Control of photoluminescence of carbon nanodots via surface functionalization using para-substituted anilines

Carbon nanodots (C-dots) are a kind of fluorescent carbon nanomaterials, composed of polyaromatic carbon domains surrounded by amorphous carbon frames, and have attracted a great deal of attention because of their interesting properties. There are still, however, challenges ahead such as blue-biased photoluminescence, spectral broadness, undefined energy gaps and etc. In this report, we chemically modify the surface of C-dots with a series of para-substituted anilines to control their photoluminescence. Our surface functionalization endows our C-dots with new energy levels, exhibiting long-wavelength (up to 650 nm) photoluminescence of very narrow spectral widths. The roles of para-substituted anilines and their substituents in developing such energy levels are thoroughly studied by using transient absorption spectroscopy. We finally demonstrate light-emitting devices exploiting our C-dots as a phosphor, converting UV light to a variety of colors with internal quantum yields of ca. 20%.open116665Ysciescopu

Development and validation of a telephone classification interview for common chronic headache disorders.

Background For a trial of supportive self-management for people with chronic headache we needed to develop and validate a telephone classification interview that can be used by a non-headache specialist to classify common chronic headache types in primary care. We aimed to specifically: exclude secondary headaches other than medication overuse, exclude primary headache disorders other than migraine and tension type headache (TTH), distinguish between chronic migraine and chronic TTH, and identify medication overuse headache. Methods We held a headache classification consensus conference to draw on evidence and expertise to inform the content of a logic model underpinning the classification interview. Nurses trained to use the logic model did telephone classification interviews with participants recruited from primary care. Doctors specialising in headache did a second validation interview. Results Twenty-six delegates attended the headache classification conference including headache specialist doctors, nurses and lay representatives (with chronic headache). We trained six nurses to do the classification interviews and completed 107 paired interviews, median days between interviews was 32 days (interquartile range 21–48 days). We measured level of agreement between the nurse and doctor interviews using proportion of concordance, simple kappa and prevalence-adjusted bias-adjusted kappa (PABAK). Proportion of concordance of agreement between nurse and doctor interviews was 0.76, simple kappa coefficient κ 0.31 (95% CI, 0.09 to 0.52), and PABAK 0.51 (95% CI, 0.35 to 0.68), a moderate agreement. In a sensitivity test following review of headache characteristics recorded, concordance was 0.91, κ = 0.53 (95% CI, 0.28 to 0.79), and PABAK = 0.81 (95% CI, 0.70 to 0.92), a very good agreement. Conclusion We developed and validated a new evidence-based telephone classification interview that can be used by a non-headache specialist to classify common chronic headache types in primary care

Identifying back pain subgroups: developing and applying approaches using individual patient data collected within clinical trials

There is good evidence that therapist delivered interventions have modest beneficial effects for people with low back pain (LBP). Identification of subgroups of people with LBP who may benefit from these different treatment approaches is an important research priority

Usual care and a self-management support programme versus usual care and a relaxation programme for people living with chronic headache disorders: a randomised controlled trial protocol (CHESS).

INTRODUCTION: Chronic headaches are poorly diagnosed and managed and can be exacerbated by medication overuse. There is insufficient evidence on the non-pharmacological approaches to helping people living with chronic headaches. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Chronic Headache Education and Self-management Study is a pragmatic randomised controlled trial to test the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a self-management education support programme on top of usual care for patients with chronic headaches against a control of usual care and relaxation. The intervention is a 2-day group course based on education, personal reflection and a cognitive behavioural approach, plus a nurse-led one-to-one consultation and follow-up over 8 weeks. We aim to recruit 689 participants (356 to the intervention arm and 333 to the control) from primary care and self-referral in London and the Midlands. The trial is powered to show a difference of 2.0 points on the Headache Impact Test, a patient-reported outcome measure at 12 months post randomisation. Secondary outcomes include health related quality of life, self-efficacy, social activation and engagement, anxiety and depression and healthcare utilisation. Outcomes are being measured at 4, 8 and 12 months. Cost-effectiveness will be expressed in terms of incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year gained. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This trial will provide data on effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a self-management support programme for chronic headaches. The results will inform commissioning of services and clinical practice. North West - Greater Manchester East Research Ethics Committee have approved the trial. The current protocol version is 3.6 date 7 March 2019. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN79708100

