Biomedical subjects

N Bellamy

Publications and source records attributed to N Bellamy.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2006

Speed enforcement detection devices for preventing road traffic injuries.

BACKGROUND: It is estimated that by 2020, road traffic crashes will have moved from ninth to third in the world ranking of burden of disease, as measured in disability adjusted life years. The identification of effective strategies for the prevention of road traffic injuries is of global public health importance. Measures aimed at reducing traffic speed are considered essential to preventing road injuries; the use of speed enforcement detection devices (including speed cameras and radar and laser devices) is one such measure. OBJECTIVES: To assess whether the use of speed enforcement detection devices (SEDs) reduces the incidence of speeding, road traffic crashes, injuries and deaths. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Injuries Group's Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science (and Social Science) Citation Index, TRANSPORT, PsycINFO, CINAHL, EconLit. We searched the websites of road safety and motoring associations, as well as general internet searches. We handsearched selected journals and conference proceedings, and contacted experts in the field. The searches were conducted during May to November 2004. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials and controlled before-after studies that assessed the impact of speed enforcement detection devices on speeding, road crashes, injuries and deaths were eligible for inclusion. For studies involving co-interventions, SEDs had to be the major intervention focus of the study to be eligible. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We independently screened search results, assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed methodological quality. Due to variability between and within included studies, a pooled analysis was not appropriate. MAIN RESULTS: No randomised controlled trials were identified. Twenty-six studies met the inclusion criteria, of which 22 were controlled before-after trials incorporating a distinct control or comparison group(s) and four were interrupted time series designs with a comparison group(s). Fourteen studies reported speed and crash outcomes, seven reported crash outcomes only and five reported speed outcomes only. All but one study reported an absolute reduction in pre/post average speeds. A pre/post reduction in the proportion of speeding vehicles ranged across studies from 5% to 70% depending on the speed threshold set. Pre/post reductions of 50% to 65% were reported in the proportion of speeding vehicles travelling >15 km/h over the speed limit. Compared with controls, the relative improvement was from 1% to 15% for average speed and from 14% to 65% for percent speeding. All studies reporting crash outcomes reported an absolute pre/post reduction in all crashes and injury related crashes. In the vicinity of camera sites these pre/post reductions ranged from 14% to 72% for all crashes, 8% to 46% for injury crashes, and 40% to 45% for crashes resulting in fatalities or serious injuries. More generalised effects over wider areas showed an absolute pre/post crash reduction ranging from 9% to 35%, 7% to 30% for all injury crashes and 13% to 58% for crashes resulting in fatalities alone, or in combination with serious injuries. The studies of longer duration showed that these positive trends were either maintained or improved with time. Compared with controls, the relative improvement in pre/post crash numbers resulting in any type of injury ranged from 5% to 36%. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Despite the methodological limitations of the studies reviewed, the consistency of reported positive reductions in speed and crash outcomes across all studies suggest that SEDs are a promising intervention for reducing the number of road traffic injuries and deaths. More studies of a scientifically rigorous nature are necessary to provide a stronger evidence base that these interventions are worthwhile. There is a need for international harmonisation of data collection methods, including standards on how best to measure speeds and collect crash data, over lengthy intervention and follow-up periods, as well as some consensus as to the expression of outcomes in studies, so that studies can be compared.

Accident Prevention↗

PubMed2006

Viscosupplementation for the treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee.

