Biomedical subjects

E Belseck

Publications and source records attributed to E Belseck.

11 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2000

Methotrexate for rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the short-term efficacy and toxicity of methotrexate (MTX) for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group trials register, and Medline, up to July 1997, using the search strategy developed by the Cochrane Collaboration (Dickersin 1994). The search was complemented with bibliography searching of the reference list of the trials retrieved from the electronic search. Key experts in the area were contacted for further published and unpublished articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials and controlled clinical trials comparing MTX against placebo in patients with RA. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers determined the studies to be included based on inclusion and exclusion criteria (GW, MSA). Data were independently abstracted by two reviewers (EB, MSA), and checked by a third reviewer (BS) using a pre-developed form for the rheumatoid arthritis sub-group of the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group. The same two reviewers, using a validated scale (Jadad 1996) assessed the methodological quality of the trials independently. Rheumatoid arthritis outcome measures were extracted from the publications. The pooled analysis was performed using standardized mean differences (SMDs) for joint counts, pain, and global and functional assessments. Weighted mean differences (WMDs) were used for erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR). Toxicity was evaluated with pooled odds ratios (OR) for withdrawals. A chi-square test was used to assess heterogeneity among trials. Fixed effects models were used throughout and random effects for outcomes showing heterogeneity. MAIN RESULTS: Five trials and 300 patients were included. A statistically significant benefit was observed for MTX when compared to placebo. Statistically significant differences were observed for all measures except ESR. The standardized weighted difference (effect size) between MTX and placebo for the various outcome measures varied between -0.43 and -1.5. No differences were observed in the total number of withdrawals and dropouts (OR = 0.95), although patients on MTX were three times more likely to discontinue treatment because of adverse reactions (OR=3.47) and four times less likely to withdraw due to lack of response (OR=0.22). REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Twenty-two percent of people on MTX withdrew due to adverse effects compared to seven percent of the placebo group. MTX has a substantial clinically and statistically significant benefit in the short term treatment of patients with RA.

Antirheumatic Agents↗

PubMed2000

Sulfasalazine for rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the short-term efficacy and toxicity of sulfasalazine for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group trials register, and Medline, up to July 1997, using the search strategy developed by the Cochrane Collaboration (Dickersin 1994). The search was complemented with bibliography searching of the reference list of the trials retrieved from the electronic search. Key experts in the area were contacted for further published and unpublished articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) comparing sulfasalazine against placebo in patients with RA. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers determined the studies to be included based on inclusion and exclusion criteria (GW, MSA). Data were independently abstracted by two reviewers (EB, MSA), and checked by a third reviewer (BS) using a pre-developed form for the rheumatoid arthritis sub-group of the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group. The same two reviewers, using a validated scale (Jadad 1996) assessed the methodological quality of the RCTs and CCTs independently. Rheumatoid arthritis outcome measures were extracted from the publications. The pooled analysis was performed using standardized mean differences (SMDs) for joint counts, pain, and global and functional assessments. Weighted mean differences (WMDs) were used for erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR). Toxicity was evaluated with pooled odds ratios (OR) for withdrawals. A chi-square test was used to assess heterogeneity among trials. Fixed effects models were used throughout and random effects for outcomes showing heterogeneity. MAIN RESULTS: Six trials, including 468 patients were included. A statistically significant benefit was observed for sulfasalazine when compared to placebo for tender and swollen joint scores, pain and ESR. The standardized weighted mean difference between treatment and placebo was -0.49 for tender and swollen joint scores, and -0.42 for pain. The difference for ESR was -17.6mm. Withdrawals from adverse reactions were significantly higher in the sulfasalazine group (OR=3.0). Patients receiving placebo were four times more likely to discontinue treatment because of lack of efficacy than patients receiving sulfasalazine. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Sulfasalazine appears to have a clinically and statistically significant benefit on the disease activity of patients with RA. Its effects on overall health status and radiological progression are not clear at this time, but would appear to be modest.

Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal↗

PubMed2000

Antimalarials for rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the short-term efficacy and toxicity of antimalarials for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group's trials register, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Medline and Embase up to and including July 1997. We also carried out a handsearch of the reference lists of the trials retrieved from the electronic search. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) comparing antimalarials against placebo in patients with RA DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data abstraction was carried out independently by two reviewers. The same two reviewers using Jadad's scale (Jadad 1995) assessed the methodological quality of the RCTs and CCTs. Rheumatoid arthritis outcome measures were extracted from the publications for the 6-month endpoint. The pooled analysis was performed using standardized mean differences for joint counts, pain and global assessments. Weighted mean differences were used for erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR). Toxicity was evaluated with pooled odds ratios for withdrawals. A chi-square test was used to assess heterogeneity among trials. Fixed effects models were used throughout. MAIN RESULTS: We found four trials, with 300 patients randomized to hydrochloroquine and 292 to placebo. Only trials evaluating hydroxychloroquine could be pooled in the analysis. A statistically significant benefit was observed when hydroxychloroquine was compared to placebo. The standardized mean differences for the various outcome measures ranged from -0.33 to -0. 52, and were statistically significant. Statistically significant differences were also observed for ESR. Overall withdrawals and withdrawals due to lack of efficacy were significantly more frequent in the placebo group. No differences were observed in withdrawals due to toxicity. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Hydroxychloroquine appears to be efficacious for the treatment of RA. Its overall effect appears to be moderate, but its low toxicity profile should be considered when treating patients with RA.

Antimalarials↗

PubMed2000

Cyclophosphamide for rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the short-term effects of cyclophosphamide for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group's Register, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Medline and Embase up to and including July 1997. We also carried out a handsearch of the reference lists of the trials retrieved from the electronic search. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) comparing oral cyclophosphamide against placebo (or an active drug at a dosage considered to be ineffective) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data abstraction was carried out independently by two reviewers. The same two reviewers using Jadad's scale (Jadad 1995) assessed the methodological quality of the RCTs and CCTs. Rheumatoid arthritis outcome measures were extracted from the publications for baseline and end-of-study. The pooled analysis was performed using standardized mean differences (SMDs) for joint counts. Weighted mean differences (WMDs) were used for erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR). Toxicity was evaluated with pooled odds ratios for withdrawals. A chi-square test was used to assess heterogeneity among trials. Fixed effects models were used throughout. MAIN RESULTS: A total of 70 patients were included in the pooled analysis of two trials, 31 receiving cyclophosphamide. A statistically significant benefit was observed for cyclophosphamide when compared to placebo for tender and swollen joint scores: SMDs were -0.57 and -0.59 respectively. The difference in ESR also favoured the active drug but did not reach statistical significance (-12 mm, 95%CI: -26 to 2.5). One trial reported the number of patients developing new or worse erosions: the OR for cyclophosphamide compared to placebo was 0.17 (95% CI: 0.05 to 0.57). Patients receiving placebo were six times more likely to discontinue treatment because of lack of efficacy than patients receiving cyclophosphamide. Withdrawals from adverse reactions were higher in the cyclophosphamide group (Odds ratio=2.9), although this difference was not statistically significant. Side effects from cyclophosphamide included hemorrhagic cystitis, nausea, vomiting, leucopenia, thrombocytopenia, alopecia, amenorrhea and herpes zoster infections. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Cyclophosphamide appears to have a clinically and statistically significant benefit on the disease activity of patients with RA, similar to some disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) such as antimalarials or sulfasalazine, but lower than methotrexate. Toxicity however is severe, limiting its use given the low benefit-risk ratio compared to other antirheumatic agents.

