Search

The effect of patient-controlled analgesia during the emergency phase of care on the prevalence of persistent pain is unkown. We studied individuals with traumatic injuries or abdominal pain 6 months after hospital admission via the emergency department using an opportunistic observational study design. This was conducted using postal questionnaires that were sent to participants recruited to the multi-centre pain solutions in the emergency setting study. Patients with prior chronic pain states or opioid use were not studied. Questionnaires included the EQ5D, the Brief Pain Inventory and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale. Overall, 141 out of 286 (49% 95%CI 44-56%) patients were included in this follow-up study. Participants presenting with trauma were more likely to develop persistent pain than those presenting with abdominal pain, 45 out of 64 (70%) vs. 24 out of 77 (31%); 95%CI 24-54%, p < 0.001. There were no statistically significant associations between persistent pain and analgesic modality during hospital admission, age or sex. Across both abdominal pain and traumatic injury groups, participants with persistent pain had lower EQ5D mobility scores, worse overall health and higher anxiety and depression scores (p < 0.05). In the abdominal pain group, 13 out of 50 (26%) patients using patient-controlled analgesia developed persistent pain vs. 11 out of 27 (41%) of those with usual treatment; 95%CI for difference (control - patient-controlled analgesia) -8 to 39%, p = 0.183. Acute pain scores at the time of hospital admission were higher in participants who developed persistent pain; 95%CI 0.7-23.6, p = 0.039. For traumatic pain, 25 out of 35 (71%) patients given patient-controlled analgesia developed persistent pain vs. 20 out of 29 (69%) patients with usual treatment; 95%CI -30 to 24%, p = 0.830. Persistent pain is common 6 months after hospital admission, particularly following trauma. The study findings suggest that it may be possible to reduce persistent pain (at least in patients with abdominal pain) by delivering better acute pain management. Further research is needed to confirm this hypothesis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Early detection of Alzheimer's disease (AD) will help researchers to better understand the disease and develop improved treatments. Recent developments have thus focused on identifying biomarkers for mild cognitive impairment due to AD (MCI) and AD during the preclinical phase. The aim of this pilot study is to determine whether exhaled volatile organic compounds (VOCs) can be used as a non-invasive method to distinguish controls from MCI, controls from AD and to determine whether there are differences between MCI and AD. The study used gas chromatography-ion mobility spectrometry (GC-IMS) techniques. Confounding factors, such as age, smoking habits, gender and alcohol consumption are investigated to demonstrate the efficacy of results. One hundred subjects were recruited including 50 controls, 25 AD and 25 MCI patients. The subject cohort was age- and gender-matched to minimise bias. Breath samples were analysed using a commercial GC-IMS instrument (G.A.S. BreathSpec, Dortmund, Germany). Data analysis indicates that the GC-IMS signal was consistently able to separate between diagnostic groups [AUC ± 95%, sensitivity, specificity], controls versus MCI: [0.77 (0.64-0.90), 0.68, 0.80], controls versus AD: [0.83 (0.72-0.94), 0.60, 0.96], and MCI versus AD: [0.70 (0.55-0.85), 0.60, 0.84]. VOC analysis indicates that six compounds play a crucial role in distinguishing between diagnostic groups. Analysis of possible confounding factors indicate that gender, age, smoking habits and alcohol consumption have insignificant influence on breath content. This pilot study confirms the utility of exhaled breath analysis to distinguish between AD, MCI and control subjects. Thus, GC-IMS offers great potential as a non-invasive, high-throughput, diagnostic technique for diagnosing and potentially monitoring AD in a clinical setting.

