Search

Introduction: and objective: Tremor is a disabling symptom of PD that usually responds poorly to available standard pharmacological agents. This study aimed to assess the effect of Zonisamide 25 mg on tremor in tremor-dominant PD patients as compared to placebo.Methods: This was a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study. Parkinson's disease patients were allocated either to the intervention group (standard treatment along with Zonisamide 25 mg add-on) or the placebo group (standard treatment along with placebo). Baseline Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) and Tremor Research Group Essential Tremor Rating Scale (TETRAS) scores, as well as accelerometric tremor analysis were done and follow-up assessments of the same were done after 12 weeks of intervention. Percentage change from baseline in the UPDRS tremor score was the primary outcome whereas percentage change from baseline of total UPDRS score, UPDRS rigidity and bradykinesia scores, TETRAS score, and accelerometric tremor analysis values were the secondary outcomes.Results: There was no significant difference in the percentage change from baseline UPDRS tremor scores between the two groups (placebo: 8.33 [-19.89-23.86] vs drug: 26.14 [-35.58 to -16.07], p-value: 0.164, CI: 0.157-0.171). Best-case analysis for missing values showed a significant improvement in the drug group, compared to the placebo group (p-value: < 0.001, CI: <0.001 - <0.001).Conclusion: Zonisamide at a dose of 25 mg per day did not improve tremor in tremor-dominant PD patients, however, a positive trend was seen as compared to Placebo in the UPDRS tremor score. Larger studies are required to confirm this finding. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Few treatments are available for patients with idiopathic hypersomnia (IH). Modafinil, an established treatment for narcolepsy, was tested for efficacy and safety in Japanese patients with IH without long sleep time.Methods: This multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group comparison study was conducted at 20 institutions in Japan. Patients who met the diagnostic criteria of IH in the International Classification of Sleep Disorders (second edition) were included. The study comprised a ≥17-day observation period and a 3-week treatment period during which modafinil (200 mg) or placebo was administered orally once daily (in the morning). The primary efficacy endpoint was change in mean sleep latency on the Maintenance of Wakefulness Test (MWT). Adverse events (AEs) were also recorded to evaluate safety.Results: In total, 123 patients were screened and 71 were randomized to receive modafinil (N = 34) or placebo (N = 37). Patients treated with modafinil experienced a significantly prolonged mean sleep latency on the MWT at the end of the study compared with placebo (5.02 min, 95% confidence interval: 3.26-6.77 min; p < 0.001). AEs occurred in 58.8% (20/34) and 27.0% (10/37) of patients in the modafinil and placebo groups, respectively. Frequent AEs in the modafinil group were headache (n = 6), dry mouth (n = 3), and nausea (n = 3); no clinically significant AEs occurred.Conclusion: Modafinil was shown to be an effective and safe treatment for excessive daytime sleepiness in patients with IH without long sleep time.Clinical Trial Registration: JapicCTI; 142539. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Hangovers are associated with negative economic consequences due to decreased job performance or frequent visits to physicians. Thus, a new strategy for the alleviation of hangover-related symptoms is needed to avoid this detriment to society. The purpose of this nationwide randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled physicians' trial was to evaluate the efficacy of loxoprofen sodium for the alleviation of fatigue, headache, and nausea after hangover. A total of 229 participants were randomized to receive loxoprofen sodium (60 mg once orally) or placebo. The study was closed when the first 150 participants (n = 74 in the loxoprofen vs. n = 76 in the placebo groups) experienced hangovers. The primary endpoint was set as the difference in severity of general fatigue before and 3 h after taking the test drugs and was evaluated using a visual analogue scale. Secondary endpoints included difference in severity of headache, nausea, and incidence of adverse events. The study participants were 34 (interquartile range; 30-39) years old, 92.0% were men, and both groups were comparable for baseline characteristics. The alleviation of general fatigue did not differ statistically between the loxoprofen and placebo groups (24 [14-49] vs. 19 [9-35], p = 0.07). However, the alleviation of headache was statistically greater in the loxoprofen group (25 [10-50] vs. 10 [2-30], adjusted difference 14, 95% confidence interval 8-21, p < 0.001), whereas, there was no difference in nausea (7 [0-27] vs. 10 [0-24], p = 0.68). The incidence of adverse symptoms such as epigastric discomfort was also comparable between groups (2.7% vs. 3.9%, p = 0.25). Loxoprofen sodium was effective for relieving headaches after hangovers but did not alleviate general fatigue or nausea. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Evidence for antidepressant effects of L-Carnosine was shown in some experimental studies. In this study we tried to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of L-Carnosine combination therapy in treatment of patients with major depressive disorder (MDD).Methods: Fifty-eight patients with MDD (DSM-V) and Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D) score ≥ 19 were randomized to receive either 400 mg twice daily L-Carnosine or placebo in addition to citalopram (maximum dosage of 40 mg/day) for six weeks in a randomized double-blind, and placebo-controlled study. Patients were assessed using the HAM-D scale at baseline and weeks 2, 4, and 6.Results: Fifty-two patients completed the trial. General linear model repeated measure showed significant difference for time × treatment on HAM-D score [F = 3.17, df = 2.39, p-value = 0.03]. Significantly greater improvement was detected in HAM-D score of the L-Carnosine group compared with the placebo group from baseline to weeks 2, 4 and 6 [Ps = 0.013, 0.028 and 0.023; respectively]. Patients in the L-Carnosine group experienced significantly greater response and remission rate than the placebo group [Ps = 0.023 and 0.012; respectively]. There was no significant difference between the two groups in baseline parameters and frequency of side effects.Limitations: Short follow-up period and small population size were two important limitations of this study.Conclusions: L-Carnosine combination therapy with citalopram can effectively improve symptoms of patients with major depressive disorder. Rapid-onset antidepressant effects of L-Carnosine were also shown which need further investigation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The pain of a burn mainly results from the inflammatory cascade that is induced by the injured tissue, and is classified as background, breakthrough, procedural and postoperative pain. High doses of opioids are usually needed to treat background pain, so its management includes a combination of types of analgesia to reduce the side effects. Lidocaine given intravenously has been shown in two small, uncontrolled studies to have an appreciable effect on pain after burns.Objectives: In this prospective double-blind controlled trial we aimed to examine and quantify the opioid-sparing effect of a continuous infusion of lidocaine for the treatment of background pain during the early period after a burn.Methods: Adult patients injured with burns of >10 total body surface area burned (TBSA%) and treated with a morphine based patient-controlled analgesia device (PCA) were randomised to have either lidocaine infusion starting with a bolus dose (1 mg lidocaine/kg) followed by continuous infusion (180 mg lidocaine/hour) or a placebo infusion, for seven consecutive days. Total daily consumption of opioids (mg) and amount of pain (visual analogue score, VAS) were recorded.Results: We included 19 patients, 10 of whom were given a lidocaine infusion. There were no differences between groups in VAS, TBSA%, time of enrolment to the study since the initial burn, or duration of hospital stay. The opioid consumption in the lidocaine group declined by roughly 25% during the period of the study.Conclusion: An intravenous infusion of lidocaine was safe and had an opioid-sparing effect when treating background pain in burns. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context: Although opioids and pregabalin are widely used for cancer-related neuropathic pain (CNP), no clinical trials exist to determine which medications are effective when an opioid-pregabalin combination therapy fails.Objectives: We investigated the efficacy of duloxetine for CNP nonresponsive or intolerant to opioid-pregabalin combination therapy.Methods: A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was performed at 12 specialized palliative care services in Japan. Patients with CNP average pain scores (Brief Pain Inventory [BPI]-Item 5) ≥ 4 in the previous 24 hours and nonresponsive or intolerant to opioid-pregabalin combination therapy were eligible. Patients with chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathies were excluded. Patients were administered duloxetine 20 mg/day titrated to 40 mg/day or placebo for 10 days. The primary endpoint was BPI-Item 5 on Day 10. Responder analysis measured proportions of patients with 30% and 50% pain decreases.Results: Seventy patients were enrolled. Complete case analysis revealed mean BPI-Item 5 on Day 10 of 4.03 for Group D vs. 4.88 for Group P (P = 0.053). Baseline observation carried forward analysis revealed mean BPI-Item 5 on Day 10 of 4.06 and 4.91 for Groups D and P, respectively (P = 0.048). Clinically meaningful pain improvement (≥30%) was reported by 44.1% (n = 15) of patients in Group D vs. 18.2% (n = 6) in Group P (P = 0.02); 32.4% (n = 11) vs. 3.0% (n = 1) of patients in Groups D and P, respectively, reported