Antirheumatic Agents↗

PubMed2000

Penicillamine for rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the short-term effects of D-penicillamine for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group's trials register, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Medline up to and including December 1998 and Embase from 1988-1998. We also carried out a handsearch of the reference lists of the trials retrieved from the electronic search. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomized controlled trials and controlled clinical trials comparing D-penicillamine against placebo in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The methodological quality of the trials was assessed independently by two reviewers (CS, EB) and checked by a third (MS) using a validated quality assessment tool. Rheumatoid arthritis outcome measures were extracted from the publications for the six-month endpoint and stratified according to D-penicillamine dosages: low (<500mg/day), moderate (500 to <1000mg/day) and high (1000 mg/day or greater). Data was abstracted by one reviewer and checked by a second (CS, MS). The pooled analysis was performed using the standardized mean difference for joint counts, pain and global assessments. The weighted mean difference was used for erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR). Toxicity was evaluated with pooled odds ratios for withdrawals and adverse reactions. A chi-square test was used to assess heterogeneity among trials. Fixed effects models were used throughout, since no statistical heterogeneity was found. MAIN RESULTS: Six trials were identified, with 425 patients randomized to D-penacillamine and 258 to placebo. A statistically significant benefit was observed for D-penicillamine when compared to placebo for all three-dose ranges and for most outcome measures including: tender joint counts, pain, physician's global assessments and ESR. The standardized weighted mean differences between treatment and placebo in moderate doses were -0. 51 [95% CI -0.88, -0.14] for tender joint counts, -0.56 (95% CI -0. 87, -0.26) for pain and -0.97 (95% CI -1.25, -0.70) for global assessment. The difference for ESR was -10.6 mm/hr. Similar results were observed for the higher dose group. Total withdrawals were significantly higher in the moderate and high dosage D-penicillamine groups (OR=1.63 and 2.13 respectively), mostly due to increased adverse reactions (OR = 2.60 and 4.95 respectively), including renal and hematological abnormalities. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: D-penicillamine appears to have a clinically and statistically significant benefit on the disease activity of patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Its efficacy appears to be similar to that of other disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs), but with a significantly higher toxicity. Its effects on long-term functional status and radiological progression are not clear from this review.

Antirheumatic Agents↗

PubMed2000

Azathioprine for rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the short-term effects of azathioprine for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group's trials register, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Medline up to and including July 1998 and Embase from 1988-1998. We also carried out a handsearch of the reference lists of the trials retrieved from the electronic search. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomized controlled trials and controlled clinical trials comparing azathioprine against placebo in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data was extracted independently by two reviewers (CS, EB); disagreements were resolved by discussion or third party adjudication (MS). The same reviewers (CS, EB) assessed the methodological quality of the trials using a validated quality assessment tool. Rheumatoid arthritis outcome measures were extracted from the publications for the six-month endpoint. The pooled analysis was performed using standardized mean differences for joint counts, pain and functional status assessments. Weighted mean differences were used for erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR). Toxicity was evaluated with pooled odds ratios for withdrawals and for adverse reactions. The 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) are presented. A chi-square test was used to assess heterogeneity among trials. Fixed effects models were used throughout, since no statistical heterogeneity was found. MAIN RESULTS: Three trials with a total of 81 patients were included in the analysis. Forty patients were randomized to azathioprine and forty-one to placebo. A pooled estimate was calculated for two outcomes. A statistically significant benefit was observed for azathioprine when compared to placebo for tender joint scores. The standardized weighted mean difference between treatment and placebo was -0.98 (95% CI -1.45, -0.50). Withdrawals from adverse reactions were significantly higher in the azathioprine group OR=4.56 (95% CI 1.16, 17.85). REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Azathioprine appears to have a statistically significant benefit on the disease activity in joints of patients with RA. This evidence however is based on a small number of patients, included in older trials. Its effects on long-term functional status and radiological progression were not assessed due to lack of data. Toxicity is shown to be higher and more serious than that observed with other disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs). Given this high risk to benefit ratio, there is no evidence to recommend the use of azathioprine over other DMARDs.

Antirheumatic Agents↗

PubMed2000

Auranofin versus placebo in rheumatoid arthritis.