Introduction: Parkinson's disease (PD) is a progressive neurodegenerative condition affecting approximately 185,000 people in the UK. No drug has been proven to slow disease progression. Epidemiological and pre-clinical data support simvastatin, a widely used cholesterol-lowering drug with a well-established safety profile, having neuroprotective properties. The aim of this study (Simvastatin as a neuroprotective treatment for PD (PD STAT)) is to determine whether simvastatin has the potential to slow PD progression. The study is part of the International Linked Clinical Trials initiative coordinated by The Cure Parkinson's Trust. This paper describes the protocol for the PD STAT study., Methods and Analysis: PD STAT is a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, multi-centre, parallel group, futility trial in patients with PD of mild-moderate severity. 235 participants have been recruited and randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to receive either oral simvastatin or matched placebo. Treatment involves a 1-month low-dose phase (40 mg daily), followed by a 23-month high-dose phase (80 mg daily) and ends with a 2-month washout period. Participants are reviewed at clinic visits at 1 month, 6, 12, 18, 24 and 26 months post-baseline, with interim telephone follow-up to monitor for adverse events.The primary outcome is the change in the Movement Disorder Society Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale part III motor subscale score in the practically defined OFF medication state (OFF state) between baseline and 24 months. Primary analysis will be on a modified intention to treat basis and will include only those participants who progress to the high-dose phase of the study., Ethics and Dissemination: The protocol has been approved by the North East-Newcastle and North Tyneside 2 Research Ethics Committee. The results will be disseminated via research articles in peer-reviewed journals and presentations at local, national and international scientific meetings, as well as disseminated via patient groups, websites and networks. A summary of the study findings will be posted to participants at the end of the study., Trial Registration: ISRCTN16108482 (prospectively registered); EudraCT 2015-000148-40; ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02787590; Pre-results., Competing Interests: Competing interests: RW is Director of Research and Development at The Cure Parkinson’s Trust., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: The REACH-HF (Rehabilitation EnAblement in CHronic Heart Failure) trial found that the REACH-HF home-based cardiac rehabilitation intervention resulted in a clinically meaningful improvement in disease-specific health-related quality of life in patients with reduced ejection fraction heart failure (HFrEF). The aims of this study were to assess the long-term cost-effectiveness of the addition of REACH-HF intervention or home-based cardiac rehabilitation to usual care compared with usual care alone in patients with HFrEF., Design and Methods: A Markov model was developed using a patient lifetime horizon and integrating evidence from the REACH-HF trial, a systematic review/meta-analysis of randomised trials, estimates of mortality and hospital admission and UK costs at 2015/2016 prices. Taking a UK National Health and Personal Social Services perspective we report the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained, assessing uncertainty using probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses., Results: In base case analysis, the REACH-HF intervention was associated with per patient mean QALY gain of 0.23 and an increased mean cost of £400 compared with usual care, resulting in a cost per QALY gained of £1720. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated a 78% probability that REACH-HF is cost effective versus usual care at a threshold of £20,000 per QALY gained. Results were similar for home-based cardiac rehabilitation versus usual care. Sensitivity analyses indicate the findings to be robust to changes in model assumptions and parameters., Conclusions: Our cost-utility analyses indicate that the addition of the REACH-HF intervention and home-based cardiac rehabilitation programmes are likely to be cost-effective treatment options versus usual care alone in patients with HFrEF.

Background: Cardiac rehabilitation improves health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and reduces hospitalizations in patients with heart failure, but international uptake of cardiac rehabilitation for heart failure remains low., Design and Methods: The aim of this multicentre randomized trial was to compare the REACH-HF (Rehabilitation EnAblement in CHronicHeart Failure) intervention, a facilitated self-care and home-based cardiac rehabilitation programme to usual care for adults with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). The study primary hypothesis was that the addition of the REACH-HF intervention to usual care would improve disease-specific HRQoL (Minnesota Living with Heart Failure questionnaire (MLHFQ)) at 12 months compared with usual care alone., Results: The study recruited 216 participants, predominantly men (78%), with an average age of 70 years and mean left ventricular ejection fraction of 34%. Overall, 185 (86%) participants provided data for the primary outcome. At 12 months, there was a significant and clinically meaningful between-group difference in the MLHFQ score of -5.7 points (95% confidence interval -10.6 to -0.7) in favour of the REACH-HF intervention group ( p = 0.025). With the exception of patient self-care ( p < 0.001) there was no significant difference in other secondary outcomes, including clinical events ( p > 0.05) at follow-up compared with usual care. The mean cost of the REACH-HF intervention was £418 per participant., Conclusions: The novel REACH-HF home-based facilitated intervention for HFrEF was clinically superior in disease-specific HRQoL at 12 months and offers an affordable alternative to traditional centre-based programmes to address current low cardiac rehabilitation uptake rates for heart failure.

