Effects of aerobic and combined training on pain-free walking distance and health-related quality of life in patients with peripheral artery disease: a randomized clinical trial.

Background: Decreased walking ability in patients with peripheral arterial disease is often a clinical problem and limits the quality of life and daily activities of these subjects. physical exercise is important in this scenario, as it improves both the daily walking distance and the ability to withstand intermittent claudication related to the limitations of the peripheral disease. Objectives: Our aim was to compare the effects of two types of exercise training (aerobic training and aerobic training combined with resistance exercises) on pain-free walking distance (PFWD) and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in a sample composed of patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD). Methods: Twenty patients with claudication symptoms were randomized to either aerobic control (AC) N= 9, or combined training (CT) N= 8, (24 sixty-minute sessions, twice a week). The total walking distance until onset of pain due to claudication was assessed using the 6-minute walk test and HRQoL was measured using the WHOQOL-bref questionnaire (general and specific domains) at baseline and after training. We used generalized estimating equations (GEE) to assess the differences between groups for the PFWD and HRQoL domains, testing the main group and time effects and their respective interaction effects. P values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant. Results: Seventeen patients (mean age 63±9 years; 53% male) completed the study. Both groups experienced improvement in claudication, as reflected by a significant increase in PFWD: AC, 149 m to 299 m (P<0.001); CT, 156 m to 253 m (P<0.001). HRQoL domains also improved similarly in both groups (physical capacity, psychological aspects, and self-reported quality of life; P=0.001, P=0.003, and P=0.011 respectively). Conclusions: Both aerobic and combined training similarly improved PFWD and HRQoL in PAD patients. There are no advantages in adding strength training to conventional aerobic training. This study does not support the conclusion that combined training is a good strategy for these patients when compared with classic training.

Contexto: A diminuição da capacidade de marcha em pacientes com doença arterial periférica é frequentemente um problema clínico e limita a qualidade de vida e as atividades diárias desses indivíduos. O exercício físico é importante nesse cenário, pois melhora tanto a distância caminhada diária quanto a capacidade de suportar a claudicação intermitente relacionada às limitações da doença periférica. Objetivos: Comparar os efeitos do treinamento aeróbico (TA) e do treinamento aeróbico combinado com exercícios de resistência (TC) na distância percorrida livre de dor (DPLD) e na qualidade de vida relacionada à saúde (QVRS) em pacientes com doença arterial periférica (DAP). Métodos: Vinte pacientes com sintomas de claudicação foram randomizados para TA ou TC. Os treinamentos foram realizados em 24 sessões, duas vezes por semana. A DPLD foi avaliada por meio do teste de caminhada de 6 minutos, e a QVRS foi medida pelo instrumento da avaliação de qualidade de vida da Organização Mundial da Saúde (WHOQOL-BREF), no início e após o treinamento. Para avaliar as diferenças entre os grupos para DPLD e os domínios da QVRS, foi utilizado o modelo de equações de estimativa generalizada, testando os efeitos principais do grupo e tempo, bem como os respectivos efeitos de interação. Valores de p < 0,05 foram considerados estatisticamente significativos. Resultados: Dezessete pacientes (idade média: 63±9 anos; 53% do sexo masculino) completaram o estudo. Ambos os grupos apresentaram melhora na claudicação, refletida por um aumento significativo na DPLD: grupo controle aeróbico - de 149 m para 299 m (P < 0,001); grupo de treinamento combinado - de 156 m para 253 m (P < 0,001). Os domínios da QVRS também melhoraram de forma semelhante em ambos os grupos (capacidade física, aspectos psicológicos e qualidade de vida autorreferida; P = 0,001, P = 0,003 e P = 0,011, respectivamente). Conclusões: Ambos os treinamentos melhoraram de forma semelhante a DPLD e a QVRS em pacientes com DAP. Não há vantagens em associar o treinamento de força ao treinamento aeróbico convencional. O estudo não permite concluir que o TC é uma boa estratégia para esses pacientes quando comparado ao treinamento clássico.

Efficacy of paraspinal anesthetic block in patients with chronic pelvic pain refractory to drug therapy: a randomized clinical trial.

PURPOSE: To determine whether paraspinal block reduces pain scores compared to placebo in women with chronic pelvic pain refractory to drug therapy. METHODS: Subjects with chronic pelvic pain due to benign conditions and refractory to drug therapy were invited to participate in a randomized, double blind, superiority trial at a tertiary reference center. Subjects were randomly allocated to receive paraspinal anesthetic block with 1% lidocaine without epinephrine or placebo (control). Lidocaine was injected along the spinal process of the painful segment in the supra- and interspinal ligaments using a 25G X 2" needle. Placebo consisted of introduction of the needle in the same segment without injecting any substance. The main outcome measured was the pain score based on a visual analog scale at T0 (baseline), T1 (within 15 min after the procedure) and T2 (one week after the procedure). Data were statistically analyzed by ANOVA and the 95% confidence interval (95%CI). RESULTS: Mean age was similar for both groups, i.e., 51.2 (paraspinal anesthetic block) and 51.8 years (control). A blind examiner measured the degree of pain according to the visual analog scale from 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst pain imaginable). Based on the visual analog scale, the mean pain scores of the paraspinal anesthetic block group at T0, T1 and T2 were 5.50 (SD=2.92; 95%CI 3.84-7.15), 2.72 (SD=2.10; 95%CI 1.53-3.90), and 4.36 (SD=2.37; 95%CI 1.89-6.82), respectively. The difference between T0 and T1 was statistically significant, with p=0.03. CONCLUSIONS: Paraspinal anesthetic block had a small effect on visual analog scale pain score immediately after the injections, but no sustained benefit after one week. Further studies are needed to determine the efficacy of paraspinal anesthetic block with different lidocaine doses for the treatment of visceral pain of other causes.

A double-blind, randomised, crossover trial of two botulinum toxin type a in patients with spasticity.

BACKGROUND: Botulinum toxin type A (btxA) is one of the main treatment choices for patients with spasticity. Prosigne® a new released botulinum toxin serotype A may have the same effectiveness as Botox® in focal dystonia. However, there are no randomized clinical trials comparing these formulations in spasticity treatment. The aim of our study was to compare the efficacy and safety of Prosigne® with Botox® in the treatment of spasticity. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We performed a double-blind, randomized, crossover study consisting of 57 patients with clinically meaningful spasticity. The patients were assessed at baseline, 4 and 12 weeks after Prosigne® or Botox® administration. The main outcomes were changes in the patients' Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS), Functional Independence Measure (FIM) and Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory (PEDI) scores and adverse effects related to the botulinum toxin. Both of the toxins were significantly effective in relieving the level of spasticity in adults and children. There were no significant differences found between the Prosigne® and Botox® treatments regarding their MAS, FIM and PEDI scores. Likewise, the incidence of adverse effects was similar between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that Prosigne® and Botox® are both efficient and comparable with respect to their efficacy and safety for the three month treatment of spasticity. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00819065.