Mirror therapy: A potential intervention for pain management.

The consequences of chronic pain and associated disabilities to the patient and to the health care system are well known. Medication is often the first treatment of choice for chronic pain, although side effects and high costs restrict long-term use. Inexpensive, safe and easy to self-administer non-pharmacological therapies, such as mirror therapy, are recommended as adjuncts to pain treatment. The purpose of this review is to describe the principles of use of mirror therapy so it can be incorporated into a health care delivery. The physiological rationale of mirror therapy for the management of pain and the evidence of clinical efficacy based on recent systematic reviews are also discussed. Mirror therapy, whereby a mirror is placed in a position so that the patient can view a reflection of a body part, has been used to treat phantom limb pain, complex regional pain syndrome, neuropathy and low back pain. Research evidence suggests that a course of treatment (four weeks) of mirror therapy may reduce chronic pain. Contraindications and side effects are few. The mechanism of action of mirror therapy remains uncertain, with reintegration of motor and sensory systems, restored body image and control over fear-avoidance likely to influence outcome. The evidence for clinical efficacy of mirror therapy is encouraging, but not yet definitive. Nevertheless, mirror therapy is inexpensive, safe and easy for the patient to self-administer

A central nervous system-focused treatment approach for people with frozen shoulder: protocol for a randomized clinical trial

Background: Frozen shoulder (FS) is a musculoskeletal condition of poorly understood etiology that results in shoulder pain and large mobility deficits. Despite some physical therapy interventions, such as joint mobilization and exercise, having shown therapeutic benefit, a definitive treatment does not currently exist. The aim of this study will be to compare the effectiveness of a central nervous system (CNS)-directed treatment program versus a standard medical and physical therapy care program on outcomes in participants with FS. Methods/design: The study is a two-group, randomized clinical trial with blinding of participants and assessors. Participants will be recruited via referrals from orthopedic surgeons and physical therapists, community-based advertisements, private care practices and hospitals. Participants will be randomized to receive either a CNS-focused treatment program or standard medical and physical therapy care. The Shoulder Pain And Disability Index (SPADI) will be the primary outcome, while the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS), shoulder range of movement (ROM), The Patient Specific Functional Scale, two-point discrimination threshold and laterality judgement accuracy will be the secondary outcomes. Assessment will occur at baseline, at the end of the treatment program (week 10), and at 3 and 6 months' follow-up. Discussion: Preliminary data suggest that treatments that target CNS function are a promising approach to the treatment of people with shoulder pain including patients with FS. In the context of modest effects from most available physical therapy treatments for FS, this CNS-focused approach may lead to improved clinical outcomes. The trial should determine if the CNS-directed program is more effective than traditional interventions at reducing pain intensity and improving function in a FS cohort and will follow up participants for 6 months, providing important information on the persistence of any treatment effects.This work is funded by the Conselleria de Educación, Investigación, Cultura y Deporte de la Generalitat Valenciana, Spain (GV/2016).Ye

Efficacy and safety of a fixed-ratio combination of insulin degludec and liraglutide (IDegLira) compared with its components given alone: Results of a phase 3, open-label, randomised, 26-week, treat-to-target trial in insulin-naive patients with type 2 diabetes

