Systematic review of dexketoprofen in acute and chronic pain

Background

Dexketoprofen, an NSAID used in the management of acute and chronic pains, is licensed in several countries but has not previously been the subjected of a systematic review. We used published and unpublished information from randomised clinical trials (RCTs) of dexketoprofen in painful conditions to assess evidence on efficacy and harm.

Methods

PubMed and Cochrane Central were searched for RCTs of dexketoprofen for pain of any aetiology. Reference lists of retrieved articles and reviews were also searched. Menarini Group produced copies of published and unpublished studies (clinical trial reports). Data were abstracted into a standard form. For studies reporting results of single dose administration, the number of patients with at least 50% pain relief was derived and used to calculate the relative benefit (RB) and number-needed-to-treat (NNT) for one patient to achieve at least 50% pain relief compared with placebo.

Results

Thirty-five trials were found in acute pain and chronic pain; 6,380 patients were included, 3,381 receiving dexketoprofen. Information from 16 trials (almost half the total patients) was obtained from clinical trial reports from previously unpublished trials or abstracts. Almost all of the trials were of short duration in acute conditions or recent onset pain. All 12 randomised trials that compared dexketoprofen (any dose) with placebo found dexketoprofen to be statistically superior. Five trials in postoperative pain yielded NNTs for 12.5 mg dexketoprofen of 3.5 (2.7 to 4.9), 25 mg dexketoprofen of 3.0 (2.4 to 3.9), and 50 mg dexketoprofen of 2.1 (1.5 to 3.5). In 29/30 active comparator trials, dexketoprofen at the dose used was at least equivalent in efficacy to comparator drugs. Adverse event withdrawal rates were low in postoperative pain and somewhat higher in trials of longer duration; no serious adverse events were reported.

Conclusion

Dexketoprofen was at least as effective as other NSAIDs and paracetamol/opioid combinations. While adverse event withdrawal was not different between dexketoprofen and comparator analgesics, the different conditions and comparators studies precluded any formal analysis. Exposure was limited, and no conclusions could be drawn about safety in terms of serious adverse events like gastrointestinal bleeding or cardiovascular events.     

Systematic overview of co-proxamol to assess analgesic effects of addition of dextropropoxyphene to paracetamol.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the comparative efficacy and tolerability of paracetamol-dextropropoxyphene combination and paracetamol through a systematic overview of randomised controlled trials. DESIGN: Systematic retrieval of trials of paracetamol-dextropropoxyphene, paracetamol, and placebo to allow pooling of results from head to head comparison trials and single active placebo controlled trials. SUBJECTS: 2231 patients with postsurgical pain, arthritis, and musculoskeletal pain reported in 26 randomised controlled trials. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Sum of difference in pain intensity; response rate ratio and difference in response rate with response defined as moderate to excellent pain relief; and rate ratio and rate difference of side effects. RESULTS: The difference in pain intensity between paracetamol-dextropropoxyphene and paracetamol was 7.3% (95% confidence interval -0.2 to 14.9). The response rate ratio for the combination and paracetamol was 1.05 (0.8 to 1.3) on the basis of the head to head trials. Indirect comparisons produced quantitatively consistent results. Compared with placebo, the combination produced more dizziness (3.1; 1.1 to 8.9) whereas paracetamol resulted in more drowsiness (1.8; 1.1 to 2.9). CONCLUSION: On the basis of data on analgesic efficacy and acute safety in both head to head and indirect comparisons, there is little objective evidence to support prescribing a combination of paracetamol and dextropropoxyphene in preference to paracetamol alone in moderate pain such as that after surgery.     

