Search

Background and aims: Controlled drinking (CD) is an attractive treatment goal for a large proportion of individuals with alcohol use disorder (AUD), but the availability of treatment methods supporting a goal of CD is scarce. We tested if behavioural self‐control training (BSCT) was superior to motivational enhancement therapy (MET) for individuals with AUD with a treatment goal of CD. Design: Randomized controlled two‐group trial. Follow‐ups were conducted at 12 and 26 weeks (primary end‐point) after inclusion. Setting: Three specialized dependency care clinics in Stockholm, Sweden. Participants: Two hundred and fifty self‐referred adults (52% men) fulfilling criteria of AUD (DSM‐5) and a stated treatment goal of CD. Intervention and comparator: BSCT (n = 125), a five‐session treatment based on cognitive behavioural therapy versus the active comparator, MET (n = 125), containing four sessions based on Motivational Interviewing. Measurements Primary outcome measure was mean weekly alcohol consumption at the 26‐week follow‐up, adjusted for baseline consumption. Conclusions: A randomized controlled trial found no evidence of a difference between behavioural self‐control training and motivational enhancement therapy in reducing weekly alcohol consumption. Both groups substantially reduced consumption and behavioural self‐control training was superior in reducing hazardous drinking. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Aims: Most alcohol‐dependent people have a moderate level of dependence. General practitioners (GPs) hesitate to engage in this area, and need to have access to treatment they find applicable and feasible to use. The aim of this present study was to test if an open‐ended internet‐based cognitive–behavioral therapy (iCBT) program added to treatment‐as‐usual (TAU) is more effective than TAU‐only for alcohol‐dependent patients in primary care. Design, Setting and Participants: The present study was a two‐group, parallel, randomized controlled superiority trial comparing iCBT+TAU versus TAU‐only at 3‐ and 12‐month follow‐ups. TAU was delivered at 14 primary care centers in Stockholm, Sweden. A total of 264 patients (mean age 51 years, of whom 148 were female and 116 were male) with alcohol dependence and hazardous alcohol consumption were enrolled between September 2017 and November 2019. Measurements: Participants were randomized at a ratio of 1:1 to iCBT, as a self‐help intervention added to TAU (n = 132) or to TAU‐only (n = 132). The GPs gave participants in both treatment arms feedback on the assessments and biomarkers and offered TAU at the primary care center. Primary outcome was weekly alcohol consumption in g/week at 12‐month follow‐up, analyzed according to intention‐to‐treat (n = 132 + 132). The per‐protocol analysis included participants who completed at least one module of iCBT (n = 102 + 132). Findings There was no significant difference in weekly alcohol consumption between iCBT+TAU and TAU in the intention‐to‐treat (ITT) analysis at 12‐month follow‐up [iCBT+TAU = 133.56 (95% confidence interval, CI = 100.94–166.19) and TAU = 176.20 (95% CI = 144.04–208.35), P = 0.068, d = 0.23]. In the per‐protocol analysis, including only those who initiated iCBT, the iCBT+TAU group showed lower mean weekly alcohol consumption compared with TAU [iCBT+TAU = 107.46 (95% CI = 71.17–143.74), TAU = 176.00 (95% CI = 144.21–207.80), P = 0.010, d = 0.42]. Conclusions: In Sweden, an internet‐based cognitive–behavioral program added to treatment‐as‐usual to reduce alcohol consumption showed weak evidence of a benefit at 12 months in the intention‐to‐treat analysis and good evidence of a benefit in the per‐protocol analysis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: Patients with advanced heart failure (AdHF) who are ineligible for heart transplantation (HTx) can become candidates for treatment with a left ventricular assist device (LVAD) in some countries, but not others. This reflects the lack of a systematic analysis of the usefulness of LVAD systems in this context, and of their benefits, limitations and cost-effectiveness. The SWEdish evaluation of left Ventricular Assist Device (SweVAD) study is a Phase IV, prospective, 1:1 randomized, non-blinded, multicentre trial that will examine the impact of assignment to mechanical circulatory support with guideline-directed LVAD destination therapy (GD-LVAD-DT) using the HeartMate 3 (HM3) continuous flow pump vs. guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) on survival in a population of AdHF patients ineligible for HTx.Methods: A total of 80 patients will be recruited to SweVAD at the seven university hospitals in Sweden. The study population will comprise patients with AdHF (New York Heart Association class IIIB-IV, INTERMACS profile 2-6) who display signs of poor prognosis despite GDMT and who are not considered eligible for HTx. Participants will be followed for 2 years or until death occurs. Other endpoints will be determined by blinded adjudication. Patients who remain on study-assigned interventions beyond 2 years will be asked to continue follow-up for outcomes and adverse events for up to 5 years.Conclusion: The SweVAD study will compare survival, medium-term benefits, costs and potential hazards between GD-LVAD-DT and GDMT and will provide a valuable reference point to guide destination therapy strategies for patients with AdHF ineligible for HTx. