Early intervention for the management of acute low back pain: A single blind randomised controlled trial of biopsychosocial education, manual therapy and exercise

Design: A single blind randomised controlled trial comparing two models of care for patients with simple acute low back pain (ALBP). Objectives: To compare two research-based models of care for ALBP, and investigate the effect of the timing of physical intervention. Summary of Background Data National guidelines offer conflicting information on the delivery of physical treatment in the management of ALBP. Review of guidelines suggests two different models of care. Direct comparisons between these models are lacking in the literature. The present study aims to compare these two approaches to the management of ALBP. Method: Among 804 referred patients, 102 subjects met the specific admission criteria and were randomly assigned to an ‘assess/advise/treat’ group or an ‘assess/advise/wait’ group. The intervention consisted of biopsychosocial education, manual therapy and exercise. Assessment of short-term outcome enables comparison to be made between intervention and advice to stay active. Assessment of long-term outcome enables comparison to be made between early and late intervention. Study outcomes of reported pain (VAS), functional disability (RMDQ), mood (MZSRDS, MSPQ, STAIS), general health (Euroqol) and quality of life (SF-36) were assessed at baseline, six weeks, three months and six months. Results: At six weeks, the ‘assess/advise/treat’ group demonstrated greater improvements in disability, mood, general health and quality of life than patients in the ‘assess/advise/wait’ group (p0.05). However, mood, general health and quality of life remained significantly better in the ‘assess/advise/treat’ group (p\u3c0.05). Conclusions: At six weeks physiotherapy intervention is more effective than advice on staying active, leading to more rapid improvement in function, mood, quality of life and general health. The timing of intervention affects the progression of psychosocial features. If treatment is provided later, the same psychosocial benefits are not achieved. Therefore an \u27assess/advise/treat\u27 model of care seems to offer better outcomes than an \u27assess/advise/wait\u27 model of care

Belimumab after B cell depletion therapy in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (BEAT Lupus) protocol: a prospective multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, 52-week phase II clinical trial.

INTRODUCTION: Few treatment options exist for patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) who fail conventional therapy. Although widely used to treat lupus, the efficacy of B cell depletion therapy using rituximab has not been demonstrated in randomised clinical trials. Following rituximab, elevated levels of serum B cell activating factor (BAFF) have been associated with failure to remit or subsequent lupus relapse. The administration of belimumab, a monoclonal antibody specific for BAFF and approved for lupus therapy, could potentiate the efficacy of rituximab and enable longer periods of disease remission. The aim of this trial is to assess the safety and efficacy of belimumab following rituximab in patients with SLE. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: BEAT Lupus is a double-blind, randomised, placebo controlled, phase II clinical trial. Patients with SLE commencing a treatment cycle of rituximab (two 1g infusions, 2 weeks apart) as standard of care will be randomised to receive belimumab or placebo, 4 to 8 weeks following the first rituximab infusion. Belimumab or placebo infusions are administered for 52 weeks. The primary outcome measure is anti-double stranded DNA (anti-dsDNA) antibody levels at 52 weeks. Secondary outcomes include measures of adverse events, lupus disease activity and cumulative steroid dose. The kinetics of B cell repopulation will be assessed in a subgroup of participants. Belimumab administration after rituximab may provide a novel therapeutic pathway for patients with active lupus if safety is demonstrated in this proof of concept study, and lower anti-dsDNA antibodies levels are achieved in those patients treated with belimumab compared with placebo. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The protocol has been reviewed and approved by the Hampstead Research Ethics Committee - London (reference 16/LO/1024). Trial information is available at https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN47873003, and the results of this trial will be submitted for publication in relevant peer-reviewed journals. Key findings will also be presented at national and international conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN47873; date assigned to the registry: 28 November 2016. The stage is pre-results

Human papillomavirus infection : protocol for a randomised controlled trial of imiquimod cream (5%) versus podophyllotoxin cream (0.15%), in combination with quadrivalent human papillomavirus or control vaccination in treatment and prevention of recurrence of anogenital warts (HIPvac trial)

BACKGROUND: Anogenital warts are the second most common sexually transmitted infection diagnosed in sexual health services in England. About 90% of genital warts are caused by human papillomavirus (HPV) types 6 or 11, and half of episodes diagnosed are recurrences. The best and most cost-effective treatment for patients with anogenital warts is unknown. The commonly used treatments are self-administered topical agents, podophyllotoxin (0.15% cream) or imiquimod (5% cream), or cryotherapy with liquid nitrogen. Quadrivalent HPV (qHPV) vaccination is effective in preventing infection, and disease, but whether it has any therapeutic effect is not known. METHODS AND DESIGN: To investigate the efficacy of clearance and prevention of recurrence of external anogenital warts by topical treatments, podophyllotoxin 0.15% cream or imiquimod 5% cream, in combination with a three-dose regimen of qHPV or control vaccination. 500 adult patients presenting with external anogenital warts with either a first or subsequent episode of anogenital warts will be entered into this randomised, controlled partially blinded 2 × 2 factorial trial. DISCUSSION: The trial is expected to provide the first high-quality evidence of the comparative efficacy and cost-effectiveness of the two topical treatments in current use, as well as investigate the potential benefit of HPV vaccination, in the management of anogenital warts. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was registered prior to starting recruitment under the following reference numbers: International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) Registry - ISRCTN32729817 (registered 25 July 2014); European Union Clinical Trials Register (EudraCT) - 2013-002951-14 (registered 26 June 2013)

