Антологія розвитку сімейної медицини в Дніпропетровській області за 20 років

BACKGROUND: The long-term treatment of Parkinson disease (PD) may be complicated by the development of levodopa-induced dyskinesia. Clinical and animal model data support the view that modulation of cannabinoid function may exert an antidyskinetic effect. The authors conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover trial to examine the hypothesis that cannabis may have a beneficial effect on dyskinesia in PD.METHODS: A 4-week dose escalation study was performed to assess the safety and tolerability of cannabis in six PD patients with levodopa-induced dyskinesia. Then a randomized placebo-controlled crossover study (RCT) was performed, in which 19 PD patients were randomized to receive oral cannabis extract followed by placebo or vice versa. Each treatment phase lasted for 4 weeks with an intervening 2-week washout phase. The primary outcome measure was a change in Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) (items 32 to 34) dyskinesia score. Secondary outcome measures included the Rush scale, Bain scale, tablet arm drawing task, and total UPDRS score following a levodopa challenge, as well as patient-completed measures of a dyskinesia activities of daily living (ADL) scale, the PDQ-39, on-off diaries, and a range of category rating scales.RESULTS: Seventeen patients completed the RCT. Cannabis was well tolerated, and had no pro- or antiparkinsonian action. There was no evidence for a treatment effect on levodopa-induced dyskinesia as assessed by the UPDRS, or any of the secondary outcome measures.CONCLUSIONS: Orally administered cannabis extract resulted in no objective or subjective improvement in dyskinesias or parkinsonism.</p

Rehabilitation versus surgical reconstruction for non-acute anterior cruciate ligament injury (ACL SNNAP): a pragmatic randomised controlled trial

Background: Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) rupture is a common debilitating injury that can cause instability of the knee. We aimed to investigate the best management strategy between reconstructive surgery and non-surgical treatment for patients with a non-acute ACL injury and persistent symptoms of instability. Methods: We did a pragmatic, multicentre, superiority, randomised controlled trial in 29 secondary care National Health Service orthopaedic units in the UK. Patients with symptomatic knee problems (instability) consistent with an ACL injury were eligible. We excluded patients with meniscal pathology with characteristics that indicate immediate surgery. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by computer to either surgery (reconstruction) or rehabilitation (physiotherapy but with subsequent reconstruction permitted if instability persisted after treatment), stratified by site and baseline Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score—4 domain version (KOOS4). This management design represented normal practice. The primary outcome was KOOS4 at 18 months after randomisation. The principal analyses were intention-to-treat based, with KOOS4 results analysed using linear regression. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN10110685, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02980367. Findings: Between Feb 1, 2017, and April 12, 2020, we recruited 316 patients. 156 (49%) participants were randomly assigned to the surgical reconstruction group and 160 (51%) to the rehabilitation group. Mean KOOS4 at 18 months was 73·0 (SD 18·3) in the surgical group and 64·6 (21·6) in the rehabilitation group. The adjusted mean difference was 7·9 (95% CI 2·5–13·2; p=0·0053) in favour of surgical management. 65 (41%) of 160 patients allocated to rehabilitation underwent subsequent surgery according to protocol within 18 months. 43 (28%) of 156 patients allocated to surgery did not receive their allocated treatment. We found no differences between groups in the proportion of intervention-related complications. Interpretation: Surgical reconstruction as a management strategy for patients with non-acute ACL injury with persistent symptoms of instability was clinically superior and more cost-effective in comparison with rehabilitation management. Funding: The UK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme

Effects of fluoxetine on functional outcomes after acute stroke (FOCUS): a pragmatic, double-blind, randomised, controlled trial

Background Results of small trials indicate that fluoxetine might improve functional outcomes after stroke. The FOCUS trial aimed to provide a precise estimate of these effects. Methods FOCUS was a pragmatic, multicentre, parallel group, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial done at 103 hospitals in the UK. Patients were eligible if they were aged 18 years or older, had a clinical stroke diagnosis, were enrolled and randomly assigned between 2 days and 15 days after onset, and had focal neurological deficits. Patients were randomly allocated fluoxetine 20 mg or matching placebo orally once daily for 6 months via a web-based system by use of a minimisation algorithm. The primary outcome was functional status, measured with the modified Rankin Scale (mRS), at 6 months. Patients, carers, health-care staff, and the trial team were masked to treatment allocation. Functional status was assessed at 6 months and 12 months after randomisation. Patients were analysed according to their treatment allocation. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN83290762. Findings Between Sept 10, 2012, and March 31, 2017, 3127 patients were recruited. 1564 patients were allocated fluoxetine and 1563 allocated placebo. mRS data at 6 months were available for 1553 (99·3%) patients in each treatment group. The distribution across mRS categories at 6 months was similar in the fluoxetine and placebo groups (common odds ratio adjusted for minimisation variables 0·951 [95% CI 0·839–1·079]; p=0·439). Patients allocated fluoxetine were less likely than those allocated placebo to develop new depression by 6 months (210 [13·43%] patients vs 269 [17·21%]; difference 3·78% [95% CI 1·26–6·30]; p=0·0033), but they had more bone fractures (45 [2·88%] vs 23 [1·47%]; difference 1·41% [95% CI 0·38–2·43]; p=0·0070). There were no significant differences in any other event at 6 or 12 months. Interpretation Fluoxetine 20 mg given daily for 6 months after acute stroke does not seem to improve functional outcomes. Although the treatment reduced the occurrence of depression, it increased the frequency of bone fractures. These results do not support the routine use of fluoxetine either for the prevention of post-stroke depression or to promote recovery of function. Funding UK Stroke Association and NIHR Health Technology Assessment Programme

