Relative efficacy of different types of exercise for treatment of knee and hip osteoarthritis: Protocol for network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Background: “Exercise” is universally recommended as a core treatment for knee and hip osteoarthritis (OA). However, there are very few head-to-head comparative trials to determine the relative efficacy between different types of exercise. The aim of this study is to benchmark different types of exercises against each other through the use of a common comparator in a network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Methods: This study will include only RCTs published in peer-reviewed journals. A systematic search will be conducted in several electronic databases and other relevant online resources. No limitations are imposed on language or publication date. Participants must be explicitly identified by authors as having OA. Interventions that involved exercise or comparators in any form will be included. Pain is the primary outcome of interest; secondary outcomes will include function and quality of life measures. Quality assessment of studies will be based on the modified Cochrane’s risk of bias assessment tool. At least two investigators will be involved throughout all stages of screening and data acquisition. Conflicts will be resolved through discussion. Conventional meta-analysis will be performed based on random effects model and network meta-analysis on a Bayesian model. Subgroup analysis will also be conducted based on study, patient and disease characteristics. Discussion: This study will provide for the first time comprehensive research evidence for the relative efficacy of different exercise regimens for treatment of OA. We will use network meta-analysis of existing RCT data to answer this question

Serum CA 19-9 as a Marker of Resectability and Survival in Patients with Potentially Resectable Pancreatic Cancer Treated with Neoadjuvant Chemoradiation

Purpose The role of carbohydrate antigen (CA) 19-9 in the evaluation of patients with resectable pancreatic cancer treated with neoadjuvant therapy prior to planned surgical resection is unknown. We evaluated CA 19-9 as a marker of therapeutic response, completion of therapy, and survival in patients enrolled on two recently reported clinical trials. Patients and Methods We analyzed patients with radiographically resectable adenocarcinoma of the head/uncinate process treated on two phase II trials of neoadjuvant chemoradiation. Patients without evidence of disease progression following chemoradiation underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD). CA 19-9 was evaluated in patients with a normal bilirubin level. Results We enrolled 174 patients, and 119 (68%) completed all therapy including PD. Pretreatment CA 19-9 <37 U/ml had a positive predictive value (PPV) for completing PD of 86% but a negative predictive value (NPV) of 33%. Among patients without evidence of disease at last follow-up, the highest pretreatment CA 19-9 was 1,125 U/ml. Restaging CA 19-9 <61 U/ml had a PPV of 93% and a NPV of 28% for completing PD among resectable patients. The area under the receiver-operating characteristics curve of pretreatment and restaging CA 19-9 levels for completing PD was 0.59 and 0.74, respectively. We identified no association between change in CA 19-9 and histopathologic response (P = 0.74). Conclusions Although the PPV of CA 19-9 for completing neoadjuvant therapy and undergoing PD was high, its clinical utility was compromised by a low NPV. Decision-making for patients with resectable PC should remain based on clinical assessment and radiographic staging.PublishedN/

Exercise therapy, manual therapy, or both, for osteoarthritis of the hip or knee: a factorial randomised controlled trial protocol

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Non-pharmacological, non-surgical interventions are recommended as the first line of treatment for osteoarthritis (OA) of the hip and knee. There is evidence that exercise therapy is effective for reducing pain and improving function in patients with knee OA, some evidence that exercise therapy is effective for hip OA, and early indications that manual therapy may be efficacious for hip and knee OA. There is little evidence as to which approach is more effective, if benefits endure, or if providing these therapies is cost-effective for the management of this disorder. The MOA Trial (Management of OsteoArthritis) aims to test the effectiveness of two physiotherapy interventions for improving disability and pain in adults with hip or knee OA in New Zealand. Specifically, our primary objectives are to investigate whether:</p> <p>1. Exercise therapy versus no exercise therapy improves disability at 12 months;</p> <p>2. Manual physiotherapy versus no manual therapy improves disability at 12 months;</p> <p>3. Providing physiotherapy programmes in addition to usual care is more cost-effective than usual care alone in the management of osteoarthritis at 24 months.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This is a 2 × 2 factorial randomised controlled trial. We plan to recruit 224 participants with hip or knee OA. Eligible participants will be randomly allocated to receive either: (a) a supervised multi-modal exercise therapy programme; (b) an individualised manual therapy programme; (c) both exercise therapy and manual therapy; or, (d) no trial physiotherapy. All participants will continue to receive usual medical care. The outcome assessors, orthopaedic surgeons, general medical practitioners, and statistician will be blind to group allocation until the statistical analysis is completed. The trial is funded by Health Research Council of New Zealand Project Grants (Project numbers 07/199, 07/200).</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>The MOA Trial will be the first to investigate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of providing physiotherapy programmes of this kind, for the management of pain and disability in adults with hip or knee OA.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ref: ACTRN12608000130369.</p