pain reduction ≥ 50% (P = 0.002).Conclusion: Adding duloxetine to opioid-pregabalin therapy might have clinical benefit in alleviating refractory CNP. Further studies are needed to conclude the efficacy of adding duloxetine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: A lack of objective outcome measures and overreliance on subjective pain reports in early proof-of-concept studies contribute to the high attrition of potentially effective new analgesics. We studied the utility of neuroimaging in providing objective evidence of neural activity related to drug modulation or a placebo effect in a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, three-way crossover trial.Methods: We chronically administered pregabalin or tramadol (first-line and second-line analgesics, respectively), recommended for neuropathic pain, in 16 post-traumatic neuropathic pain patients. We measured subjective pain reports, allodynia-evoked neural activity, and brain resting state functional connectivity from patients during the three sessions and resting state data at baseline from patients after washout of their current medication. All data were collected using a 3 T MRI scanner.Results: When compared with placebo only, pregabalin significantly suppressed allodynia-evoked neural activity in several nociceptive and pain-processing areas of the brain, despite the absence of behavioural analgesia. Furthermore, placebo significantly increased functional connectivity between the rostral anterior cingulate and the brainstem, a core component of the placebo neural network.Conclusions: Functional neuroimaging provided objective evidence of pharmacodynamic efficacy in a proof-of-concept study setting where subjective pain outcome measures are often unreliable. Additionally, we provide evidence confirming the neural mechanism underpinning placebo analgesia as identified in acute experimental imaging studies in patients during the placebo arm of a clinical trial. We explore how brain penetrant active drugs potentially interact with this mechanism.Clinical Trial Registration: NCT0061015. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Auditory hallucinations (AH) are a common and distressing experience and patients report distress reduction to be a priority. Relating Therapy adopts a symptom-specific and mechanism focused approach to the reduction of AH distress. We conducted this single-blind, pragmatic, parallel groups, superiority pilot RCT within a single mental health centre in the UK. Patients (18+years) with persistent and distressing AH, irrespective of diagnosis were randomly allocated to receive either Relating Therapy and Treatment-as-usual (RT) or Treatment as-usual alone (TAU). Assessment of outcome was completed pre-randomisation (T0), 16weeks post-randomisation (T1) and 36weeks post-randomisation (T2). The primary outcome was the 5-item Distress scale of the Psychotic Symptoms Rating Scale - Auditory Hallucinations (PSYRATS-AHRS) at T1. We randomly assigned 29 patients to receive RT (n=14) or TAU (n=15). Twenty-five patients (86%) provided complete datasets. Compared with TAU, RT led to reductions in AH distress in the large effect size range across T1 and T2. Our findings suggest that Relating Therapy might be effective for reducing AH distress. A larger, suitably powered phase 3 study is needed to provide a precise estimate of the effects of Relating Therapy for AH distress. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Alcohol use disorders (AUDs) are highly prevalent among persons living with HIV (PLH) within the criminal justice system (CJS). Extended-release naltrexone (XR-NTX) has not been previously evaluated among CJS-involved PLH with AUDs.Methods: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was conducted among 100 HIV+ prisoners with AUDs. Participants were randomized 2:1 to receive 6 monthly injections of XR-NTX or placebo starting one week prior to release. Using multiple imputation strategies for data missing completely at random, data were analyzed for the 6-month post-incarceration period. Main outcomes included: time to first heavy drinking day; number of standardized drinks/drinking day; percent of heavy drinking days; pre- to post-incarceration change in average drinks/day; total number of drinking days; and a composite alcohol improvement score comprised of all 5 parameters.Results: There was no statistically significant difference overall between treatment arms for time-to-heavy-drinking day. However, participants aged 20-29 years who received XR-NTX had a longer time to first heavy drinking day compared to the placebo group (24.1 vs. 9.5days; p<0.001). There were no statistically significant differences between groups for other individual drinking outcomes. A sub-analysis, however, found participants who received ≥4 XR-NTX were more likely (p<0.005) to have improved composite alcohol scores than the placebo group. Post-hoc power analysis revealed that despite the study being powered for HIV outcomes, sufficient power (0.94) was available to distinguish the observed differences.Conclusions: Among CJS-involved PLH with AUDs transitioning to the community, XR-NTX lengthens the time to heavy drinking day for younger persons; reduces alcohol consumption when using a composite alcohol consumption score; and is not associated with any serious adverse events. