Nausea and vomiting in pregnancy (NVP) is not just 'Morning Sickness' : data from a prospective cohort study

Background: Nausea and vomiting in pregnancy is usually called ‘morning sickness’. This is felt by sufferers to trivialise the condition. Symptoms have been described as occurring both before and after noon, but daily symptom patterns have not been clearly described and statistically modelled to enable the term ‘morning sickness’ to be accurately analysed. Aim: To describe the daily variation in nausea and vomiting symptoms during early pregnancy in a group of sufferers. Design and setting: A prospective cohort study of females recruited from 15 May 2014 to 17 February 2017 by Swiss Precision Diagnostics (SPD) Development Company Limited, which was researching hormone levels in early pregnancy and extended its study to include the description of pregnancy symptoms. Method: Daily symptom diaries of nausea and vomiting were kept by females who were trying to conceive. They also provided daily urine samples, which when analysed enabled the date of ovulation to be determined. Data from 256 females who conceived during the first month of the study are included in this article. Daily symptom patterns and changes in daily patterns by week of pregnancy were modelled. Functional data analysis was used to produce estimated symptom probability functions. Results: There was a peak probability of nausea in the morning, a lower but sustained probability of nausea throughout the day, and a slight peak in the evening. Vomiting had a defined peak incidence in the morning. Conclusion: Referring to nausea and vomiting in pregnancy as simply ‘morning sickness’ is inaccurate, simplistic, and therefore unhelpful

On the extended two-parameter generalized skew-normal distribution

We propose a three-parameter skew-normal distribution, obtained by using hidden truncation on a skew-normal random variable. The hidden truncation framework permits direct interpretation of the model parameters. A link is established between the model and the closed skew-normal distribution

A Sample Selection Model with Skew-normal Distribution

Non-random sampling is a source of bias in empirical research. It is common for the outcomes of interest (e.g. wage distribution) to be skewed in the source population. Sometimes, the outcomes are further subjected to sample selection, which is a type of missing data, resulting in partial observability. Thus, methods based on complete cases for skew data are inadequate for the analysis of such data and a general sample selection model is required. Heckman proposed a full maximum likelihood estimation method under the normality assumption for sample selection problems, and parametric and non-parametric extensions have been proposed. We generalize Heckman selection model to allow for underlying skew-normal distributions. Finite-sample performance of the maximum likelihood estimator of the model is studied via simulation. Applications illustrate the strength of the model in capturing spurious skewness in bounded scores, and in modelling data where logarithm transformation could not mitigate the effect of inherent skewness in the outcome variable

Long-term survival for a cohort of adults with cerebral palsy

The aim of this study was to investigate long-term survival and examine causes of death in adult patients with cerebral palsy (CP). A 1940–1950 birth cohort based on paediatric case referral allows for long-term survival follow-up. Survival is analyzed by birth characteristics and severity of disability from age 20 years (and age 2y for a subset of the data). Survival outcome compared with that expected in the general population based on English life tables. The main cohort consisted of 341 individuals, with 193 males and 148 females. Conditional on surviving to age 20 years, almost 85% of the cohort survived to age 50 years (a comparable estimate for the general population is 96%). Very few deaths were attributed to CP for those people dying over 20 years of age. Females survived better than males. However, females faced a greater increase in risk relative to the general population than did males. We conclude that survival outlook is good though lower than in the general population. The relative risk of death compared with the UK population decreases with age, although it shows some indication of rising again after age 50 years. Many more deaths were caused by diseases of the respiratory system among those dying in their 20s and 30s than would be expected in the general population. Many fewer deaths than expected in this age group are caused by injuries and accidents. For those people who die in their 40s and 50s, an increase in deaths due to diseases of the circulatory system and neoplasms is observed. More deaths than expected in this age group are due to diseases of the nervous system

Original papers Management of joint and soft tissue injuries in three general practices: value of on-site physiotherapy G I HACKETT

SUMMARY A prospective study was undertaken to determine the potential benefits in patient management and cost effectiveness of physiotherapists employed by general practitioners compared with direct hospital access and access via consultants. The study involved 401 patients from three rural general practices in south Cheshire and north Staffordshire and took place over six months. On-site physiotherapy in general practice premises resulted in higher referral rates to the physiotherapist compared with the practice using direct hospital access or the practice with access via consultants. Both on site and direct access physiotherapy were associated with fewer prescriptions and lower overall prescribing costs per patient than access to physiotherapy via consultants. There was less time lost from work and normal duties for patients attending the practice with on site physiotherapy compared with those attending the practice which required referral via hospital consultants. Access to physiotherapy via hospital specialists resulted in considerably longer delays than on site physiotherapy and greatly increased the financial costs for the patient. Physiotherapy in general practice premises is a cost effective way of dealing with joint and soft tissue complaints. Direct access to the physiotherapy department within hospitals results in longer delays but provides a satisfactory service. There is little to recommend the utilization of hospital consultants as a means of access to physiotherapy

