Use of high and low velocity cervical manipulative therapy procedures by Australian manipulative physiotherapists

The use of cervical manipulation presents concerns because of a risk of devastating side effects of trauma to the vertebral artery. Little is known about the frequency of use of cervical manipulation versus passive mobilisation by physiotherapists. A recent national, multi-centre randomised clinical trial of the physiotherapy management of cervicogenic headache provided an opportunity to gain an insight into practices of a sample of manipulative physiotherapists across Australia. The treatment records for the 100 subjects who received only manipulative therapy, or manipulative therapy with exercise as per the trial protocol, were audited. The results revealed that cervical manipulation was used in 20.2% of the 1090 treatments provided to these subjects but cervical joint mobilisation only was used in the vast majority of treatments (77.6%). Nevertheless, 42% of subjects were treated with cervical manipulation at some time. In most instances, manipulation was accompanied by passive mobilisation in the same treatment session. Patients were manipulated on one to six occasions and this occurred predominantly in the latter half of the 12-treatment program. Cervical manipulation was used less frequently in the group who also received exercise. The data suggest that the physiotherapists participating in this study used cervical manipulation selectively and relatively conservatively considering the high use of cervical mobilisation techniques. This may reflect their due regard to safety in the treatment of the cervical region.

Thiazolidinediones and type 2 diabetes: new drugs for an old disease

Thiazolidinediones are a new class of drugs for the treatment of type 2 diabetes, and act by improving insulin sensitivity in adipose tissue, liver and skeletal muscle. Rosiglitazone and pioglitazone are registered for use in monotherapy, and in combination with sulfonylureas and metformin. Pioglitazone is also licensed for use in combination with insulin. There is level II evidence that in patients with inadequate glycaemic control both drugs reduce the level of HbA(1c) and fasting plasma glucose (FPG) when used as monotherapy and in combination with sulfonylurea or metformin or insulin; and both drugs increase levels of HDL and LDL and lower free fatty acid levels, but only pioglitazone significantly lowers triglyceride levels. Both drugs lower fasting insulin and C-peptide levels. In monotherapy, they may be slightly less potent at reducing the level of HbA(1c) than sulfonylureas or metformin. The maximal effect of these agents may not be seen for 6-14 weeks after commencement. Both drugs are well tolerated but liver function must be checked at baseline every second month for the first year, and periodically thereafter. The drugs are currently contraindicated in patients with moderate to severe liver dysfunction and alanine aminotransferase levels more than 2.5 times normal, New York Heart Association III-IV cardiac status, pregnancy, lactation and in children. The main side effects include weight gain, oedema, and mild dilutional anaemia.

Myocardial infarction and type II diabetes - preferential treatment for high risk patients?

Objectives: To compare variability of blood glucose concentration in patients with type II diabetes with (cases) and without (controls) myocardial infarction. A secondary objective was identification of predictive factors for higher blood glucose on discharge from hospital. Design: A retrospective matched case-control study. Participants: Medical notes of 101 type II diabetic patients admitted with a myocardial infarction (MI) and 101 type II diabetic patients (controls) matched on gender and age with no MI were reviewed. Blood glucose concentrations over two consecutive 48-h periods were collected. Demographic data and therapy on admission/discharge were also collected. Results: Patient characteristics were comparable on recruitment excluding family history of cardiovascular disease (P =0.003), dyslipidaemia (P =0.004) and previous history of MI (P =0.007). Variability of blood glucose in cases was greater over the first 48 h compared with the second 48 h (P =0.03), and greater when compared with controls over the first 48 h (P =0.01). Cases with blood glucose on discharge >8.2 mmol / L (n =45) were less likely to have a history of previous MI (P =0.04), ischaemic heart disease (P =0.03) or hypertension (P =0.02). Conclusions: Type II diabetics with an MI have higher and more variable blood glucose concentrations during the first 48 h of admission. Only cardiovascular 'high risk' patients had target blood glucose set on discharge. The desirability of all MI patients with diabetes, having standardized-glucose infusions to reduce variability of blood glucose, should be evaluated in a randomized controlled trial.

Cholesterol-lowering therapy with pravastatin in patients with average cholesterol levels and established ischaemic heart disease: is it cost-effective?

Objective: To measure the cost-effectiveness of cholesterol-lowering therapy with pravastatin in patients with established ischaemic heart disease and average baseline cholesterol levels. Design: Prospective economic evaluation within a double-blind randomised trial (Long-Term Intervention with Pravastatin in Ischaemic Disease [LIPID]), in which patients with a history of unstable angina or previous myocardial infarction were randomised to receive 40 mg of pravastatin daily or matching placebo. Patients and setting: 9014 patients aged 35-75 years from 85 centres in Australia and New Zealand, recruited from June 1990 to December 1992. Main outcome measures: Cost per death averted, cost per life-year gained, and cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained, calculated from measures of hospitalisations, medication use, outpatient visits, and quality of life. Results: The LIPID trial showed a 22% relative reduction in all-cause mortality (P < 0.001). Over a mean follow-up of 6 years, hospital admissions for coronary heart disease and coronary revascularisation were reduced by about 20%. Over this period, pravastatin cost $A4913 per patient, but reduced total hospitalisation costs by $A1385 per patient and other long-term medication costs by $A360 per patient. In a subsample of patients, average quality of life was 0.98 (where 0 = dead and 1 = normal good health); the treatment groups were not significantly different. The absolute reduction in all-cause mortality was 3.0% (95% CI, 1.6%-4.4%), and the incremental cost was $3246 per patient, resulting in a cost per life saved of $107730 (95% Cl, $68626-$209881) within the study period. Extrapolating long-term survival from the placebo group, the undiscounted cost per life-year saved was $7695 (and $10 938 with costs and life-years discounted at an annual rate of 5%). Conclusions: Pravastatin therapy for patients with a history of myocardial infarction or unstable angina and average cholesterol levels reduces all-cause mortality and appears cost effective compared with accepted treatments in high-income countries.