Long-Term Effects of Specific Stabilizing Exercises for First-Episode Low Back Pain

Study Design. A randomized clinical trial with 1-year and 3-year telephone questionnaire follow-ups. Objective. To report a specific exercise intervention’s long-term effects on recurrence rates in acute, first-episode low back pain patients. Summary of Background Data. The pain and disability associated with an initial episode of acute low back pain (LBP) is known to resolve spontaneously in the short-term in the majority of cases. However, the recurrence rate is high, and recurrent disabling episodes remain one of the most costly problems in LBP. A deficit in the multifidus muscle has been identified in acute LBP patients, and does not resolve spontaneously on resolution of painful symptoms and resumption of normal activity. Any relation between this deficit and recurrence rate was investigated in the long-term. Methods. Thirty-nine patients with acute, first-episode LBP were medically managed and randomly allocated to either a control group or specific exercise group. Medical management included advice and use of medications. Intervention consisted of exercises aimed at rehabilitating the multifidus in cocontraction with the transversus abdominis muscle. One year and three years after treatment, telephone questionnaires were conducted with patients. Results. Questionnaire results revealed that patients from the specific exercise group experienced fewer recurrences of LBP than patients from the control group. One year after treatment, specific exercise group recurrence was 30%, and control group recurrence was 84% (P , 0.001). Two to three years after treatment, specific exercise group recurrence was 35%, and control group recurrence was 75% (P , 0.01). Conclusion. Long-term results suggest that specific exercise therapy in addition to medical management and resumption of normal activity may be more effective in reducing low back pain recurrences than medical management and normal activity alone. [Key Words: multifidus, low back pain, rehabilitation]

How well do general practitioners deliver palliative care? A systematic review

General practitioners (GPs) deliver the majority of palliative care to patients in the last year of life. This article seeks to examine the nature of GP care, perceptions of the GPs themselves and others of that care, the adequacy of palliative care training, issues relating to accessibility of GPs to palliative care patients, and strategies that may be of use in encouraging more effective delivery of palliative care by GPs. Medline and PubMed databases from 1966 to 2000 were searched, and 135 references identified. Sixty-six of these described studies relevant to GP palliative care. GPs value this part of their work. Most of the time, patients appreciate the contribution the GP makes to palliative care particularly if the GP is accessible, takes time to listen, allows patient and carer to ventilate their feelings, and is seen to be making efforts made regarding symptom relief. However, reports from bereaved relatives suggest that palliative care is performed less well in the community than in other settings. GPs express discomfort about their competence to perform palliative care adequately. They tend to miss symptoms which are not treatable by them, or which are less common. However, with appropriate specialist support and facilities, GPs have been shown to deliver sound and effective care. GP comfort working with specialist teams increases with exposure to this form of patient management, as does the understanding of the potential other team members have in contributing to the care of the patient. Formal arrangements engaging GPs to work with specialist teams have been shown to improve functional outcomes, patient satisfaction, improve effective use of resources and improve effective physician behaviour in other areas of medicine. Efforts by specialist services to develop formal involvement of GPs in the care of individual patients, may be an effective method of improving GP palliative care skills and appreciation of the roles specialist services can play.

Does primary medical practitioner involvement with a specialist team improve patient outcomes? A systematic review.

Patients with chronic or complex medical or psychiatric conditions are treated by many practitioners, including general practitioners (GPs). Formal liaison between primary and specialist is often assumed to offer benefits to patients The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of formal liaison of GPs with specialist service providers on patient health outcomes, by conducting a systematic review of the published literature in MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychINFO, CINAHL and Cochrane Library databases using the following search terms family physicians': synonyms of 'patient care planning', 'patient discharge' and 'patient care team'; and synonyms of 'randomised controlled trials'. Seven studies were identified, involving 963 subjects and 899 controls. most health outcomes were unchanged, although some physical and functional health outcomes were improved by formal liaison between GPs and specialist services, particularly among chronic mental illness patients. Some health outcomes worsened during the intervention. Patient retention rates within treatment programmes improved with GP involvement, as did patient satisfaction. Doctor (GP and specialist) behaviour changed, with reports of more rational use of resources and diagnostic tests, improved clinical skills, more frequent use of appropriate treatment strategies, and more frequent clinical behaviours designed to detect disease complications Cost effectiveness could not be determined. In conclusion, formal liaison between GPs and specialist services leaves most physical health outcomes unchanged, but improves functional outcomes in chronically mentally ill patients. It may confer modest long-term health benefits through improvements in patient concordance with treatment programmes and more effective clinical practice.