Improving Conversations about Parkinson's Dementia

Background: People with Parkinson's disease (PD) have an increased risk of dementia, yet patients and clinicians frequently avoid talking about it due to associated stigma, and the perception that “nothing can be done about it”. However, open conversations about PD dementia may allow people with the condition to access treatment and support, and may increase participation in research aimed at understanding PD dementia. Objectives: To co‐produce information resources for patients and healthcare professionals to improve conversations about PD dementia. Methods: We worked with people with PD, engagement experts, artists, and a PD charity to open up these conversations. 34 participants (16 PD; 6 PD dementia; 1 Parkinsonism, 11 caregivers) attended creative workshops to examine fears about PD dementia and develop information resources. 25 PD experts contributed to the resources. Results: While most people with PD (70%) and caregivers (81%) shared worries about cognitive changes prior to the workshops, only 38% and 30%, respectively, had raised these concerns with a healthcare professional. 91% of people with PD and 73% of caregivers agreed that PD clinicians should ask about cognitive changes routinely through direct questions and perform cognitive tests at clinic appointments. We used insights from the creative workshops, and input from a network of PD experts to co‐develop two open‐access resources: one for people with PD and their families, and one for healthcare professionals. Conclusion: Using artistic and creative workshops, co‐learning and striving for diverse voices, we co‐produced relevant resources for a wider audience to improve conversations about PD dementia

The FLUXNET2015 dataset and the ONEFlux processing pipeline for eddy covariance data

The FLUXNET2015 dataset provides ecosystem-scale data on CO2, water, and energy exchange between the biosphere and the atmosphere, and other meteorological and biological measurements, from 212 sites around the globe (over 1500 site-years, up to and including year 2014). These sites, independently managed and operated, voluntarily contributed their data to create global datasets. Data were quality controlled and processed using uniform methods, to improve consistency and intercomparability across sites. The dataset is already being used in a number of applications, including ecophysiology studies, remote sensing studies, and development of ecosystem and Earth system models. FLUXNET2015 includes derived-data products, such as gap-filled time series, ecosystem respiration and photosynthetic uptake estimates, estimation of uncertainties, and metadata about the measurements, presented for the first time in this paper. In addition, 206 of these sites are for the first time distributed under a Creative Commons (CC-BY 4.0) license. This paper details this enhanced dataset and the processing methods, now made available as open-source codes, making the dataset more accessible, transparent, and reproducible.Peer reviewe

A Multicenter, Randomized, Placebo‐Controlled Trial of Atorvastatin for the Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Events in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis

Objective: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is associated with increased cardiovascular event (CVE) risk. The impact of statins in RA is not established. We assessed whether atorvastatin is superior to placebo for the primary prevention of CVEs in RA patients. Methods: A randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled trial was designed to detect a 32% CVE risk reduction based on an estimated 1.6% per annum event rate with 80% power at P 50 years or with a disease duration of >10 years who did not have clinical atherosclerosis, diabetes, or myopathy received atorvastatin 40 mg daily or matching placebo. The primary end point was a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, transient ischemic attack, or any arterial revascularization. Secondary and tertiary end points included plasma lipids and safety. Results: A total of 3,002 patients (mean age 61 years; 74% female) were followed up for a median of 2.51 years (interquartile range [IQR] 1.90, 3.49 years) (7,827 patient‐years). The study was terminated early due to a lower than expected event rate (0.70% per annum). Of the 1,504 patients receiving atorvastatin, 24 (1.6%) experienced a primary end point, compared with 36 (2.4%) of the 1,498 receiving placebo (hazard ratio [HR] 0.66 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.39, 1.11]; P = 0.115 and adjusted HR 0.60 [95% CI 0.32, 1.15]; P = 0.127). At trial end, patients receiving atorvastatin had a mean ± SD low‐density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol level 0.77 ± 0.04 mmoles/liter lower than those receiving placebo (P < 0.0001). C‐reactive protein level was also significantly lower in the atorvastatin group than the placebo group (median 2.59 mg/liter [IQR 0.94, 6.08] versus 3.60 mg/liter [IQR 1.47, 7.49]; P < 0.0001). CVE risk reduction per mmole/liter reduction in LDL cholesterol was 42% (95% CI −14%, 70%). The rates of adverse events in the atorvastatin group (n = 298 [19.8%]) and placebo group (n = 292 [19.5%]) were similar. Conclusion: Atorvastatin 40 mg daily is safe and results in a significantly greater reduction of LDL cholesterol level than placebo in patients with RA. The 34% CVE risk reduction is consistent with the Cholesterol Treatment Trialists’ Collaboration meta‐analysis of statin effects in other populations

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570