RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Evidence on the effectiveness of the Epley manoeuvre in primary care is scarce. AIM: To evaluate effectiveness at 1 week, 1 month, and 1 year of a single Epley manoeuvre versus a sham manoeuvre in primary care. DESIGN AND SETTING: Multicentre, double-blind randomised controlled trial in two primary care practices in Spain from November 2012 to January 2015. METHOD: Patients were ≥18 years diagnosed with subjective or objective posterior benign paroxysmal positional vertigo (vertigo only, or vertigo and nystagmus after a Dix-Hallpike test [DHT]). The intervention group received the Epley manoeuvre, and the control group received a sham manoeuvre. Betahistine was prescribed following the same regimen in both groups. The main outcome measures were the DHT result classified as negative (neither vertigo nor nystagmus) or positive. Positive results were further divided into a positive result for both vertigo and nystagmus (positive DHT with nystagmus), and a positive result for vertigo only (positive DHT without nystagmus); self-reported resolution of vertigo; and self-reported severity of vertigo evaluated on a 10-point Likert scale (10 = worst imaginable vertigo). RESULTS: In total, 134 patients were randomised to either the intervention group (n = 66) or the sham group (n = 68). The intervention group showed better results in the unadjusted analyses at 1 week, with a lower rate of positive DHT with nystagmus (P = 0.022). A positive baseline DHT with nystagmus was associated with a reduction in vertigo severity (marginal effect for 10-point Likert-like question -1.73, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -2.95 to -0.51) and better positive DHT rates in the intervention group (adjusted odds ratio 0.09, 95% CI = 0.01 to 0.92) in the multivariate analyses. CONCLUSION: A single Epley manoeuvre performed in primary care is an effective treatment for reversing a positive DHT and reducing vertigo severity in patients with baseline nystagmus in the DHT.
Assuntos
Vertigem Posicional Paroxística Benigna/terapia , Posicionamento do Paciente/métodos , Atenção Primária à Saúde , Adulto , Idoso , Método Duplo-Cego , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Resultado do TratamentoRESUMO
OBJECTIVE: The objective of the present review is to evaluate multicomponent/complex primary care (PC) interventions for their effectiveness in continuous smoking abstinence by adult smokers. DESIGN: A systematic review of randomised and non-randomised controlled trials was undertaken. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR INCLUDED STUDIES: Selected studies met the following criteria: evaluated effects of a multicomponent/complex intervention (with 2 or more intervention components) in achieving at least 6-month abstinence in adult smokers who visited a PC, biochemical confirmation of abstinence, intention-to-treat analysis and results published in English/Spanish. METHODS: We followed PRISMA statement to report the review. We searched the following data sources: MEDLINE, Web of Science, Scopus (from inception to February 2014), 3 key journals and a tobacco research bulletin. The Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network checklists were used to evaluate methodological quality. Data selection, evaluation and extraction were done independently, using a paired review approach. Owing to the heterogeneity of interventions in the studies included, a meta-analysis was not conducted. RESULTS: Of 1147 references identified, 9 studies were selected (10,204 participants, up to 48â months of follow-up, acceptable methodological quality). Methodologies used were mainly individual or group sessions, telephone conversations, brochures or quit-smoking kits, medications and economic incentives for doctors and no-cost medications for smokers. Complex interventions achieved long-term continuous abstinence ranging from 7% to 40%. Behavioural interventions were effective and had a dose-response effect. Both nicotine replacement and bupropion therapy were safe and effective, with no observed differences. CONCLUSIONS: Multicomponent/complex interventions in PC are effective and safe, appearing to achieve greater long-term continuous smoking cessation than usual care and counselling alone. Selected studies were heterogeneous and some had significant losses to follow-up. Our results show that smoking interventions should include more than one component and a strong follow-up of the patient to maximise results.