17 research outputs found

    VERTOS II: Percutaneous vertebroplasty versus conservative therapy in patients with painful osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures; rationale, objectives and design of a multicenter randomized controlled trial

    Get PDF
    ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: The standard care in patients with a painful osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture (VCF) is conservative therapy. Percutaneous vertebroplasty (PV), a minimally invasive technique, is gaining popularity as a new treatment option. Many prospective and retrospective studies have reported on the effectiveness and safety of PV, but no large randomized controlled trial (RCT) has been published. OBJECTIVE: To estimate cost-effectiveness of PV compared to conservative therapy in terms of: pain reduction, quality of life, complications, secondary fractures and mortality. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The VERTOS II study is designed as a prospective, multicenter RCT. Patients with a painful VCF with bone edema on MR imaging, local back pain for 6 weeks or less, osteopenia and aged 50 years or older, after obtaining informed consent are included and randomized for PV or conservative therapy. In total 200 patients will be enrolled. Follow-up is at regular intervals during a 1-year period with standard questionnaires, addressing: clinical symptoms, pain medication, Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) score, quality of life and cost-effectiveness. Secondary fractures, necessary additional therapies and complications are recorded. CONCLUSION: The VERTOS II study is the first methodologically sound RCT designed to assess the cost-effectiveness of PV compared to conservative therapy in patients with an acute osteoporotic VCF. TRIAL REGISTRATION: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov, NCT00232466

    Long-term survival and secondary procedures after open or endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms

    Get PDF
    textabstractObjective Randomized trials have shown an initial survival benefit of endovascular over conventional open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair but no long-term difference up to 6 years after repair. Longer follow-up may be required to demonstrate the cumulative negative impact on survival of higher reintervention rates associated with endovascular repair. Methods We updated the results of the Dutch Randomized Endovascular Aneurysm Management (DREAM) trial, a multicenter, randomized controlled trial comparing open with endovascular aneurysm repair, up to 15 years of follow-up. Survival and reinterventions were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis. Causes of death and secondary interventions were compared by use of an events per person-year analysis. Results There were 178 patients randomized to open and 173 to endovascular repair. Twelve years after randomization, the cumulative overall survival rates were 42.2% for open and 38.5% for endovascular repair, for a difference of 3.7 percentage points (95% confidence interval, −6.7 to 14.1; P =.48). The cumulative rates of freedom from reintervention were 78.9% for open repair and 62.2% for endovascular repair, for a difference of 16.7 percentage points (95% confidence interval, 5.8-27.6; P =.01). No differences were observed in causes of death. Cardiovascular and malignant disease account for the majority of deaths after prolonged follow-up. Conclusions During 12 years of follow-up, there was no survival difference between patients who underwent open or endovascular abdominal aortic aneurys

    Vertebroplasty versus conservative treatment in acute osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (Vertos II): an open-label randomised trial

    Get PDF
    Background Percutaneous vertebroplasty is increasingly used for treatment of pain in patients with osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures, but the efficacy, cost-effectiveness, and safety of the procedure remain uncertain. We aimed to clarify whether vertebroplasty has additional value compared with optimum pain treatment in patients with acute vertebral fractures. Methods Patients were recruited to this open-label prospective randomised trial from the radiology departments of six hospitals in the Netherlands and Belgium. Patients were aged 50 years or older, had vertebral compression fractures on spine radiograph (minimum 15% height loss; level of fracture at Th5 or lower; bone oedema on MRI), with back pain for 6 weeks or less, and a visual analogue scale (VAS) score of 5 or more. Patients were randomly allocated to percutaneous vertebroplasty or conservative treatment by computer-generated randomisation codes with a block size of six. Masking was not possible for participants, physicians, and outcome assessors. The primary outcome was pain relief at 1 month and 1 year as measured by VAS score. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00232466. Findings Between Oct 1,2005, and June 30,2008, we identified 431 patients who were eligible for randomisation. 229 (53%) patients had spontaneous pain relief during assessment, and 202 patients with persistent pain were randomly allocated to treatment (101 vertebroplasty, 101 conservative treatment). Vertebroplasty resulted in greater pain relief than did conservative treatment; difference in mean VAS score between baseline and 1 month was -5.2 (95% CI -5.88 to -4.72) after vertebroplasty and -2.7 (-3.22 to -1.98) after conservative treatment, and between baseline and 1 year was -5.7 (-6.22 to -4.98) after vertebroplasty and -3-7 (-4.35 to -3.05) after conservative treatment. The difference between groups in reduction of mean VAS score from baseline was 2.6 (95% CI 1.74-3.37, p<0.0001) at 1 month and 2.0 (1.13-2.80, p<0.0001) at 1 year. No serious complications or adverse events were reported. Interpretation In a subgroup of patients with acute osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures and persistent pain, percutaneous vertebroplasty is effective and safe. Pain relief after vertebroplasty is immediate, is sustained for at least a year, and is significantly greater than that achieved with conservative treatment, at an acceptable cost

