European active surveillance study of women taking HRT (EURAS-HRT): study protocol [NCT00214903]

BACKGROUND: The post marketing safety surveillance program for a drug containing a new chemical entity should assess both, the safety outcomes that relate specifically to the targeted population, as well as those that could potentially be related to special pharmacological characteristics of the drug. Active safety surveillance using valid epidemiological study designs has been proven to be a pertinent and reliable method to approach this endeavor. METHODS/DESIGN: The primary objective of the study is to compare incidence rates of serious adverse events in users of all types of newly prescribed oral HRT products. This active surveillance study will assess pertinent cardiovascular outcomes - in particular venous and arterial thromboembolism - and other serious adverse events (SAEs) in new HRT users over a period of several years. One product under surveillance is Angeliq(®), which contains the novel progestagen drospirenone (DRSP) combined with estradiol. In addition, all other oral combined HRT products with a novel progestagen or estrogen that will be newly marketed during the study period will be studied. These new HRT products will be compared with established HRT products. The combined cohort will include at least 30,000 women recruited in several European countries. At least 90,000 years of observation are expected from the field work which started in early 2002 and will end around 2008. The participating women will complete a baseline survey using a self-administered questionnaire to describe the baseline risk. After 6 months, 12 months, and then on an annual basis, they will fill out a questionnaire in which they record complaints and events during the use of the prescribed HRTs. All adverse outcomes occurring during the observational period will be evaluated. DISCUSSION: A complete lifetime medical history, individually validated SAEs over time, and a low loss to follow-up rate are essential for a robust safety assessment. Therefore, the lifetime history of diseases and relevant medications will be documented. Reported SAEs will be validated and analyzed. A four level, multi-faceted follow-up process was established to ensure low loss to follow-up rates (e.g., 3–5% after three years of follow up). Multivariate methods will be used to adjust for confounding

Managing Injuries of the Neck Trial (MINT) : design of a randomised controlled trial of treatments for whiplash associated disorders

Background: A substantial proportion of patients with whiplash injuries develop chronic symptoms. However, the best treatment of acute injuries to prevent long-term problems is uncertain. A stepped care treatment pathway has been proposed, in which patients are given advice and education at their initial visit to the emergency department (ED), followed by review at three weeks and physiotherapy for those with persisting symptoms. MINT is a two-stage randomised controlled trial to evaluate two components of such a pathway: 1. use of The Whiplash Book versus usual advice when patients first attend the emergency department; 2. referral to physiotherapy versus reinforcement of advice for patients with continuing symptoms at three weeks. Methods: Evaluation of the Whiplash Book versus usual advice uses a cluster randomised design in emergency departments of eight NHS Trusts. Eligible patients are identified by clinicians in participating emergency departments and are sent a study questionnaire within a week of their ED attendance. Three thousand participants will be included. Patients with persisting symptoms three weeks after their ED attendance are eligible to join an individually randomised study of physiotherapy versus reinforcement of the advice given in ED. Six hundred participants will be randomised. Follow-up is at 4, 8 and 12 months after their ED attendance. Primary outcome is the Neck Disability Index (NDI), and secondary outcomes include quality of life and time to return to work and normal activities. An economic evaluation is being carried out. Conclusion: This paper describes the protocol and operational aspects of a complex intervention trial based in NHS emergency and physiotherapy departments, evaluating two components of a stepped-care approach to the treatment of whiplash injuries. The trial uses two randomisations, with the first stage being cluster randomised and the second individually randomised