Health effects of obstructive sleep apnoea and the effectiveness of continuous positive airways pressure: a systematic review of the research evidence.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the research evidence for the health consequences of obstructive sleep apnoea and the effectiveness of continuous positive airways pressure. DESIGN: A systematic review of published research, studies being identified by searching Medline (1966-96), Embase (1974-96), and CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature) (1982-95); scanning citations; and consulting experts. Studies in all languages were considered which either investigated the association between obstructive sleep apnoea in adults and key health outcomes or evaluated the effectiveness of treatment of obstructive sleep apnoea with continuous positive airways pressure in adults. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Mortality, systematic hypertension, cardiac arrhythmias, ischaemic heart disease, left ventricular hypertrophy, pulmonary hypertension, stroke, vehicle accidents, measures of daytime sleepiness, and quality of life. RESULTS: 54 epidemiological studies examined the association between sleep apnoea and health related outcomes. Most were poorly designed and only weak or contradictory evidence was found of an association with cardiac arrhythmias, ischaemic heart disease, cardiac failure, systemic or pulmonary hypertension, and stroke. Evidence of a link with sleepiness and road traffic accidents was stronger but inconclusive. Only one small randomised controlled trial evaluated continuous positive airways pressure. Five non-randomised controlled trials and 38 uncontrolled trials were identified. Small changes in objectively measured daytime sleepiness were consistently found, but improvements in morbidity, mortality, and quality of life indicators were not adequately assessed. CONCLUSIONS: The relevance of sleep apnoea to public health has been exaggerated. The effectiveness of continuous positive airways pressure in improving health outcomes has been poorly evaluated. There is enough evidence suggesting benefit in reducing daytime sleepiness in some patients to warrant large randomised placebo controlled trials of continuous positive airways pressure versus an effective weight reduction programme and other interventions.     

Impact of herbal medicines on physical impairment

The usefulness of recording physical impairment during intervention studies in chronic low back patients has been questioned. A re-analysis of all of our studies investigating aqueous extracts of Harpagophytum procumbens and a proprietary ethanolic Salix extract for chronic non-specific low back pain revealed that the “physical impairment” component of the Arhus low back pain index changed very little during treatment despite appreciable changes in the other two components, “pain” and “disability”, over time. For comparison, we also extracted data from the literature on the topical use of capsaicin, which showed the same thing. There may be little to lose from omitting the time-consuming assessments of “physical impairment” in studies of the (primarily analgesic) effectiveness of herbal preparations.     

Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma related to gravitational challenge: systematic review of randomised controlled trials

Objectives To determine whether parachutes are effective in preventing major trauma related to gravitational challenge.Design Systematic review of randomised controlled trials.Data sources: Medline, Web of Science, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases; appropriate internet sites and citation lists.Study selection: Studies showing the effects of using a parachute during free fall.Main outcome measure Death or major trauma, defined as an injury severity score > 15.Results We were unable to identify any randomised controlled trials of parachute intervention.Conclusions As with many interventions intended to prevent ill health, the effectiveness of parachutes has not been subjected to rigorous evaluation by using randomised controlled trials. Advocates of evidence based medicine have criticised the adoption of interventions evaluated by using only observational data. We think that everyone might benefit if the most radical protagonists of evidence based medicine organised and participated in a double blind, randomised, placebo controlled, crossover trial of the parachute.     

Quantitative systematic review of topically applied non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.

OBJECTIVE: To review the effectiveness and safety of topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in acute and chronic pain conditions. DESIGN: Quantitative systematic review of randomised controlled trials. DATA SOURCES: 86 trials involving 10,160 patients. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Measures of treatment success approximating at least 50% reduction in pain, local and systemic adverse effects. Analysis at 1 week for acute and 2 weeks for chronic conditions with relative benefit and number needed to treat. RESULTS: In acute pain conditions (soft tissue trauma, strains, and sprains) placebo controlled trials had a relative benefit of 1.7 (1.5 to 1.9), the number needed to treat was 3.9 (3.4 to 4.4). With analysis by drug (at least three trials), ketoprofen (number needed to treat 2.6), felbinac (3.0), ibuprofen (3.5), and piroxicam (4.2) had significant efficacy. Benzydamine and indomethacin were no different from placebo. In chronic pain conditions (osteoarthritis, tendinitis) placebo controlled trials had a relative benefit of 2.0 (1.5 to 2.7); the number needed to treat was 3.1 (2.7 to 3.8). Small trials (< 40 treated patients) exaggerated effectiveness of topical non-steroidals by 33% in acute conditions but not in chronic conditions. There was no relation between trial quality and treatment effect. In both acute and chronic pain local and systemic adverse events and withdrawal from the study related to the drug had a low incidence and were no different from placebo. CONCLUSION: Topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are effective in relieving pain in acute and chronic conditions.     

