The back 2 activity trial: education and advice versus education and advice plus a structured walking programme for chronic low back pain.:education and advice versus education and advice plus a structured walking programme for chronic low back pain

BACKGROUND: Current evidence supports the use of exercise-based treatment for chronic low back pain that encourages the patient to assume an active role in their recovery. Walking has been shown it to be an acceptable type of exercise with a low risk of injury. However, it is not known whether structured physical activity programmes are any more effective than giving advice to remain active.

METHODS/DESIGN: The proposed study will test the feasibility of using a pedometer-driven walking programme, as an adjunct to a standard education and advice session in participants with chronic low back pain. Fifty adult participants will be recruited via a number of different sources. Baseline outcome measures including self reported function; objective physical activity levels; fear-avoidance beliefs and health-related quality of life will be recorded. Eligible participants will be randomly allocated under strict, double blind conditions to one of two treatments groups. Participants in group A will receive a single education and advice session with a physiotherapist based on the content of the 'Back Book'. Participants in group B will receive the same education and advice session. In addition, they will also receive a graded pedometer-driven walking programme prescribed by the physiotherapist. Follow up outcomes will be recorded by the same researcher, who will remain blinded to group allocation, at eight weeks and six months post randomisation. A qualitative exploration of participants' perception of walking will also be examined by use of focus groups at the end of the intervention. As a feasibility study, treatment effects will be represented by point estimates and confidence intervals. The assessment of participant satisfaction will be tabulated, as will adherence levels and any recorded difficulties or adverse events experienced by the participants or therapists. This information will be used to modify the planned interventions to be used in a larger randomised controlled trial.

DISCUSSION: This paper describes the rationale and design of a study which will test the feasibility of using a structured, pedometer-driven walking programme in participants with chronic low back pain.

TRIAL REGISTRATION: [ISRCTN67030896].

Computer simulating a trial of a load-bearing implant: example of an intramedullary prosthesis

Computational modelling is becoming ever more important for obtaining regulatory approval for new medical devices. An accepted approach is to infer performance in a population from an analysis conducted for an idealised or ‘average’ patient; we present here a method for predicting the performance of an orthopaedic implant when released into a population—effectively simulating a clinical trial. Specifically we hypothesise that an analysis based on a method for predicting the performance in a population will lead to different conclusions than an analysis based on an idealised or ‘average’ patient. To test this hypothesis we use a finite element model of an intramedullary implant in a bone whose size and remodelling activity is different for each individual in the population. We compare the performance of a low Young’s modulus implant (View the MathML source) to one with a higher Young’s modulus (200 GPa). Cyclic loading is applied and failure is assumed when the migration of the implant relative to the bone exceeds a threshold magnitude. The analysis for an idealised of ‘average’ patient predicts that the lower modulus device survives longer whereas the analysis simulating a clinical trial predicts no statistically-significant tendency (p=0.77) for the low modulus device to perform better. It is concluded that population-based simulations of implant performance–simulating a clinical trial–present a very valuable opportunity for more realistic computational pre-clinical testing of medical devices.

Tissue biomarker development in a multicentre trial context: a feasibility study on the PETACC3 stage II and III colon cancer adjuvant treatment trial.

Purpose: We evaluated the feasibility of biomarker development in the context of multicenter clinical trials.

Experimental Design: Formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissue samples were collected from a prospective adjuvant colon cancer trial (PETACC3). DNA was isolated from tumor as well as normal tissue and used for analysis of microsatellite instability, KRAS and BRAF genotyping, UGT1A1 genotyping, and loss of heterozygosity of 18 q loci. Immunohistochemistry was used to test expression of TERT, SMAD4, p53, and TYMS. Messenger RNA was retrieved and tested for use in expression profiling experiments.

Results: Of the 3,278 patients entered in the study, FFPE blocks were obtained from 1,564 patients coming from 368 different centers in 31 countries. In over 95% of the samples, genomic DNA tests yielded a reliable result. Of the immmunohistochemical tests, p53 and SMAD4 staining did best with reliable results in over 85% of the cases. TERT was the most problematic test with 46% of failures, mostly due to insufficient tissue processing quality. Good quality mRNA was obtained, usable in expression profiling experiments.

Conclusions: Prospective clinical trials can be used as framework for biomarker development using routinely processed FFPE tissues. Our results support the notion that as a rule, translational studies based on FFPE should be included in prospective clinical trials.