    Genome-wide association studies of a broad spectrum of antisocial behavior

    No full text
    IMPORTANCE: Antisocial behavior (ASB) places a large burden on perpetrators, survivors, and society. Twin studies indicate that half of the variation in this trait is genetic. Specific causal genetic variants have, however, not been identified.OBJECTIVES: To estimate the single-nucleotide polymorphism-based heritability of ASB; to identify novel genetic risk variants, genes, or biological pathways; to test for pleiotropic associations with other psychiatric traits; and to reevaluate the candidate gene era data through the Broad Antisocial Behavior Consortium.DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Genome-wide association data from 5 large population-based cohorts and 3 target samples with genome-wide genotype and ASB data were used for meta-analysis from March 1, 2014, to May 1, 2016. All data sets used quantitative phenotypes, except for the Finnish Crime Study, which applied a case-control design (370 patients and 5850 control individuals).MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES: This study adopted relatively broad inclusion criteria to achieve a quantitative measure of ASB derived from multiple measures, maximizing the sample size over different age ranges.RESULTS: The discovery samples comprised 16 400 individuals, whereas the target samples consisted of 9381 individuals (all individuals were of European descent), including child and adult samples (mean age range, 6.7-56.1 years). Three promising loci with sex-discordant associations were found (8535 female individuals, chromosome 1: rs2764450, chromosome 11: rs11215217; 7772 male individuals, chromosome X, rs41456347). Polygenic risk score analyses showed prognostication of antisocial phenotypes in an independent Finnish Crime Study (2536 male individuals and 3684 female individuals) and shared genetic origin with conduct problems in a population-based sample (394 male individuals and 431 female individuals) but not with conduct disorder in a substance-dependent sample (950 male individuals and 1386 female individuals) (R-2 = 0.0017 in the most optimal model, P = 0.03). Significant inverse genetic correlation of ASB with educational attainment (r = -0.52, P =.005) was detected.CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The Broad Antisocial Behavior Consortium entails the largest collaboration to date on the genetic architecture of ASB, and the first results suggest that ASB may be highly polygenic and has potential heterogeneous genetic effects across sex.</p

    Long-term survival and secondary procedures after open or endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms

    Get PDF
    Objective: Randomized trials have shown an initial survival benefit of endovascular over conventional open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair but no long-term difference up to 6 years after repair. Longer follow-up may be required to demonstrate the cumulative negative impact on survival of higher reintervention rates associated with endovascular repair. Methods: We updated the results of the Dutch Randomized Endovascular Aneurysm Management (DREAM) trial, a multicenter, randomized controlled trial comparing open with endovascular aneurysm repair, up to 15 years of follow-up. Survival and reinterventions were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis. Causes of death and secondary interventions were compared by use of an events per person-year analysis. Results: There were 178 patients randomized to open and 173 to endovascular repair. Twelve years after randomization, the cumulative overall survival rates were 42.2% for open and 38.5% for endovascular repair, for a difference of 3.7 percentage points (95% confidence interval, -6.7 to 14.1; P = .48). The cumulative rates of freedom from reintervention were 78.9% for open repair and 62.2% for endovascular repair, for a difference of 16.7 percentage points (95% confidence interval, 5.8-27.6; P = .01). No differences were observed in causes of death. Cardiovascular and malignant disease account for the majority of deaths after prolonged follow-up. Conclusions: During 12 years of follow-up, there was no survival difference between patients who underwent open or endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair, despite a continuously increasing number of reinterventions in the endovascular repair group. Endograft durability and the need for continued endograft surveillance remain key issues

    Long-term survival and secondary procedures after open or endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms

    No full text
    Objective Randomized trials have shown an initial survival benefit of endovascular over conventional open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair but no long-term difference up to 6 years after repair. Longer follow-up may be required to demonstrate the cumulative negative impact on survival of higher reintervention rates associated with endovascular repair. Methods We updated the results of the Dutch Randomized Endovascular Aneurysm Management (DREAM) trial, a multicenter, randomized controlled trial comparing open with endovascular aneurysm repair, up to 15 years of follow-up. Survival and reinterventions were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis. Causes of death and secondary interventions were compared by use of an events per person-year analysis. Results There were 178 patients randomized to open and 173 to endovascular repair. Twelve years after randomization, the cumulative overall survival rates were 42.2% for open and 38.5% for endovascular repair, for a difference of 3.7 percentage points (95% confidence interval, −6.7 to 14.1; P =.48). The cumulative rates of freedom from reintervention were 78.9% for open repair and 62.2% for endovascular repair, for a difference of 16.7 percentage points (95% confidence interval, 5.8-27.6; P =.01). No differences were observed in causes of death. Cardiovascular and malignant disease account for the majority of deaths after prolonged follow-up. Conclusions During 12 years of follow-up, there was no survival difference between patients who underwent open or endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair, despite a continuously increasing number of reinterventions in the endovascular repair group. Endograft durability and the need for continued endograft surveillance remain key issues
    corecore