Evidence based medicine as science

Evidence based medicine has claimed to be science on a number of occasions but it is not clear that this status is deserved. Within philosophy of science four main theories about the nature of science are historically recognised: inductivism, falsificationism, Kuhnian paradigms and research programmes. If evidence based medicine is science knowledge claims should be derived using a process that corresponds to one of these theories. This paper analyses whether this is the case. In the first section, different theories about the nature of science are introduced. In the second section, the claim that evidence based medicine is science is reinterpreted as the claim that knowledge claims derived from randomised controlled trails and meta-analyses are science. In the third section the knowledge claims valued within evidence based medicine are considered from the perspective of inductivism, falsificationism, Kuhnian paradigms and research programmes. In the final section possible counter arguments are considered. It is argued that the knowledge claims valued by evidence based medicine are not justified using inductivism, falsificationism, Kuhnian paradigms or research programmes. If these are the main criteria for evaluating if something is science or not, evidence based medicine does not meet these criteria

A rapid and systematic review of the effectiveness of temozolomide for the treatment of recurrent malignant glioma

A rapid and systematic review of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of temozolomide in the treatment of recurrent malignant glioma was commissioned by the NHS HTA Programme on behalf of NICE. The full report has been published elsewhere. This paper summarizes the results for the effectiveness of temozolomide in people with recurrent glioblastoma multiforme and anaplastic astrocytoma. The review was conducted using standard systematic review methodology involving a systematic literature search, quality assessment of included studies with systematic data extraction and data synthesis. One randomized controlled trial and four uncontrolled studies were identified for inclusion. The key results were that temozolomide may increase progression-free survival but has no significant impact on overall length of survival. The main effect from temozolomide may have been in those patients who had not received any prior chemotherapy regimens, however further randomized controlled trials are required to confirm this suggestion. Temozolomide appears to produce few serious adverse effects and may also have a positive impact on health-related quality of life. Overall the evidence-base is weak and few strong conclusions can be drawn regarding the effectiveness of temozolomide. Large, well-designed randomized controlled trails conducted in a wider patient population are needed

Number and cost of claims linked to minor cervical trauma in Europe: results from the comparative study by CEA, AREDOC and CEREDOC

Comparative epidemiological study of minor cervical spine trauma (frequently referred to as whiplash injury) based on data from the Comité Européen des Assurances (CEA) gathered in ten European countries. To determine the incidence and expenditure (e.g., for assessment, treatment or claims) for minor cervical spine injury in the participating countries. Controversy still surrounds the basis on which symptoms following minor cervical spine trauma may develop. In particular, there is considerable disagreement with regard to a possible contribution of psychosocial factors in determining outcome. The role of compensation is also a source of constant debate. The method followed here is the comparison of the data from different areas of interest (e.g., incidence of minor cervical spine trauma, percentage of minor cervical spine trauma in relationship to the incidence of bodily trauma, costs for assessment or claims) from ten European countries. Considerable differences exist regarding the incidence of minor cervical spine trauma and related costs in participating countries. France and Finland have the lowest and Great Britain the highest incidence of minor cervical spine trauma. The number of claims following minor cervical spine trauma in Switzerland is around the European average; however, Switzerland has the highest expenditure per claim at an average cost of €35,000.00 compared to the European average of €9,000.00. Furthermore, the mandatory accident insurance statistics in Switzerland show very large differences between German-speaking and French- or Italian-speaking parts of the country. In the latter the costs for minor cervical spine trauma expanded more than doubled in the period from 1990 to 2002, whereas in the German-speaking part they rose by a factor of five. All the countries participating in the study have a high standard of medical care. The differences in claims frequency and costs must therefore reflect a social phenomenon based on the different cultural attitudes and medical approach to the problem including diagnosis. In Switzerland, therefore, new ways must be found to try to resolve the problem. The claims treatment model known as “Case Management” represents a new approach in which accelerated social and professional reintegration of the injured party is attempted. The CEA study emphasizes the fundamental role of medicine in that it postulates a clear division between the role of the attending physician and the medical expert. It also draws attention to the need to train medical professionals in the insurance business to the extent that they can interact adequately with insurance professionals. The results of this study indicate that the usefulness of the criterion of so-called typical clinical symptoms, which is at present applied by the courts to determine natural causality and has long been under debate, is inappropriate and should be replaced by objective assessment (e.g. accident and biomechanical analysis). In addition, the legal concept of adequate causality should be interpreted in the same way in both third party liability and social security law, which is currently not the case

