Efficacy of Fascial Distortion Model Treatment for Acute, Nonspecific Low-Back Pain in Primary Care: A Prospective Controlled Trial.

Context • Low-back pain (LBP) is a prevalent and potentially crippling condition for which treatment is often unsatisfactory from the perspectives of physicians, patients, and payers. The application of the fascial distortion model (FDM), an integrated concept for the diagnosis and manipulative treatment of musculoskeletal disorders, is conceptually promising for LBP but has not been investigated systematically. Objective • The study intended to provide proof of concept to establish the noninferiority of the FDM treatment as opposed to the therapy recommended by the German National Disease Management Guideline (NDMG) for acute LBP. Design • The study was a prospective, nonrandomized, controlled, parallel-group trial. Setting • The study took place in a private practice for surgery and orthopedics. Participants • Seventy-seven outpatients with acute LBP with an average age of 42.6 ± 13.5 y, 50.6% of whom were male, took part in the study. Intervention • Participants in the intervention group (FDM group) received osteopathic manipulative treatments according to the FDM, whereas the control group (NDMG group) received an active control treatment following the NDMG. Outcome Measures • Comparing the FDM group (n = 39) and the NDMG group (n = 38), the study measured pain (visual analog scale, patient diary), functional (FFbH-R) and self-reported vocational status, and use of medication (patient diary) at baseline and after 1, 4 and 12 wk of treatment. Results • The study found marked improvements of the symptoms in both groups, with a faster onset of efficacy and significantly less medication under the FDM treatment. Conclusions • FDM appears to be effective with regard to pain relief and functional improvement for LBP.

Azilsartan compared to ACE inhibitors in anti-hypertensive therapy: one-year outcomes of the observational EARLY registry.

BACKGROUND: Azilsartan medoxomil (AZL-M), has been demonstrated to be more effective than the other sartans currently in use; however, there is insufficient information available comparing it with ACE-inhibitors. Therefore, we aimed to compare the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of AZL-M with that of ACE-inhibitors in a real life clinical setting. METHODS: The EARLY registry is a prospective, observational, national, multicentre registry with a follow-up period of 12 months. There were two principal objectives: 1) documentation of the achievement of target BP values set according to recent national and international guidelines, and 2) description of the safety profile of AZL-M. RESULTS: A total of 3 849 patients with essential arterial hypertension were recruited from primary care offices in Germany. Patients who initiated monotherapy at baseline comprising either AZL-M or an ACE-inhibitor were included at a ratio of seven to three. Results demonstrated that a blood pressure target of <140/90 mmHg was achieved by a significantly greater proportion of patients in the AZL-M group (61.1 %) compared with the ACE-inhibitor group (56.4 %; p < 0.05; OR, 1.21; 95 % CI, 1.03-1.42), with this finding maintained after adjusting for differences in baseline characteristics. AZL-M appeared to have an equivalent safety profile to the ACE-inhibitors, with a similar incidence of adverse events in the two patient groups (p = 0.73). CONCLUSIONS: These data add to the results of previous randomized controlled clinical trials suggesting that, compared with other agents that target the renin-angiotensin system, AZL-M provides statistically significant albeit small improvements in blood pressure control.

The renin-angiotensin receptor blocker azilsartan medoxomil compared with the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor ramipril in clinical trials versus routine practice: insights from the prospective EARLY registry.

BACKGROUND: Patient characteristics and blood pressure-related outcomes in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) differ from clinical practice because of stringent selection criteria. The present study aimed to explore the relationship between clinical trials and clinical practice. We analyzed data from patients enrolled in the "Treatment with Azilsartan Compared to ACE-Inhibitors in Anti-Hypertensive Therapy" (EARLY) registry comparing blood pressure (BP) effects of the angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) azilsartan medoxomil (AZL-M) with the angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor ramipril between patients who met the eligibility criteria of a previous RCT and those who did not. METHODS: Patients with primary arterial hypertension were consecutively enrolled from primary care offices in Germany into the EARLY registry in a 7:3 ratio for treatment with AZL-M or an ACE inhibitor, provided that they met the following criteria at baseline: 1) no antihypertensive treatment prior to inclusion or a non-renin-angiotensin system (RAS) based monotherapy; 2) initiation of treatment with either AZL-M or an ACE inhibitor alone. Analyses were performed to evaluate BP effects for patients in the EARLY registry who met the selection criteria of a prior RCT (RCT+) versus those who did not (RCT-). RESULTS: Out of 3,698 patients considered, 1,644 complied with the RCT criteria (RCT+) while 2,054 did not (RCT-). RCT- patients (55.5%) displayed a higher risk profile in terms of age and comorbidities, and a wider spectrum of BP values at baseline, as highlighted by the grades of hypertension and mean BP values. The proportion of patients who achieved target blood pressure control in the RCT+ group was significantly higher for AZL-M versus ramipril (64.1 versus 56.1%; P<0.01), in accordance with the result of the clinical trial. In the RCT- AZL-M group, the proportion of patients who met BP targets was lower (58.1%) than in the RCT+ AZL-M group (64.1%), whereas the proportion of patients with target BP values in the RCT- ramipril and the RCT+ ramipril groups was similar (57.7 versus 56.1%). Thus, in contrast to results for the RCT+ group, in the RCT- group, the target BP attainment rate for AZL-M was not significantly superior to that for ramipril. However, the tolerability profile of AZL-M and ramipril was comparable in both populations. At the 12-month follow-up, death and stroke rates were low (≤0.5%) and adverse events did not differ between the AZL-M and ramipril groups, irrespective of RCT eligibility. CONCLUSIONS: These data confirm that the EARLY population comprised a broader spectrum of hypertensive patients than RCTs, and the differences in patient characteristics were accompanied by disparate rates of blood pressure goal attainment. Overall, the validity of the RCT was demonstrated and confirmed in clinical practice with a broader range of patients with various comorbidities.