BACKGROUND: Osteoarthritis (OA) is the most prevalent chronic joint disorder worldwide and is associated with significant pain and disability. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of viscosupplementation in the treatment of OA of the knee. The products were hyaluronan and hylan derivatives (Adant, Arthrum H, Artz (Artzal, Supartz), BioHy (Arthrease, Euflexxa, Nuflexxa), Durolane, Fermathron, Go-On, Hyalgan, Hylan G-F 20 (Synvisc Hylan G-F 20), Hyruan, NRD-101 (Suvenyl), Orthovisc, Ostenil, Replasyn, SLM-10, Suplasyn, Synject and Zeel compositum). SEARCH STRATEGY: MEDLINE (up to January (week 1) 2006 for update), EMBASE, PREMEDLINE, Current Contents up to July 2003, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched. Specialised journals and reference lists of identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and pertinent review articles up to December 2005 were handsearched. SELECTION CRITERIA: RCTs of viscosupplementation for the treatment of people with a diagnosis of OA of the knee were eligible. Single and double-blinded studies, placebo-based and comparative studies were eligible. At least one of the four OMERACT III core set outcome measures had to be reported (Bellamy 1997). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Each trial was assessed independently by two reviewers for its methodological quality using a validated tool. All data were extracted by one reviewer and verified by a second reviewer . Continuous outcome measures were analysed as weighted mean differences (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). However, where different scales were used to measure the same outcome, standardized mean differences (SMD) were used. Dichotomous outcomes were analyzed by relative risk (RR). MAIN RESULTS: Seventy-six trials with a median quality score of 3 (range 1 to 5) were identified. Follow-up periods varied between day of last injection and eighteen months. Forty trials included comparisons of hyaluronan/hylan and placebo (saline or arthrocentesis), ten trials included comparisons of intra-articular (IA) corticosteroids, six trials included comparisons of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), three trials included comparisons of physical therapy, two trials included comparisons of exercise, two trials included comparisons of arthroscopy, two trials included comparisons of conventional treatment, and fifteen trials included comparisons of other hyaluronans/hylan. The pooled analyses of the effects of viscosupplements against 'placebo' controls generally supported the efficacy of this class of intervention. In these same analyses, differential efficacy effects were observed for different products on different variables and at different timepoints. Of note is the 5 to 13 week post injection period which showed a percent improvement from baseline of 28 to 54% for pain and 9 to 32% for function. In general, comparable efficacy was noted against NSAIDs and longer-term benefits were noted in comparisons against IA corticosteroids. In general, few adverse events were reported in the hyaluronan/hylan trials included in these analyses. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on the aforementioned analyses, viscosupplementation is an effective treatment for OA of the knee with beneficial effects: on pain, function and patient global assessment; and at different post injection periods but especially at the 5 to 13 week post injection period. It is of note that the magnitude of the clinical effect, as expressed by the WMD and standardised mean difference (SMD) from the RevMan 4.2 output, is different for different products, comparisons, timepoints, variables and trial designs. However, there are few randomised head-to-head comparisons of different viscosupplements and readers should be cautious, therefore, in drawing conclusions regarding the relative value of different products. The clinical effect for some products, against placebo, on some variables at some timepoints is in the moderate to large effect-size range. Readers should refer to relevant tables to review specific detail given the heterogeneity in effects across the product class and some discrepancies observed between the RevMan 4.2 analyses and the original publications. Overall, the analyses performed are positive for the HA class and particularly positive for some products with respect to certain variables and timepoints, such as pain on weight bearing at 5 to 13 weeks postinjection. In general, sample-size restrictions preclude any definitive comment on the safety of the HA class of products; however, within the constraints of the trial designs employed no major safety issues were detected. In some analyses viscosupplements were comparable in efficacy to systemic forms of active intervention, with more local reactions but fewer systemic adverse events. In other analyses HA products had more prolonged effects than IA corticosteroids. Overall, the aforementioned analyses support the use of the HA class of products in the treatment of knee OA.

Humans↗

PubMed2006

Intraarticular corticosteroid for treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee.

BACKGROUND: Osteoarthritis (OA) is a common joint disorder. In the knee, injections of corticosteroids into the joint (intraarticular (IA)) may relieve inflammation, and reduce pain and disability. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of IA corticosteroids in treatment of OA of the knee. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Issue 2, 2003), MEDLINE (to January (week 1) 2006 for update), EMBASE, PREMEDLINE (all to July 2003), and Current Contents (Sept 2000). Specialised journals, trial reference lists and review articles were handsearched. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of IA corticosteroids for patients with OA of the knee: single/double blind, placebo-based/comparative studies, reporting at least one core OMERACT III outcome measure. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Methodological quality of trials was assessed, and data were extracted in duplicate. Fixed effect and random effects models, giving weighted mean differences (WMD), were used for continuous variables. Dichotomous outcomes were analysed by relative risk (RR). MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-eight trials (1973 participants) comparing IA corticosteroid against placebo, against IA hyaluronan/hylan (HA products), against joint lavage, and against other IA corticosteroids, were included.IA corticosteroid was more effective than IA placebo for pain reduction (WMD -21.91; 95% confidence interval (CI) -29.93 to -13.89) and patient global assessment (the RR was 1.44 (95% CI 1.13 to 1.82)) at one week post injection with an NNT of 3 to 4 for both, based on n=185 for pain on 100 mm visual analogue scale (VAS) and n=158 for patient global assessment. Data on function were sparse at one week post injection and neither statistically significant nor clinically important differences were detected. There was evidence of pain reduction between two weeks (the RR was 1.81 (95% CI 1.09 to 3.00)) to three weeks (the RR was 3.11 (95% CI 1.61 to 6.01), but a lack of evidence for efficacy in functional improvement. At four to 24 weeks post injection, there was lack of evidence of effect on pain and function (small studies showed benefits which did not reach statistical or clinical importance, i.e. less than 20% risk difference). For patient global, there were three studies which consistently showed lack of effect longer than one week post injection. However, all were fairly small sample sizes (less than 50 patients per group). This was supported by another study which did not find statistically significant differences, at any time point, on a continuous measure of patient global assessment (100 mm VAS).In comparisons of corticosteroids and HA products, no statistically significant differences were in general detected at one to four weeks post injection. Between five and 13 weeks post injection, HA products were more effective than corticosteroids for one or more of the following variables: WOMAC OA Index, Lequesne Index, pain, range of motion (flexion), and number of responders. One study showed a difference in function between 14 to 26 weeks, but no differences in efficacy were detected at 45 to 52 weeks. In general, the onset of effect was similar with IA corticosteroids, but was less durable than with HA products. Comparisons of IA corticosteroids showed triamcinolone hexacetonide was superior to betamethasone for number of patients reporting pain reduction up to four weeks post injection (the RR was 2.00 (95% CI 1.10 to 3.63). Comparisons between IA corticosteroid and joint lavage showed no differences in any of the efficacy or safety outcome measures. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The short-term benefit of IA corticosteroids in treatment of knee OA is well established, and few side effects have been reported. Longer term benefits have not been confirmed based on the RevMan analysis. The response to HA products appears more durable. In this review, some discrepancies were observed between the RevMan 4.2 analysis and the original publication. These are likely the result of using secondary rather than primary data and the statistical methods available in RevMan 4.2. Future trials should have standardised outcome measures and assessment times, run longer, investigate different patient subgroups, and clinical predictors of response (those associated with inflammation and structural damage).