Exercise and manual physiotherapy arthritis research trial (EMPART): a multicentre randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Osteoarthritis (OA) of the hip is a major cause of functional disability and reduced quality of life. Management options aim to reduce pain and improve or maintain physical functioning. Current evidence indicates that therapeutic exercise has a beneficial but short-term effect on pain and disability, with poor long-term benefit. The optimal content, duration and type of exercise are yet to be ascertained. There has been little scientific investigation into the effectiveness of manual therapy in hip OA. Only one randomized controlled trial (RCT) found greater improvements in patient-perceived improvement and physical function with manual therapy, compared to exercise therapy. METHODS AND DESIGN: An assessor-blind multicentre RCT will be undertaken to compare the effect of a combination of manual therapy and exercise therapy, exercise therapy only, and a waiting-list control on physical function in hip OA. One hundred and fifty people with a diagnosis of hip OA will be recruited and randomly allocated to one of 3 groups: exercise therapy, exercise therapy with manual therapy and a waiting-list control. Subjects in the intervention groups will attend physiotherapy for 6-8 sessions over 8 weeks. Those in the control group will remain on the waiting list until after this time and will then be re-randomised to one of the two intervention groups. Outcome measures will include physical function (WOMAC), pain severity (numerical rating scale), patient perceived change (7-point Likert scale), quality of life (SF-36), mood (hospital anxiety and depression scale), patient satisfaction, physical activity (IPAQ) and physical measures of range of motion, 50-foot walk and repeated sit-to stand tests. DISCUSSION: This RCT will compare the effectiveness of the addition of manual therapy to exercise therapy to exercise therapy only and a waiting-list control in hip OA. A high quality methodology will be used in keeping with CONSORT guidelines. The results will contribute to the evidence base regarding the clinical efficacy for physiotherapy interventions in hip OA

Less bleeding by omitting aspirin in non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome patients: rationale and design of the LEGACY study

BackgroundEarly aspirin withdrawal, also known as P2Y12-inhibitor monotherapy, following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) can reduce bleeding without a trade-off in efficacy. Still the average daily bleeding risk is highest during the first months and it remains unclear if aspirin can be omitted immediately following PCI.MethodsThe LEGACY study is an open-label, multicenter randomized controlled trial evaluating the safety and efficacy of immediate P2Y12-inhibitor monotherapy versus dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) for 12 months in 3,090 patients. Patients are randomized immediately following successful PCI for NSTE-ACS to 75-100 mg aspirin once daily versus no aspirin. The primary hypothesis is that immediately omitting aspirin is superior to DAPT with respect to major or minor bleeding defined as Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 2, 3, or 5 bleeding, while maintaining noninferiority for the composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction and stroke compared to DAPT.ConclusionsThe LEGACY study is the first randomized study that is specifically designed to evaluate the impact of immediately omitting aspirin, and thus treating patients with P2Y12-inhibitor monotherapy, as compared to DAPT for 12 months on bleeding and ischemic events within 12 months following PCI for NSTE-ACS.Cardiolog

Anticoagulant selection in relation to the SAMe-TT2R2 score in patients with atrial fibrillation. the GLORIA-AF registry