Gabapentin add-on treatment for drug-resistant focal epilepsy

BackgroundThis is an updated version of the Cochrane Review previously published in 2018. Epilepsy is a common neurological disorder characterised by recurrent seizures. Most people with epilepsy have a good prognosis and their seizures are well controlled by a single antiepileptic drug, but up to 30% develop drug-resistant epilepsy, especially people with focal seizures. In this review, we summarised the evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of gabapentin, when used as an add-on treatment for drug-resistant focal epilepsy.ObjectivesTo evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of gabapentin when used as an add-on treatment for people with drug-resistant focal epilepsy.Search methodsFor the latest update, we searched the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web) and MEDLINE (Ovid) on 11 August 2020. CRS Web includes randomised or quasi-randomised, controlled trials from PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and the Specialised Registers of Cochrane Review Groups including Epilepsy. We imposed no language restrictions.Selection criteriaRandomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, add-on trials of gabapentin in people with drug-resistant focal epilepsy. We also included trials using an active drug control group or comparing different doses of gabapentin.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors independently selected trials for inclusion and extracted the relevant data. We assessed the following outcomes: seizure frequency, seizure freedom, treatment withdrawal (any reason) and adverse effects. Primary analyses were intention-to-treat. We also undertook sensitivity best-case and worst-case analyses. We estimated summary risk ratios (RR) for each outcome and evaluated dose-response in regression models.Main resultsWe identified no new studies for this update, therefore, the results and conclusions are unchanged. In the previous update of this review, we combined data from six trials in meta-analyses of 1206 randomised participants. The overall risk ratio (RR) for reduction in seizure frequency of 50% or more compared to placebo was 1.89 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.40 to 2.55; 6 studies, 1206 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Dose regression analysis (for trials in adults) showed increasing efficacy with increasing dose, with 25.3% (95% CI 19.3 to 32.3) of people responding to gabapentin 1800 mg compared to 9.7% on placebo, a 15.5% increase in response rate (95% CI 8.5 to 22.5). The RR for treatment withdrawal compared to placebo was 1.05 (95% CI 0.74 to 1.49; 6 trials, 1206 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Adverse effects were significantly associated with gabapentin compared to placebo. RRs were as follows: ataxia 2.01 (99% CI 0.98 to 4.11; 3 studies, 787 participants; low-certainty evidence), dizziness 2.43 (99% CI 1.44 to 4.12; 6 studies, 1206 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), fatigue 1.95 (99% CI 0.99 to 3.82; 5 studies, 1161 participants; low-certainty evidence) and somnolence 1.93 (99% CI 1.22 to 3.06; 6 studies, 1206 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a difference for the adverse effects of headache (RR 0.79, 99% CI 0.46 to 1.35; 6 studies, 1206 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) or nausea (RR 0.95, 99% CI 0.52 to 1.73; 4 trials, 1034 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Overall, the studies were at low to unclear risk of bias due to information on each risk of bias domain not being available. We judged the overall certainty of the evidence (using the GRADE approach) as low to moderate due to potential attrition bias resulting from missing outcome data and imprecise results with wide CIs.Authors' conclusionsGabapentin has efficacy as an add-on treatment in people with drug-resistant focal epilepsy, and seems to be fairly well-tolerated. However, the trials reviewed were of relatively short duration and provide no evidence for the long-term efficacy of gabapentin beyond a three-month period. The results cannot be extrapolated to monotherapy or to people with other epilepsy types. Further trials are needed to assess the long-term effects of gabapentin, and to compare gabapentin with other add-on drugs