Mefloquine to prevent malaria: a systematic review of trials.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the research evidence on the efficacy and tolerability of mefloquine chemoprophylaxis. SEARCH STRATEGY: Any potentially relevant trial from the Cochrane Infectious Disease Group''s register of controlled trials; systematic searches of Medline, Embase, Lilacs and Science Citation Index; scanning citations; and consulting drug companies and key investigators. We considered studies in all languages. INCLUSION CRITERIA: Trials carried out in non-immune adult travellers, and in non-travelling volunteers, where an attempt had been made to conduct a randomised comparison of mefloquine against placebo or against alternative standard prophylaxis. RESULTS: 37 potentially eligible trials of mefloquine prophylaxis were identified, and 10 met the inclusion criteria. These 10 trials comprised a total of 2750 non-immune adult participants randomised to mefloquine or to a control. One placebo controlled trial examined malaria incidence directly and showed mefloquine to be highly effective in preventing malaria in an area of drug resistance. However, four placebo controlled trials showed that mefloquine was not well tolerated, and withdrawals were consistently higher in mefloquine treatment arms than in placebo arms (odds ratio 3.49 (95% confidence interval 1.42 to 8.56)). Five field trials compared mefloquine with other chemoprophylaxis. Mefloquine was no worse tolerated than other chemoprophylaxis, although there was possibly a trend towards higher withdrawals in mefloquine arms (odds ratio 1.33 (0.75 to 2.36)). CONCLUSION: One trial showed mefloquine to be effective in preventing malaria, but withdrawal rates, presumably from side effects, were high across most studies. This is likely to impair mefloquine''s effectiveness in general travellers, and it may therefore not be useful for routine prophylaxis. Mefloquine may be useful in specific situations such as for groups travelling to regions with a high risk of chloroquine resistant malaria and only limited access to effective medical care.     

Lidocaine patch (5%) is no more potent than placebo in treating chronic back pain when tested in a randomised double blind placebo controlled brain imaging study

ABSTRACT: The 5% Lidocaine patch is used for treating chronic neuropathic pain conditions such as chronic back pain (CBP), diabetic neuropathy and complex regional pain syndrome, but is effective in a variable proportion of patients. Our lab has reported that this treatment reduces CBP intensity and associated brain activations when tested in an open labelled preliminary study. Notably, effectiveness of the 5% Lidocaine patch has not been tested against placebo for treating CBP. In this study, effectiveness of the 5% Lidocaine patch was compared with placebo in 30 CBP patients in a randomised double-blind study where 15 patients received 5% Lidocaine patches and the remaining patients received placebo patches. Functional MRI was used to identify brain activity for fluctuations of spontaneous pain, at baseline and at two time points after start of treatment (6 hours and 2 weeks). There was no significant difference between the treatment groups in either pain intensity, sensory and affective qualities of pain or in pain related brain activation at any time point. However, 50% patients in both the Lidocaine and placebo arms reported a greater than 50% decrease in pain suggesting a marked placebo effect. When tested against an untreated CBP group at similar time points, the patch treated subjects showed significantly greater decrease in pain compared to the untreated group (n=15). These findings suggest that although the 5% Lidocaine is not better than placebo in its effectiveness for treating pain, the patch itself induces a potent placebo effect in a significant proportion of CBP patients.     

The Effect of Glucagon-Like Peptide 1 Receptor Agonists on Weight Loss in Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Mixed Treatment Comparison Meta-Analysis

Aims

To determine the effects of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists compared with placebo and other anti-diabetic agents on weight loss in overweight or obese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Methods

Electronic searches were conducted for randomised controlled trials that compared a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist therapy at a clinically relevant dose with a comparator treatment (other type 2 diabetes treatment or placebo) in adults with type 2 diabetes and a mean body mass index ≥ 25kg/m². Pair-wise meta-analyses and mixed treatment comparisons were conducted to examine the difference in weight change at six months between the glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists and each comparator.

Results

In the mixed treatment comparison (27 trials), the glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists were the most successful in terms of weight loss; exenatide 2mg/week: -1.62kg (95% CrI: -2.95kg, -0.30kg), exenatide 20μg: -1.37kg (95% CI: -222kg, -0.52kg), liraglutide 1.2mg: -1.01kg (95%CrI: -2.41kg, 0.38kg) and liraglutide 1.8mg: -1.51 kg (95% CI: -2.67kg, -0.37kg) compared with placebo. There were no differences between the GLP-1 receptor agonists in terms of weight loss.

Conclusions

This review provides evidence that glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist therapies are associated with weight loss in overweight or obese patients with type 2 diabetes with no difference in weight loss seen between the different types of GLP-1 receptor agonists assessed.     

Randomised Controlled Trials May Underestimate Drug Effects: Balanced Placebo Trial Design

Background

It is an inherent assumption in randomised controlled trials that the drug effect can be estimated by subtracting the response during placebo from the response during active drug treatment.