Patients With Newly Diagnosed Hypertension Treated With the Renin Angiotensin Receptor Blocker Azilsartan Medoxomil vs Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors: The Prospective EARLY Registry.

For patients with newly diagnosed hypertension, angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) are usually the first-line therapies. There is, however, no real-life data regarding the relative clinical effectiveness and tolerability of either drug class. The prospective registry, Treatment With Azilsartan Compared to ACE Inhibitors in Antihypertensive Therapy (EARLY), was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of the ARB azilsartan medoxomil (AZL-M) vs ACE inhibitors in real-world patients. Of the 1153 patients with newly diagnosed hypertension who were included in the registry, 789 were prescribed AZL-M and 364 were prescribed an ACE inhibitor. After multivariate adjustment, AZL-M was found to provide superior blood pressure reduction and better target blood pressure (<140/90 mm Hg) achievement. The proportion of patients with adverse events was not statistically different between groups. The authors conclude that in newly diagnosed hypertensive patients, AZL-M provides superior blood pressure control with a similar safety profile compared with ACE inhibitors.

Candesartan cilexetil 32 mg/hydrochlorothiazide 25 mg in unselected patients with high or very high cardiovascular risk: efficacy, safety, and metabolic impact.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Safety and efficacy of the fixed-dose combination candesartan cilexetil 32 mg/hydrochlorothiazide 25 mg has been demonstrated in a number of randomized clinical trials. Because stringent inclusion and exclusion criteria prohibit many high-risk patients from being investigated in clinical trials we aimed to assess the effectiveness, tolerability, and safety in a large unselected cohort of high-risk patients in primary care. The primary objective was the efficacy of candesartan cilexetil 32 mg/hydrochlorothiazide 25 mg in lowering the office-based blood pressure (BP). Secondary objectives were changes of metabolic parameters and safety. METHODS: A multicenter, non-interventional study of patients with a BP ≥ 140 mmHg systolic and/or 90 mmHg diastolic and additional cardiovascular risk factors. Patients received the fixed-dose combination of candesartan cilexetil 32 mg and hydrochlorothiazide 25 mg for 24 weeks. RESULTS: A total of 3,390 patients with a mean age of 61.7 ± 10.6 years, 57.8 % being male, and a mean body mass index of 29.7 kg/m(2) were documented. Of these, 70.9 % had at least one additional cardiovascular risk factor such as coronary artery disease (45.5 %) or diabetes mellitus (44.5 %). Baseline BP was 159.6 ± 15.3 over 93.5 ± 9.5 mmHg. BP at 24 weeks was reduced by 32.3 ± 15.8 systolic and 16.1 ± 10.2 mmHg diastolic compared with baseline (p < 0.001 each). Systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP) was normalized (<140/<90 mmHg) in 57.4 % of non-diabetic patients. An SBP <140 mmHg or SBP reduction of ≥ 20 mmHg was achieved by 77.9 % non-diabetic patients. Fasting plasma glucose (-5.9 mg/dL), glycosylated hemoglobin (-0.18 %), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (-8.5 mg/dL) and triglycerides (-20.3 mg/dL) were reduced significantly, high-density lipoprotein was increased by 0.18 %, while potassium and creatinine levels remained stable. The proportion of patients with adverse drug reactions (ADRs) was 1.3 % (n = 61 events in 45 patients). There were ten serious ADRs in eight patients; four patients died without causal relationship to study drug. CONCLUSIONS: The results confirm previous randomized clinical trial data supporting the effectiveness, tolerability, and safety of this fixed-dose combination in an unselected patient population with high cardiovascular risk.

EARLY Treatment with azilsartan compared to ACE-inhibitors in anti-hypertensive therapy--rationale and design of the EARLY hypertension registry.