BACKGROUND: Auranofin is an oral gold compound used for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis RA. The use of auranofin has declined in the past few years, perhaps due in part to conflicting results from different studies. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the short-term efficacy and toxicity of auranofin for the treatment of (RA) SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE up to December 1998, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (CCTR) version 4, 1998, and the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group Specialized Register. A hand search was also done of the reference lists of the trials retrieved from the electronic search. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) comparing auranofin against placebo in patients with RA DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The methodological quality of the trials was assessed using a validated assessment tool (Jadad 1996). Rheumatoid arthritis outcome measures were extracted from the publications for the 6-month endpoint. The pooled analysis was performed using standardized mean differences (SMDs) for joint counts, pain and global assessments. The weighted mean difference (WMD) was used for ESR. Toxicity was evaluated with pooled odds ratios for withdrawals and adverse reactions. A chi-square test was used to assess heterogeneity among trials. In the presence of heterogeneity, random effects models were used. Otherwise, the data was pooled assuming fixed effects. MAIN RESULTS: A statistically significant benefit was observed for auranofin when compared to placebo for tender joint scores, pain, patient and physician global assessments and ESR. The SMD between treatment and placebo was -0.39 (95% CI -0.54, -0.25) for tender joint scores, -0.08 (95% CI -0.22, -0.07) for swollen joint scores, and the WMD was -4.68 (95% CI -6.59, -2.77) for pain scores and -9.85mm (95% CI -16.46, -3.25) for ESR. Withdrawals from adverse reactions were 1.5 times higher in the auranofin group OR = 1.52 (95% CI 0.94, 2.46) but this result was not statistically significant. Patients receiving placebo were three times more likely to discontinue treatment because of lack of efficacy than patients receiving auranofin: OR=0.31 (95% CI: 0.21, 0.44). REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Auranofin appears to have a small clinically and statistically significant benefit on the disease activity of patients with RA. The beneficial effects appear to be modest compared to drugs such as methotrexate or parenteral gold. Its effects on long term health status and radiological progression are not clear at this time.

Antirheumatic Agents↗

PubMed2000

Identifying clinical trials in the medical literature with electronic databases: MEDLINE alone is not enough.

The objective of this study was to compare the performance of MEDLINE and EMBASE for the identification of articles regarding controlled clinical trials (CCTs) published in English and related to selected topics: rheumatoid arthritis (RA), osteoporosis (OP), and low back pain (LBP). MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched for literature published in 1988 and 1994. The initial selection of papers was then reviewed to confirm that the articles were about CCTs and to assess the quality of the studies. Selected journals were also hand searched to identify CCTs not retrieved by either database. Overall, 4111 different references were retrieved (2253 for RA, 978 for OP, and 880 for LBP); 3418 (83%) of the papers were in English. EMBASE retrieved 78% more references than MEDLINE (2895 versus 1625). Overall, 1217 (30%) of the papers were retrieved by both databases. Two hundred forty-three papers were about CCTs. Two-thirds of these were retrieved by both databases, and one-third by only one. An additional 16 CCTs not retrieved by either database were identified through hand searching. Taking these into account, EMBASE retrieved 16% more CCTs than MEDLINE (220 versus 188); the EMBASE search identified 85% of the CCTs compared to 73% by MEDLINE. No significant differences were observed in the mean quality scores and sample size of the CCTs missed by MEDLINE compared to those missed by EMBASE. Our findings suggest that the use of MEDLINE alone to identify CCTs is inadequate. The use of two or more databases and hand searching of selected journals are needed to perform a comprehensive search.

Controlled Clinical Trials as Topic↗

PubMed2000

Mortality and institutionalization following hip fracture.

OBJECTIVES: To identify determinants of mortality and institutionalization after hip fracture and to identify those older hip fracture patients at high risk of death or institutionalization after hip fracture. DESIGN: Population-based prospective inception cohort study of hip fracture patients; patients were assessed in the hospital and at 3 months following the hip fracture. SETTING: Edmonton area hip fracture patients admitted to one of two Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, acute care centers between July 10, 1996, and August 31, 1997. PARTICIPANTS: Patients were residents of the Edmonton area and over the age of 64. Those who had previously fractured the same hip within the past 5 years or had some pathological condition underlying the hip fracture were excluded. Of 610 eligible patients, 558 contributed some baseline information and were included in the mortality analysis; the institutionalization analysis was restricted to the 338 patients who lived in the community before fracture, survived the 3-month period postfracture, and had completed a 3-month follow-up interview. MEASUREMENTS: The baseline interview was done in the hospital to assess mental status, prefracture physical function, prefracture health perception, and prefracture social support. The 3-month follow-up interview was done by phone to assess physical function, health perception, and social support 3 months postfracture. Demographic and comorbidity information was collected from medical records. RESULTS: Low mental status in hospital was found to increase the chances of mortality and institutionalization, and male gender was found to increase mortality risk fourfold. Each additional 10 years of age increased the risk of institutionalization approximately 2.5 times. Patients with lower postfracture physical function had at least five times the risk of institutionalization compared to patients with high postfracture physical function. CONCLUSIONS: Cognitive impairment, older age, and gender were associated with increased risk of poor outcome following hip fracture. The socioeconomic variables--social support and health perception--did not contribute significant additional information in explaining mortality or institutionalization risk. While demographic factors cannot be modified, physical function 3 months postfracture may be amenable to intervention and may reduce the risk of institutionalization. Intervening to increase postfracture physical function may be particularly beneficial to older patients, or to those who are cognitively impaired.

