Effect of biomechanical footwear on knee pain in people with knee osteoarthritis : the BIOTOK randomized clinical trial

Importance: Individually calibrated biomechanical footwear therapy may improve pain and physical function in people with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis, but the benefits of this therapy are unclear. Objective: To assess the effect of a biomechanical footwear therapy vs control footwear over 24 weeks of follow-up. Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized clinical trial conducted at a Swiss university hospital. Participants (N = 220) with symptomatic, radiologically confirmed knee osteoarthritis were recruited between April 20, 2015, and January 10, 2017. The last participant visit occurred on August 15, 2017. Interventions: Participants were randomized to biomechanical footwear involving shoes with individually adjustable external convex pods attached to the outsole (n = 111) or to control footwear (n = 109) that had visible outsole pods that were not adjustable and did not create a convex walking surface. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was knee pain at 24 weeks of follow-up assessed with the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain subscore standardized to range from 0 (no symptoms) to 10 (extreme symptoms). The secondary outcomes included WOMAC physical function and stiffness subscores and the WOMAC global score, all ranging from 0 (no symptoms) to 10 (extreme symptoms) at 24 weeks of follow-up, and serious adverse events. Results: Among the 220 randomized participants (mean age, 65.2 years [SD, 9.3 years]; 104 women [47.3%]), 219 received the allocated treatment and 213 (96.8%) completed follow-up. At 24 weeks of follow-up, the mean standardized WOMAC pain subscore improved from 4.3 to 1.3 in the biomechanical footwear group and from 4.0 to 2.6 in the control footwear group (between-group difference in scores at 24 weeks of follow-up, -1.3 [95% CI, -1.8 to -0.9]; P < .001). The results were consistent for WOMAC physical function subscore (between-group difference, -1.1 [95% CI, -1.5 to -0.7]), WOMAC stiffness subscore (between-group difference, -1.4 [95% CI, -1.9 to -0.9]), and WOMAC global score (between-group difference, -1.2 [95% CI, -1.6 to -0.8]) at 24 weeks of follow-up. Three serious adverse events occurred in the biomechanical footwear group compared with 9 in the control footwear group (2.7% vs 8.3%, respectively); none were related to treatment. Conclusions and Relevance: Among participants with knee pain from osteoarthritis, use of biomechanical footwear compared with control footwear resulted in an improvement in pain at 24 weeks of follow-up that was statistically significant but of uncertain clinical importance. Further research would be needed to assess long-term efficacy and safety, as well as replication, before reaching conclusions about the clinical value of this device

Effectiveness and safety of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and opioid treatment for knee and hip osteoarthritis: network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness and safety of different preparations and doses of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), opioids, and paracetamol for knee and hip osteoarthritis pain and physical function to enable effective and safe use of these drugs at their lowest possible dose. DESIGN: Systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised trials. DATA SOURCES: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Medline, Embase, regulatory agency websites, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to 28 June 2021. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Randomised trials published in English with ≥100 patients per group that evaluated NSAIDs, opioids, or paracetamol (acetaminophen) to treat osteoarthritis. OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The prespecified primary outcome was pain. Physical function and safety outcomes were also assessed. REVIEW METHODS: Two reviewers independently extracted outcomes data and evaluated the risk of bias of included trials. Bayesian random effects models were used for network meta-analysis of all analyses. Effect estimates are comparisons between active treatments and oral placebo. RESULTS: 192 trials comprising 102 829 participants examined 90 different active preparations or doses (68 for NSAIDs, 19 for opioids, and three for paracetamol). Five oral preparations (diclofenac 150 mg/day, etoricoxib 60 and 90 mg/day, and rofecoxib 25 and 50 mg/day) had ≥99% probability of more pronounced treatment effects than the minimal clinically relevant reduction in pain. Topical diclofenac (70-81 and 140-160 mg/day) had ≥92.3% probability, and all opioids had ≤53% probability of more pronounced treatment effects than the minimal clinically relevant reduction in pain. 18.5%, 0%, and 83.3% of the oral NSAIDs, topical NSAIDs, and opioids, respectively, had an increased risk of dropouts due to adverse events. 29.8%, 0%, and 89.5% of oral NSAIDs, topical NSAIDs, and opioids, respectively, had an increased risk of any adverse event. Oxymorphone 80 mg/day had the highest risk of dropouts due to adverse events (51%) and any adverse event (88%). CONCLUSIONS: Etoricoxib 60 mg/day and diclofenac 150 mg/day seem to be the most effective oral NSAIDs for pain and function in patients with osteoarthritis. However, these treatments are probably not appropriate for patients with comorbidities or for long term use because of the slight increase in the risk of adverse events. Additionally, an increased risk of dropping out due to adverse events was found for diclofenac 150 mg/day. Topical diclofenac 70-81 mg/day seems to be effective and generally safer because of reduced systemic exposure and lower dose, and should be considered as first line pharmacological treatment for knee osteoarthritis. The clinical benefit of opioid treatment, regardless of preparation or dose, does not outweigh the harm it might cause in patients with osteoarthritis. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO number CRD42020213656

Is a history of work-related low back injury associated with prevalent low back pain and depression in the general population?

