[Efficacy of Disease Management Programs Asthma and COPD? Results of a Cross-Sectional Study]. / Wirksamkeit von Disease-Management-Programmen für Asthma und COPD? Ergebnisse einer Querschnittstudie.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of the German disease management programs (DMP) asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) cannot be shown with the legally bound documentations. Studies with control groups are rare. Aim of this work was to investigate in a cross-sectional study whether the disease control differs in participants (DMP+) and non-participants (DMP-) of the DMPs asthma and COPD. METHODS: The study was a prospective multicenter cross-sectional study. Primary endpoints were the Asthma Control Test™ (ACT) in the asthma part of the study and the COPD Assessment Test™ (CAT) for the COPD part. RESULTS: A total of 1038 asthma patients and 846 COPD patients were included, of whom about 70 % participated in the corresponding DMP. The ACT total score was higher in asthma DMP+ patients than in DMP- patients (mean difference 0.86; 95 %CI:0.29 - 1.43;p = 0.003), but not clinically relevant. For COPD there was no clinically relevant difference in COPD disease impact (0.52; 95 %CI:-0.71 - 1.75;p = 0.405). Although DMP patients had to be enrolled in the respective DMP for at least one year, only 60 % of these patients had participated in a structured education. We did not observe a difference in disease control in DMP patients who respectively participated and did not participate in a structured education. DISCUSSION: There was no clinically relevant difference in disease control between DMP+ and DMP- patients. The efficacy of DMPs has been demonstrated internationally in randomized controlled trials. Randomized controlled trials should be conducted in Germany for demonstrating efficacy of DMPs asthma and COPD. REGISTRATION: drks.de, DRKS00007664, Registration date: Jan 15, 2015.

A liposome hydrogel with polyvinyl-pyrrolidone iodine in the local treatment of partial-thickness burn wounds.

Local treatment of burn injuries with conventional anti-infective preparations does not provide the moist environment that promotes fast wound healing. In a randomized controlled trial the effects of liposome polyvinyl-pyrrolidone-iodine (PVP-I) hydrogel, a novel formulation of PVP-I in a liposome hydrogel with high water-binding capacity, were investigated in 43 patients with partial-thickness burn wounds in an intraindividual comparison with a conventional silver-sulfadiazine cream. Treatment with liposome PVP-I hydrogel resulted in significantly faster complete healing of the burn wounds compared with silver-sulfadiazine cream (9.9 +/- 4.5 days versus 11.3 +/- 4.9; P < 0.015). The cosmetic result (smoothness, elasticity, appearance) was rated as excellent for 37.0% of study wounds with liposome PVP-I hydrogel compared with 13.0% of wounds treated with silver-sulfadiazine cream. Local tolerability was good; handling and change of dressing were rated as easy. Local treatment with liposome PVP-I hydrogel thus provides fast wound healing with a favorable cosmetic result.

Dissociation of morphine analgesia and sedation evaluated by EEG measures in healthy volunteers.

AIM: The analgesic effects of morphine (CAS 57-27-2) in clinical use are well described. Sedation is discussed as a relevant side-effect, mostly based on data recorded in normal subjects without pain. The aim of this study was to quantify and to evaluate electrophysiologically the analgesic and sedative effects of morphine for the first time using an experimental pain model. METHODS: Analgesic and sedative effects of a low dose of morphine sulfate (CAS 6211-15-0; 10 mg i.v.) were determined using a standard phasic pain model (intracutaneously administered electrical pulses) in a placebo-controlled design with seven healthy subjects. Five blocks (1 block = 80 stimuli) of painful stimuli were applied, covering a period of 3 h. Analgesia was assessed by subjective pain ratings and by pain-related brain potentials. Sedation was determined by the power spectra of the spontaneous EEG, by auditory evoked potentials (AEP), reaction times and mood scales. RESULTS: In all subjects the pain related variables were suppressed maximally 2 h after morphine administration (p < 0.01 versus placebo), indicated by a decrease of the pain ratings by about 45% and of the pain related brain potentials by about 50%. Interestingly, no effect on any sedation variable was found (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: The lack of sedative effects in the presence of marked analgesia was surprising in comparison with results of previous studies. It is concluded that the experimental pain increased the arousal level thus counteracting morphine-induced sedation. This may explain why other studies found relevant sedation after morphine application in the absence of pain. This underlines that sedative effects of analgesic drugs should be evaluated in the presence of pain. In relation to other analgesics (meperidine, pentacozine, nortilidine, flupirtine and tramadol) evaluated by exactly the same experimental protocol, morphine exhibited a potent analgesia with the smallest sedative effects of all.