Adrenal Cortex Hormones↗

PubMed2005

Viscosupplementation for the treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee.

BACKGROUND: Osteoarthritis (OA) is the most prevalent chronic joint disorder worldwide and is associated with significant pain and disability. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of viscosupplementation in the treatment of OA of the knee. The products were hyaluronan and hylan derivatives (Adant, Arthrum H, Artz (Artzal, Supartz), BioHy (Arthrease), Durolane, Fermathron, Go-On, Hyalgan, Hylan G-F 20 (Synvisc Hylan G-F 20), NRD-101, Orthovisc, Ostenil, Replasyn, SLM-10, Suplasyn, Synject and Zeel compositum). SEARCH STRATEGY: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PREMEDLINE, Current Contents up to July 2003, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched. Specialised journals and reference lists of identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and pertinent review articles up to April 2004 were handsearched. SELECTION CRITERIA: RCTs of viscosupplementation for the treatment of people with a diagnosis of OA of the knee were eligible. Single and double-blinded studies, placebo-based and comparative studies were eligible. At least one of the four OMERACT III core set outcome measures had to be reported (Bellamy 1997). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Each trial was assessed independently by two reviewers (NB, JC) for its methodological quality using a validated tool. All data were extracted by one reviewer (JC) and verified by a second reviewer (VR). Continuous outcome measures were analysed as weighted mean differences (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Dichotomous outcomes were analyzed by relative risk (RR). MAIN RESULTS: Sixty-three trials with a median quality score of 3 (range 1 to 5) were identified. Follow-up periods varied between day of last injection and one year. Thirty-seven trials included comparisons of hyaluronan/hylan and placebo, nine trials included comparisons of intra-articular (IA) corticosteroids, and five trials included comparisons of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). The pooled analyses of the effects of viscosupplements against 'placebo' controls generally supported the efficacy of this class of intervention. In these same analyses, differential efficacy effects were observed for different products on different variables and at different timepoints. Of note is the 5 to 13 week post injection period which showed a percent improvement from baseline of 11 to 54% for pain and 9 to 15% for function. In general, comparable efficacy was noted against NSAIDs and longer-term benefits were noted in comparisons against IA corticosteroids. In general, few adverse events were reported in the hyaluronan/hylan trials included in these analyses. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on the aforementioned analyses, viscosupplementation is an effective treatment for OA of the knee with beneficial effects: on pain, function and patient global assessment; and at different post injection periods but especially at the 5 to 13 week post injection period. It is of note that based on non-randomised groups, the magnitude of the clinical effect, as expressed by the WMD and standardised mean difference (SMD) from the RevMan 4.1 output, is different for different products, comparisons, timepoints, variables and trial designs. However, there are few randomised head-to-head comparisons of different viscosupplements and readers should be cautious, therefore, in drawing conclusions regarding the relative value of different products. The clinical effect for some products, against placebo, on some variables at some timepoints is in the moderate to large effect-size range. Readers should refer to relevant tables to review specific detail given the heterogeneity in effects across the product class and some discrepancies observed between the RevMan 4.1 analyses and the original publications. Overall, the analyses performed are positive for the HA class and particularly positive for some products with respect to certain variables and timepoints, such as pain on weight bearing at 5 to 13 weeks postinjection. In general, sample-size restrictions preclude any definitive comment on the safety of the HA class of products; however, within the constraints of the trial designs employed no major safety issues were detected. In some analyses viscosupplements were comparable in efficacy to systemic forms of active intervention, with more local reactions but fewer systemic adverse events. In other analyses HA products had more prolonged effects than IA corticosteroids. Overall, the aforementioned analyses support the use of the HA class of products in the treatment of knee OA.

Humans↗

PubMed2005

Intraarticular corticosteroid for treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee.

