Tai Chi on psychological well-being: systematic review and meta-analysis

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Physical activity and exercise appear to improve psychological health. However, the quantitative effects of Tai Chi on psychological well-being have rarely been examined. We systematically reviewed the effects of Tai Chi on stress, anxiety, depression and mood disturbance in eastern and western populations.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Eight English and 3 Chinese databases were searched through March 2009. Randomized controlled trials, non-randomized controlled studies and observational studies reporting at least 1 psychological health outcome were examined. Data were extracted and verified by 2 reviewers. The randomized trials in each subcategory of health outcomes were meta-analyzed using a random-effects model. The quality of each study was assessed.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Forty studies totaling 3817 subjects were identified. Approximately 29 psychological measurements were assessed. Twenty-one of 33 randomized and nonrandomized trials reported that 1 hour to 1 year of regular Tai Chi significantly increased psychological well-being including reduction of stress (effect size [ES], 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.23 to 1.09), anxiety (ES, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.29 to 1.03), and depression (ES, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.31 to 0.80), and enhanced mood (ES, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.20 to 0.69) in community-dwelling healthy participants and in patients with chronic conditions. Seven observational studies with relatively large sample sizes reinforced the beneficial association between Tai Chi practice and psychological health.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Tai Chi appears to be associated with improvements in psychological well-being including reduced stress, anxiety, depression and mood disturbance, and increased self-esteem. Definitive conclusions were limited due to variation in designs, comparisons, heterogeneous outcomes and inadequate controls. High-quality, well-controlled, longer randomized trials are needed to better inform clinical decisions.</p

Is There Any Role for Opioids in the Management of Knee and Hip Osteoarthritis? A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis

Objective: Opioids have long been prescribed for chronic pain conditions, including osteoarthritis (OA). However, there is little information about their temporal efficacy, or differences in efficacy and safety between opioids with strong versus weak/intermediate μ opioid receptor–binding affinity. To explore these research questions, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) conducted in patients with knee and/or hip OA. Methods: We searched Medline, Embase, PubMed Central, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to December 2019 and sought unpublished data. Placebo-controlled RCTs of oral opioids in patients with knee and/or hip OA were included. Standardized mean differences (SMDs) were calculated for pain and function at 2, 4, 8, and 12 weeks. Subgroup analyses for strong and weak/intermediate opioids were conducted. Meta-regression was performed to assess the impact of dosage (morphine equivalency) on pain relief. Risk ratios were calculated for safety at the final follow-up. Results: A total of 18 RCTs (9,283 participants) were included. Opioids demonstrated small benefits on pain at each time point, with SMDs ranging from –0.28 (95% confidence interval [95% CI] –0.38, –0.17) to –0.19 (95% CI –0.29, –0.08); similar effects were observed for function. Strong opioids demonstrated consistently inferior efficacy and overall worse safety than weak/intermediate opioids. Meta-regression revealed that incremental pain relief achieved beyond 20–50-mg doses was not substantial in the context of increased safety risks. Conclusion: Opioids provide minimal relief of OA symptoms within a 12-week period, and they are known to cause discomfort in a majority of patients. Clinicians and policy makers should reconsider the utility of opioids in the management of OA

