Early versus delayed fixed dose combination abacavir/lamivudine/zidovudine in patients with HIV and tuberculosis in Tanzania.

Fixed dose combination abacavir/lamivudine/zidovudine (ABC/3TC/ZDV) among HIV-1 and tuberculosis (TB)-coinfected patients was evaluated and outcomes between early vs. delayed initiation were compared. In a randomized, pilot study conducted in the Kilimanjaro Region of Tanzania, HIV-infected inpatients with smear-positive TB and total lymphocyte count <1200/mm(3) were randomized to initiate ABC/3TC/ZDV either 2 (early) or 8 (delayed) weeks after commencing antituberculosis therapy and were followed for 104 weeks. Of 94 patients screened, 70 enrolled (41% female, median CD4 count 103 cells/mm(3)), and 33 in each group completed 104 weeks. Two deaths and 12 serious adverse events (SAEs) were observed in the early arm vs. one death, one clinical failure, and seven SAEs in the delayed arm (p = 0.6012 for time to first grade 3/4 event, SAE, or death). CD4 cell increases were +331 and +328 cells/mm(3), respectively. TB-immune reconstitution inflammatory syndromes (TB-IRIS) were not observed in any subject. Using intent-to-treat (ITT), missing = failure analyses, 74% (26/35) vs. 89% (31/35) randomized to early vs. delayed therapy had HIV RNA levels <400 copies/ml at 104 weeks (p = 0.2182) and 66% (23/35) vs. 74% (26/35), respectively, had HIV RNA levels <50 copies/ml (p = 0.6026). In an analysis in which switches from ABC/3TC/ZDV = failure, those receiving early therapy were less likely to be suppressed to <400 copies/ml [60% (21/35) vs. 86% (30/35), p = 0.030]. TB-IRIS was not observed among the 70 coinfected subjects beginning antiretroviral treatment. ABC/3TC/ZDV was well tolerated and resulted in steady immunologic improvement. Rates of virologic suppression were similar between early and delayed treatment strategies with triple nucleoside regimens when substitutions were allowed.

Outcomes After Total Ankle Replacement in Association With Ipsilateral Hindfoot Arthrodesis.

BACKGROUND: Ipsilateral hindfoot arthrodesis in combination with total ankle replacement (TAR) may diminish functional outcome and prosthesis survivorship compared to isolated TAR. We compared the outcome of isolated TAR to outcomes of TAR with ipsilateral hindfoot arthrodesis. METHODS: In a consecutive series of 404 primary TARs in 396 patients, 70 patients (17.3%) had a hindfoot fusion before, after, or at the time of TAR; the majority had either an isolated subtalar arthrodesis (n = 43, 62%) or triple arthrodesis (n = 15, 21%). The remaining 334 isolated TARs served as the control group. Mean patient follow-up was 3.2 years (range, 24-72 months). RESULTS: The SF-36 total, AOFAS Hindfoot-Ankle pain subscale, Foot and Ankle Disability Index, and Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment scores were significantly improved from preoperative measures, with no significant differences between the hindfoot arthrodesis and control groups. The AOFAS Hindfoot-Ankle total, function, and alignment scores were significantly improved for both groups, albeit the control group demonstrated significantly higher scores in all 3 scales. Furthermore, the control group demonstrated a significantly greater improvement in VAS pain score compared to the hindfoot arthrodesis group. Walking speed, sit-to-stand time, and 4-square step test time were significantly improved for both groups at each postoperative time point; however, the hindfoot arthrodesis group completed these tests significantly slower than the control group. There was no significant difference in terms of talar component subsidence between the fusion (2.6 mm) and control groups (2.0 mm). The failure rate in the hindfoot fusion group (10.0%) was significantly higher than that in the control group (2.4%; p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, this study represents the first series evaluating the clinical outcome of TARs performed with and without hindfoot fusion using implants available in the United States. At follow-up of 3.2 years, TAR performed with ipsilateral hindfoot arthrodesis resulted in significant improvements in pain and functional outcome; in contrast to prior studies, however, overall outcome was inferior to that of isolated TAR. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, prospective comparative series.

The effectiveness of low-level laser therapy for nonspecific chronic low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: In recent decades, low-level laser therapy (LLLT) has been widely used to relieve pain caused by different musculoskeletal disorders. Though widely used, its reported therapeutic outcomes are varied and conflicting. Results similarly conflict regarding its usage in patients with nonspecific chronic low back pain (NSCLBP). This study investigated the efficacy of low-level laser therapy (LLLT) for the treatment of NSCLBP by a systematic literature search with meta-analyses on selected studies. METHOD: MEDLINE, EMBASE, ISI Web of Science and Cochrane Library were systematically searched from January 2000 to November 2014. Included studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) written in English that compared LLLT with placebo treatment in NSCLBP patients. The efficacy effect size was estimated by the weighted mean difference (WMD). Standard random-effects meta-analysis was used, and inconsistency was evaluated by the I-squared index (I(2)). RESULTS: Of 221 studies, seven RCTs (one triple-blind, four double-blind, one single-blind, one not mentioning blinding, totaling 394 patients) met the criteria for inclusion. Based on five studies, the WMD in visual analog scale (VAS) pain outcome score after treatment was significantly lower in the LLLT group compared with placebo (WMD = -13.57 [95 % CI = -17.42, -9.72], I(2) = 0 %). No significant treatment effect was identified for disability scores or spinal range of motion outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that LLLT is an effective method for relieving pain in NSCLBP patients. However, there is still a lack of evidence supporting its effect on function.