Objective

To test the assumption of additivity. The primary hypothesis was that the total treatment effect is smaller than the sum of the drug effect and the placebo effect. The secondary hypothesis was that non-additivity was most pronounced in participants with large placebo effects.

Methods

We used a within-subject randomised blinded balanced placebo design and included 48 healthy volunteers (50% males), mean (SD) age 23.4 (6.2) years. Experimental pain was induced by injections of hypertonic saline into the masseter muscle. Participants received four injections with hypertonic saline along with lidocaine or matching placebo in randomised order: A: received hypertonic saline/told hypertonic saline; B: received hypertonic saline+lidocaine/told hypertonic saline; C: received hypertonic saline+placebo/told hypertonic saline+pain killer; D: received hypertonic saline+lidocaine/told hypertonic saline+pain killer. The primary outcome measure was the area under the curve (AUC, mm²) of pain intensity during injections.

Results

There was a significant difference between the sum of the drug effect and the placebo effect (mean AUC 6279 mm² (95% CI, 4936–7622)) and the total treatment effect (mean AUC 5455 mm² (95% CI, 4585–6324)) (P = 0.049). This difference was larger for participants with large versus small placebo effects (P = 0.015), and the difference correlated significantly with the size of the placebo effect (r = 0.65, P = 0.006).

Conclusion

Although this study examined placebo effects and not the whole placebo response as in randomised controlled trials, it does suggest that the additivity assumption may be incorrect, and that the estimated drug effects in randomised controlled trials may be underestimated, particularly in studies reporting large placebo responses. The implications for randomised controlled trials and systematic reviews need to be discussed.     

Prevalence of opioid adverse events in chronic non-malignant pain: systematic review of randomised trials of oral opioids

Adverse events of opioids may restrict their use in non-cancer pain. Analysis of the incidence of common adverse events in trials conducted in non-cancer pain has usually been limited to opioids used to treat severe pain according to the WHO three-step ladder. To examine the incidence of common adverse events of opioids in non-cancer pain, a systematic review and meta-analysis of information from randomised trials of all opioids in non-cancer pain was undertaken. Studies used were published randomised trials of oral opioid in non-cancer pain, with placebo or active comparator. Thirty-four trials with 5,546 patients were included with 4,212 patients contributing some information on opioid adverse events. Most opioids used (accounting for 90% of patients) were for treating moderate rather than severe pain. Including trials without a placebo increased the amount of information available by 1.4 times. Because of clinical heterogeneity in condition, opioid, opioid dose, duration, and use of titration, only broad results could be calculated. Use of any oral opioid produced higher rates of adverse events than did placebo. Dry mouth (affecting 25% of patients), nausea (21%), and constipation (15%) were the most common adverse events. A substantial proportion of patients on opioids (22%) withdrew because of adverse events. Because most trials were short, less than four weeks, and because few titrated the dose, these results have limited applicability to longer-term use of opioids in clinical practice. Suggestions for improved studies are made.     

An un-commissioned randomized, placebo-controlled double-blind study to test the effect of deep sea fish oil as a pain reliever for dogs suffering from canine OA

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: An un-commissioned randomized, double-blinded, placebo controlled clinical study was planned using a deep sea fish oil product for pets. Seventy-seven client-owned dogs with osteoarthritis were randomly assigned to supplement the food with either the fish oil product or corn (=placebo) oil. Our main outcome variables were force platform variables Peak vertical Force (PVF) and impulse, the validated Helsinki Chronic Pain Index (HCPI) and the use of rescue NSAIDs. Secondary outcome variables were a locomotion visual analog scale (VAS), a Quality of life VAS, a comparative questionnaire, a veterinary assessment, owners' final assessment of outcome and guessing the product given. RESULTS: When comparing the two test groups at the end of the trial (16 weeks) there was no significant difference in any of the main outcome variables but owners of dogs that had taken fish oil were significantly happier with the treatment at the end visit and did significantly better at guessing what group their dogs had been in, compared to the placebo group. When comparing variables within the fish oil group as change from baseline to trial end, there were significant positive changes in PVF, HCPI, NSAID use, Quality of life VAS, as well as in all three scores in the comparative questionnaire (locomotion, every-day situations, and skin & coat). There were similar positive trends in force platform impulse and in the veterinary assessment variables, although they did not reach significance. Within the placebo group there were significant positive changes only in the HCPI and a significant deterioration according to veterinary assessment. CONCLUSIONS: When compared to placebo, there was not a major statistically significant benefit in using deep sea fish oil as a pain reliever in our study population of dogs suffering from osteoarthritis. However, the fish oil treated patients improved significantly in many of the variables, when comparing baseline values to the study-end values within the group, indicating a true but small relief in symptoms. Deep sea fish oil supplementation could be considered a part of the multimodal pain relieving approach currently recommended for dogs suffering from OA, especially for individuals that do not tolerate anti-inflammatory drugs.     