Introduction: Home-based cardiac rehabilitation may overcome suboptimal rates of participation. The overarching aim of this study was to assess the feasibility and acceptability of the novel Rehabilitation EnAblement in CHronic Hear Failure (REACH-HF) rehabilitation intervention for patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and their caregivers., Methods and Results: Patients were randomised 1:1 to REACH-HF intervention plus usual care (intervention group) or usual care alone (control group). REACH-HF is a home-based comprehensive self-management rehabilitation programme that comprises patient and carer manuals with supplementary tools, delivered by trained healthcare facilitators over a 12 week period. Patient outcomes were collected by blinded assessors at baseline, 3 months and 6 months postrandomisation and included health-related quality of life (primary) and psychological well-being, exercise capacity, physical activity and HF-related hospitalisation (secondary). Outcomes were also collected in caregivers.We enrolled 50 symptomatic patients with HF from Tayside, Scotland with a left ventricular ejection fraction ≥45% (mean age 73.9 years, 54% female, 100% white British) and 21 caregivers. Study retention (90%) and intervention uptake (92%) were excellent. At 6 months, data from 45 patients showed a potential direction of effect in favour of the intervention group, including the primary outcome of Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire total score (between-group mean difference -11.5, 95% CI -22.8 to 0.3). A total of 11 (4 intervention, 7 control) patients experienced a hospital admission over the 6 months of follow-up with 4 (control patients) of these admissions being HF-related. Improvements were seen in a number intervention caregivers' mental health and burden compared with control., Conclusions: Our findings support the feasibility and rationale for delivering the REACH-HF facilitated home-based rehabilitation intervention for patients with HFpEF and their caregivers and progression to a full multicentre randomised clinical trial to test its clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness., Trial Registration Number: ISRCTN78539530., Competing Interests: Competing interests: RST is the lead for the ongoing portfolio of Cochrane reviews of cardiac rehabilitation. RST and HMD are named Scientific Advisors for the ongoing National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) updated clinical guidelines for the management heart failure (CG108). HMD is an ordinary member of the British Association for Cardiovascular Prevention and Rehabilitation (BACPR) council. All other coauthors declare no conflict of interest., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)

Background: Evidence suggests acupuncture may be effective for treating the symptoms of knee osteoarthritis. Offering this in a group setting may offer cost savings. The aim of this study was to establish the feasibility of a definitive trial to assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of Western medical acupuncture given in groups, or given individually, for adults with severe knee pain attributable to osteoarthritis., Methods: A pilot randomised controlled trial (RCT) was conducted. Participants were recruited from seven general practices in Plymouth, Devon. Acupuncture was provided, at a dosage that increased up to and including electroacupuncture if no pain relief was reported, by one experienced acupuncturist in a community clinic. Potentially eligible adults aged at least 45 years with knee osteoarthritis were identified from practice registers, screened and randomised to either: (1) standardised advice and exercise booklet alone ('standard'); (2) booklet plus group acupuncture ('group'); and (3) booklet plus individual acupuncture ('individual'). Both acupuncture arms received up to ten treatments over 12 weeks. Recruitment, retention and data completion rates were recorded, and participants completed questionnaires on acceptability. We collected pain, stiffness and function data (using the Western Ontario McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index; WOMAC) and general health (EQ-5D) and economic measures at baseline and 14 weeks post-randomisation., Results: We screened 149 people and randomised 60 (40 %), 20 per arm. The overall 14 week follow-up rate was 77 %, but only 70 % in the 'standard' group; 4.1 % of data points were missing. The study was acceptable to participants. Changes in WOMAC pain score (intention to treat complete case analysis) from baseline to 14 week follow-up were: 'standard', 0.4 (95 % confidence interval (CI) -1.4, 2.2, n  = 14); 'group' -3.2 (95 % CI -5.1, -1.4, n  = 17); 'individual' -2.4 (95 % CI -4.1, -0.7, n  = 15)., Conclusions: A definitive three-arm trial is feasible. Further follow-up reminders, minimum data collection and incentives should be considered to improve participant retention in the follow-up processes in the standardised advice and exercise booklet arm., Trial Registration: ISRCTN05305406.

Introduction: The Rehabilitation EnAblement in CHronic Heart Failure (REACH-HF) trial is part of a research programme designed to develop and evaluate a health professional facilitated, home-based, self-help rehabilitation intervention to improve self-care and health-related quality of life in people with heart failure and their caregivers. The trial will assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the REACH-HF intervention in patients with systolic heart failure and impact on the outcomes of their caregivers., Methods and Analysis: A parallel two group randomised controlled trial with 1:1 individual allocation to the REACH-HF intervention plus usual care (intervention group) or usual care alone (control group) in 216 patients with systolic heart failure (ejection fraction <45%) and their caregivers. The intervention comprises a self-help manual delivered by specially trained facilitators over a 12-week period. The primary outcome measure is patients' disease-specific health-related quality of life measured using the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure questionnaire at 12 months' follow-up. Secondary outcomes include survival and heart failure related hospitalisation, blood biomarkers, psychological well-being, exercise capacity, physical activity, other measures of quality of life, patient safety and the quality of life, psychological well-being and perceived burden of caregivers at 4, 6 and 12 months' follow-up. A process evaluation will assess fidelity of intervention delivery and explore potential mediators and moderators of changes in health-related quality of life in intervention and control group patients. Qualitative studies will describe patient and caregiver experiences of the intervention. An economic evaluation will estimate the cost-effectiveness of the REACH-HF intervention plus usual care versus usual care alone in patients with systolic heart failure., Ethics and Dissemination: The study is approved by the North West-Lancaster Research Ethics Committee (ref 14/NW/1351). Findings will be disseminated via journals and presentations to publicise the research to clinicians, commissioners and service users., Trial Registration Number: ISRCTN86234930; Pre-results., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/)