Supportive Self-Management Program for People With Chronic Headaches and Migraine: A Randomized Controlled Trial and Economic Evaluation.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Chronic headache disorders are a major cause of pain and disability. Education and supportive self-management approaches could reduce the burden of headache disability. We tested the effectiveness of a group educational and supportive self-management program for people living with chronic headaches. METHODS: This was a pragmatic randomized controlled trial. Participants were aged 18 years or older with chronic migraine or chronic tension-type headache, with or without medication overuse headache. We primarily recruited from general practices. Participants were assigned to either a 2-day group education and self-management program, a one-to-one nurse interview, and telephone support or to usual care plus relaxation material. The primary outcome was headache related-quality of life using the Headache Impact Test (HIT)-6 at 12 months. The primary analysis used intention-to-treat principles for participants with migraine and both baseline and 12-month HIT-6 data. RESULTS: Between April 2017 and March 2019, we randomized 736 participants. Because only 9 participants just had tension-type headache, our main analyses were on the 727 participants with migraine. Of them, 376 were allocated to the self-management intervention and 351 to usual care. Data from 586 (81%) participants were analyzed for primary outcome. There was no between-group difference in HIT-6 (adjusted mean difference = -0.3, 95% CI -1.23 to 0.67) or headache days (0.9, 95% CI -0.29 to 2.05) at 12 months. The Chronic Headache Education and Self-management Study intervention generated incremental adjusted costs of £268 (95% CI, £176-£377) (USD383 [95% CI USD252-USD539]) and incremental adjusted quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of 0.031 (95% CI -0.005 to 0.063). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was £8,617 (USD12,322) per QALY gained. DISCUSSION: These findings conclusively show a lack of benefit for quality of life or monthly headache days from a brief group education and supportive self-management program for people living with chronic migraine or chronic tension-type headache with episodic migraine. TRIAL REGISTRATION INFORMATION: Registered on the International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number registry, ISRCTN79708100 16th December 2015 doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN79708100. The first enrollment was April 24, 2017. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This study provides Class III evidence that a brief group education and self-management program does not increase the probability of improvement in headache-related quality of life in people with chronic migraine

Non-pharmacological educational and self-management interventions for people with chronic headache: the CHESS research programme including a RCT

Background: Headaches are a leading cause of years lived with disability. For some people, headaches become chronic and disabling, with treatment options being primarily pharmaceutical. Non-pharmacological alternative treatment approaches are worthy of exploration. Aim: To develop and test an educational and supportive self-management intervention for people with chronic headaches. Objectives: To develop and evaluate a brief diagnostic interview to support diagnosis for people with chronic headaches, and then to develop and pilot an education and self-management support intervention for the management of common chronic headache disorders (the CHESS intervention). To select the most appropriate outcome measures for a randomised controlled trial of the CHESS intervention, and then to conduct a randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation of the CHESS intervention with an embedded process evaluation. Design: Developmental and feasibility studies followed by a randomised controlled trial. Setting: General practice and community settings in the Midlands and London, UK. Participants: For our feasibility work, 14 general practices recruited 131 people with chronic headaches (headaches on ≥15 days per month for >3 months). People with chronic headaches and expert clinicians developed a telephone classification interview for chronic headache that we validated with 107 feasibility study participants. We piloted the CHESS intervention with 13 participants and refined the content and structure based on their feedback. People with chronic headaches contributed to the decisions about our primary outcome and a core outcome set for chronic and episodic migraine. For the randomised controlled trial, we recruited adults with chronic migraine or chronic tension-type headache and episodic migraine, with or without medication overuse headache, from general practices and via self-referral. Our main analyses were on people with migraine. Interventions: The CHESS intervention consisted of two 1-day group sessions focused on education and self-management to promote behaviour change and support learning strategies to manage chronic headaches. This was followed by a one-to-one nurse consultation and telephone support. The control intervention consisted of feedback from classification interviews, headache management leaflet and a relaxation compact disc. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was headache-related quality of life measured using the Headache Impact Test-6 at 12 months. The secondary outcomes included the Chronic Headache Quality of Life Questionnaire; headache days, duration and severity; EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version; Short Form Questionnaire-12 items; Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale; and Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire scores. We followed up participants at 4, 8 and 12 months. Results: Between April 2017 and March 2019, we randomised 736 participants from 164 general practices. Nine participants (1%) had chronic tension-type headache only. Our main analyses were on the remaining 727 participants with migraine (376 in the intervention arm and 351 in the usual-care arm). Baseline characteristics were well matched. For the primary outcome we had analysable data from 579 participants (80%) at 12 months. There was no between-group difference in the Headache Impact Test-6 at 12 months, (adjusted mean difference –0.3, 95% confidence interval –1.23 to 0.67; p = 0.56). The limits of the 95% confidence interval effectively exclude the possibility of the intervention having a worthwhile benefit. At 4 months there was a difference favouring the CHESS self-management programme on the Headache Impact Test-6 (adjusted mean difference –1.0, 95% confidence interval –1.91 to –0.006; p = 0.049). However, the self-management group also reported 1.5 (95% confidence interval 0.48 to 2.56) more headache days in the previous 28 days. Apart from improved pain self-efficacy at 4 and 12 months, there were few other statistically significant between-group differences in the secondary outcomes. The CHESS intervention generated 0.031 (95% confidence interval –0.005 to 0.063) additional quality-adjusted life-years and increased NHS and Personal Social Services costs by £268 (95% confidence interval £176 to £377), on average, generating an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £8617 with an 83% chance of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. The CHESS intervention was well received and fidelity was good. No process-related issues were identified that would explain why the intervention was ineffective. Limitations: Only 288 out of 376 (77%) of those randomised to the CHESS intervention attended one or more of the intervention sessions. Conclusions: This short, non-pharmacological, educational self-management intervention is unlikely to be effective for the treatment of people with chronic headaches and migraine. Future work: There is a need to develop and test more sustained non-pharmacological interventions for people with chronic headache disorders. Patient and public involvement: Substantial patient and public involvement went into the design, conduct and interpretation of the CHESS programme. This helped direct the research and ensured that the patient voice was embedded in our work. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN79708100. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 11, No. 2. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further information

