Physiotherapy management of joint hypermobility syndrome - a focus group study of patient and health professional perspectives.

OBJECTIVE: To develop an understanding of patient and health professional views and experiences of physiotherapy to manage joint hypermobility syndrome (JHS). DESIGN: An explorative qualitative design. Seven focus groups were convened, audio recorded, fully transcribed and analysed using a constant comparative method to inductively derive a thematic account of the data. SETTING: Four geographical areas of the UK. PARTICIPANTS: 25 people with JHS and 16 health professionals (14 physiotherapists and two podiatrists). RESULTS: Both patients and health professionals recognised the chronic heterogeneous nature of JHS and reported a lack of awareness of the condition amongst health professionals, patients and wider society. Diagnosis and subsequent referral to physiotherapy services for JHS was often difficult and convoluted. Referral was often for acute single joint injury, failing to recognise the long-term multi-joint nature of the condition. Health professionals and patients felt that if left undiagnosed, JHS was more difficult to treat because of its chronic nature. When JHS was treated by health professionals with knowledge of the condition patients reported satisfactory outcomes. There was considerable agreement between health professionals and patients regarding an 'ideal' physiotherapy service. Education was reported as an overarching requirement for patients and health care professionals. CONCLUSIONS: Physiotherapy should be applied holistically to manage JHS as a long-term condition and should address injury prevention and symptom amelioration rather than cure. Education for health professionals and patients is needed to optimise physiotherapy provision. Further research is required to explore the specific therapeutic actions of physiotherapy for managing JHS

Genetic factors in the pathogenesis of CPPD crystal deposition disease

Crystal deposition is a very complex process ruled by numerous factors. A small but important proportion of cases of chondrocalcinosis are monogenic, and many of the genes involved have been identified. These genetic findings strongly point to control of the level of extracellular inorganic pyrophosphate as the primary mechanism for their association with either calcium pyrophosphate dihydrate or hydroxyapatite deposition. However, effects on extracellular inorganic pyrophosphate levels do not explain the mechanism of association in all of these monogenic diseases. Further, there are likely to be several as yet unidentified genes that are important in this common condition. This review highlights what genetic studies have demonstrated about the processes involved in these diverse but related disorders. Copyrigh

A randomised, blinded, trial of clopidogrel versus aspirin in patients at risk of ischaemic events (CAPRIE). CAPRIE Steering Committee

Many clinical trials have evaluated the benefit of long-term use of antiplatelet drugs in reducing the risk of clinical thrombotic events. Aspirin and ticlopidine have been shown to be effective, but both have potentially serious adverse effects. Clopidogrel, a new thienopyridine derivative similar to ticlopidine, is an inhibitor of platelet aggregation induced by adenosine diphosphate. METHODS: CAPRIE was a randomised, blinded, international trial designed to assess the relative efficacy of clopidogrel (75 mg once daily) and aspirin (325 mg once daily) in reducing the risk of a composite outcome cluster of ischaemic stroke, myocardial infarction, or vascular death; their relative safety was also assessed. The population studied comprised subgroups of patients with atherosclerotic vascular disease manifested as either recent ischaemic stroke, recent myocardial infarction, or symptomatic peripheral arterial disease. Patients were followed for 1 to 3 years. FINDINGS: 19,185 patients, with more than 6300 in each of the clinical subgroups, were recruited over 3 years, with a mean follow-up of 1.91 years. There were 1960 first events included in the outcome cluster on which an intention-to-treat analysis showed that patients treated with clopidogrel had an annual 5.32% risk of ischaemic stroke, myocardial infarction, or vascular death compared with 5.83% with aspirin. These rates reflect a statistically significant (p = 0.043) relative-risk reduction of 8.7% in favour of clopidogrel (95% Cl 0.3-16.5). Corresponding on-treatment analysis yielded a relative-risk reduction of 9.4%. There were no major differences in terms of safety. Reported adverse experiences in the clopidogrel and aspirin groups judged to be severe included rash (0.26% vs 0.10%), diarrhoea (0.23% vs 0.11%), upper gastrointestinal discomfort (0.97% vs 1.22%), intracranial haemorrhage (0.33% vs 0.47%), and gastrointestinal haemorrhage (0.52% vs 0.72%), respectively. There were ten (0.10%) patients in the clopidogrel group with significant reductions in neutrophils (< 1.2 x 10(9)/L) and 16 (0.17%) in the aspirin group. INTERPRETATION: Long-term administration of clopidogrel to patients with atherosclerotic vascular disease is more effective than aspirin in reducing the combined risk of ischaemic stroke, myocardial infarction, or vascular death. The overall safety profile of clopidogrel is at least as good as that of medium-dose aspirin