BACKGROUND: Osteoarthritis (OA) is a common joint disorder. In the knee, injections of corticosteroids into the joint (intra-articular (IA)) may relieve inflammation, and reduce pain and disability. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of IA corticosteroids in treatment of OA of the knee. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Issue 2, 2003), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PREMEDLINE (all to July 2003), and Current Contents (Sept 2000). Specialised journals, trial reference lists and review articles were handsearched. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of IA corticosteroids for patients with OA of the knee: single/double blind, placebo-based/comparative studies, reporting at least one core OMERACT III outcome measure. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Methodological quality of trials was assessed, and data were extracted in duplicate. Fixed effect and random effects models, giving weighted mean differences (WMD), were used for continuous variables. Dichotomous outcomes were analysed by relative risk (RR). MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-six trials (1721 participants) comparing IA corticosteroid against placebo, against IA hyaluronan/hylan (HA products), against joint lavage, and against other IA corticosteroids, were included.IA corticosteroid was more effective than IA placebo for pain reduction (WMD -17.79; 95% confidence interval (CI) -25.02 to -10.55) and patient global assessment (the RR was 1.44 (95% CI 1.13 to 1.82)) at one week post injection with an NNT of 3 to 4 for both, based on n=185 for pain on 100 mm visual analogue scale (VAS) and n=158 for patient global assessment. Data on function were sparse at one week post injection and neither statistically significant nor clinically important differences were detected. There was evidence of pain reduction between two weeks (the RR was 1.81 (95% CI 1.09 to 3.00)) to three weeks (the RR was 3.11 (95% CI 1.61 to 6.01), but a lack of evidence for efficacy in functional improvement. At four to 24 weeks post injection, there was lack of evidence of effect on pain and function (small studies showed benefits which did not reach statistical or clinical importance, i.e. less than 20% risk difference). For patient global, there were three studies which consistently showed lack of effect longer than one week post injection. However, all were fairly small sample sizes (less than 50 patients per group). This was supported by another study which did not find statistically significant differences, at any time point, on a continuous measure of patient global assessment (100 mm VAS). In comparisons of corticosteroids and HA products, no statistically significant differences were in general detected at one to four weeks post injection. Between five and 13 weeks post injection, HA products were more effective than corticosteroids for one or more of the following variables: WOMAC OA Index, Lequesne Index, pain, range of motion (flexion), and number of responders. One study showed a difference in function between 14 to 26 weeks, but no differences in efficacy were detected at 45 to 52 weeks. In general, the onset of effect was similar with IA corticosteroids, but was less durable than with HA products. Comparisons of IA corticosteroids showed triamcinolone hexacetonide was superior to betamethasone for number of patients reporting pain reduction up to four weeks post injection (the RR was 2.00 (95% CI 1.10 to 3.63). Comparisons between IA corticosteroid and joint lavage showed no differences in any of the efficacy or safety outcome measures. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The short-term benefit of IA corticosteroids in treatment of knee OA is well established, and few side effects have been reported. Longer term benefits have not been confirmed based on the RevMan analysis. The response to HA products appears more durable. In this review, some discrepancies were observed between the RevMan 4.1 analysis and the original publication. These are likely the result of using secondary rather than primary data and the statistical methods available in RevMan 4.1. Future trials should have standardised outcome measures and assessment times, run longer, investigate different patient subgroups, and clinical predictors of response (those associated with inflammation and structural damage).

Adrenal Cortex Hormones↗

PubMed2005

Effectiveness and safety of repeat courses of hylan G-F 20 in patients with knee osteoarthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness and safety of repeat treatment with hylan G-F 20 based on data from a randomized, controlled trial [Raynauld JP, Torrance GW, Band PA, Goldsmith CH, Tugwell P, Walker V, et al. A prospective, randomized, pragmatic, health outcomes trial evaluating the incorporation of hylan G-F 20 into the treatment paradigm for patients with knee osteoarthritis (Part 1 of 2): clinical results. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2002;10:506-17]. The hypotheses tested were whether the single-course and repeat-course subgroups would be superior to appropriate care and not different from each other. METHOD: A total of 255 patients with knee osteoarthritis were randomized to "appropriate care with hylan G-F 20" or "appropriate care without hylan G-F 20". The hylan G-F 20 group was partitioned into two subgroups: (1) patients who received a single course of hylan G-F 20; and (2) patients who received two or more courses of hylan G-F 20. RESULTS: For the primary effectiveness measure, change in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain score as a percent of baseline, the single-course subgroup improved by 41%, the repeat-course subgroup by 35%, and the appropriate care group by 14%. Both subgroups improved significantly more than the appropriate care group (P<0.05), and were not statistically significantly different from each other (70% power to detect a 20% difference). Secondary effectiveness measures showed similar results. In the repeat-course subgroup, no statistically significant differences were found in the number of local adverse events, the number of patients with local adverse events, or arthrocentesis rates between the first and repeat courses of treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Although the study was neither designed nor powered to examine repeat treatment, this a posteriori analysis provides support for a favorable effectiveness and safety profile of hylan G-F 20 in repeat course patients.