BACKGROUND: Arterial hypertension is highly prevalent but poorly controlled. Blood pressure (BP) reduction substantially reduces cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Recent randomized, double-blind clinical trials demonstrated that azilsartan medoxomil (AZM) is more effective in reducing BP than the ubiquitary ACE inhibitor ramipril. Therefore, we aimed to test whether these can be verified under clinical practice conditions. METHODS/DESIGN: The "Treatment with Azilsartan Compared to ACE-Inhibitors in Anti-Hypertensive Therapy" (EARLY) registry is a prospective, observational, national, multicenter registry with a follow-up of up to 12 months. It will include up to 5000 patients on AZM or ACE-inhibitor monotherapy in a ratio of 7 to 3. A subgroup of patients will undergo 24-hour BP monitoring. EARLY has two co-primary objectives: 1) Description of the safety profile of azilsartan and 2) achievement of BP targets based on recent national and international guidelines for patients treated with azilsartan in comparison to those treated with ACE-inhibitors. The most important secondary endpoints are the determination of persistence with treatment and the documentation of cardiovascular and renal events. Recruitment commenced in January 2012 and will be completed by February 2013. CONCLUSIONS: The data obtained will supplement previous results from randomized controlled trials to document the potential value of utilizing azilsartan medoxomil in comparison to ACE-inhibitor treatment for target BP achievement in clinical practice.

Evidence-based assessment of the period of physical inactivity required after inguinal herniotomy.

PURPOSE: Since herniotomy is one of the most frequent surgical procedures, the socioeconomical impact of guidelines for convalescence is substantial; at the same time, the introduction of mesh techniques as standard procedure has led to a marked decrease in recurrence rates. Therefore, a reappraisal of guidelines concerning convalescence is warranted. METHODS: This study is a comprehensive review of the literature including all levels of evidence. RESULTS: If an inguinal hernia is repaired with an appropriate technique in a surgically and technically faultless contemporary procedure, it is fully stable immediately after surgery. Therefore, pain is the only rational limiting factor for physical activities after the intervention. If a patient wishes to go back to work or other activities early, there is no reason to not facilitate this via a generous prescription of analgesics. Even hard physical work can technically be resumed after complete healing of the skin wound, and prolonged sick leave is neither necessary nor beneficial. No interrelation between physical activity after herniotomy and recurrence rate has yet been demonstrated; a randomized controlled trial might finally clarify this question, but at a substantial effort. CONCLUSIONS: The periods of inactivity practiced by patients and recommended by GPs are widely arbitrary and basically much too long, leading to unnecessary expenditures with an estimated order of magnitude of several hundred million euros per year in Germany. To reduce this surplus, guidelines should be implemented by the surgical professional associations and communicated intensively towards GPs and patients.

Effect of Traumeel S on pain and discomfort in radiation-induced oral mucositis: a preliminary observational study.

CONTEXT: Painful oral mucositis is an almost inevitable side effect of radiotherapy of head and neck tumors that simultaneous chemotherapy intensifies and that is notoriously difficult to treat. In a previous study, chemotherapy-induced stomatitis in children undergoing bone marrow transplantation responded well to the homeopathic complex remedy Traumeel S. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of Traumeel S in the management of radiation-induced oral mucositis in patients with head and neck tumors. DESIGN: The research team designed a nonrandomized, prospective, observational study with matched pairs. SETTING: The research team performed the study in a tertiary cancer-care center at the Institute of Radiotherapy and Special Oncology, Medical School Hanover, Germany. PARTICIPANTS: The participants were 20 patients who were receiving radiotherapy or radiochemotherapy for head and neck tumors. INTERVENTION: Five times per day during the observational period, participants self-administered daily mouth rinses with either sage tea (Salvia officinalis, control group) or Traumeel S solution (intervention group). OUTCOME MEASURES: Two independent physicians determined the grade of oral mucositis at least once per week, and the research team derived the degree of oral pain from diaries that participants kept. RESULTS: Both groups were comparable in terms of tumor and treatment characteristics. The research team could not confirm any appreciable specific effect of Traumeel S on the primary endpoints; the limited reduction in pain for the intervention group compared to the control group was not significant, and the more frequent analgesia in the Traumeel S group most likely explained that reduction. Among the secondary endpoints, loss of taste and swallowing difficulty responded to Traumeel S to some extent. CONCLUSIONS: Traumeel S may have some potential in the treatment of radiation-induced oral mucositis, but its possible effects need confirmation by further studies. This article discusses some methodological requirements.

Auricular acupuncture for dental anxiety: a randomized controlled trial.

Auricular acupuncture can be an effective treatment for acute anxiety, but there is a lack of direct comparisons of acupuncture to proven standard drug treatments. In this study we compared the efficacy of auricular acupuncture with intranasal midazolam, placebo acupuncture, and no treatment for reducing dental anxiety. Patients having dental extractions (n = 67) were randomized to (i) auricular acupuncture, (ii) placebo acupuncture, and (iii) intranasal midazolam and compared with a no treatment group. Anxiety was assessed before the interventions, at 30 min, and after the dental extraction. Physiological variables were assessed continuously. With the no treatment group as control, the auricular acupuncture group, and the midazolam group were significantly less anxious at 30 min as compared with patients in the placebo acupuncture group (Spielberger Stait-Trait Anxiety Inventory X1, P = 0.012 and <0.001, respectively). In addition, patient compliance assessed by the dentist was significantly improved if auricular acupuncture or application of intranasal midazolam had been performed (P = 0.032 and 0.049, respectively). In conclusion, both, auricular acupuncture and intranasal midazolam were similarly effective for the treatment of dental anxiety.