Aim: The SAMe-TT2R2 score helps identify patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) likely to have poor anticoagulation control during anticoagulation with vitamin K antagonists (VKA) and those with scores &gt;2 might be better managed with a target-specific oral anticoagulant (NOAC). We hypothesized that in clinical practice, VKAs may be prescribed less frequently to patients with AF and SAMe-TT2R2 scores &gt;2 than to patients with lower scores. Methods and results: We analyzed the Phase III dataset of the Global Registry on Long-Term Oral Antithrombotic Treatment in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation (GLORIA-AF), a large, global, prospective global registry of patients with newly diagnosed AF and ≥1 stroke risk factor. We compared baseline clinical characteristics and antithrombotic prescriptions to determine the probability of the VKA prescription among anticoagulated patients with the baseline SAMe-TT2R2 score &gt;2 and ≤ 2. Among 17,465 anticoagulated patients with AF, 4,828 (27.6%) patients were prescribed VKA and 12,637 (72.4%) patients an NOAC: 11,884 (68.0%) patients had SAMe-TT2R2 scores 0-2 and 5,581 (32.0%) patients had scores &gt;2. The proportion of patients prescribed VKA was 28.0% among patients with SAMe-TT2R2 scores &gt;2 and 27.5% in those with scores ≤2. Conclusions: The lack of a clear association between the SAMe-TT2R2 score and anticoagulant selection may be attributed to the relative efficacy and safety profiles between NOACs and VKAs as well as to the absence of trial evidence that an SAMe-TT2R2-guided strategy for the selection of the type of anticoagulation in NVAF patients has an impact on clinical outcomes of efficacy and safety. The latter hypothesis is currently being tested in a randomized controlled trial. Clinical trial registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov//Unique identifier: NCT01937377, NCT01468701, and NCT01671007

Comparative effectiveness and safety of non-vitamin K antagonists for atrial fibrillation in clinical practice: GLORIA-AF Registry

Background and purpose: Prospectively collected data comparing the safety and effectiveness of individual non-vitamin K antagonists (NOACs) are lacking. Our objective was to directly compare the effectiveness and safety of NOACs in patients with newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation (AF). Methods: In GLORIA-AF, a large, prospective, global registry program, consecutive patients with newly diagnosed AF were followed for 3&nbsp;years. The comparative analyses for (1) dabigatran vs rivaroxaban or apixaban and (2) rivaroxaban vs apixaban were performed on propensity score (PS)-matched patient sets. Proportional hazards regression was used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) for outcomes of interest. Results: The GLORIA-AF Phase III registry enrolled 21,300 patients between January 2014 and December 2016. Of these, 3839 were prescribed dabigatran, 4015 rivaroxaban and 4505 apixaban, with median ages of 71.0, 71.0, and 73.0&nbsp;years, respectively. In the PS-matched set, the adjusted HRs and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dabigatran vs rivaroxaban were, for stroke: 1.27 (0.79–2.03), major bleeding 0.59 (0.40–0.88), myocardial infarction 0.68 (0.40–1.16), and all-cause death 0.86 (0.67–1.10). For the comparison of dabigatran vs apixaban, in the PS-matched set, the adjusted HRs were, for stroke 1.16 (0.76–1.78), myocardial infarction 0.84 (0.48–1.46), major bleeding 0.98 (0.63–1.52) and all-cause death 1.01 (0.79–1.29). For the comparison of rivaroxaban vs apixaban, in the PS-matched set, the adjusted HRs were, for stroke 0.78 (0.52–1.19), myocardial infarction 0.96 (0.63–1.45), major bleeding 1.54 (1.14–2.08), and all-cause death 0.97 (0.80–1.19). Conclusions: Patients treated with dabigatran had a 41% lower risk of major bleeding compared with rivaroxaban, but similar risks of stroke, MI, and death. Relative to apixaban, patients treated with dabigatran had similar risks of stroke, major bleeding, MI, and death. Rivaroxaban relative to apixaban had increased risk for major bleeding, but similar risks for stroke, MI, and death. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifiers: NCT01468701, NCT01671007. Date of registration: September 2013

Less bleeding by omitting aspirin in non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome patients: Rationale and design of the LEGACY study

BACKGROUND: Early aspirin withdrawal, also known as P2Y12-inhibitor monotherapy, following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) can reduce bleeding without a trade-off in efficacy. Still the average daily bleeding risk is highest during the first months and it remains unclear if aspirin can be omitted immediately following PCI. METHODS: The LEGACY study is an open-label, multicenter randomized controlled trial evaluating the safety and efficacy of immediate P2Y12-inhibitor monotherapy versus dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) for 12 months in 3,090 patients. Patients are randomized immediately following successful PCI for NSTE-ACS to 75-100 mg aspirin once daily versus no aspirin. The primary hypothesis is that immediately omitting aspirin is superior to DAPT with respect to major or minor bleeding defined as Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 2, 3, or 5 bleeding, while maintaining noninferiority for the composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction and stroke compared to DAPT. CONCLUSIONS: The LEGACY study is the first randomized study that is specifically designed to evaluate the impact of immediately omitting aspirin, and thus treating patients with P2Y12-inhibitor monotherapy, as compared to DAPT for 12 months on bleeding and ischemic events within 12 months following PCI for NSTE-ACS