The use of atraumatic restorative treatment in elderly patients: a randomised controlled clinical trial

Objectives: to assess elderly patients’ dental status and dental habits and compare the survival rates, impact on patients’ quality of life and cost-effectiveness of Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (ART) and a conventional treatment (CT) to restore carious lesions in an elderly population. Methods: In this randomised clinical trial, 99 independently living adults (65-90 yrs) with carious lesions were randomly allocated to receive either ART or CT. Details of restored, missing and carious teeth were recorded and patients answered some questions about their oral hygiene and dental attendance habits. Direct and indirect costs were measured based on treatment time, materials and labour. Effectiveness was measured using restoration survival percentage after one year. The survival of restorations was assessed 6 months and one year after restoration placement by an independent examiner. Oralhealth related quality of life (OHRQoL) was assessed using the OHIP-14 at baseline and 2 months after treatment together with a global transition statement. Results: The patient sample comprised 46 (46.46%) male and 53 (53.54) female participants at baseline, with a mean age of 73.18 (SD=6.76). The mean DMFT of the entire sample was 27.10. Ninety patients and 268 restorations could be assessed after one year, 127 ART (46 patients) and 141 conventional restorations (44 patients). 93.7% and 97.2% of the restorations placed were considered successful in the ART and CT groups, respectively. The OHIP scores did not change dramatically 2 months after treatment, in either group. The global transition scale showed an improvement in overall oral health after treatment for the majority of patients. The ART were more cost-effective compared to the CT restorations. Conclusions: ART presented survival rates similar to CT after 1 year and was a more cost-effective alternative to treat the elderly.

Lack of effect of lowering LDL cholesterol on cancer: meta-analysis of individual data from 175,000 people in 27 randomised trials of statin therapy

Background: Statin therapy reduces the risk of occlusive vascular events, but uncertainty remains about potential effects on cancer. We sought to provide a detailed assessment of any effects on cancer of lowering LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) with a statin using individual patient records from 175,000 patients in 27 large-scale statin trials. Methods and Findings: Individual records of 134,537 participants in 22 randomised trials of statin versus control (median duration 4.8 years) and 39,612 participants in 5 trials of more intensive versus less intensive statin therapy (median duration 5.1 years) were obtained. Reducing LDL-C with a statin for about 5 years had no effect on newly diagnosed cancer or on death from such cancers in either the trials of statin versus control (cancer incidence: 3755 [1.4% per year [py]] versus 3738 [1.4% py], RR 1.00 [95% CI 0.96-1.05]; cancer mortality: 1365 [0.5% py] versus 1358 [0.5% py], RR 1.00 [95% CI 0.93-1.08]) or in the trials of more versus less statin (cancer incidence: 1466 [1.6% py] vs 1472 [1.6% py], RR 1.00 [95% CI 0.93-1.07]; cancer mortality: 447 [0.5% py] versus 481 [0.5% py], RR 0.93 [95% CI 0.82-1.06]). Moreover, there was no evidence of any effect of reducing LDL-C with statin therapy on cancer incidence or mortality at any of 23 individual categories of sites, with increasing years of treatment, for any individual statin, or in any given subgroup. In particular, among individuals with low baseline LDL-C (<2 mmol/L), there was no evidence that further LDL-C reduction (from about 1.7 to 1.3 mmol/L) increased cancer risk (381 [1.6% py] versus 408 [1.7% py]; RR 0.92 [99% CI 0.76-1.10]). Conclusions: In 27 randomised trials, a median of five years of statin therapy had no effect on the incidence of, or mortality from, any type of cancer (or the aggregate of all cancer).