Mathematical modelling of schistosomiasis japonica: comparison of control strategies in the People's Republic of China

We present the first mathematical model on the transmission dynamics of Schistosoma japonicum. The work extends Barbour's classic model of schistosome transmission. It allows for the mammalian host heterogeneity characteristic of the S. japonicum life cycle, and solves the problem of under-specification of Barbour's model by the use of Chinese data we are collecting on human-bovine transmission in the Poyang Lake area of Jiangxi Province in China. The model predicts that in the lake/marshland areas of the Yangtze River basin: (1) once-early mass chemotherapy of humans is little better than twice-yearly mass chemotherapy in reducing human prevalence. Depending on the heterogeneity of prevalence within the population, targeted treatment of high prevalence groups, with lower overall coverage, can be more effective than mass treatment with higher overall coverage. Treatment confers a short term benefit only, with prevalence rising to endemic levels once chemotherapy programs are stopped (2) depending on the relative contributions of bovines and humans, bovine treatment can benefit humans almost as much as human treatment. Like human treatment, bovine treatment confers a short-term benefit. A combination of human and bovine treatment will dramatically reduce human prevalence and maintains the reduction for a longer period of time than treatment of a single host, although human prevalence rises once treatment ceases; (3) assuming 75% coverage of bovines, a bovine vaccine which acts on worm fecundity must have about 75% efficacy to reduce the reproduction rate below one and ensure mid-term reduction and long-term elimination of the parasite. Such a vaccination program should be accompanied by an initial period of human treatment to instigate a short-term reduction in prevalence, following which the reduction is enhanced by vaccine effects; (4) if the bovine vaccine is only 45% efficacious (the level of current prototype vaccines) it will lower the endemic prevalence, but will not result in elimination. If it is accompanied by an initial period of human treatment and by a 45% improvement in human sanitation or a 30% reduction in contaminated water contact by humans, elimination is then possible. (C) 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Present and future pharacotherapy for heart failure

The pharmacotherapy currently recommended by the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association for heart failure (HF) is a diuretic, an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI), a β-adrenoceptor antagonist and (usually) digitalis. This current treatment of HF may be improved by optimising the dose of ACEI used, as increasing the dose of lisinopril increases its benefits in HF. Selective angiotensin receptor-1 (AT1) antagonists are effective alternatives for those who cannot tolerate ACEIs. AT1 antagonists may also be used in combination with ACEIs, as some studies have shown cumulative benefits for the combination. In addition to being used in Stage IV HF patients, in whom it has a marked benefit, spironolactone should be studied in less severe HF and in the presence of β-blockers. The use of carvedilol, extended-release metoprolol and bisoprolol should be extended to severe HF patients as these agents have been shown to decrease mortality in this group. The ancillary properties of carvedilol, particularly antagonism at prejunctional β-adrenoceptors, may give it additional benefits to selective β1-adrenoceptor antagonists. Celiprolol and bucindolol are not the β-blockers of choice in HF, as they do not decrease mortality. Although digitalis does not reduce mortality, it remains the only option for a long-term positive inotropic effect, as the long-term use of the phosphodiesterase inhibitors is associated with increased mortality. The calcium sensitising drug levosimendan may be useful in the hospital treatment of decompensated HF to increase cardiac output and improve dyspnoea and fatigue. The antiarrhythmic drug amiodarone should probably be used in patients at high risk of arrhythmic or sudden death, although this treatment may soon be superseded by the more expensive implanted cardioverter defibrillators, which are probably more effective and have fewer side effects. The natriuretic peptide nesiritide has recently been introduced for the hospital treatment of decompensated HF. Novel drugs that may be beneficial in the treatment of HF include the vasopeptidase inhibitors and the selective endothelin-A receptor antagonists but these require much more investigation. However, disappointing results have been obtained in a large clinical trial of the tumour necrosis factor α antagonist etanercept, where no likelihood of a difference between placebo and etanercept was observed. Small clinical trials with recombinant growth hormone to thicken ventricles in dilated cardiomyopathy have given variable results.

Angiotensin AT-1 receptor antagonism: complementary or alternative to ACE inhibition in cardiovascular and renal disease

Both angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and AT-1 receptor antagonists reduce the effects of angiotensin II, however they may have different clinical effects. This is because the ACE inhibitors, but not the AT-1 receptor antagonists, increase the levels of substance P, bradykinin and tissue plasminogen activator. The AT-1 receptor antagonists, but not the ACE inhibitors, are capable of inhibiting the effects of angiotensin II produced by enzymes other than ACE. On the basis of the present clinical trial evidence, AT-1 receptor antagonists, rather than the ACE inhibitors, should be used to treat hypertension associated with left ventricular (LV) hypertrophy. Both groups of drugs are useful when hypertension is not complicated by LV hypertrophy, and in diabetes. In the treatment of diabetes with or without hypertension, there is good clinical support for the use of either an ACE inhibitor or an AT-1 receptor antagonist. ACE inhibitors are recommended in the treatment of renal disease that is not associated with diabetes, after myocardial infarction when left ventricular dysfunction is present, and in heart failure. As the incidence of cough is much lower with the AT-1 receptor antagonists, these can be substituted for ACE inhibitors in patients with hypertension or heart failure who have persistent cough. Preliminary studies suggest that combining an AT-1 receptor antagonist with an ACE inhibitor may be more effective than an ACE inhibitor alone in the treatment of hypertension, diabetes with hypertension, renal disease without diabetes and heart failure. However, further trials are required before combination therapy can be recommended in these conditions.