Dejian mind-body intervention improves the functioning of a patient with chronic epilepsy: a case report

Author name used in this publication: Mei-chun Cheung2009-2010 > Academic research: refereed > Publication in refereed journalpublished_fina

Prognostic implications of the Quebec Task Force classification of back-related leg pain: An analysis of longitudinal routine clinical data

Background: Low back pain (LBP) patients with related leg pain have a more severe profile than those with local LBP and a worse prognosis. Pain location above or below the knee and the presence of neurological signs differentiate patients with different profiles, but knowledge about the prognostic value of these subgroups is sparse. The objectives of this study were (1) to investigate whether subgroups consisting of patients with Local LBP only, LBP + leg pain above the knee, LBP + leg pain below the knee, and LBP + leg pain and neurological signs had different prognoses, and (2) to determine if this was explained by measured baseline factors. Methods. Routine clinical data were collected during the first visit to an outpatient department and follow-ups were performed after 3 and 12 months. Patients were divided into the four subgroups and associations between subgroups and the outcomes of activity limitation, global perceived effect (GPE) after 3 months, and sick leave after 3 months were tested by means of generalised estimating equations. Models were univariate (I), adjusted for duration (II), and adjusted for all baseline differences (III). Results: A total of 1,752 patients were included, with a 76% 3-month and 70% 12-month follow-up. Subgroups were associated with activity limitation in all models (p < 0.001). Local LBP had the least and LBP + neurological signs the most severe limitations at all time-points, although patients with neurological signs improved the most. Associations with GPE after 3 months were only significant in Model I. Subgroups were associated with sick leave after 3 months in model I and II, with sick leave being most frequent in the subgroup with neurological signs. No significant differences were found in any pairwise comparisons of patients with leg pain above or below the knee. Conclusions: Subgrouping LBP patients, based on pain location and neurological signs, was associated with activity limitation and sick leave, but not with GPE. The presence of neurological signs and pain in the leg both have prognostic implications but whether that leg pain without neurological signs is above or below the knee does not

In a secondary care setting, differences between neck pain subgroups classified using the Quebec task force classification system were typically small - A longitudinal study

Background: The component of the Quebec Task Force Classification System that subgroups patients based on the extent of their radiating pain and neurological signs has been demonstrated to have prognostic implications for patients with low back pain but has not been tested on patients with neck pain (NP). The main aim of this study was to examine the association between these subgroups, their baseline characteristics and outcome in chronic NP patients referred to an outpatient hospital department. Methods: This was an observational study of longitudinal data extracted from systematically collected, routine clinical data. Patients were classified into Local NP only, NP + arm pain above the elbow, NP + arm pain below the elbow, and NP with signs of nerve root involvement (NP + NRI). Outcome was pain intensity and activity limitation. Associations were tested in longitudinal linear mixed models. Results: A total of 1,852 people were classified into subgroups (64 % females, mean age 49 years). Follow ups after 3, 6 and 12 months were available for 45 %, 32 % and 40 % of those invited to participate at each time point. A small improvement in pain was observed over time in all subgroups. There was a significant interaction between subgroups and time, but effect sizes were small. The local NP subgroup improved slightly less after 3 months as compared with all other groups, but continued to have the lowest level of pain. After 6 and 12 months, those with NP + pain above the elbow had improved the least and patients with NP + NRI had experienced the largest improvements in pain intensity. Similar results were obtained for activity limitation. Conclusions: This study found baseline and outcome differences between neck pain subgroups classified using the Quebec Task Force Classification System. However, differences in outcome were typically small in size and mostly differentiated the local NP subgroup from the other subgroups. A caveat to these results is that they were obtained in a cohort of chronic neck pain patients who only displayed small improvements over time and the results may not apply to other cohorts, such as people at earlier stages of their clinical course and in other clinical settings