Periodontal therapy and treatment of hypertension-alternative to the pharmacological approach. A systematic review and meta-analysis

Aim: Quantitative comparison of the effects of intensive (IPT) or conventional (CPT) periodontal treatment on arterial blood pressure, endothelial function and inflammatory/metabolic biomarkers. / Materials and methods: A systematic search was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials (RCT) of IPT (supra and subgingival instrumentation). Eight RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. Difference in change of systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) before and after IPT or CPT were the primary outcomes. The secondary outcomes included: endothelial function and selected inflammatory/anti-inflammatory (CRP, IL-6, IL-10, IFN-γ) and metabolic biomarkers (HDL, LDL, TGs). / Results: The overall effect estimates (pooled Weighted Mean Difference (WMD)) of the primary outcome for SBP and DBP was −4.3 mmHg [95%CI: −9.10–0.48], p = 0.08 and −3.16 mmHg [95%CI: −6.51–0.19], p = 0.06 respectively. These studies were characterized by high heterogeneity. Therefore, random effects model for meta-analysis was performed. Sub-group analyses confirmed statistically significant reduction in SBP [WMD = −11.41 mmHg (95%CI: −13.66, −9.15) P < 0.00001] and DBP [WMD = −8.43 mmHg (95%CI: −10.96,−5.91)P < 0.00001] after IPT vs CPT among prehypertensive/hypertensive patients, while this was not observed in normotensive individuals. The meta-analyses showed significant reductions in CRP and improvement of endothelial function following IPT at all analysed timepoints. / Conclusions: IPT leads to improvement of the cardiovascular health in hypertensive and prehypertensive individuals

Randomized Trial—PrEscription of intraDialytic exercise to improve quAlity of Life in Patients Receiving Hemodialysis

Introduction: Whether clinically implementable exercise interventions in people receiving hemodialysis (HD) therapy improve health-related quality of life (HRQoL) remains unknown. The PrEscription of intraDialytic exercise to improve quAlity of Life (PEDAL) study evaluated the clinical benefit and cost-effectiveness of a 6-month intradialytic exercise program. Methods: In a multicenter, single-blinded, randomized, controlled trial, people receiving HD were randomly assigned to (i) intradialytic exercise training (exercise intervention group [EX]) and (ii) usual care (control group [CON]). Primary outcome was change in Kidney Disease Quality of Life Short-Form Physical Component Summary (KDQOL-SF 1.3 PCS) from baseline to 6 months. Cost-effectiveness was determined using health economic analysis; physiological impairment was evaluated by peak oxygen uptake; and harms were recorded. Results: We randomized 379 participants; 335 and 243 patients (EX n = 127; CON n = 116) completed baseline and 6-month assessments, respectively. Mean difference in change PCS from baseline to 6 months between EX and CON was 2.4 (95% confidence interval [CI]: −0.1 to 4.8) arbitrary units (P = 0.055); no improvements were observed in peak oxygen uptake or secondary outcome measures. Participants in the intervention group had poor compliance (47%) and poor adherence (18%) to the exercise prescription. Cost of delivering intervention ranged from US$598 to US$1092 per participant per year. The number of participants with harms was similar between EX (n = 69) and CON (n = 56). A primary limitation was the lack of an attention CON. Many patients also withdrew from the study or were too unwell to complete all physiological outcome assessments. Conclusions: A 6-month intradialytic aerobic exercise program was not clinically beneficial in improving HRQoL as delivered to this cohort of deconditioned patients on HD

Vaginal progesterone prophylaxis for preterm birth (the OPPTIMUM study): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind trial

This paper is devoted to a further generalisation of the main results in [5] including the representation of the weak super-replication price (cf. equation (1.6)). In addition to the already established weakening of the technical assumptions in [5] (cf. [24] and [25]), the main results in [5] can be still generalised by considering the geometric structure of the underlying problem (based on the properties of Riesz spaces and polar wedges therein). In Section 5 we show under which geometric conditions of the relevant sets the results still hold (cf. Theorem 5.3 and Corollary 5.5). In particular, we can completely remove the restrictive admissibility assumption and carry forward equation (1.4) to a larger class of wedges K \subseteq L^{0} (cf. Corollary 5.5)

Tumour necrosis factor inhibition versus rituximab for patients with rheumatoid arthritis who require biological treatment (ORBIT): an open-label, randomised controlled, non-inferiority, trial

Background: Tumour necrosis factor (TNF) inhibition and B-cell depletion are highly effective treatments for active rheumatoid arthritis, but so far no randomised controlled trials have directly compared their safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness. This study was done to test the hypothesis that using rituximab would be clinically non-inferior and cheaper compared with TNF inhibitor treatment in biological-treatment naive patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Methods: This open-label, randomised controlled, non-inferiority trial enrolled patients with active, seropositive rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to synthetic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) from 35 rheumatology departments in the UK. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to the rituximab or TNF inhibitor groups with minimisation to account for methotrexate intolerance using a web-based randomisation system. Patients were given intravenous rituximab 1 g on days 1 and 15, and after 26 weeks if they responded to treatment but had persistent disease activity (28 joint count disease activity score [DAS28-ESR] &gt;3·2; rituximab group) or a TNF inhibitor—adalimumab (40 mg subcutaneously every other week) or etanercept (50 mg per week subcutaneously) according to the patient's and rheumatologist's choice (TNF inhibitor group). Patients could switch treatment in the case of drug-related toxic effects or absence or loss of response. The primary outcome measure was the change in DAS28-ESR between 0 and 12 months in the per-protocol population of patients who were assigned to treatment and remained in follow-up to 1 year. We assessed safety in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. We also assessed the cost-effectiveness of each strategy. The non-inferiority margin was specified as 0·6 DAS28-ESR units. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01021735. Findings: Between April 6, 2009, and Nov 11, 2013, 295 patients were randomly assigned and given either rituximab (n=144) or TNF inhibitor (n=151) treatment. After 12 months, the change in DAS28-ESR for patients assigned to rituximab was −2·6 (SD 1·4) and TNF inhibitor was −2·4 (SD 1·5), with a difference within the prespecified non-inferiority margin of −0·19 (95% CI −0·51 to 0·13; p=0·24). The health-related costs associated with the rituximab strategy were lower than the TNF inhibitor strategy (£9405 vs £11 523 per patient, p&lt;0·0001). 137 (95%) of 144 patients in the rituximab group and 143 (95%) of 151 patients in the TNF inhibitor group had adverse events. 37 serious adverse events occurred in patients receiving rituximab compared with 26 in patients receiving TNF inhibitors, of which 27 were deemed to be possibly, probably, or definitely related to the treatment (15 vs 12, p=0·5462). One patient in each group died during the study. Interpretation: Initial treatment with rituximab is non-inferior to initial TNF inhibitor treatment in patients seropositive for rheumatoid arthritis and naive to treatment with biologicals, and is cost saving over 12 months. Funding: Arthritis Research UK, Roche