Analgesics↗

PubMed2005

Performance of the Norwegian version of AUSCAN--a disease-specific measure of hand osteoarthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the performance of the Norwegian version of the AUSCAN Index as a disease-specific health status measure in patients with hand osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: One hundred and ninety-nine patients with clinical hand OA (mean (SD) age 61.7 (5.7) years, 18 (9%) males) underwent a comprehensive examination including joint status, examination of grip strength and completion of several self-reported health status questionnaires. The Australian/Canadian OA hand index (AUSCAN) captures three different dimensions of hand OA: pain (5 items), stiffness (1 item), and difficulties with daily activities (9 items). Our pre-study hypothesis was to identify AUSCAN as a specific hand measure with strong correlations to hand measures and lower correlations to other general measures of health. RESULTS: Patient completion of the AUSCAN Index was similar or better than other measures. The internal consistency of the AUSCAN was excellent. The pain and physical dimension of AUSCAN correlated substantially to each other and moderately to the stiffness scale. The AUSCAN physical scale correlated moderately to substantially to other measures, the highest correlation being seen with the Arthritis Impact Measurement Scale (AIMS) 2 hand and finger function scale (r=0.73). The standardised differences between patients with and without radiographic abnormalities were numerically larger for the AUSCAN pain and physical scales than for other measures. CONCLUSION: The Norwegian version of the AUSCAN has an acceptable clinimetric performance and is a suitable tool for assessment of hand OA.

Activities of Daily Living↗

PubMed2005

Using patients' and rheumatologists' opinions to specify a short form of the WOMAC function subscale.

BACKGROUND: The WOMAC (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities) function subscale is widely used in clinical trials of hip and knee osteoarthritis. Reducing the number of items of the subscale would enhance efficiency and compliance, particularly for use in clinical practice applications. OBJECTIVE: To develop a short form of the WOMAC function subscale based on patients' and experts' opinions (WOMAC function short form). METHODS: WOMAC function subscale data (Likert version) were obtained from 1218 outpatients with painful hip or knee osteoarthritis. These patients and their rheumatologists selected the five items that they considered most in need of improvement. The rheumatologists were asked to select the five items for which patients in general are the most impaired. Items that were least important to patients and experts, those with a high proportion of missing data, and those with a response distribution showing a floor or ceiling response were excluded, along with one of a pair of items with a correlation coefficient >0.75. RESULTS: The WOMAC function short form included items 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 15 of the long form. The short form did not differ substantially from the long form in responsiveness (standardised response mean of 0.84 v 0.80). CONCLUSIONS: A short form of the WOMAC function subscale was developed according to the views of patients and rheumatologists, based on the responses of 1218 patients and 399 rheumatologists. The clinical relevance and applicability of this WOMAC function subscale short form require further evaluation.

Activities of Daily Living↗

PubMed2005

Science of assessment.

Psoriatic arthritis is a multisystem disorder which, from a measurement standpoint, demands consideration of its cutaneous manifestations and both axial and peripheral musculoskeletal involvement. Measurements of various aspects of impairment, ability/disability, and participation/handicap are feasible using existing measurement techniques, which are for the most part valid, reliable, and responsive. Nevertheless, there remain opportunities for the further development of consensus around core set measures and responder criteria, as well as for instrument development and refinement, standardised assessor training, cross-cultural adaptation of health status questionnaires, electronic data capture, and the introduction of standardised quantitative measurement into routine clinical care.

Arthritis, Psoriatic↗

PubMed2004

Evaluation of WOMAC 20, 50, 70 response criteria in patients treated with hylan G-F 20 for knee osteoarthritis.

OBJECTIVE: A secondary analysis of a previously conducted one year randomised controlled trial to evaluate the capacity of responder criteria based on the WOMAC index to detect between treatment group differences. METHODS: 255 patients with knee osteoarthritis were randomised to "appropriate care with hylan G-F 20" (AC+H) or "appropriate care without hylan G-F 20" (AC). In the original analysis, two definitions of patient response from baseline to month 12 were used: (1) at least a 20% reduction in WOMAC pain score (WOMAC 20P); (2) at least a 20% reduction in WOMAC pain score and at least a 20% reduction in either WOMAC function or stiffness score (WOMAC 20PFS). For this analysis, a responder was identified using 50% and 70% minimum clinically important response levels to investigate how increasing response affects the ability to detect treatment group differences. RESULTS: The hylan G-F 20 group had numerically more responders using all patient responder criteria. Increasing the response level from 20% to 50% detected similar differences between treatment groups (25% to 29%). Increasing the response level to 70% reduced the differences between treatment groups (11% to 12%) to a point where the differences were not significant after Bonferroni adjustment. CONCLUSIONS: These results provide evidence for incorporating response levels (WOMAC 50) in clinical trials. While differences at the highest threshold (WOMAC 70) were not statistically detectable, an appropriately powered study may be capable of detecting differences even at this very high level of improvement.

Aged↗

PubMed2004

Alcohol ignition interlock programmes for reducing drink driving recidivism.

