Electroacupuncture versus Diclofenac in symptomatic treatment of Osteoarthritis of the knee: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy of electroacupuncture (EA), diclofenac and their combination in symptomatic treatment of osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee. METHODS: This study was a randomized, single-blind, placebo controlled trial. The 193 out-patients with OA of the knee were randomized into four groups: placebo, diclofenac, EA and combined (diclofenac plus EA). Paracetamol tablets were prescribed as a rescue analgesic during the study. The patients were evaluated after a run-in period of one week (week 0) and again at the end of the study (week 4). The clinical assessments included the amount of paracetamol taken/week, visual analog scale (VAS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) OA Index, Lequesne's functional index, 50 feet-walk time, and the orthopedist's and patient's opinion of change. RESULTS: One hundred and eighty six patients completed the study. The improvement of symptoms (reduction in mean changes) in most outcome parameters was greatest in the EA group. The proportions of responders and patients with an overall opinion of "much better" were also greatest in the EA group. The improvement in VAS was significantly different between the EA and placebo group as well as the EA and diclofenac group. The improvement in Lequesne's functional index also differed significantly between the EA and placebo group. In addition, there was a significant improvement in WOMAC pain index between the combined and placebo group. CONCLUSION: EA is significantly more effective than placebo and diclofenac in the symptomatic treatment of OA of the knee in some circumstances. However, the combination of EA and diclofenac treatment was no more effective than EA treatment alone

Low Lipoprotein(a) Concentration Is Associated with Cancer and All-Cause Deaths: A Population-Based Cohort Study (The JMS Cohort Study)

Background: Experimental studies support the anti-neoplastic effect of apo(a), but several clinical studies have reported contradictory results. The purpose of this study was to determine whether a low lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] concentration is related to mortality from major causes of death, especially cancer. Methods The subjects were 10,413 participants (4,005 men and 6,408 women) from a multi-center population-based cohort study in Japan (The Jichi Medical School cohort study). The average age at registration was 55.0 years, and the median observation period was 4,559 days. As the estimated hazard ratio was high for both the low and very high Lp(a) levels, we defined two Lp(a) groups: a low Lp(a) group [Lp(a)<80 mg/L] and an intermediate-to-high Lp(a) group [Lp(a)≥80]. Participants who died from malignant neoplasms (n = 316), cardiovascular disease (202), or other causes (312) during the observation period were examined. Results: Cumulative incidence plots showed higher cumulative death rates for the low Lp(a) group than for the intermediate-to-high Lp(a) group for all-cause, cancer, and miscellaneous-cause deaths (p<0.001, p = 0.03, and p = 0.03, respectively). Cox proportional hazards analyses with the sex and age of the participants, body mass index, and smoking and drinking histories as covariates showed that a low Lp(a) level was a significant risk for all-cause, cancer, and miscellaneous-cause deaths (p<0.001, p = 0.003, and p = 0.01, respectively). The hazard ratio (95% CI) [1.48, 1.15–1.92] of a low Lp(a) level for cancer deaths was almost the same as that for a male sex (1.46, 1.00–2.13). Conclusions: This is the first report to describe the association between a low Lp(a) level and all-cause or cancer death, supporting the anti-neoplastic effect of Lp(a). Further epidemiological studies are needed to confirm the present results