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Little is known about the role of prior occupational low back injury in future episodes of low back pain and disability in the general population. We conducted a study to determine if a lifetime history of work-related low back injury is associated with prevalent severity-graded low back pain, depressive symptoms, or both, in the general population.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We used data from the Saskatchewan Health and Back Pain Survey – a population-based cross-sectional survey mailed to a random, stratified sample of 2,184 Saskatchewan adults 20 to 69 years of age in 1995. Information on the main independent variable was gathered by asking respondents whether they had ever injured their low back at work. Our outcomes, the 6-month period prevalence of severity-graded low back pain and depressive symptoms during the past week, were measured with valid and reliable questionnaires. The associations between prior work-related low back injury and our outcomes were estimated through multinomial and binary multivariable logistic regression with adjustment for age, gender, and other important covariates.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Fifty-five percent of the eligible population participated. Of the 1,086 participants who responded to the question about the main independent variable, 38.0% reported a history of work-related low back injury. A history of work-related low back injury was positively associated with low intensity/low disability low back pain (OR, 3.66; 95%CI, 2.48–5.42), with high intensity/low disability low back pain (OR, 4.03; 95%CI, 2.41–6.76), and with high disability low back pain (OR, 6.76; 95%CI, 3.80–12.01). No association was found between a history of work-related low back injury and depression (OR, 0.85; 95%CI, 0.55–1.30).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Our analysis shows an association between past occupational low back injury and increasing severity of prevalent low back pain, but not depression. These results suggest that past work-related low back injury may be an important risk factor for future episodes of low back pain and disability in the general population.</p

Evaluation of movements of lower limbs in non-professional ballet dancers: hip abduction and flexion

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The literature indicated that the majority of professional ballet dancers present static and active dynamic range of motion difference between left and right lower limbs, however, no previous study focused this difference in non-professional ballet dancers. In this study we aimed to evaluate active movements of the hip in non-professional classical dancers.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We evaluated 10 non professional ballet dancers (16-23 years old). We measured the active range of motion and flexibility through Well Banks. We compared active range of motion between left and right sides (hip flexion and abduction) and performed correlation between active movements and flexibility.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>There was a small difference between the right and left sides of the hip in relation to the movements of flexion and abduction, which suggest the dominant side of the subjects, however, there was no statistical significance. Bank of Wells test revealed statistical difference only between the 1^stand the 3^rdmeasurement. There was no correlation between the movements of the hip (abduction and flexion, right and left sides) with the three test measurements of the bank of Wells.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>There is no imbalance between the sides of the hip with respect to active abduction and flexion movements in non-professional ballet dancers.</p

Effectiveness and safety of generic version of abacavir/lamivudine and efavirenz in treatment naive HIV-infected patients: a nonrandomized, open-label, phase IV study in Cali-Colombia, 2011-2012