BACKGROUND: An ignition interlock device is part of a multi-dimensional programme aimed at reducing recidivism in convicted drink drivers. To operate a vehicle equipped with an ignition interlock device, the driver must first provide a breath specimen. If the breath alcohol concentration of the specimen exceeds the predetermined level, the vehicle will not start. As a measure to reduce circumvention of the device (i.e. someone else blows into the mouthpiece), random retests are required while the vehicle is running. Other components of the drink driving programme include information seminars for the driver and downloading data from the device's data logger, which logs all test attempts and records all passes, warnings and failures. OBJECTIVES: To systematically assess the effectiveness of ignition interlock programmes on recidivism rates of drink drivers, by examining rates of recidivism while the ignition interlock device was installed in the vehicle and after removal of the device. SEARCH STRATEGY: The Cochrane Controlled Trials Register was searched, in addition to relevant electronic databases and the Internet. SELECTION CRITERIA: Controlled trials in which offenders have been charged with drink driving and have either been sentenced to participate in an ignition interlock programme or the usual punishment (either licence suspension or some form of treatment programme). This study was not restricted by language or status of publication. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: One randomised controlled trial (RCT) and ten controlled trials were identified, and also three ongoing trials. Data regarding recidivism while the interlock is installed in the vehicle; after the interlock has been removed from the vehicle and total recidivism during the study were extracted and entered into analyses using RevMan. MAIN RESULTS: The RCT showed that the interlock programme was effective while the device was installed in the vehicle; relative risk 0.36 (95% confidence interval 0.21 to 0.63). Controlled trials support this conclusion, with a general trend - in both first-time and repeat offenders - towards lower recidivism rates when the interlock device is installed. Neither the RCT nor the controlled trials provide evidence for any effectiveness of the programmes continuing once the device has been removed. REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS: In order to eliminate potential selection bias, more RCTs need to be conducted in this area so that effectiveness, as well as efficacy, can be ascertained. The interlock programme appears to be effective while the device is installed in the vehicle of the offender. Studies need to address ways of improving recidivism rates in the long term, as the major challenges are participation rates, compliance and durability.

Alcohol Drinking↗

PubMed2004

Validation and patient acceptance of a computer touch screen version of the WOMAC 3.1 osteoarthritis index.

OBJECTIVES: To validate the WOMAC 3.1 in a touch screen computer format, which applies each question as a cartoon in writing and in speech (QUALITOUCH method), and to assess patient acceptance of the computer touch screen version. METHODS: The paper and computer formats of WOMAC 3.1 were applied in random order to 53 subjects with hip or knee osteoarthritis. The mean age of the subjects was 64 years (range 45 to 83), 60% were male, 53% were 65 years or older, and 53% used computers at home or at work. Agreement between formats was assessed by intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Preferences were assessed with a supplementary questionnaire. RESULTS: ICCs between formats were 0.92 (95% confidence interval, 0.87 to 0.96) for pain; 0.94 (0.90 to 0.97) for stiffness, and 0.96 (0.94 to 0.98) for function. ICCs were similar in men and women, in subjects with or without previous computer experience, and in subjects below or above age 65. The computer format was found easier to use by 26% of the subjects, the paper format by 8%, and 66% were undecided. Overall, 53% of subjects preferred the computer format, while 9% preferred the paper format, and 38% were undecided. CONCLUSION: The computer format of the WOMAC 3.1 is a reliable assessment tool. Agreement between computer and paper formats was independent of computer experience, age, or sex. Thus the computer format may help improve patient follow up by meeting patients' preferences and providing immediate results.

Adult↗

PubMed2004

Evaluation of clinically relevant changes in patient reported outcomes in knee and hip osteoarthritis: the minimal clinically important improvement.

BACKGROUND: In clinical trials, at the group level, results are usually reported as mean and standard deviation of the change in score, which is not meaningful for most readers. OBJECTIVE: To determine the minimal clinically important improvement (MCII) of pain, patient's global assessment of disease activity, and functional impairment in patients with knee and hip osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: A prospective multicentre 4 week cohort study involving 1362 outpatients with knee or hip OA was carried out. Data on assessment of pain and patient's global assessment, measured on visual analogue scales, and functional impairment, measured on the Western Ontario McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) function subscale, were collected at baseline and final visits. Patients assessed their response to treatment on a five point Likert scale at the final visit. An anchoring method based on the patient's opinion was used. The MCII was estimated in a subgroup of 814 patients (603 with knee OA, 211 with hip OA). RESULTS: For knee and hip OA, MCII for absolute (and relative) changes were, respectively, (a) -19.9 mm (-40.8%) and -15.3 mm (-32.0%) for pain; (b) -18.3 mm (-39.0%) and -15.2 mm (-32.6%) for patient's global assessment; (c) -9.1 (-26.0%) and -7.9 (-21.1%) for WOMAC function subscale score. The MCII is affected by the initial degree of severity of the symptoms but not by age, disease duration, or sex. CONCLUSION: Using criteria such as MCII in clinical trials would provide meaningful information which would help in interpreting the results by expressing them as a proportion of improved patients.

