Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial of Withdrawal of Inhaled Corticosteroids in Cystic Fibrosis

Rationale: Lung inflammation and injury is critical in cystic fibrosis. An ideal antiinflammatory agent has not been identified but inhaled corticosteroids are widely used despite lack of evidence.

Objectives: To test the safety of withdrawal of inhaled corticosteroids with the hypothesis this would not be associated with an earlier onset of acute chest exacerbations.

Methods: Multicenter randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial in 18 pediatric and adult UK centers. Eligibility criteria included age > 6.0 yr, FEV1 ? 40% predicted, and corticosteroid use > 3 mo. During the 2-mo run-in period, all patients received fluticasone; they then took either fluticasone or placebo for 6 mo.

Measurements and Main Results: Fluticasone group: n = 84, median age 14.6 yr, mean (SD) FEV1 76% (18); placebo group: n = 87, median age 15.8 yr, mean (SD) FEV1 76% (18). There was no difference in time to first exacerbation (primary outcome) with hazard ratio (95% confidence interval) of 1.07 (0.68 to 1.70) for fluticasone versus placebo. There was no effect of age, atopy, corticosteroid dose, FEV1, or Pseudomonas aeruginosa status. There was no change in lung function or differences in antibiotic or rescue bronchodilator use. Fewer patients in the fluticasone group withdrew from the study due to lung-related adverse events (9 vs. 15%); with a relative risk (95% confidence interval) of 0.59 (0.23–1.48) fluticasone versus placebo.

Conclusions: In this study population (applicable to 40% of patients with cystic fibrosis in the UK), it appears safe to consider stopping inhaled corticosteroids. Potential advantages will be to reduce the drug burden on patients, reduce adverse effects, and make financial savings.

Randomised controlled trial of effects of Helicobacter pylori infection and its eradication on heartburn and gastro-oesophageal reflux: the bristol helicobacter project

Objectives To investigate the effects of Helicobacter pylori infection and its eradication on heartburn and gastro-oesophageal reflux. Design Cross sectional study, followed by a randomised placebo controlled trial. Setting Seven general practices in Bristol, England. Participants 10 537 people, aged 20-59 years, with and without H pylori infection (determined by the 13C-urea breath test). Main outcome measures Prevalence of heartburn and gastro-oesophageal acid reflux at baseline and two years after treatment to eradicate H pylori infection. Results At baseline, H pylori infection was associated with increased prevalence of heartburn (odds ratio 1.14, 95% confidence interval 1.05 to 1.23) but not reflux (1.05, 0.97 to 1.14). In participants with H pylori infection, active treatment had no effect on the overall prevalence of heartburn (0.99, 0.88 to 1.12) or reflux (1.04, 0.91 to 1.19) and did not improve pre-existing symptoms of heartburn or reflux. Conclusions H pylori infection is associated with a slightly increased prevalence of heartburn but not reflux. Treatment to eradicate H pylori has no net benefit in patients with heartburn or gastro-oesophageal reflux

Randomized controlled trial of interferential therapy and manipulative therapy for acute low back pain.

Study Design. A multi-center assessor-blinded randomized clinical trial was conducted. Objectives. To investigate the relative effectiveness of interferential therapy and manipulative therapy for patients with acute low back pain when used as sole treatments and in combination. Summary of Background Data. Both manipulative therapy and interferential therapy are commonly used treatments for low back pain. Evidence for the effectiveness of manipulative therapy is available only for the short term. There is no evidence for interferential therapy and no study has investigated the effectiveness of interferential therapy combined with manipulative therapy. Methods. Consenting subjects (n=240) were randomly assigned to receive a copy of the Back Book and either manipulative therapy (MT; n=80), interferential therapy (IFT; n=80) or combined manipulative therapy and interferential therapy (CT; n=80). Follow-up outcome questionnaires were posted at discharge, 6 and 12 months. Results. The groups were balanced at baseline for low back pain and demographic characteristics. All interventions were found to significantly reduce functional disability and pain and increase quality of life at discharge and to maintain these improvements at 6 and 12 months. No significant differences were found between groups for reported LBP recurrence, work absenteeism, medication consumption, exercise participation and healthcare use at 12 months. Conclusions. For acute low back pain, interferential therapy whether used in isolation or in combination with manipulative therapy was as effective as manipulative therapy alone (in addition to the Back Book).

A descriptive study of the usage of spinal manipulative therapy techniques within a randomised clinical trial in acute low back pain

The majority of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of spinal manipulative therapy have not adequately de?ned the terms ‘mobilization’ and ‘manipulation’, nor distinguished between these terms in reporting the trial interventions. The purpose of this study was to describe the spinal manipulative therapy techniques utilized within a RCT of manipulative therapy (MT; n=80), interferential therapy (IFT; n=80), and a combination of both (CT; n=80) for people with acute low back pain (LBP). Spinal manipulative therapy was de?ned as any ‘mobilization’ (low velocity manual force without a thrust) or ‘manipulation’ (high velocity
thrust) techniques of the spine described by Maitland and Cyriax.
The 16 physiotherapists, all members of the Society of Orthopaedic Medicine, utilized three spinal manipulative therapy patterns in the RCT: Maitland Mobilization (40.4%, n=59), Maitland Mobilization/Cyriax Manipulation (40.4%, n=59) and Cyriax Manipulation (19.1%, n=28). There was a signi?cant difference between the MT and CT groups in their usage of spinal manipulative therapy techniques (w2=9.178; df=2;P=0.01); subjects randomized to the CT group received three times more Cyriax Manipulation (29.2%, n=21/72) than those randomized to the MT group (9.5%, n=7/74; df=1; P=0.003).
The use of mobilization techniques within the trial was comparable with their usage by the general population of physiotherapists in Britain and Ireland for LBP management. However, the usage of manipulation techniques was considerably higher than reported in physiotherapy surveys and may re?ect the postgraduate training of trial therapists.