Background: Generic drug policies are often associated with concerns about the quality and effectiveness of these products. Phase IV clinical trials may be a suitable design to assess the effectiveness and safety of generic drugs. The objective of this study was to describe the effectiveness and the safety of the generic abacavir/lamivudine and efavirenz in treatment-naïve HIV-infected patients. Methods: A monocentric, nonrandomized, open-label, phase IV study in treatment naïve HIV-infected patients 18 years or older with indication to receive abacavir/lamivudine and efavirenz were recruited from a program that provides comprehensive outpatient consultation and continuing care. The primary end-point was to achieve viral load <40 copies/mL at 12 months after baseline to assess effectiveness. Secondary end-point of the study were 1) to asses increasing in T-CD4 lymphocytes levels as accompaniment to asses effectiveness, and 2) to assess both gastrointestinal, skin, and central nervous system symptoms, and lipid profile, cardiovascular risk, renal, and hepatic function as safety profile. Data were determined at baseline, 3, 6, and 12 months. Close clinical monitoring and pharmaceutical care were used for data collection. Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-rank test was used to compare proportions or medians. Results: Sixty patients were invited to participate in the study; 42 were enrolled and 33 completed the follow-up. Of the nine patients excluded from the study, only one was withdrawn due to adverse events. At 12 months, 31 of 42 patients (73.8 % in intention-to-treat analysis) achieved a viral load of HIV1 RNA <40 copies/mL. There was a significant increase (172 cells/mm3) in the median for CD4 T lymphocyte count. The adverse events were mild and met the safety profile for this antiretroviral regimen, mainly of central nervous system symptoms, skin rash, lipid abnormalities, and an increase of 2 % in the median of the percentage of cardiovascular risk. Conclusions: The clinical outcomes of generic version of abacavir/lamivudine and efavirenz in HIV treatment naïve patients showed the expected safety and effectiveness profile of proprietary ARV drugs. Trial registration: Registro Público Cubano de Ensayos Clínicos (RPCEC) ID: RPCEC00000202. Registered 19 November 2015.This research was made possible by contribution from the Corporación de Lucha Contra el SIDA, Cali-Colombia, and Comité para el Desarrollo de la Investigación (CODI), Universidad de Antioquia, Medellín, Colombia. In addition, Humax Pharmaceutical S.A. provided the antiretroviral drugs

Thoracic dysfunction in whiplash associated disorders: A systematic review

© 2018 Heneghan et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Background Research investigating Whiplash Associated Disorder (WAD) has largely focused on the cervical spine yet symptoms can be widespread. Thoracic spine pain prevalence is reported ~66%; perhaps unsurprising given the forceful stretch/eccentric loading of posterior structures of the spine, and the thoracic spine’s contribution to neck mobility/function. Approximately 50% WAD patients develop chronic pain and disability resulting in high levels of societal and healthcare costs. It is time to look beyond the cervical spine to fully understand anatomical dysfunction in WAD and provide new directions for clinical practice and research. Purpose To evaluate the scope and nature of dysfunction in the thoracic region in patients with WAD. Methods A systematic review and data synthesis was conducted according to a pre-defined, registered (PROSPERO, CRD42015026983) and published protocol. All forms of observational study were included. A sensitive topic-based search strategy was designed from inception to 1/06/16. Databases, grey literature and registers were searched using a study population terms and key words derived from scoping search. Two reviewers independently searched information sources, assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. A third reviewer checked for consistency and clarity. Extracted data included summary data: sample size and characteristics, outcomes, and timescales to reflect disorder state. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Data were tabulated to allow enabling a semi-qualitative comparison and grouped by outcome across studies. Strength of the overall body of evidence was assessed using a modified GRADE. Results Thirty eight studies (n>50,000) which were conducted across a range of countries were included. Few authors responded to requests for further data (5 of 9 contacted). Results were reported in the context of overall quality and were presented for measures of pain or dysfunction and presented, where possible, according to WAD severity and time point post injury. Key findings include: 1) high prevalence of thoracic pain (>60%); higher for those with more severe presentations and in the acute stage, 2) low prevalence of chest pain

Burden of disease attributable to risk factors in European countries: a scoping literature review

Objectives Within the framework of the burden of disease (BoD) approach, disease and injury burden estimates attributable to risk factors are a useful guide for policy formulation and priority setting in disease prevention. Considering the important differences in methods, and their impact on burden estimates, we conducted a scoping literature review to: (1) map the BoD assessments including risk factors performed across Europe; and (2) identify the methodological choices in comparative risk assessment (CRA) and risk assessment methods. Methods We searched multiple literature databases, including grey literature websites and targeted public health agencies websites. Results A total of 113 studies were included in the synthesis and further divided into independent BoD assessments (54 studies) and studies linked to the Global Burden of Disease (59 papers). Our results showed that the methods used to perform CRA varied substantially across independent European BoD studies. While there were some methodological choices that were more common than others, we did not observe patterns in terms of country, year or risk factor. Each methodological choice can affect the comparability of estimates between and within countries and/or risk factors, since they might significantly influence the quantification of the attributable burden. From our analysis we observed that the use of CRA was less common for some types of risk factors and outcomes. These included environmental and occupational risk factors, which are more likely to use bottom-up approaches for health outcomes where disease envelopes may not be available. Conclusions Our review also highlighted misreporting, the lack of uncertainty analysis and the under-investigation of causal relationships in BoD studies. Development and use of guidelines for performing and reporting BoD studies will help understand differences, avoid misinterpretations thus improving comparability among estimates