Adult↗

PubMed2004

Evaluation of clinically relevant states in patient reported outcomes in knee and hip osteoarthritis: the patient acceptable symptom state.

BACKGROUND: The patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) is the value beyond which patients can consider themselves well. This concept can help in interpreting results of clinical trials. OBJECTIVE: To determine the PASS estimate for patients with knee and hip osteoarthritis (OA) by assessing pain, patient's global assessment of disease activity, and functional impairment. METHODS: A 4 week prospective multicentre cohort study of 1362 outpatients with knee or hip OA was carried out. Data on assessment of pain and patient's global assessment of disease, measured on visual analogue scales, and functional impairment, measured on the Western Ontario McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) function subscale, were collected at baseline and final visits. The patients assessed their satisfaction with their current state at the final visit. An anchoring method based on the patient's opinion was used. RESULTS: For patients with knee and hip OA, the estimates of PASS were, respectively, 32.3 and 35.0 mm for pain, 32.0 and 34.6 mm for patient global assessment of disease activity, and 31.0 and 34.4 points for WOMAC function score. The PASS varied moderately across the tertiles of baseline scores but not across age, disease duration, or sex. CONCLUSION: The use of PASS in clinical trials would provide more meaningful results expressed as a proportion of patients in an acceptable symptom state.

Adult↗

PubMed2004

Excitatory amino acid inhibitors for traumatic brain injury.

BACKGROUND: Glutamate is the principal excitatory neurotransmitter in the brain. Injury to the brain can cause an ionic imbalance in cerebral tissue, creating an excitotoxic cascade involving glutamate and other excitatory amino acids, that leads to neuronal death in the tissue surrounding the original injury site. Research has centred around inhibiting this increase in excitatory amino acid during injury either pre- or post-synaptically. Animal studies appeared promising, but as yet, those results have not been repeated in human clinical trials. OBJECTIVES: To assess systematically the efficacy of excitatory amino acid inhibitors on improving patient outcome following traumatic brain injury. SEARCH STRATEGY: Online searches of the databases; CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, IDdb3, and Science Citation Index. Online searches of clinical trial registers. General online searches of the Internet. Authors of published works and associated pharmaceutical companies were contacted. SELECTION CRITERIA: Trials were included if they were randomised, double-blind, controlled trials where excitatory amino acid inhibitors were administered to patients with traumatic brain injury, within 24 hours of sustaining that injury, and compared to a control group. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Twelve trials, involving eight compounds, were identified that appeared to fit the inclusion criteria. Further investigation excluded three of these trials. Two of the remaining trials are ongoing. Of the seven included studies, one trial did not report GOS data and we were unable to acquire them. Three trials have not been published and the data were not made available to us. One trial is currently being prepared for publication, leaving two trials where data were available. Data were extracted by two independent reviewers. MAIN RESULTS: Data were available for two of the seven relevant trials identified, with 760 recruited participants. Mortality is similar between patients who receive excitatory amino acid inhibitors and those that receive placebo: odds ratio (OR) 1.11; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78, 1.60. Patients who have a favourable outcome six months after injury are also similar between treatment and placebo groups: OR 0.86; 95% CI 0.64, 1.16. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: The case for efficacy of excitatory amino acid inhibitor therapy remains unproven. To date, no product has proven to be efficacious (as determined by the criteria applied) for improving the outcomes of brain-injured patients. Early termination, unpublished, and underpowered studies limit a clear appreciation of the merits of this form of intervention. Additional studies, some of which remain in progress, may more clearly define the efficacy and effectiveness issues.

Brain Injuries↗

PubMed2004

OMERACT-OARSI initiative: Osteoarthritis Research Society International set of responder criteria for osteoarthritis clinical trials revisited.

BACKGROUND: The OARSI Standing Committee for Clinical Trials Response Criteria Initiative had developed two sets of responder criteria to present the results of changes after treatment in three symptomatic domains (pain, function, and patient's global assessment) as a single variable for clinical trials (1). For each domain, a response was defined by both a relative and an absolute change, with different cut-offs with regard to the drug, the route of administration and the OA localization. OBJECTIVE: To propose a simplified set of responder criteria with a similar cut-off, whatever the drug, the route or the OA localization. METHODS: Data driven approach: (1) Two databases were considered: the "elaboration" database with which the formal OARSI sets of responder criteria were elaborated, and the "revisit" database. (2) Six different scenarios were evaluated: The two formal OARSI sets of criteria; Four proposed scenarios of simplified sets of criteria. Data from clinical randomized blinded placebo controlled trials were used to evaluate the performances of the two formal scenarios with two different databases ("elaboration" versus "revisit") and those of the four proposed simplified scenarios within the "revisit" database. The placebo effect, active effect, treatment effect, and the required sample arm size to obtain the placebo effect and the active treatment effect observed were the performances evaluated for each of the six scenarios. Experts' opinion approach: Results were discussed among the participants of the OMERACT VI meeting, who voted to select the definite OMERACT-OARSI set of criteria (one of the six evaluated scenarios). RESULTS: Data driven approach: Fourteen trials totaling 1886 OA patients and fifteen studies involving 8164 OA patients were evaluated in the "elaboration"and the "revisit" databases respectively. The variability of the performances observed in the "revisit" database when using the different simplified scenarios was similar to that observed between the two databases ("elaboration" versus "revisit") when using the formal scenarios. The treatment effect and the required sample arm size were similar for each set of criteria. Experts' opinion approach: According to the experts, these two previous performances were the most important of an optimal set of responder criteria. They chose the set of criteria considering both pain and function as evaluation domain and requiring an absolute change and a relative change from baseline to define a response, with similar cut-offs whatever the drug, the route of administration or the OA localization. CONCLUSION: This data driven and experts' opinion approach is the basis for proposing an optimal simplified set of responder criteria for OA clinical trials. Other studies, using other sets of OA patients, are required in order to further validate this proposed OMERACT-OARSI set of criteria.