Objective: To determine whether patient controlled analgesia (PCA) is better than routine care in providing effective analgesia for patients presenting to emergency departments with moderate to severe non-traumatic abdominal pain., Design: Pragmatic, multicentre, parallel group, randomised controlled trial, Setting: Five English hospitals., Participants: 200 adults (66% (n=130) female), aged 18 to 75 years, who presented to the emergency department requiring intravenous opioid analgesia for the treatment of moderate to severe non-traumatic abdominal pain and were expected to be admitted to hospital for at least 12 hours., Interventions: Patient controlled analgesia or nurse titrated analgesia (treatment as usual)., Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcome was total pain experienced over the 12 hour study period, derived by standardised area under the curve (scaled from 0 to 100) of each participant's hourly pain scores, captured using a visual analogue scale. Pre-specified secondary outcomes included total morphine use, percentage of study period in moderate or severe pain, percentage of study period asleep, length of hospital stay, and satisfaction with pain management., Results: 196 participants were included in the primary analyses (99 allocated to PCA and 97 to treatment as usual). Mean total pain experienced was 35.3 (SD 25.8) in the PCA group compared with 47.3 (24.7) in the treatment as usual group. The adjusted between group difference was 6.3 (95% confidence interval 0.7 to 11.9). Participants in the PCA group received significantly more morphine (mean 36.1 (SD 22.4) v 23.6 (13.1) mg; mean difference 12.3 (95% confidence interval 7.2 to 17.4) mg), spent less of the study period in moderate or severe pain (32.6% v 46.9%; mean difference 14.5% (5.6% to 23.5%)), and were more likely to be perfectly or very satisfied with the management of their pain (83% (73/88) v 66% (57/87); adjusted odds ratio 2.56 (1.25 to 5.23)) in comparison with participants in the treatment as usual group., Conclusions: Significant reductions in pain can be achieved by PCA compared with treatment as usual in patients presenting to the emergency department with non-traumatic abdominal pain. Trial registration European Clinical Trials Database EudraCT2011-000194-31; Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN25343280., (© Smith et al 2015.)

Objective: To determine whether patient controlled analgesia (PCA) is better than routine care in patients presenting to emergency departments with moderate to severe pain from traumatic injuries., Design: Pragmatic, multicentre, parallel group, randomised controlled trial., Setting: Five English hospitals., Participants: 200 adults (71% (n = 142) male), aged 18 to 75 years, who presented to the emergency department requiring intravenous opioid analgesia for the treatment of moderate to severe pain from traumatic injuries and were expected to be admitted to hospital for at least 12 hours., Interventions: PCA (n = 99) or nurse titrated analgesia (treatment as usual; n = 101)., Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcome was total pain experienced over the 12 hour study period, derived by standardised area under the curve (scaled from 0 to 100) of each participant's hourly pain scores, captured using a visual analogue scale. Pre-specified secondary outcomes included total morphine use, percentage of study period in moderate/severe pain, percentage of study period asleep, length of hospital stay, and satisfaction with pain management., Results: 200 participants were included in the primary analyses. Mean total pain experienced was 47.2 (SD 21.9) for the treatment as usual group and 44.0 (24.0) for the PCA group. Adjusted analyses indicated slightly (but not statistically significantly) lower total pain experienced in the PCA group than in the routine care group (mean difference 2.7, 95% confidence interval -2.4 to 7.8). Participants allocated to PCA used more morphine in total than did participants in the treatment as usual group (mean 44.3 (23.2) v 27.2 (18.2) mg; mean difference 17.0, 11.3 to 22.7). PCA participants spent, on average, less time in moderate/severe pain (36.2% (31.0) v 44.1% (31.6)), but the difference was not statistically significant. A higher proportion of PCA participants reported being perfectly or very satisfied compared with the treatment as usual group (86% (78/91) v 76% (74/98)), but this was also not statistically significant., Conclusions: PCA provided no statistically significant reduction in pain compared with routine care for emergency department patients with traumatic injuries. Trial registration European Clinical Trials Database EudraCT2011-000194-31; Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN25343280., (© Smith et al 2015.)