Treatment of partial-thickness burns: A prospective, randomized trial using Transcyte (TM)

Background: The purpose of the present study was to compare the effectiveness of three burns dressings (TransCyte, a bio-engineered skin substitute; Biobrane; and Silvazine cream (silver sulphadiazine and 0.2% chlorhexidine)), in treating children with partial-thickness burns. The primary objective was to determine the days until greater than or equal to90% re-epithelialization. The secondary objectives were to evaluate the number of wounds requiring autografting and the number of dressing changes/local wound care required. Methods: Study wounds were identified on each patient and the patients were randomized to receive TransCyte or Biobrane or Silvazine. Assessment of study wound closure began at 2 days after treatment and continued at least every other day thereafter until the wounds re-epithelialized or were autografted. A laser Doppler imaging system was used as an adjunct to assessing the depth of the burn. Results: Thirty-three patients with 58 wound sites enrolled in the study (TransCyte, n = 20, Biobrane, n = 17; Silvazine, n = 21). Mean time to re-epithelialization was 7.5 days for TransCyte, 9.5 days for Biobrane, and 11.2 days for Silvazine. The number of wounds requiring autografting were 5/21 (24%) for Silvazine, 3/17 (17%) for Biobrane, and 1/20 (5%) for TransCyte. Conclusions: When used in partial-thickness burns in children, TransCyte promotes fastest re-epithelialization and required less overall dressings then Biobrane or Silvazine. Patients who received Silvazine or Biobrane require more autografting than those treated with TransCyte.

A prospective randomized trial of long term azithromycin (AZM) versus placebo in cystic fibrosis (CF): Impact on clinical, laboratory and quality of life (QOL) outcomes

No abstract

Prolotherapy injections, saline injections, and exercises for chronic low-back pain: A randomized trial

Objectives. To assess the efficacy of a prolotherapy injection and exercise protocol in the treatment of chronic nonspecific low back pain. Design. Randomized controlled trial with two- by- two factorial design, triple- blinded for injection status, and single- blinded for exercise status. Setting. General practice. Participants. One hundred ten participants with nonspecific low- back pain of average 14 years duration were randomized to have repeated prolotherapy ( 20% glucose/ 0.2% lignocaine) or normal saline injections into tender lumbo- pelvic ligaments and randomized to perform either flexion/ extension exercises or normal activity over 6 months. Main outcome measures: Pain intensity ( VAS) and disability scores ( Roland- Morris) at 2.5, 4, 6, 12, and 24 months. Results. Follow- up was achieved in 96% at 12 months and 80% at 2 years. Ligament injections, with exercises and with normal activity, resulted in significant and sustained reductions in pain and disability throughout the trial, but no attributable effect was found for prolotherapy injections over saline injections or for exercises over normal activity. At 12 months, the proportions achieving more than 50% reduction in pain from baseline by injection group were glucose- lignocaine: 0.46 versus saline: 0.36. By activity group these proportions were exercise: 0.41 versus normal activity: 0.39. Corresponding proportions for > 50% reduction in disability were glucose- lignocaine: 0.42 versus saline 0.36 and exercise: 0.36 versus normal activity: 0.38. There were no between group differences in any of the above measures. Conclusions. In chronic nonspecific low- back pain, significant and sustained reductions in pain and disability occur with ligament injections, irrespective of the solution injected or the concurrent use of exercises.

Randomized trial of 8 Gy in 1 versus 20 Gy in 5 fractions of radiotherapy for neuropathic pain due to bone metastases (Trans-Tasman Radiation Oncology Group, TROG 96.05)

Background and purpose: Despite numerous randomized trials investigating radiotherapy (RT) fractionation schedules for painful bone metastases, there are very few data on RT for bone metastases causing pain with a neuropathic component. The Trans-Tasman Radiation Oncology Group undertook a randomized trial comparing the efficacy of a single 8 Gy (8/1) with 20 Gy in 5 fractions (20/5) for this type of pain. Materials and methods: Eligible patients had radiological evidence of bone metastases from a known malignancy with no change in systemic therapy within 6 weeks before or anticipated within 4 weeks after RT, no other metastases along the distribution of the neuropathic pain and no clinical or radiological evidence of cord/cauda equina compression. All patients gave written informed consent. Primary endpoints were pain response within 2 months of commencement of RT and time to treatment failure (TTF). The hypothesis was that 8/1 is at least as effective as 20/5 and the planned sample size was 270 patients. Results: Between February 1996 and December 2002, 272 patients were randomized (8/1:20/5 = 137:135) from 15 centres (Australia 11, New Zealand 3, UK 1). The commonest primary cancers were lung (31%), prostate (29%) and breast (8%); index sites were spine (89%), rib (9%), other (2%); 72% of patients were males and the median age was 67 (range 2989). The median overall survival (95% CI) for all randomized patients was 4.8 mo (4.2-5.7 mo). The intention-to-treat overall response rates (95% Cl) for 8/1 vs 20/5 were 53% (45-62%) vs 61% (53-70%), P = 0.18. Corresponding figures for complete response were 26% (18-34%) vs 27% (19-35%), P = 0.89. The estimated median TTFs (95% CI) were 2.4 mo (2.0-3.3 mo) vs 3.7 mo (3.1-5.9 mo) respectively. The hazard ratio (95% Cl) for the comparison of TTF curves was 1.35 (0.99-1.85), log-rank P = 0.056. There were no statistically significant differences in the rates of re-treatment, cord compression or pathological fracture by arm. Conclusions: 8/1 was not shown to be as effective as 20/5, nor was it statistically significantly worse. Outcomes were generally poorer for 8/1, although the quantitative differences were relatively small. (c) 2004 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Addition of cue exposure to cognitive-behaviour therapy for alcohol misuse: a randomized trial with dysphoric drinkers

Aim To test whether addition of moderation-orientated cue exposure (CE) or CE after dysphoric mood induction ( emotional CE, ECE) improved outcomes above those from cognitive-behaviour therapy alone (CBT) in people who drank when dysphoric. Design Multi-site randomized controlled trial comparing CBT with CBT + CE and CBT + ECE. Setting Out-patient rooms in academic treatment units in Brisbane and Sydney, Australia. Participants People with alcohol misuse and problems controlling consumption when dysphoric (n = 163). Those with current major depressive episode were excluded. Intervention Eight weekly 75-minute sessions of individual treatment for alcohol problems were given to all participants, with CBT elements held constant across conditions. From session 2, CBT + CE participants resisted drinking while exposed to alcohol cues, with two priming doses of their preferred beverage being given in some sessions. After an initial CE session, CBT + ECE participants recalled negative experiences before undertaking CE, to provide exposure to emotional cues of personal relevance. Measurements Alcohol consumption, related problems, alcohol expectancies, self-efficacy and depression. Results Average improvements were highly significant across conditions, with acceptable maintenance of effects over 12 months. Both treatment retention and effects on alcohol consumption were progressively weaker in CBT + CE and CBT + ECE than in CBT alone. Changes in alcohol dependence and depression did not differ across conditions. Conclusions These data do not indicate that addition of clinic-based CE to standard CBT improves outcomes. A different approach to the management of craving may be required.

Viscosupplementation for the treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee (Review)

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.