Supportive Self-Management Program for People With Chronic Headaches and Migraine: A Randomized Controlled Trial and Economic Evaluation

Background and Objectives: Chronic headache disorders are a major cause of pain and disability. Education and supportive self-management approaches could reduce the burden of headache disability. We tested the effectiveness of a group educational and supportive self-management program for people living with chronic headaches. / Methods: This was a pragmatic randomized controlled trial. Participants were aged 18 years or older with chronic migraine or chronic tension-type headache, with or without medication overuse headache. We primarily recruited from general practices. Participants were assigned to either a 2-day group education and self-management program, a one-to-one nurse interview, and telephone support or to usual care plus relaxation material. The primary outcome was headache related-quality of life using the Headache Impact Test (HIT)-6 at 12 months. The primary analysis used intention-to-treat principles for participants with migraine and both baseline and 12-month HIT-6 data. / Results: Between April 2017 and March 2019, we randomized 736 participants. Because only 9 participants just had tension-type headache, our main analyses were on the 727 participants with migraine. Of them, 376 were allocated to the self-management intervention and 351 to usual care. Data from 586 (81%) participants were analyzed for primary outcome. There was no between-group difference in HIT-6 (adjusted mean difference = -0.3, 95% CI -1.23 to 0.67) or headache days (0.9, 95% CI -0.29 to 2.05) at 12 months. The Chronic Headache Education and Self-management Study intervention generated incremental adjusted costs of £268 (95% CI, £176-£377) (USD383 [95% CI USD252-USD539]) and incremental adjusted quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of 0.031 (95% CI -0.005 to 0.063). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was £8,617 (USD12,322) per QALY gained. / Discussion: These findings conclusively show a lack of benefit for quality of life or monthly headache days from a brief group education and supportive self-management program for people living with chronic migraine or chronic tension-type headache with episodic migraine

Cost-effectiveness of High-Intensity Interval Training (HIIT) vs Moderate Intensity Steady-State (MISS) Training in UK Cardiac Rehabilitation

