβCD ( n = 78), or placebo ( n = 75). Results Mean pain intensity difference at 1.5 hours postdose (primary endpoint) was higher in all diclofenac-treated groups than placebo group. The adjusted means (95% CI) were 36.5 (31.7 to 41.2) in diclofenac 25 mg group, 37.3 (32.6 to 42.1) in diclofenac 50 mg group, 37.7 (33.0 to 42.4) in diclofenac 75 mg group, and 12.3 (7.44 to 17.1) in placebo group. Both 25 and 50 mg doses of diclofenac produced significantly greater pain relief than placebo ( P < 0.001 in both comparisons). Conclusion Single SC doses of diclofenac HPβCD of 25 and 50 mg are effective and well tolerated for relieving pain compared with placebo. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder is increased in children with intellectual disability. Previous research has suggested stimulants are less effective than in typically developing children but no studies have titrated medication for individual optimal dosing or tested the effects for longer than 4 weeks. Method: One hundred and twenty two drug-free children aged 7-15 with hyperkinetic disorder and IQ 30-69 were recruited to a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial that randomized participants using minimization by probability, stratified by referral source and IQ level in a one to one ratio. Methylphenidate was compared with placebo. Dose titration comprised at least 1 week each of low (0.5 mg/kg/day), medium (1.0 mg/kg/day) and high dose (1.5 mg/kg/day). Parent and teacher Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) index of the Conners Rating Scale-Short Version at 16 weeks provided the primary outcome measures. Clinical response was determined with the Clinical Global Impressions scale (CGI-I). Adverse effects were evaluated by a parent-rated questionnaire, weight, pulse and blood pressure. Analyses were by intention to treat. Trial registration: ISRCTN 68384912. Results: Methylphenidate was superior to placebo with effect sizes of 0.39 [95% confidence intervals (CIs) 0.09, 0.70] and 0.52 (95% CIs 0.23, 0.82) for the parent and teacher Conners ADHD index. Four (7%) children on placebo versus 24 (40%) of those on methylphenidate were judged improved or much improved on the CGI. IQ and autistic symptoms did not affect treatment efficacy. Active medication was associated with sleep difficulty, loss of appetite and weight loss but there were no significant differences in pulse or blood pressure. Conclusions: Optimal dosing of methylphenidate is practical and effective in some children with hyperkinetic disorder and intellectual disability. Adverse effects typical of methylphenidate were seen and medication use may require close monitoring in this vulnerable group. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective. MTX is widely used to treat synovitis in PsA without supporting trial evidence. The aim of our study was to test the value of MTX in the first large randomized placebo-controlled trial (RCT) in PsA.Methods. A 6-month double-blind RCT compared MTX (15 mg/week) with placebo in active PsA. The primary outcome was PsA response criteria (PsARC). Other outcomes included ACR20, DAS-28 and their individual components. Missing data were imputed using multiple imputation methods. Treatments were compared using logistic regression analysis (adjusted for age, sex, disease duration and, where appropriate, individual baseline scores).Results. Four hundred and sixty-two patients were screened and 221 recruited. One hundred and nine patients received MTX and 112 received placebo. Forty-four patients were lost to follow-up (21 MTX, 23 placebo). Twenty-six patients discontinued treatment (14 MTX, 12 placebo). Comparing MTX with placebo in all randomized patients at 6 months showed no significant effect on PsARC [odds ratio (OR) 1.77, 95% CI 0.97, 3.23], ACR20 (OR 2.00, 95% CI 0.65, 6.22) or DAS-28 (OR 1.70, 95% CI 0.90, 3.17). There were also no significant treatment effects on tender and swollen joint counts, ESR, CRP, HAQ and pain. The only benefits of MTX were reductions in patient and assessor global scores and skin scores at 6 months (P = 0.03, P < 0.001 and P = 0.02, respectively). There were no unexpected adverse events.Conclusions. This trial of active PsA found no evidence for MTX improving synovitis and consequently raises questions about its classification as a disease-modifying drug in PsA.Trial registration. Current Controlled Trials, www.controlled-trials.com, ISRCTN:54376151. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• The intervention was not more effective than services as usual at improving outcomes. • This may relate, in part, to implementation issues; fidelity could be improved. • It may also reflect the relative lack of behavioral components in the program. The aim of the study was to evaluate the implementation and effectiveness of a therapeutic parenting program that targets parents of children aged 6 to 11 years identified as having behavioral and emotional difficulties. The intervention comprises two parts, delivered sequentially: a 10–12-week group-based program for all parents, and one-to-one sessions for up to 12 weeks with selected parents from the group-based element. In a randomized controlled trial, 264 participants were allocated to the Inspiring Futures program (intervention) or services as usual (control) arms with follow-up assessments at 16 (post-group program) and 32 (post-one-to-one sessions) weeks. The primary outcome was the parent-rated Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) Total Difficulties score at 32 weeks. Secondary outcomes included parent-rated SDQ subscales, parent coping strategies, empathy in parenting and parenting skills. All 264 participants were included in outcome analyses. There was no statistically significant effect on SDQ Total Difficulties (standardized mean difference: −0.07; 95% CI: −0.30 to 0.16; p = 0.54). There were no sub-group effects. Only 1 of 40 comparisons between the trial arms for secondary outcomes across both follow-ups was statistically significant at the 5% level. The mean number of group sessions attended by intervention arm participants was 6.1 (out of 10 to 12) and only 1 in 20 intervention arm participants received one-to-one support. Independent observation indicated scope to improve fidelity in terms of adherence, quality and participant responsiveness. The intervention is not more effective than services as usual at improving targeted outcomes. This may be related, in part, to implementation issues but arguably more to the inability of a non-behavioral intervention to improve caregiving adequately, particularly when it is not targeted at new parents who have experienced trauma or deprivation early in life or subsequently. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]