B-cell depletion in SLE: clinical and trial experience with rituximab and ocrelizumaband implications for study design

B cells are believed to be central to the disease process in systemic lupuserythematosus (SLE), making them a target for new therapeutic intervention. In recentyears there have been many publications regarding the experience in SLE of B-celldepletion utilising rituximab, an anti-CD20 mAb that temporarily depletes B cells,reporting promising results in uncontrolled open studies and in routine clinical use.However, the two large randomised controlled trials in extra-renal lupus (EXPLORERstudy) and lupus nephritis (LUNAR study) failed to achieve their primary endpoints.Based on the clinical experience with rituximab this failure was somewhat unexpectedand raised a number of questions and concerns, not only into the true level ofbenefit of B-cell depletion in a broad population but also how to test the true levelof effectiveness of an investigational agent as we seek to improve the design oftherapeutic trials in SLE. A better understanding of what went wrong in these trialsis essential to elucidate the underlying reasons for the disparate observations notedin open studies and controlled trials. In this review, we focus on various factorsthat may affect the ability to accurately and confidently establish the level oftreatment effect of the investigational agent, in this case rituximab, in the twostudies and explore hurdles faced in the randomised controlled trials investigatingthe efficacy of ocrelizumab, the humanised anti-CD20 mAb, in SLE. Further, based onthe lessons learned from the clinical trials, we make suggestions that could beimplemented in future clinical trial design to overcome the hurdles faced.     

Direct Contra Na?ve-Indirect Comparison of Clinical Failure Rates between High-Viscosity GIC and Conventional Amalgam Restorations: An Empirical Study

Background

Naïve-indirect comparisons are comparisons between competing clinical interventions’ evidence from separate (uncontrolled) trials. Direct comparisons are comparisons within randomised control trials (RCTs). The objective of this empirical study is to test the null-hypothesis that trends and performance differences inferred from naïve-indirect comparisons and from direct comparisons/RCTs regarding the failure rates of amalgam and direct high-viscosity glass-ionomer cement (HVGIC) restorations in permanent posterior teeth have similar direction and magnitude.

Methods

A total of 896 citations were identified through systematic literature search. From these, ten and two uncontrolled clinical longitudinal studies for HVGIC and amalgam, respectively, were included for naïve-indirect comparison and could be matched with three out twenty RCTs. Summary effects sizes were computed as Odds ratios (OR; 95% Confidence intervals) and compared with those from RCTs. Trend directions were inferred from 95% Confidence interval overlaps and direction of point estimates; magnitudes of performance differences were inferred from the median point estimates (OR) with 25% and 75% percentile range, for both types of comparison. Mann-Whitney U test was applied to test for statistically significant differences between point estimates of both comparison types.

Results

Trends and performance differences inferred from naïve-indirect comparison based on evidence from uncontrolled clinical longitudinal studies and from direct comparisons based on RCT evidence are not the same. The distributions of the point estimates differed significantly for both comparison types (Mann–Whitney U  =  25, n_indirect  =  26; n_direct  =  8; p  =  0.0013, two-tailed).

Conclusion

The null-hypothesis was rejected. Trends and performance differences inferred from either comparison between HVGIC and amalgam restorations failure rates in permanent posterior teeth are not the same. It is recommended that clinical practice guidance regarding HVGICs should rest on direct comparisons via RCTs and not on naïve-indirect comparisons based on uncontrolled longitudinal studies in order to avoid inflation of effect estimates.     