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To compare vaginal misoprostol treatment with expectant management in early non-viable pregnancy with vaginal bleeding with regard to complete evacuation of the uterine cavity within 10 days after randomization.Methods: This was a parallel randomized controlled, open-label trial conducted in Skåne University Hospital, Sweden. Patients with anembryonic pregnancy or early fetal demise (crown-rump length ≤ 33 mm) and vaginal bleeding were randomly allocated to either expectant management or treatment with a single dose of 800 μg misoprostol administered vaginally. Patients were evaluated clinically and by ultrasound until complete evacuation of the uterus was achieved (no gestational sac in the uterine cavity and maximum anteroposterior diameter of the intracavitary contents < 15 mm as measured by transvaginal ultrasound on midsagittal view). Follow-up visits were planned at 10, 17, 24 and 31 days. Dilatation and evacuation (D&E) was recommended if miscarriage was not complete within 31 days, but was performed earlier at patient's request, or if there was excessive bleeding as judged clinically. Analysis was by intention to treat. The main outcome measure was number of patients with complete miscarriage without D&E ≤ 10 days.Results: Ninety-four patients were randomized to misoprostol treatment and 95 to expectant management. After exclusion of three patients and withdrawal of consent by two patients in the expectant management group, 90 women were included in this group. Miscarriage was complete ≤ 10 days in 62/94 (66%) of the patients in the misoprostol group and in 39/90 (43%) of those in the group managed expectantly (risk difference (RD) = 23%; 95% CI, 8-37%). At 31 days, the corresponding figures were 81/94 (86%) and 55/90 (61%) (RD = 25%; 95% CI, 12-38%). Two patients from each group underwent emergency D&E because of excessive bleeding and one of these in each group received blood transfusion. The number of patients undergoing D&E at their own request was higher in the expectantly managed group, 15/90 (17%) vs 3/94 (3%) in the misoprostol group (RD = 14%; 95% CI, 4-23%), as was the number of patients making out-of-protocol visits, 50/90 (56%) vs 27/94 (29%) (RD = 27%; 95% CI, 12-40%). Compared with the expectant management group, more patients in the misoprostol group experienced pain (71/77 (92%) vs 91/91 (100%); RD = 8%; 95% CI, 1-17%) and used painkillers (59/77 (77%) vs 85/91 (93%); RD = 17%; 95% CI, 5-29%). No major side effect was reported in any group.Conclusions: In women with early non-viable pregnancy and vaginal bleeding, misoprostol treatment is more effective than is expectant management for complete evacuation of the uterus. Both methods are safe but misoprostol treatment is associated with more pain than is expectant management. Copyright © 2017 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective To compare the treatment outcome of scaling and root planing ( SRP) in combination with systemic antibiotics, local antibiotic therapy and/or periodontal surgery. Material and Methods One hundred and eighty-seven patients were assigned to eight groups treated by SRP plus none, one, two or three adjunctive treatments and monitored for 24 months in a randomized controlled clinical trial using a 2 × 2 × 2 factorial design. Systemic amoxicillin + metronidazole ( SMA), local tetracycline delivery ( LTC) and periodontal surgery (SURG) were evaluated as adjuncts. Changes in clinical attachment level ( CAL) and probing pocket depth ( PPD) were statistically evaluated by ancova of main effects. Results Effects of adjunctive therapy to SRP were minimal at 3 months. Between 3 and 6 months PPD reduction occurred particularly in patients receiving periodontal surgery. After 6 months, both CAL gain and PPD reduction reached a plateau that was maintained at 24 months in all groups. The 24-month CAL gain was improved by SMA (0.50 mm) while PPD was reduced by SMA (0.51 mm) and SURG (0.36 mm). Smoking reduced CAL gain and PPD reduction. Conclusion Patients receiving adjunctive therapies generally exhibited improved CAL gain and/or PPD reduction when compared with the outcome of SRP alone. Only additive, not synergistic effects of the various adjunctive therapies were observed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]