10 research outputs found
Highly challenging balance program reduces fall rate in Parkinson disease
Published in final edited form as:
J Neurol Phys Ther. 2016 January ; 40(1): 24–30. doi:10.1097/NPT.0000000000000111BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: There is a paucity of effective treatment options to reduce falls in Parkinson disease (PD). Although a variety of rehabilitative approaches have been shown to improve balance, evidence of a reduction in falls has been mixed. Prior balance trials suggest that programs with highly challenging exercises had superior outcomes. We investigated the effects of a theory-driven, progressive, highly challenging group exercise program on fall rate, balance, and fear of falling.
METHODS: Twenty-three subjects with PD participated in this randomized cross-over trial. Subjects were randomly allocated to 3 months of active balance exercises or usual care followed by the reverse. During the active condition, subjects participated in a progressive, highly challenging group exercise program twice weekly for 90 minutes. Outcomes included a change in fall rate over the 3-month active period and differences in balance (Mini-Balance Evaluation Systems Test [Mini-BESTest]), and fear of falling (Falls Efficacy Scale-International [FES-I]) between active and usual care conditions.
RESULTS: The effect of time on falls was significant (regression coefficient = -0.015 per day, P < 0.001). The estimated rate ratio comparing incidence rates at time points 1 month apart was 0.632 (95% confidence interval, 0.524-0.763). Thus, there was an estimated 37% decline in fall rate per month (95% confidence interval, 24%-48%). Improvements were also observed on the Mini-BESTest (P = 0.037) and FES-I (P = 0.059).
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study show that a theory-based, highly challenging, and progressive exercise program was effective in reducing falls, improving balance, and reducing fear of falling in PD.Video abstract available for more insights from the authors (see Supplemental Digital Content 1, http://links.lww.com/JNPT/A120).
TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02302144.This study was funded by the Boston Claude D. Pepper Older Americans Independence Center (NIH 5P30AG031679). Additional support was provided by the American Parkinson Disease Association (ADPA); ADPAMA Chapter. (NIH 5P30AG031679 - Boston Claude D. Pepper Older Americans Independence Center; American Parkinson Disease Association (ADPA); ADPAMA Chapter
Frequency of Aspirating Gastric Tubes for Patients Receiving Enteral Nutrition in the ICU: A Randomised Controlled Trial
Background: Enteral nutrition (EN) tolerance is often monitored by aspirating stomach contents by syringe at prescribed intervals. No studies have been conducted to assess the most appropriate time interval for aspirating gastric tubes. We compared gastric tube aspirations every 4 hours (usual care) with a variable regimen (up to every 8 hours aspirations).Methods: This randomized controlled trial (RCT) enrolled patients who stayed in the intensive care unit (ICU) for >48 hours, had a gastric tube, and were likely to receive EN for 3 or more days. Patients were randomized (computer-generated randomization) to either the control (every 4 hours) or intervention group (variable regimen). The primary outcome was number of gastric tube aspirations per day from randomization until EN was ceased or up to 2 weeks postrandomization.Results: Following Institutional Ethics Committee approval, 357 patients were recruited (control group, n = 179; intervention group, n = 178). No differences were found in age, sex, worst APACHE II score, or time to start of EN. In the intention-to-treat analysis, the intervention group had fewer tube aspirations per day (3.4 versus 5.4 in the control group, P < .001). Vomiting/regurgitation was increased in the intervention group (2.1% versus 3.6%, P = .02). There were no other differences in complications.Conclusion: This is the first RCT to examine the frequency of gastric tube aspirations. The frequency of gastric tube aspirations was reduced in the variable-regimen group with no increase in risk to the patient. Reducing the frequency of aspirations saves nursing time, decreases risk of contamination of feeding circuit, and minimizes risk of body fluid exposure
Clinical Practice Guideline to Improve Locomotor Function Following Chronic Stroke, Incomplete Spinal Cord Injury, and Brain Injury
Background:
Individuals with acute-onset central nervous system (CNS) injury, including stroke, motor incomplete spinal cord injury, or traumatic brain injury, often experience lasting locomotor deficits, as quantified by decreases in gait speed and distance walked over a specific duration (timed distance). The goal of the present clinical practice guideline was to delineate the relative efficacy of various interventions to improve walking speed and timed distance in ambulatory individuals greater than 6 months following these specific diagnoses.
Methods:
A systematic review of the literature published between 1995 and 2016 was performed in 4 databases for randomized controlled clinical trials focused on these specific patient populations, at least 6 months postinjury and with specific outcomes of walking speed and timed distance. For all studies, specific parameters of training interventions including frequency, intensity, time, and type were detailed as possible. Recommendations were determined on the basis of the strength of the evidence and the potential harm, risks, or costs of providing a specific training paradigm, particularly when another intervention may be available and can provide greater benefit.
