Observational study of an inpatient program for musculoskeletal disorders: The effects of gender and physical activity.

ABSTRACT: A new inpatient secondary preventive program for patients with musculoskeletal health problems was introduced throughout Austria. The aim of the current work was to evaluate this "Health Prevention Active" program and its possible influences on the quality of medical results upon hospital discharge.This observational study presents monocentric data for 7448 patients (48.99 ±â€Š6.15 years; 53.7% women) with chronic musculoskeletal disorders who completed a 3-week health program. The focus was placed on measuring medical quality outcomes such as BMI, blood pressure, heart rate, pain, subjective ratings, and achieved power output in cycle ergometer exercise testing. We describe pre-post changes before and after the inpatient program and the results of a follow-up survey conducted after 1 year to identify moderating factors related to health outcomes.The medical baseline showed obvious deficits regarding obesity, hypertension, and subjective symptoms. Of all patients, 36.5% were completely inactive. The patient's gender and physical activity had a high impact on the medical baseline status. In total, the majority of patients (86.2%; SMD = -0.78 ±â€Š0.59) responded well to the health prevention program, independent of their ages and lifestyles.Requirements for secondary prevention programs are high. The results of the study reflect the general problems presented by inactivity, obesity, and subjective symptoms like pain. Physical activity was specifically identified as a major factor for the observed medical baseline status.

General and Disease-Specific Health Indicator Changes Associated with Inpatient Rehabilitation.

OBJECTIVES: Rehabilitation plays a vital role in the mitigation and improvement of functional limitations associated with aging and chronic conditions. Moderating factors such as sex, age, the medical diagnosis, and rehabilitation timing for admission status, as well as the expected change related to inpatient rehabilitation, are examined to provide a valid basis for the routine assessment of the quality of medical outcomes. DESIGN: An observational study was carried out, placing a focus on general and disease-specific health measurements, to assess representative results of multidisciplinary inpatient rehabilitation. Aspects that were possibly confounding and introduced bias were controlled based on data from a quasi-experimental (waiting) control group. MEASURES: Existing data or general health indicators were extracted from medical records. The indicators included blood pressure, resting heart rate, self-assessed health, and pain, as well as more disease-specific indicators of physical function and performance (eg, activities of daily living, walking tests, blood lipids). These are used to identify moderating factors related to health outcomes. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A standardized collection of routine data from 16,966 patients [61.5 ± 12.5 years; 7871 (46%) women, 9095 (54%) men] with different medical diagnoses before and after rehabilitation were summarized using a descriptive evaluation in terms of a content and factor analysis. RESULTS: Without rehabilitation, general health indicators did not improve independently and remained stable at best [odds ratio (OR) = 0.74], whereas disease-specific indicators improved noticeably after surgery (OR = 3.20). Inpatient rehabilitation was shown to reduce the risk factors associated with certain lifestyles, optimize organ function, and improve well-being in most patients (>70%; cutoff: z-difference >0.20), with a standardized mean difference (SMD) seen in overall medical quality outcome of -0.48 ± 0.37 [pre- vs post-rehabilitation: ηp2 = 0.622; dCohen = -1.22; 95% confidence interval (95% CI) -1.24 to -1.19]. The baseline medical values obtained at the beginning of rehabilitation were influenced by indication, age, and sex (all P < .001); however, these factors have less significant effects on improvements in general health indicators (ηp2 < 0.01). According to the disease-specific results, the greatest improvements were found in older patients (SMD for patients >60 vs ≤60 years: 95% CI 0.08-0.11) and during the early rehabilitation stage (ηp2 = 0.063). CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Compared with those who received no inpatient rehabilitation, patients who received rehabilitation showed greater improvements in 2 independent areas, general and disease-specific health measures, regardless of their diagnosis, age, and sex. Due to the study design and the use of a nonrandomized waiting group, causal conclusions must be drawn with caution. However, the comparability and stability of the presented results strongly support the validity of the observed improvements associated with inpatient rehabilitation.

Comparison of safety, efficacy and tolerability of dexibuprofen and ibuprofen in the treatment of osteoarthritis of the hip or knee.

In this observer-blinded, multicenter, non-inferiority study, 489 patients suffering from painful osteoarthritis of the hip or knee were included to investigate safety and tolerability of Dexibuprofen vs. Ibuprofen powder for oral suspension. Only patients who had everyday joint pain for the past 3 months and "moderate" to "severe" global pain intensity in the involved hip/knee of within the last 48 h were enrolled. The treatment period was up to 14 days with a control visit after 3 days. The test product was Dexibuprofen 400 mg powder for oral suspension (daily dose 800 mg) compared to Ibuprofen 400 mg powder for oral suspension (daily dose 1,600 mg). Gastrointestinal adverse drug reactions were reported in 8 patients (3.3 %) in the Dexibuprofen group and in 19 patients (7.8 %) in the Ibuprofen group. Statistically significant non-inferiority was shown for Dexibuprofen. Comparing both groups by a Chi square test showed a statistical significant lower proportion of related gastrointestinal events in the Dexibuprofen group. All analyses of secondary tolerability parameters showed the same result of a significantly better safety profile in this therapy setting for Dexibuprofen compared to Ibuprofen. The sum of pain intensity, pain relief and global assessments showed no significant difference between treatment groups. In summary, analyses revealed at least non-inferiority in terms of efficacy and a statistically significant better safety profile for the Dexibuprofen treatment.

The use of tumour necrosis factor alpha-blockers in daily routine. An Austrian consensus project.

To define relevant disease parameters and their respective limits indicating the initiation of TNF-alpha-blockers in individual patients. Subsequently, to analyze retrospectively patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA) or ankylosing spondylitis (AS), who started TNF-alpha inhibition in 2006. Points to consider, regarded relevant for individual treatment decisions as well as their assessment methods, were ascertained by experts' consensus applying the Delphi technique. Subsequently, these parameters' thresholds with respect to the initiation of a TNF-alpha-blocker were identified. Thereafter, the rheumatologists representing 12 centres all over Austria agreed to retrospectively analyze their patients started on a TNF-alpha-blocker in 2006. Experts' opinion regarding disease parameters relevant to initiate TNF-alpha-blockers in RA patients only slightly differed from those applied in clinical trials, but the parameters' threshold values were considerably lower. For PsA patients, some differences and for AS patients, considerable differences between experts' opinion and clinical studies appeared, which held also true for decisive parameters' means and thresholds. Six hundred and fifty patients, started on TNF-blockers in 2006, could be analyzed retrospectively, 408 RA patients (53.3 years mean, 340 females), 93 PsA patients (48.9 years mean, 59 males) and 149 AS patients AS (42.2 years mean, 108 males), representing approximately 25% of all Austrian patients initiated on a TNF-blocker in this respective year. Far more individualized, patient-oriented treatment approaches, at least in part, are applied in daily routine compared with those derived from clinical trials or recommendations from investigative rheumatologists.