Aged↗

PubMed1998

Utilization and predictive value of laboratory tests in patients referred to rheumatologists by primary care physicians.

OBJECTIVE: Antinuclear antibodies (ANA), rheumatoid factors (RF), and erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) are among the most frequently requested tests in the diagnosis and investigation of connective tissue diseases (CTD). We evaluate the utilization patterns and predictive value of these tests in patients referred to rheumatologists by primary care physicians. METHODS: We reviewed the records of all new patients referred by primary care physicians in 1994 to 2 rheumatologists practicing at the University of Alberta. Data extracted from the records included diagnostic tests requested by referring primary care physicians, signs and symptoms at the initial rheumatology consult, and followup diagnoses. RESULTS: Seven hundred eleven new patients had been referred by over 300 primary care physicians: RF had been requested in 25%, ANA in 21%, and ESR in 29%. One hundred nine (15%) of the 711 patients had a CTD, 45 (6%) had rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and 8 (1%) systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). The predictive values of positive tests for the diagnosis of CTD were low: 49% for RF, 29% for ANA, and 35% for ESR. For RA, the positive predictive values were 44% for RF, 8% for ANA, 17% for ESR; for SLE, 2, 12, and 3%, respectively. Diffuse musculoskeletal pain and fatigue were significantly associated with test utilization, although most patients with these symptoms had fibromyalgia or localized soft tissue rheumatism. CONCLUSION: Primary care physicians frequently requested autoantibodies in patients referred to rheumatologists. Most tests were negative, and were often requested in patients without CTD, resulting in low positive predictive values and questionable clinical utility. These findings suggest inappropriate overuse and lack of understanding of the use of autoantibody tests in diagnosing rheumatic diseases. A decrease in inappropriate use could be achieved by emphasizing that fatigue and diffuse musculoskeletal pain are not indicative of CTD in the absence of other features such as joint swelling, typical rash, or organ involvement.

Adult↗

PubMed1997

Use of lumbar radiographs for the early diagnosis of low back pain. Proposed guidelines would increase utilization.

OBJECTIVE: The Agency for Health Care Policy and Research (AHCPR) has recently published guidelines for the management of patients with acute low back pain, which include recommendations for the use of lumbar radiographs, based on the identification of "red flags" for fractures, tumors, or infections. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the potential impact of these guidelines in patients with new episodes of low back pain seen in primary care settings. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Four family clinics (18 physicians) in Edmonton, Alberta. PATIENTS: The records of all patients seen in 1992 and 1993 with a new episode of low back pain were reviewed: 963 patients had a history of back pain of less than 3 months. OUTCOME MEASURES: Lumbar radiograph utilization at the initial low back pain visit. Charts were also reviewed to determine subsequent occurrence of spinal tumors, infection, or fractures that could be related to low back pain. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-seven (13%) of the 963 patients with acute low back pain had lumbar radiographs during their first visit, 68 (54%) with oblique views. If the AHCPR guidelines had been applied to this population, 426 (44%) of the patients would have undergone radiography, increasing current utilization by 238%. Eight of the 963 patients had a diagnosis of fracture or bone tumor during follow-up. The sensitivity of the guidelines to potentially detect these diseases was higher than the physicians' utilization patterns, but their specificity and positive predictive values were low. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of the AHCPR guidelines for the initial use of radiographs in patients with low back pain may increase utilization and economic costs. A more restricted and cost-efficient set of guidelines should be proposed.

Alberta↗