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The primary objectives were to compare the efficacy of extracts of the plant Tribulus terrestris (TT; marketed as Tribestan), in comparison with placebo, for the treatment of men with erectile dysfunction (ED) and with or without hypoactive sexual desire disorder (HSDD), as well as to monitor the safety profile of the drug. The secondary objective was to evaluate the level of lipids in blood during treatment.Participants and Design: Phase IV, prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial in parallel groups. This study included 180 males aged between 18 and 65 years with mild or moderate ED and with or without HSDD: 90 were randomized to TT and 90 to placebo. Patients with ED and hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and metabolic syndrome were included in the study. In the trial, an herbal medicine intervention of Bulgarian origin was used (Tribestan®, Sopharma AD). Each Tribestan film-coated tablet contains the active substance Tribulus terrestris, herba extractum siccum (35-45:1) 250mg which is standardized to furostanol saponins (not less than 112.5mg). Each patient received orally 3×2 film-coated tablets daily after meals, during the 12-week treatment period. At the end of each month, participants' sexual function, including ED, was assessed by International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) Questionnaire and Global Efficacy Question (GEQ). Several biochemical parameters were also determined. The primary outcome measure was the change in IIEF score after 12 weeks of treatment. Complete randomization (random sorting using maximum allowable% deviation) with an equal number of patients in each sequence was used. This randomization algorithm has the restriction that unequal treatment allocation is not allowed; that is, all groups must have the same target sample size. Patients, investigational staff, and data collectors were blinded to treatment. All outcome assessors were also blinded to group allocation.Results: 86 patients in each group completed the study. The IIEF score improved significantly in the TT group compared with the placebo group (Р<0.0001). For intention-to-treat (ITT) there was a statistically significant difference in change from baseline of IIEF scores. The difference between TT and placebo was 2.70 (95% CI 1.40, 4.01) for the ITT population. A statistically significant difference between TT and placebo was found for Intercourse Satisfaction (p=0.0005), Orgasmic Function (p=0.0325), Sexual Desire (p=0.0038), Overall Satisfaction (p=0.0028) as well as in GEQ responses (p<0.0001), in favour of TT. There were no differences in the incidence of adverse events (AEs) between the two groups and the therapy was well tolerated. There were no drug-related serious AEs. Following the 12-week treatment period, significant improvement in sexual function was observed with TT compared with placebo in men with mild to moderate ED. TT was generally well tolerated for the treatment of ED. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Professional appearance is easily modifiable, and might alter the effects of a clinical encounter. We aimed to determine whether professional attire influences a patient's perception of treatment credibility.Methods: We performed a single-blind randomized controlled study on 128 patients with acute non-specific low back pain who were about to receive treatment in primary care. The treating clinician was randomly allocated to wear formal attire (experimental condition) or casual attire (control condition) to the consultation. Clinicians provided a standardized briefing on the rationale behind the patient's forthcoming treatment. Treatment credibility (Credibility and Expectancy Questionnaire) was assessed immediately after this briefing.Results: All patients received the experimental or control condition as allocated and provided complete primary outcome data. Formal attire had no effect on perceived treatment credibility (Mean difference between groups 1.2 [95%CI-1.1 to 3.5]). Age was the only significant predictor of treatment credibility; older patients rated treatment credibility higher (Beta=0.16 [95%CI 0.08 to 0.24]).Conclusion: In a trial setting, whether or not a clinician is formally dressed has no effect on perceptions of treatment credibility in patients with acute low back pain.Practice Implication: Clinicians should dress comfortably without fear of losing credibility. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To assess the impact of a preoperative educational intervention on the knowledge level of patients with spinal stenosis.Methods: One hundred spinal stenosis patients were randomized into a preoperative educational intervention group (IG, n=50) or a control group (CG, n=50). All the patients received routine preoperative education. In addition, the IG went through an empowering telephone discourse based on a knowledge test performed before admission to hospital. Data on patients' knowledge level were collected at baseline (after the treatment decision), admission to hospital, discharge from hospital and at 3 and 6 months follow-up.Results: At baseline, there was no difference in the knowledge level of the study groups. At admission, the knowledge level was significantly higher in five of six dimension of empowering knowledge in the IG compared to the CG. During follow-up, the knowledge level within the study groups remained stable.Conclusion: A preoperative KTFI significantly increased the patients' knowledge level in most dimensions of empowering knowledge.Practice Implication: KTFI is an effective method of preoperative education in patients with spinal stenosis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Ketamine is a glutamate N-methyl-d-aspartate receptor antagonist capable of exerting antidepressive effects in single or repeated intravenous infusions. The objective of this study was to investigate the safety and the efficacy of oral ketamine vs. diclofenac monotherapy in reducing symptoms of mild to moderate depression among patients with chronic pain.Methods: This study is a 6-week, randomized, double-blind, controlled, parallel-group trial with two intervention arms (ketamine, fixed daily dosage of 150mg vs. diclofenac, fixed daily dosage of 150mg). Twenty participants in each arm completed the trial program all of whom had two post-baseline measurements at week 3 and week 6. Reduction in depression symptoms was assessed using the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS) and the hospital anxiety and depression subscale for depression (HADSDepression) scores at baseline and week 3 and week 6 post-intervention.Results: Significantly lower HDRS scores were observed in the ketamine treatment group as early as 6 weeks post-intervention (P=0.008). By comparison, mean (±standard deviation) HADS depression subscale scores were significantly lower for individuals receiving ketamine compared to diclofenac for both post-baseline measures at week 3 (6.95±1.47 vs. 8.40±1.6, P=0.005) and week 6 (6.20±1.15 vs. 7.35±1.18, p=0.003).Limitations: The limitations of the present study were its small sample size and the short-term follow-up period.Conclusions: Oral ketamine appears to be a safe and effective option in improving depressive symptoms of patients with chronic pain with mild-to-moderate depression. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In epidemiological studies, statins appear to benefit mood, and there are now some randomized controlled trials examining the efficacy of statins. However, the role of statins in depression remains uncertain. Thus the aim of this paper was to assess the effect of statins on depressive symptoms by performing a meta-analysis of all double-blind, randomized, placebo controlled clinical trials (RCT) conducted in subjects with depression.Methods: A systematic search was executed using PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov in November 30th, 2015 for all double-blind, RCT of statins versus placebo in persons with depressive symptoms. Sixty-seven potential articles were identified through search of electronic databases, of those three met inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. The outcome measure was change in Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS) scores associated with statin use. A meta-analysis was conducted and standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. GRADE was used to assess study quality.Results: The three articles included provided data on 165 participants with moderate to severe depression. Of these, 82 were randomized to statins as an adjuvant therapy to antidepressant treatment (i.e., citalopram or fluoxetine) and 83 to the placebo arm. All studies were double-blind RCTs, with a follow-up of 6-12 weeks. The statin agents evaluated were lovastatin, atorvastatin, and simvastatin. When compared to placebo, statins, as add-on to treatment as usual, largely improved depressive symptoms as assessed by the HDRS (SMD=-0.73, 95% IC -1.04 to -0.42, p<0.001, 3 between-group comparisons, n=165). No serious adverse effects were reported.Conclusions: Our results suggest that adjunctive treatment with statins could be useful for the treatment of depressive symptoms. Additional double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trials are necessary to settle the matter. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Unanticipated difficult intubation remains a challenge in anaesthesia. The Simplified Airway Risk Index (SARI) is a multivariable risk model consisting of seven independent risk factors for difficult intubation. Our aim was to compare preoperative airway assessment based on the SARI with usual airway assessment.Methods: From 01.10.2012 to 31.12.2013, 28 departments were cluster-randomized to apply the SARI model or usual airway assessment. The SARI group implemented the SARI model. The Non-SARI group continued usual airway assessment, thus reflecting a group of anaesthetists' heterogeneous individual airway assessments. Preoperative prediction of difficult intubation and actual intubation difficulties were registered in the Danish Anaesthesia Database for both groups. Patients who were preoperatively scheduled for intubation by advanced techniques (e.g. video laryngoscopy; flexible optic scope) were excluded from the primary analysis. Primary outcomes were the proportions of unanticipated difficult and unanticipated easy intubation.Results: A total of 26 departments (15 SARI and 11 Non-SARI) and 64 273 participants were included. In the primary analyses 29 209 SARI and 30 305 Non-SARI participants were included.In SARI departments 2.4% (696) of the participants had an unanticipated difficult intubation vs 2.4% (723) in Non-SARI departments. Odds ratio (OR) adjusted for design variables was 1.03 (95% CI: 0.77-1.38). The proportion of unanticipated easy intubation was 1.42% (415) in SARI departments vs 1.00% (302) in Non-SARI departments. Adjusted OR was 1.26 (0.68-2.34).Conclusions: Using the SARI compared with usual airway assessment we detected no statistical significant changes in unanticipated difficult- or easy intubations.Clinical Trial Registration: NCT01718561. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Context: Chronic low back pain (LBP) is a prevalent condition associated with pain, disability, decreased quality of life, and fear of movement. To date, no studies have compared the effectiveness of spinal manipulation and functional technique for the management of this population.Purpose: This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of spinal manipulation and functional technique on pain, disability, kinesiophobia, and quality of life in patients with chronic LBP.Study Design/setting: A single-blind pragmatic randomized controlled trial conducted in a university research clinic was carried out.Patient Sample: Sixty-two patients (62% female, age: 45±7) with chronic LBP comprised the patient sample.Outcome Measures: Data on disability (Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire [RMQ], Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Index [ODI]), pain intensity (Numerical Pain Rate Scale [NPRS]), fear of movement (Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia [TSK]), quality of life (Short Form-36 [SF-36] quality of life questionnaire), isometric resistance of abdominal muscles (McQuade test), and spinal mobility in flexion (finger-to-floor distance) were collected at baseline immediately after the intervention phase and at 1 month postintervention by an assessor blinded to group allocation of the patients.Methods: Patients were randomly assigned to the spinal manipulative therapy group or the functional technique group and received three once-weekly sessions.Results: In comparison to patients receiving functional technique, those receiving spinal manipulation experienced statistically, although not clinically, significant greater reductions in terms of RMQ (standardized mean difference in score changes between groups at post-treatment: 0.1; at 1 month: 0.1) and ODI (post-treatment: 2.9; at 1 month: 1.4). Linear longitudinal analysis showed a significant improvement in both groups over time for RMQ (manipulative: F=68.51, p<.001; functional: F=28.58, p<.001) and ODI (manipulative: F=104.66, p<.001; functional: F=32.15, p=.001). However, significant treatment-by-time interactions were not detected for pain intensity (p=.488), TSK (p=.552), any domains of the SF-36 quality of life questionnaire (p≤.164), McQuade test (p=.512), and finger-to-floor distance (p=.194). Differences between and within groups were not clinically meaningful in any of the reported measures.Conclusions: In comparison to functional technique, spinal manipulative therapy showed greater reduction in disability in patients with chronic LBP, but not in terms of pain, fear of movement, quality of life, isometric resistance of trunk flexors, or spinal mobility. However, differences in disability were not clinically meaningful; therefore, spinal manipulative therapy did not result in any clinically important short-term benefits over functional technique therapy. In addition, as neither group met the threshold for minimum clinically important difference following treatment, neither treatment resulted in a clinically meaningful benefit. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Body dysmorphic disorder (BDD) typically starts in adolescence, but evidence-based treatments are yet to be developed and formally evaluated in this age group. We designed an age-appropriate cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) protocol for adolescents with BDD and evaluated its acceptability and efficacy in a pilot randomized controlled trial.Method: Thirty adolescents aged 12 to 18 years (mean = 16.0, SD = 1.7) with a primary diagnosis of BDD, together with their families, were randomly assigned to 14 sessions of CBT delivered over 4 months or a control condition of equivalent duration, consisting of written psycho-education materials and weekly telephone monitoring. Blinded evaluators assessed participants at baseline, midtreatment, posttreatment, and at 2-month follow-up. The primary outcome measure was the Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale Modified for BDD, Adolescent Version (mean baseline score = 37.13, SD = 4.98, range = 24-43).Results: The CBT group showed a significantly greater improvement than the control group, both at posttreatment (time × group interaction coefficient [95% CI] = -11.26 [-17.22 to -5.31]; p = .000) and at 2-month follow-up (time × group interaction coefficient [95% CI] = -9.62 [-15.74 to -3.51]; p = .002). Six participants (40%) in the CBT group and 1 participant (6.7%) in the control condition were classified as responders at both time points (χ(2) = 4.658, p = .031). Improvements were also seen on secondary measures, including insight, depression, and quality of life at posttreatment. Both patients and their families deemed the treatment as highly acceptable.Conclusion: Developmentally tailored CBT is a promising intervention for young people with BDD, although there is significant room for improvement. Further clinical trials incorporating lessons learned in this pilot study and comparing CBT and pharmacological therapies, as well as their combination, are warranted.Clinical Trial Registration Information: Cognitive-Behaviour Therapy for Adolescents With Body Dysmorphic Disorder; http://www.isrctn.com/; ISRCTN67699666. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Osteoarthritis (OA) is the most common form of arthritis and the second most common cause of long-term disability among middle-aged and older adults in the United States. Methylsulfonylmethane (MSM) is a popular dietary supplement used as a single agent and in combination with other nutrients, and purported to be beneficial for arthritis. However, there is paucity of evidence to support the use of MSM.Methods: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was conducted. Fifty men and women, 40-76 years of age with knee OA pain were enrolled in an outpatient medical center. Intervention was MSM 3g or placebo twice a day for 12 weeks (6g/day total). Outcomes included the Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index visual analogue scale (WOMAC), patient and physician global assessments (disease status, response to therapy), and SF-36 (overall health-related quality of life).Results: Compared to placebo, MSM produced significant decreases in WOMAC pain and physical function impairment (P<0.05). No notable changes were found in WOMAC stiffness and aggregated total symptoms scores. MSM also produced improvement in performing activities of daily living when compared to placebo on the SF-36 evaluation (P<0.05).Conclusion: MSM (3g twice a day) improved symptoms of pain and physical function during the short intervention without major adverse events. The benefits and safety of MSM in managing OA and long-term use cannot be confirmed from this pilot trial, but its potential clinical application is examined. Underlying mechanisms of action and need for further investigation of MSM are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context: Dexamethasone is often used to treat dyspnea in cancer patients, but evidence is lacking.Objectives: We determined the feasibility of conducting a randomized trial of dexamethasone in cancer patients and estimated the efficacy of dexamethasone in the treatment of dyspnea.Methods: In this double-blind, randomized, controlled trial, patients with dyspnea ≥4 were randomized to receive either dexamethasone 8 mg twice daily × four days then 4 mg twice daily × three days or placebo for seven days, followed by an open-label phase for seven days. We documented the changes in dyspnea (0-10 numeric rating scale), spirometry measures, quality of life, and toxicities.Results: A total of 41 patients were randomized and 35 (85%) completed the blinded phase. Dexamethasone was associated with a significant reduction in dyspnea numeric rating scale of -1.9 (95% CI -3.3 to -0.5, P = 0.01) by Day 4 and -1.8 (95% CI -3.2 to -0.3, P = 0.02) by Day 7. In contrast, placebo was associated with a reduction of -0.7 (95% CI -2.1 to 0.6, P = 0.38) by Day 4 and -1.3 (95% CI -2.4 to -0.2, P = 0.03) by Day 7. The between-arm difference was not statistically significant. Drowsiness improved with dexamethasone. Dexamethasone was well tolerated with no significant toxicities.Conclusion: A double-blind, randomized, controlled trial of dexamethasone was feasible with a low attrition rate. Our preliminary data suggest that dexamethasone may be associated with rapid improvement in dyspnea and was well tolerated. Further studies are needed to confirm our findings.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.govNCT01670097. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]