Peppermint oil in irritable bowel syndrome

In a literature search 16 clinical trials investigating 180-200 mg enteric-coated peppermint oil (PO) in irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) or recurrent abdominal pain in children (1 study) with 651 patients enrolled were identified. Nine out of 16 studies were randomized double blind cross over trials with (n = 5) or without (n = 4) run in and/or wash out periods, five had a randomized double blind parallel group design and two were open labeled studies. Placebo served in 12 and anticholinergics in three studies as comparator. Eight out of 12 placebo controlled studies show statistically significant effects in favor of PO. Average response rates in terms of "overall success" are 58% (range 39-79%) for PO and 29% (range 10-52%) for placebo. The three studies versus smooth muscle relaxants did not show differences between treatments hinting for equivalence of treatments. Adverse events reported were generally mild and transient, but very specific. PO caused the typical GI effects like heartburn and anal/perianal burning or discomfort sensations, whereas the anticholinergics caused dry mouth and blurred vision. Anticholinergics and 5HT3/4-ant/agonists do not offer superior improvement rates, placebo responses cover the range as in PO trials. Taking into account the currently available drug treatments for IBS PO (1-2 capsules t.i.d. over 24 weeks) may be the drug of first choice in IBS patients with non-serious constipation or diarrhea to alleviate general symptoms and to improve quality of life.     

Effect of training and lifting equipment for preventing back pain in lifting and handling: systematic review

Objectives To determine whether advice and training on working techniques and lifting equipment prevent back pain in jobs that involve heavy lifting.Data sources Medline, Embase, CENTRAL, Cochrane Back Group’s specialised register, CINAHL, Nioshtic, CISdoc, Science Citation Index, and PsychLIT were searched up to September-November 2005.Review methods The primary search focused on randomised controlled trials and the secondary search on cohort studies with a concurrent control group. Interventions aimed to modify techniques for lifting and handling heavy objects or patients and including measurements for back pain, consequent disability, or sick leave as the main outcome were considered for the review. Two authors independently assessed eligibility of the studies and methodological quality of those included. For data synthesis, we summarised the results of studies comparing similar interventions. We used odds ratios and effect sizes to combine the results in a meta-analysis. Finally, we compared the conclusions of the primary and secondary analyses.Results Six randomised trials and five cohort studies met the inclusion criteria. Two randomised trials and all cohort studies were labelled as high quality. Eight studies looked at lifting and moving patients, and three studies were conducted among baggage handlers or postal workers. Those in control groups received no intervention or minimal training, physical exercise, or use of back belts. None of the comparisons in randomised trials (17 720 participants) yielded significant differences. In the secondary analysis, none of the cohort studies (772 participants) had significant results, which supports the results of the randomised trials.Conclusions There is no evidence to support use of advice or training in working techniques with or without lifting equipment for preventing back pain or consequent disability. The findings challenge current widespread practice of advising workers on correct lifting technique.     

Evidence for the impact of quality improvement collaboratives: systematic review

Objective To evaluate the effectiveness of quality improvement collaboratives in improving the quality of care.Data sources Relevant studies through Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Cochrane databases.Study selection Two reviewers independently extracted data on topics, participants, setting, study design, and outcomes.Data synthesis Of 1104 articles identified, 72 were included in the study. Twelve reports representing nine studies (including two randomised controlled trials) used a controlled design to measure the effects of the quality improvement collaborative intervention on care processes or outcomes of care. Systematic review of these nine studies showed moderate positive results. Seven studies (including one randomised controlled trial) reported an effect on some of the selected outcome measures. Two studies (including one randomised controlled trial) did not show any significant effect.Conclusions The evidence underlying quality improvement collaboratives is positive but limited and the effects cannot be predicted with great certainty. Considering that quality improvement collaboratives seem to play a key part in current strategies focused on accelerating improvement, but may have only modest effects on outcomes at best, further knowledge of the basic components effectiveness, cost effectiveness, and success factors is crucial to determine the value of quality improvement collaboratives.     

Multifactorial day hospital intervention to reduce falls in high risk older people in primary care: a multi-centre randomised controlled trial [ISRCTN46584556]

Background

There are many barriers to patient participation in randomised controlled trials of cancer treatments. To increase participation in trials, strategies need to be identified to overcome these barriers. Our aim was to assess the effectiveness of interventions to overcome barriers to patient participation in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of cancer treatments.

Methods

A systematic review was conducted. Published and unpublished studies in any language were searched for in fifteen electronic databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycINFO, from inception to the end of 2004. Studies of any interventions to improve cancer patient participation in RCTs, which reported the change in recruitment rates, were eligible for inclusion. RCTs and non-randomised controlled trials as well as before and after studies reporting baseline rates specific to the population being investigated were included. Data were extracted by one reviewer into structured summary tables and checked for accuracy by a second reviewer. Each included study was assessed against a checklist for methodological quality by one reviewer and checked by a second reviewer. A narrative synthesis was conducted.