Topiramate add-on therapy for drug-resistant focal epilepsy

Background The majority of people with epilepsy have a good prognosis and their seizures are controlled by a single antiepileptic drug. However, up to 20% of patients from population‐based studies, and up to 30% from clinical series (not population‐based), develop drug‐resistant epilepsy, especially those with focal‐onset seizures. In this review, we summarise the current evidence regarding topiramate, an antiepileptic drug first marketed in 1996, when used as an add‐on treatment for drug‐resistant focal epilepsy. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 1999, and last updated in 2014. Objectives To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of topiramate when used as an add‐on treatment for people with drug‐resistant focal epilepsy. Search methods For the latest update of this review we searched the following databases on 2 July 2018: Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web), which includes the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946‐ ); ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We imposed no language restrictions. We also contacted the manufacturers of topiramate and researchers in the field to identify any ongoing or unpublished studies. Selection criteria Randomised, placebo‐controlled add‐on trials of topiramate, recruiting people with drug‐resistant focal epilepsy. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion and extracted the relevant data. We assessed the following outcomes: (1) 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency; (2) seizure freedom; (3) treatment withdrawal (any reason); (4) adverse effects. Primary analyses were intention‐to‐treat (ITT), and summary risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) are presented. We evaluated dose‐response in regression models. We carried out a 'Risk of bias' assessment for each included study using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool and assessed the overall certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. Main results We included 12 trials, representing 1650 participants. Baseline phases ranged from four to 12 weeks and double‐blind phases ranged from 11 to 19 weeks. The RR for a 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency with add‐on topiramate compared to placebo was 2.71 (95% CI 2.05 to 3.59; 12 studies; high‐certainty evidence). Dose regression analysis showed increasing effect with increasing topiramate dose demonstrated by an odds ratio (OR) of 1.45 (95% CI 1.28 to 1.64; P < 0.001) per 200 mg/d increase in topiramate dosage. The proportion of participants achieving seizure freedom was also significantly increased with add‐on topiramate compared to placebo (RR 3.67, 95% CI 1.79 to 7.54; 8 studies; moderate‐certainty evidence). Treatment withdrawal was significantly higher for add‐on topiramate compared to placebo (RR 2.37, 95% CI 1.66 to 3.37; 12 studies; high‐certainty evidence). The RRs for the following adverse effects indicate that they are significantly more prevalent with topiramate, compared to placebo: ataxia 2.29 (99% CI 1.10 to 4.77; 4 studies); concentration difficulties 7.81 (99% CI 2.08 to 29.29; 6 studies; moderate‐certainty evidence); dizziness 1.52 (99% CI 1.07 to 2.16; 8 studies); fatigue 2.08 (99% CI 1.37 to 3.15; 10 studies); paraesthesia 3.65 (99% CI 1.58 to 8.39; 7 studies; moderate‐certainty evidence); somnolence 2.44 (99% CI 1.61 to 3.68; 9 studies); 'thinking abnormally' 5.70 (99% CI 2.26 to 14.38; 4 studies; high‐certainty evidence); and weight loss 3.99 (99% CI 1.82 to 8.72; 9 studies; low‐certainty evidence). Evidence of publication bias for the primary outcome was found (Egger test, P = 0.001). We rated all studies included in the review as having either low or unclear risk of bias. Overall, we assessed the evidence as moderate to high certainty due to the evidence of publication bias, statistical heterogeneity and imprecision, which was partially compensated for by large effect sizes. Authors' conclusions Topiramate has efficacy as an add‐on treatment for drug‐resistant focal epilepsy as it is almost three times more effective compared to a placebo in reducing seizures. The trials reviewed were of relatively short duration and provided no evidence for the long‐term efficacy of topiramate. Short‐term use of add‐on topiramate was shown to be associated with several adverse events. The results of this review should only be applied to adult populations as only one study included children. Future research should consider further examining the effect of dose

Ethical issues in implementation research: a discussion of the problems in achieving informed consent

Background: Improved quality of care is a policy objective of health care systems around the world. Implementation research is the scientific study of methods to promote the systematic uptake of clinical research findings into routine clinical practice, and hence to reduce inappropriate care. It includes the study of influences on healthcare professionals' behaviour and methods to enable them to use research findings more effectively. Cluster randomized trials represent the optimal design for evaluating the effectiveness of implementation strategies. Various codes of medical ethics, such as the Nuremberg Code and the Declaration of Helsinki inform medical research, but their relevance to cluster randomised trials in implementation research is unclear. This paper discusses the applicability of various ethical codes to obtaining consent in cluster trials in implementation research. Discussion: The appropriate application of biomedical codes to implementation research is not obvious. Discussion of the nature and practice of informed consent in implementation research cluster trials must consider the levels at which consent can be sought, and for what purpose it can be sought. The level at which an intervention is delivered can render the idea of patient level consent meaningless. Careful consideration of the ownership of information, and rights of access to and exploitation of data is required. For health care professionals and organizations, there is a balance between clinical freedom and responsibility to participate in research. Summary: While ethical justification for clinical trials relies heavily on individual consent, for implementation research aspects of distributive justice, economics, and political philosophy underlie the debate. Societies may need to trade off decisions on the choice between individualized consent and valid implementation research. We suggest that social sciences codes could usefully inform the consideration of implementation research by members of Research Ethics Committees