Is There Any Role for Opioids in the Management of Knee and Hip Osteoarthritis? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objective: Opioids have long been prescribed for chronic pain conditions, including osteoarthritis (OA). However, there is little information about their temporal efficacy, or differences in efficacy and safety between opioids with strong versus weak/intermediate μ opioid receptor–binding affinity. To explore these research questions, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) conducted in patients with knee and/or hip OA. Methods: We searched Medline, Embase, PubMed Central, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to December 2019 and sought unpublished data. Placebo-controlled RCTs of oral opioids in patients with knee and/or hip OA were included. Standardized mean differences (SMDs) were calculated for pain and function at 2, 4, 8, and 12 weeks. Subgroup analyses for strong and weak/intermediate opioids were conducted. Meta-regression was performed to assess the impact of dosage (morphine equivalency) on pain relief. Risk ratios were calculated for safety at the final follow-up. Results: A total of 18 RCTs (9,283 participants) were included. Opioids demonstrated small benefits on pain at each time point, with SMDs ranging from –0.28 (95% confidence interval [95% CI] –0.38, –0.17) to –0.19 (95% CI –0.29, –0.08); similar effects were observed for function. Strong opioids demonstrated consistently inferior efficacy and overall worse safety than weak/intermediate opioids. Meta-regression revealed that incremental pain relief achieved beyond 20–50-mg doses was not substantial in the context of increased safety risks. Conclusion: Opioids provide minimal relief of OA symptoms within a 12-week period, and they are known to cause discomfort in a majority of patients. Clinicians and policy makers should reconsider the utility of opioids in the management of OA

Tai Chi on psychological well-being: systematic review and meta-analysis,”

Abstract Background: Physical activity and exercise appear to improve psychological health. However, the quantitative effects of Tai Chi on psychological well-being have rarely been examined. We systematically reviewed the effects of Tai Chi on stress, anxiety, depression and mood disturbance in eastern and western populations. Methods: Eight English and 3 Chinese databases were searched through March 2009. Randomized controlled trials, non-randomized controlled studies and observational studies reporting at least 1 psychological health outcome were examined. Data were extracted and verified by 2 reviewers. The randomized trials in each subcategory of health outcomes were meta-analyzed using a random-effects model. The quality of each study was assessed. Results: Forty studies totaling 3817 subjects were identified. Approximately 29 psychological measurements were assessed. Twenty-one of 33 randomized and nonrandomized trials reported that 1 hour to 1 year of regular Tai Chi significantly increased psychological well-being including reduction of stress (effect size [ES], 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.23 to 1.09), anxiety (ES, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.29 to 1.03), and depression (ES, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.31 to 0.80), and enhanced mood (ES, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.20 to 0.69) in community-dwelling healthy participants and in patients with chronic conditions. Seven observational studies with relatively large sample sizes reinforced the beneficial association between Tai Chi practice and psychological health. Conclusions: Tai Chi appears to be associated with improvements in psychological well-being including reduced stress, anxiety, depression and mood disturbance, and increased self-esteem. Definitive conclusions were limited due to variation in designs, comparisons, heterogeneous outcomes and inadequate controls. High-quality, well-controlled, longer randomized trials are needed to better inform clinical decisions

The impact of COPD on management and outcomes of patients hospitalized with acute myocardial infarction: a 10-year retrospective observational study

BACKGROUND: There are limited data describing contemporary trends in the management and outcomes of patients with COPD who develop acute myocardial infarction (AMI). METHODS: The study population consisted of patients hospitalized with AMI at all greater Worcester, Massachusetts, medical centers between 1997 and 2007. RESULTS: Of the 6,290 patients hospitalized with AMI, 17% had a history of COPD. Patients with COPD were less likely to be treated with beta-blockers or lipid-lowering therapy or to have undergone interventional procedures during their index hospitalization than patients without COPD. Patients with COPD were at higher risk for dying during hospitalization (13.5% vs 10.1%) and at 30 days after discharge (18.7% vs 13.2%), and their outcomes did not improve during the decade-long period under study. After multivariable adjustment, the adverse effects of COPD remained on both in-hospital (OR, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.99-1.50) and 30-day all-cause mortality (OR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.10-1.58). The use of evidence-based therapies for all patients with AMI increased between 1997 and 2007, with a particularly marked increase for patients with COPD. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that the gap in medical care between patients with and without COPD hospitalized with AMI narrowed substantially between 1997 and 2007. Patients with COPD, however, remain less aggressively treated and are at increased risk for hospital adverse outcomes than patients without COPD in the setting of AMI. Careful consideration is necessary to ensure that these high-risk complex patients are not denied the benefits of effective cardiac therapies