BACKGROUND: A fixed-ratio combination of the basal insulin analogue insulin degludec and the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) analogue liraglutide has been developed as a once-daily injection for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. We aimed to compare combined insulin degludec-liraglutide (IDegLira) with its components given alone in insulin-naive patients. METHODS: In this phase 3, 26-week, open-label, randomised trial, adults with type 2 diabetes, HbA1c of 7-10% (inclusive), a BMI of 40 kg/m(2) or less, and treated with metformin with or without pioglitazone were randomly assigned (2:1:1) to daily injections of IDegLira, insulin degludec, or liraglutide (1\ub78 mg per day). IDegLira and insulin degludec were titrated to achieve a self-measured prebreakfast plasma glucose concentration of 4-5 mmol/L. The primary endpoint was change in HbA1c after 26 weeks of treatment, and the main objective was to assess the non-inferiority of IDegLira to insulin degludec (with an upper 95% CI margin of 0\ub73%), and the superiority of IDegLira to liraglutide (with a lower 95% CI margin of 0%). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01336023. FINDINGS: 1663 adults (mean age 55 years [SD 10], HbA1c 8\ub73% [0\ub79], and BMI 31\ub72 kg/m(2) [4\ub78]) were randomly assigned, 834 to IDegLira, 414 to insulin degludec, and 415 to liraglutide. After 26 weeks, mean HbA1c had decreased by 1\ub79% (SD 1\ub71) to 6\ub74% (1\ub70) with IDegLira, by 1\ub74% (1\ub70) to 6\ub79% (1\ub71) with insulin degludec, and by 1\ub73% (1\ub71) to 7\ub70% (1\ub72) with liraglutide. IDegLira was non-inferior to insulin degludec (estimated treatment difference -0\ub747%, 95% CI -0\ub758 to -0\ub736, p<0\ub70001) and superior to liraglutide (-0\ub764%, -0\ub775 to -0\ub753, p<0\ub70001). IDegLira was generally well tolerated; fewer participants in the IDegLira group than in the liraglutide group reported gastrointestinal adverse events (nausea 8\ub78 vs 19\ub77%), although the insulin degludec group had the fewest participants with gastrointestinal adverse events (nausea 3\ub76%). We noted no clinically relevant differences between treatments with respect to standard safety assessments, and the safety profile of IDegLira reflected those of its component parts. The number of confirmed hypoglycaemic events per patient year was 1\ub78 for IDegLira, 0\ub72 for liraglutide, and 2\ub76 for insulin degludec. Serious adverse events occurred in 19 (2%) of 825 patients in the IDegLira group, eight (2%) of 412 in the insulin degludec group, and 14 (3%) of 412 in the liraglutide group. INTERPRETATION: IDegLira combines the clinical advantages of basal insulin and GLP-1 receptor agonist treatment, resulting in improved glycaemic control compared with its components given alone

Efficacy and safety of a fixed-ratio combination of insulin degludec and liraglutide (IDegLira) compared with its components given alone: results of a phase 3, open-label, randomised, 26-week, treat-to-target trial in insulin-naive patients with type 2 diabetes.

BACKGROUND: A fixed-ratio combination of the basal insulin analogue insulin degludec and the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) analogue liraglutide has been developed as a once-daily injection for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. We aimed to compare combined insulin degludec-liraglutide (IDegLira) with its components given alone in insulin-naive patients. METHODS: In this phase 3, 26-week, open-label, randomised trial, adults with type 2 diabetes, HbA1c of 7-10% (inclusive), a BMI of 40 kg/m(2) or less, and treated with metformin with or without pioglitazone were randomly assigned (2:1:1) to daily injections of IDegLira, insulin degludec, or liraglutide (1·8 mg per day). IDegLira and insulin degludec were titrated to achieve a self-measured prebreakfast plasma glucose concentration of 4-5 mmol/L. The primary endpoint was change in HbA1c after 26 weeks of treatment, and the main objective was to assess the non-inferiority of IDegLira to insulin degludec (with an upper 95% CI margin of 0·3%), and the superiority of IDegLira to liraglutide (with a lower 95% CI margin of 0%). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01336023. FINDINGS: 1663 adults (mean age 55 years [SD 10], HbA1c 8·3% [0·9], and BMI 31·2 kg/m(2) [4·8]) were randomly assigned, 834 to IDegLira, 414 to insulin degludec, and 415 to liraglutide. After 26 weeks, mean HbA1c had decreased by 1·9% (SD 1·1) to 6·4% (1·0) with IDegLira, by 1·4% (1·0) to 6·9% (1·1) with insulin degludec, and by 1·3% (1·1) to 7·0% (1·2) with liraglutide. IDegLira was non-inferior to insulin degludec (estimated treatment difference -0·47%, 95% CI -0·58 to -0·36, p<0·0001) and superior to liraglutide (-0·64%, -0·75 to -0·53, p<0·0001). IDegLira was generally well tolerated; fewer participants in the IDegLira group than in the liraglutide group reported gastrointestinal adverse events (nausea 8·8 vs 19·7%), although the insulin degludec group had the fewest participants with gastrointestinal adverse events (nausea 3·6%). We noted no clinically relevant differences between treatments with respect to standard safety assessments, and the safety profile of IDegLira reflected those of its component parts. The number of confirmed hypoglycaemic events per patient year was 1·8 for IDegLira, 0·2 for liraglutide, and 2·6 for insulin degludec. Serious adverse events occurred in 19 (2%) of 825 patients in the IDegLira group, eight (2%) of 412 in the insulin degludec group, and 14 (3%) of 412 in the liraglutide group. INTERPRETATION: IDegLira combines the clinical advantages of basal insulin and GLP-1 receptor agonist treatment, resulting in improved glycaemic control compared with its components given alone