Cannabis for dyskinesia in Parkinson disease:a randomized double-blind crossover study

BACKGROUND: The long-term treatment of Parkinson disease (PD) may be complicated by the development of levodopa-induced dyskinesia. Clinical and animal model data support the view that modulation of cannabinoid function may exert an antidyskinetic effect. The authors conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover trial to examine the hypothesis that cannabis may have a beneficial effect on dyskinesia in PD.METHODS: A 4-week dose escalation study was performed to assess the safety and tolerability of cannabis in six PD patients with levodopa-induced dyskinesia. Then a randomized placebo-controlled crossover study (RCT) was performed, in which 19 PD patients were randomized to receive oral cannabis extract followed by placebo or vice versa. Each treatment phase lasted for 4 weeks with an intervening 2-week washout phase. The primary outcome measure was a change in Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) (items 32 to 34) dyskinesia score. Secondary outcome measures included the Rush scale, Bain scale, tablet arm drawing task, and total UPDRS score following a levodopa challenge, as well as patient-completed measures of a dyskinesia activities of daily living (ADL) scale, the PDQ-39, on-off diaries, and a range of category rating scales.RESULTS: Seventeen patients completed the RCT. Cannabis was well tolerated, and had no pro- or antiparkinsonian action. There was no evidence for a treatment effect on levodopa-induced dyskinesia as assessed by the UPDRS, or any of the secondary outcome measures.CONCLUSIONS: Orally administered cannabis extract resulted in no objective or subjective improvement in dyskinesias or parkinsonism.</p

Update on the third international stroke trial (IST-3) of thrombolysis for acute ischaemic stroke and baseline features of the 3035 patients recruited

Background Intravenous recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (rtPA) is approved in Europe for use in patients with acute ischaemic stroke who meet strictly defined criteria. IST-3 sought to improve the external validity and precision of the estimates of the overall treatment effects (efficacy and safety) of rtPA in acute ischaemic stroke, and to determine whether a wider range of patients might benefit. Design International, multi-centre, prospective, randomized, open, blinded endpoint (PROBE) trial of intravenous rtPA in acute ischaemic stroke. Suitable patients had to be assessed and able to start treatment within 6 hours of developing symptoms, and brain imaging must have excluded intracranial haemorrhage and stroke mimics. Results The initial pilot phase was double blind and then, on 01/08/2003, changed to an open design. Recruitment began on 05/05/2000 and closed on 31/07/2011, by which time 3035 patients had been included, only 61 (2%) of whom met the criteria for the 2003 European approval for thrombolysis. 1617 patients were aged over 80 years at trial entry. The analysis plan will be finalised, without reference to the unblinded data, and published before the trial data are unblinded in early 2012. The main trial results will be presented at the European Stroke Conference in Lisbon in May 2012 with the aim to publish simultaneously in a peer-reviewed journal. The trial result will be presented in the context of an updated Cochrane systematic review. We also intend to include the trial data in an individual patient data meta-analysis of all the relevant randomised trials. Conclusion The data from the trial will: improve the external validity and precision of the estimates of the overall treatment effects (efficacy and safety) of iv rtPA in acute ischaemic stroke; provide: new evidence on the balance of risk and benefit of intravenous rtPA among types of patients who do not clearly meet the terms of the current EU approval; and, provide the first large-scale randomised evidence on effects in patients over 80, an age group which had largely been excluded from previous acute stroke trials

The benefits and harms of intravenous thrombolysis with recombinant tissue plasminogen activator within 6 h of acute ischaemic stroke (the third international stroke trial [IST-3]): a randomised controlled trial

Background Thrombolysis is of net benefi t in patients with acute ischaemic stroke, who are younger than 80 years of age and are treated within 4·5 h of onset. The third International Stroke Trial (IST-3) sought to determine whether a wider range of patients might benefi t up to 6 h from stroke onset. Methods In this international, multicentre, randomised, open-treatment trial, patients were allocated to 0·9 mg/kg intravenous recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (rt-PA) or to control. The primary analysis was of the proportion of patients alive and independent, as defi ned by an Oxford Handicap Score (OHS) of 0–2 at 6 months. The study is registered, ISRCTN25765518. Findings 3035 patients were enrolled by 156 hospitals in 12 countries. All of these patients were included in the analyses (1515 in the rt-PA group vs 1520 in the control group), of whom 1617 (53%) were older than 80 years of age. At 6 months, 554 (37%) patients in the rt-PA group versus 534 (35%) in the control group were alive and independent (OHS 0–2; adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1·13, 95% CI 0·95–1·35, p=0·181; a non-signifi cant absolute increase of 14/1000, 95% CI –20 to 48). An ordinal analysis showed a signifi cant shift in OHS scores; common OR 1·27 (95% CI 1·10–1·47, p=0·001). Fatal or non-fatal symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage within 7 days occurred in 104 (7%) patients in the rt-PA group versus 16 (1%) in the control group (adjusted OR 6·94, 95% CI 4·07–11·8; absolute excess 58/1000, 95% CI 44–72). More deaths occurred within 7 days in the rt-PA group (163 [11%]) than in the control group (107 [7%], adjusted OR 1·60, 95% CI 1·22–2·08, p=0·001; absolute increase 37/1000, 95% CI 17–57), but between 7 days and 6 months there were fewer deaths in the rt-PA group than in the control group, so that by 6 months, similar numbers, in total, had died (408 [27%] in the rt-PA group vs 407 [27%] in the control group)