Objective: To perform a cost-effectiveness analysis of high-intensity interval training (HIIT) compared with moderate intensity steady-state (MISS) training in people with coronary artery disease (CAD) attending cardiac rehabilitation (CR). Design: Secondary cost-effectiveness analysis of a prospective, assessor-blind, parallel group, multi-center RCT. Setting: Six outpatient National Health Service cardiac rehabilitation centers in England and Wales, UK. Participants: 382 participants with CAD (N=382). Interventions: Participants were randomized to twice-weekly usual care (n=195) or HIIT (n=187) for 8 weeks. Usual care was moderate intensity continuous exercise (60%-80% maximum capacity, MISS), while HIIT consisted of 10 × 1-minute intervals of vigorous exercise (>85% maximum capacity) interspersed with 1-minute periods of recovery. Main Outcome Measures: We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis of the HIIT or MISS UK trial. Health related quality of life was measured with the EQ-5D-5L to estimate quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Costs were estimated with health service resource use and intervention delivery costs. Cost-utility analysis measured the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Bootstrapping assessed the probability of HIIT being cost-effective according to the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) threshold value (£20,000 per QALY). Missing data were imputed. Uncertainty was estimated using probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Assumptions were tested using univariate/1-way sensitivity analysis. Results: 124 (HIIT, n=59; MISS, n=65) participants completed questionnaires at baseline, 8 weeks, and 12 months. Mean combined health care use and delivery cost was £676 per participant for HIIT, and £653 for MISS. QALY changes were 0.003 and -0.013, respectively. For complete cases, the ICER was £1448 per QALY for HIIT compared with MISS. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 per QALY, the probability of HIIT being cost-effective was 96% (95% CI, 0.90 to 0.95). Conclusion: For people with CAD attending CR, HIIT was cost-effective compared with MISS. These findings are important to policy makers, commissioners, and service providers across the health care sector

Impact of associated injuries in the Floating knee: A retrospective study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Floating knee injuries are usually associated with other significant injuries. Do these injuries have implications on the management of the floating knee and the final outcome of patients? Our study aims to assess the implications of associated injuries in the management and final outcome of floating knee.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>29 patients with floating knees were assessed in our institution. A retrospective analysis of medical records and radiographs were done and all associated injuries were identified. The impact of associated injuries on delay in initial surgical management, delay in rehabilitation & final outcome of the floating knee were assessed.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>38 associated injuries were noted. 7 were associated with ipsilateral knee injuries. Lower limb injuries were most commonly associated with the floating knee. Patients with some associated injuries had a delay in surgical management and others a delay in post-operative rehabilitation. Knee ligament and vascular injuries were associated with poor outcome.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The associated injuries were quite frequent with the floating knee. Some of the associated injuries caused a delay in surgical management and post-operative rehabilitation. In assessment of the final outcome, patients with associated knee and vascular injuries had a poor prognosis. Majority of the patients with associated injuries had a good or excellent outcome.</p

Characteristics of clinical trials in rare vs. common diseases : A register-based Latvian study

Publisher Copyright: © 2018 Logviss et al. This is an open ccess article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and eproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.Background Conducting clinical studies in small populations may be very challenging; therefore quality of clinical evidence may differ between rare and non-rare disease therapies. Objective This register-based study aims to evaluate the characteristics of clinical trials in rare diseases conducted in Latvia and compare them with clinical trials in more common conditions. Methods The EU Clinical Trials Register (clinicaltrialsregister.eu) was used to identify interventional clinical trials related to rare diseases (n = 51) and to compose a control group of clinical trials in non-rare diseases (n = 102) for further comparison of the trial characteristics. Results We found no significant difference in the use of overall survival as a primary endpoint in clinical trials between rare and non-rare diseases (9.8% vs. 13.7%, respectively). However, clinical trials in rare diseases were less likely to be randomized controlled trials (62.7% vs. 83.3%). Rare and non-rare disease clinical trials varied in masking, with rare disease trials less likely to be double blind (45.1% vs. 63.7%). Active comparators were less frequently used in rare disease trials (36.4% vs. 58.8% of controlled trials). Clinical trials in rare diseases enrolled fewer participants than those in non-rare diseases: In Latvia (mean 18.3 vs. 40.2 subjects, respectively), in the European Economic Area (mean 181.0 vs. 626.9 subjects), and in the whole clinical trial (mean 335.8 vs. 1406.3 subjects). Although, we found no significant difference in trial duration between the groups (mean 38.3 vs. 36.4 months). Conclusions The current study confirms that clinical trials in rare diseases vary from those in non-rare conditions, with notable differences in enrollment, randomization, masking, and the use of active comparators. However, we found no significant difference in trial duration and the use of overall survival as a primary endpoint.publishersversionPeer reviewe