Results:
Strong evidence indicates that clinicians should offer walking training at moderate to high intensities or virtual reality–based training to ambulatory individuals greater than 6 months following acute-onset CNS injury to improve walking speed or distance. In contrast, weak evidence suggests that strength training, circuit (ie, combined) training or cycling training at moderate to high intensities, and virtual reality–based balance training may improve walking speed and distance in these patient groups. Finally, strong evidence suggests that body weight–supported treadmill training, robotic-assisted training, or sitting/standing balance training without virtual reality should not be performed to improve walking speed or distance in ambulatory individuals greater than 6 months following acute-onset CNS injury to improve walking speed or distance.
Discussion:
The collective findings suggest that large amounts of task-specific (ie, locomotor) practice may be critical for improvements in walking function, although only at higher cardiovascular intensities or with augmented feedback to increase patient's engagement. Lower-intensity walking interventions or impairment-based training strategies demonstrated equivocal or limited efficacy.
Limitations:
As walking speed and distance were primary outcomes, the research participants included in the studies walked without substantial physical assistance. This guideline may not apply to patients with limited ambulatory function, where provision of walking training may require substantial physical assistance.
Summary:
The guideline suggests that task-specific walking training should be performed to improve walking speed and distance in those with acute-onset CNS injury although only at higher intensities or with augmented feedback. Future studies should clarify the potential utility of specific training parameters that lead to improved walking speed and distance in these populations in both chronic and subacute stages following injury.
Disclaimer:
These recommendations are intended as a guide for clinicians to optimize rehabilitation outcomes for persons with chronic stroke, incomplete spinal cord injury, and traumatic brain injury to improve walking speed and distance
Updated Guidance Regarding The Risk ofAllergic Reactions to COVID-19 Vaccines and Recommended Evaluation and Management: A GRADE Assessment, and International Consensus Approach
This guidance updates 2021 GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) recommendations regarding immediate allergic reactions following coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines and addresses revaccinating individuals with first-dose allergic reactions and allergy testing to determine revaccination outcomes. Recent meta-analyses assessed the incidence of severe allergic reactions to initial COVID-19 vaccination, risk of mRNA-COVID-19 revaccination after an initial reaction, and diagnostic accuracy of COVID-19 vaccine and vaccine excipient testing in predicting reactions. GRADE methods informed rating the certainty of evidence and strength of recommendations. A modified Delphi panel consisting of experts in allergy, anaphylaxis, vaccinology, infectious diseases, emergency medicine, and primary care from Australia, Canada, Europe, Japan, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States formed the recommendations. We recommend vaccination for persons without COVID-19 vaccine excipient allergy and revaccination after a prior immediate allergic reaction. We suggest against \u3e 15-minute postvaccination observation. We recommend against mRNA vaccine or excipient skin testing to predict outcomes. We suggest revaccination of persons with an immediate allergic reaction to the mRNA vaccine or excipients be performed by a person with vaccine allergy expertise in a properly equipped setting. We suggest against premedication, split-dosing, or special precautions because of a comorbid allergic history
Recommended from our members
Updated guidance regarding the risk of allergic reactions to COVID-19 vaccines and recommended evaluation and management: A GRADE assessment and international consensus approach.
This guidance updates 2021 GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) recommendations regarding immediate allergic reactions following coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines and addresses revaccinating individuals with first-dose allergic reactions and allergy testing to determine revaccination outcomes. Recent meta-analyses assessed the incidence of severe allergic reactions to initial COVID-19 vaccination, risk of mRNA-COVID-19 revaccination after an initial reaction, and diagnostic accuracy of COVID-19 vaccine and vaccine excipient testing in predicting reactions. GRADE methods informed rating the certainty of evidence and strength of recommendations. A modified Delphi panel consisting of experts in allergy, anaphylaxis, vaccinology, infectious diseases, emergency medicine, and primary care from Australia, Canada, Europe, Japan, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States formed the recommendations. We recommend vaccination for persons without COVID-19 vaccine excipient allergy and revaccination after a prior immediate allergic reaction. We suggest against >15-minute postvaccination observation. We recommend against mRNA vaccine or excipient skin testing to predict outcomes. We suggest revaccination of persons with an immediate allergic reaction to the mRNA vaccine or excipients be performed by a person with vaccine allergy expertise in a properly equipped setting. We suggest against premedication, split-dosing, or special precautions because of a comorbid allergic history