Results

Eight studies were identified that met the inclusion criteria: three RCTs, two non-randomised controlled trials and three observational studies. Six of the studies had an intervention that had some relevance to the UK. There was no robust evidence that any of the interventions investigated led to an increase in cancer patient participation in RCTs, though one good quality RCT found that urologists and nurses were equally effective at recruiting participants to a treatment trial for prostate cancer. Although there was no evidence of an effect in any of the studies, the evidence was not of sufficient quality to be able to conclude that these interventions therefore do not work.

Conclusion

There is not a strong evidence-base for interventions that increase cancer patient participation in randomised trials. Further research is required to evaluate the effectiveness of strategies to increase participation in cancer treatment trials.     

Anticonvulsant drugs for management of pain: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE--To determine effectiveness and adverse effects of anticonvulsant drugs in management of pain. DESIGN--Systematic review of randomised controlled trials of anticonvulsants for acute, chronic, or cancer pain identified by using Medline, by hand searching, by searching reference lists, and by contacting investigators. SUBJECTS--Between 1966 and February 1994, 37 reports were found; 20 reports, of four anticonvulsants, were eligible. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--Numbers needed to treat were calculated for effectiveness, adverse effects, and drug related withdrawal from study. RESULTS--The only placebo controlled study in acute pain found no analgesic effect of sodium valproate. For treating trigeminal neuralgia, carbamazepine had a combined number needed to treat of 2.6 for effectiveness, 3.4 for adverse effects, and 24 for severe effects (withdrawal from study). For treating diabetic neuropathy, anticonvulsants had a combined number needed to treat of 2.5 for effectiveness, 3.1 for adverse effects, and 20 for severe effects. For migraine prophylaxis, anticonvulsants had a combined number needed to treat of 1.6 for effectiveness, 2.4 for adverse effects, and 39 for severe effects. Phenytoin had no effect on the irritable bowel syndrome, and carbamazepine had little effect on pain after stroke. Clonazepam was effective in one study for temporomandibular joint dysfunction. No study compared one anticonvulsant with another. CONCLUSIONS--Anticonvulsants were effective for trigeminal neuralgia and diabetic neuropathy and for migraine prophylaxis. Minor adverse effects occurred as often as benefit.     

Investigation of the potentiation of the analgesic effects of fentanyl by ketamine in humans: a double-blinded, randomised, placebo controlled, crossover study of experimental pain[ISRCTN83088383]

BACKGROUND: Despite preclinical evidence suggesting a synergistic interaction between ketamine and opioids promoting analgesia, several clinical trials have not identified dosing regimens capable of eliciting a benefit in the co-administration of ketamine with opioids. METHODS: Ten healthy volunteers participated in a double blinded, randomised, placebo controlled, crossover laboratory study in order to determine whether a low dose of ketamine potentiated the antinociceptive effect of fentanyl without causing an increase in sedative effects. A battery of tests was used to assess both nociception and sedation including electrical current, pressure, thermal stimuli, psychometric tests, and both subjective and objective scores of sedation. Target controlled infusions of the study drugs were used. Ketamine and fentanyl were administered alone and in combination in a double-blinded randomised crossover design. Saline was used as the control, and propofol was used to validate the tests of sedation. Cardiovascular and respiratory parameters were also assessed. RESULTS: The electrical current pain threshold dose response curve of fentanyl combined with ketamine was markedly steeper than the dose response curve of fentanyl alone. While a ketamine serum concentration of 30 ng/ml did not result in a change in electrical pain threshold when administered alone, when it was added to fentanyl, the combination resulted in greater increase in pain threshold than that of fentanyl administered alone. When nociception was assessed using heat and pressure stimuli, ketamine did not potentiate the anti-nociceptive effect of fentanyl. There was no difference between the sedative effect of fentanyl and fentanyl in combination with ketamine as assessed by both subjective and objective measures of sedation. Cardiovascular and respiratory parameters were unaffected by the study drugs at the doses given. CONCLUSION: A serum concentration of ketamine that did not alter indices of sedation potentiated the antinociceptive effect of fentanyl. This potentiation of antinociception occurred without an increase in sedation suggesting that low steady doses of ketamine (30-120 ng/ml) might be combined with mu opioid agonists to improve their analgesic effect in a clinical setting. (296 words).