Clinical Trials as Topic↗

PubMed2004

Responsiveness of the electronic touch screen WOMAC 3.1 OA Index in a short term clinical trial with rofecoxib.

BACKGROUND: The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) Osteoarthritis Index is a self-administered validated questionnaire for patients with osteoarthritis (OA) of the hip or knee. The electronic touch screen version of the WOMAC (e-WOMAC) has been previously shown to be highly correlated with the original paper format. However, whether the e-WOMAC would be suitable for monitoring the effects of drug treatment is unknown. AIM: To validate the longitudinal use of the e-WOMAC questionnaire and its ability to detect changes in WOMAC-scores induced by drug treatment in outpatient care. METHODS: Fifty-three outpatients, men and women (mean age: 64 years; SD+/-9.5), with symptomatic osteoarthritis of hip or knee were included in an open label study with rofecoxib. At three visits over 3 weeks, responsiveness of the WOMAC 3.1 regarding the three subscales, pain, stiffness and function, were compared for the original paper format and the computer touch screen format (QUALITOUCH) using a Likert scale. WOMAC scores were transformed to the 0-100 scale. ANOVA for repeated measures was used for analysis and effect sizes by subscale were compared for both formats. RESULTS: Responsiveness for all three subscales was similar between formats. In both formats, pain and stiffness were significantly reduced with rofecoxib as early as 7 days, while functional ability was significantly increased (P<0.01 for all aggregate subscale scores) with continuing improvement until the end of study. The effect sizes by subscale between Day 1 and 21 were not statistically different between the paper and the electronic version of the questionnaire and showed similar clinically meaningful improvements in WOMAC scores over 3 weeks. CONCLUSION: In this longitudinal intervention study, the e-WOMAC OA Index 3.1 showed similar responsiveness in detecting clinically meaningful changes than the original paper format.

Aged↗

PubMed2003

Comparison of statistically derived ASAS improvement criteria for ankylosing spondylitis with clinically relevant improvement according to an expert panel.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether the recently developed (statistically derived) "ASsessment in Ankylosing Spondylitis Working Group" improvement criteria (ASAS-IC) for ankylosing spondylitis (AS) reflect clinically relevant improvement according to the opinion of an expert panel. METHODS: The ASAS-IC consist of four domains: physical function, spinal pain, patient global assessment, and inflammation. Scores on these four domains of 55 patients with AS, who had participated in a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug efficacy trial, were presented to an international expert panel (consisting of patients with AS and members of the ASAS Working Group) in a three round Delphi exercise. The number of (non-)responders according to the ASAS-IC was compared with the final consensus of the experts. The most important domains in the opinion of the experts were identified, and also selected with discriminant analysis. A number of provisional criteria sets that best represented the consensus of the experts were defined. Using other datasets, these clinically derived criteria sets as well as the statistically derived ASAS-IC were then tested for discriminative properties and for agreement with the end of trial efficacy by patient and doctor. RESULTS: Forty experts completed the three Delphi rounds. The experts considered twice as many patients to be responders than the ASAS-IC (42 v 21). Overall agreement between experts and ASAS-IC was 62%. Spinal pain was considered the most important domain by most experts and was also selected as such by discriminant analysis. Provisional criteria sets with an agreement of >or=80% compared with the consensus of the experts showed high placebo response rates (27-42%), in contrast with the ASAS-IC with a predefined placebo response rate of 25%. All criteria sets and the ASAS-IC discriminated well between active and placebo treatment (chi(2)=36-45; p<0.001). Compared with the end of trial efficacy assessment, the provisional criteria sets showed an agreement of 71-82%, sensitivity of 67-83%, and specificity of 81-88%. The ASAS-IC showed an agreement of 70%, sensitivity of 62%, and specificity of 89%. CONCLUSION: The ASAS-IC are strict in defining response, are highly specific, and consequently show lower sensitivity than the clinically derived criteria sets. However, those patients who are considered as responders by applying the ASAS-IC are acknowledged as such by the expert panel as well as by patients' and doctors' judgments, and are therefore likely to be true responders.

Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal↗