Comparative efficacy of two primary care interventions to assist withdrawal from long term benzodiazepine use: A protocol for a clustered, randomized clinical trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Although benzodiazepines are effective, long-term use is not recommended because of potential adverse effects; the risks of tolerance and dependence; and an increased risk of hip fractures, motor vehicle accidents, and memory impairment. The estimated prevalence of long-term benzodiazepine use in the general population is about 2,2 to 2,6%, is higher in women and increases steadily with age. Interventions performed by General Practitioners may help patients to discontinue long-term benzodiazepine use. We have designed a trial to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of two brief general practitioner-provided interventions, based on gradual dose reduction, and will compare the effectiveness of these interventions with that of routine clinical practice.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>In a three-arm cluster randomized controlled trial, general practitioners will be randomly allocated to: a) a group in which the first patient visit will feature a structured interview, followed by visits every 2-3 weeks to the end of dose reduction; b) a group in which the first patient visit will feature a structured interview plus delivery of written instructions to self-reduce benzodiazepine dose, or c) routine care. Using a computerized pharmaceutical prescription database, 495 patients, aged 18-80 years, taking benzodiazepine for at least 6 months, will be recruited in primary care health districts of three regions of Spain (the Balearic Islands, Catalonia, and Valencia). The primary outcome will be benzodiazepine use at 12 months. The secondary outcomes will include measurements of anxiety and depression symptoms, benzodiazepine dependence, quality of sleep, and alcohol consumption.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>Although some interventions have been shown to be effective in reducing benzodiazepine consumption by long-term users, the clinical relevance of such interventions is limited by their complexity. This randomized trial will compare the effectiveness and safety of two complex stepped care interventions with that of routine care in a study with sufficient statistical power to detect clinically relevant differences.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p>Current Controlled Trials: <a href="http://www.controlled-trials.com/ISRCTN13024375">ISRCTN13024375</a></p

The Level of DING Proteins Is Increased in HIV-Infected Patients: In Vitro and In Vivo Studies

DING proteins constitute an interesting family, owing to their intriguing and important activities. However, after a decade of research, little is known about these proteins. In humans, at least five different DING proteins have been identified, which were implicated in important biological processes and diseases, including HIV. Indeed, recent data from different research groups have highlighted the anti-HIV activity of some DING representatives. These proteins share the ability to inhibit the transcriptional step of HIV-1, a key step of the viral cycle that is not yet targeted by the current therapies. Since such proteins have been isolated from humans, we undertook a comprehensive study that focuses on the relationship between these proteins and HIV-infection in an infectious context. Hence, we developed a home-made ELISA for the quantification of the concentration of DING proteins in human serum. Using this method, we were able to determine the concentration of DING proteins in healthy and HIV-infected patients. Interestingly, we observed a significant increase of the concentration of DING proteins in non treated and treated HIV-infected patients compared to controls. In addition, cell cultures infected with HIV also show an increased expression of DING proteins, ruling out the possible role of antiretroviral treatment in the increase of the expression of DING proteins. In conclusion, results from this study show that the organism reacts to HIV-infection by an overexpression of DING proteins

Collaborative Depression Trial (CADET): multi-centre randomised controlled trial of collaborative care for depression - study protocol

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Comprising of both organisational and patient level components, collaborative care is a potentially powerful intervention for improving depression treatment in UK primary Care. However, as previous models have been developed and evaluated in the United States, it is necessary to establish the effect of collaborative care in the UK in order to determine whether this innovative treatment model can replicate benefits for patients outside the US. This Phase III trial was preceded by a Phase II patient level RCT, following the MRC Complex Intervention Framework.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>A multi-centre controlled trial with cluster-randomised allocation of GP practices. GP practices will be randomised to usual care control or to "collaborative care" - a combination of case manager coordinated support and brief psychological treatment, enhanced specialist and GP communication. The primary outcome will be symptoms of depression as assessed by the PHQ-9.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>If collaborative care is demonstrated to be effective we will have evidence to enable the NHS to substantially improve the organisation of depressed patients in primary care, and to assist primary care providers to deliver a model of enhanced depression care which is both effective and acceptable to patients.</p> <p>Trial Registration Number</p> <p>ISRCTN32829227</p

A virus-based single-enzyme nanoreactor

Contains fulltext : 35238.pdf (author's version ) (Open Access