Predictors of vocational activity over the first year in inner-city early intervention in psychosis services.

AIM: Work and educational activities are an important part of recovery for young people with psychosis, and improving vocational outcomes is a key target for early intervention services (EIS). This study evaluated predictors of vocational activity for first-episode psychosis (FEP) patients during the first year of EIS care. It was hypothesized that longer duration of untreated psychosis (DUP) and minority ethnic status would predict poorer vocational outcomes, whereas a history of good vocational functioning would predict better vocational functioning during follow up. METHODS: FEP patients aged 14-35 years, who presented to seven EIS in London, UK, between 2003 and 2010, were followed for 1 year. Sociodemographic, clinical and vocational information (qualifications obtained and paid employment) were collected using the MiData audit tool at entry to EIS and 1 year later. RESULTS: Approximately one-third of patients (n = 345/1013) were studying or employed at some point during the first year of EIS care. Baseline vocational activity was the strongest predictor of vocational functioning during 1 year of follow up. Moreover, employment prior to entry into EIS strongly predicted change in vocational activity during 1 year of follow up. Individuals with DUP <6 months or of Asian or black African origin were more likely to be studying than their white British counterparts. CONCLUSION: This study confirms that a significant proportion of FEP patients are able to engage in meaningful vocational activities even within the first year of EIS care. However, services need to focus more resources on getting patients with poor educational or employment histories into training programmes to improve their vocational outcomes.

Acute toxicity evaluation of proliferol: a dose-escalating, placebo-controlled study in swine.

Prolotherapy is one of the many treatments available for chronic musculoskeletal disorders. A commonly used drug contains dextrose 12.5%, glycerin 12.5%, phenol 1.0%, and lidocaine hydrochloride 0.25% in aqueous solution (recently termed Proliferol). For chronic low back pain, this is injected into lumbosacral ligaments to stimulate connective tissue repair. Despite generally positive clinical results, the toxicity of this drug is not well characterized and was assessed in 48 (24 male, 24 female) Yucatan miniature swine randomly assigned to low (1x), medium (5x), or high (10x) dose or saline placebo. Outcomes included clinical observations, clinical chemistry, hematology, coagulation, urinalysis, toxicokinetics, and full gross and microscopic histopathology after 24 hours or 14 days. Findings attributable to Proliferol after 24 hours included dose-response elevations in alanine aminotransferase, aspartate aminotransferase, lactate dehydrogenase, and creatine kinase, which returned to normal after 14 days. There were no remarkable findings in hematology, coagulation, or urinalysis. Urine concentrations of lidocaine and phenol both peaked after 8 hours. Histopathology findings after 24 hours included hemorrhage, inflammation, necrosis, and vascular changes in the ligaments and adjacent soft tissues at the sites of injection. After 14 days, there was evidence of repair under way, with fibrosis and skeletal muscle regeneration at the injection sites.

Evidence-informed management of chronic low back pain with medicine-assisted manipulation.

The management of chronic low back pain (CLBP) has proven very challenging in North America, as evidenced by its mounting socioeconomic burden. Choosing among available nonsurgical therapies can be overwhelming for many stakeholders, including patients, health providers, policy makers, and third-party payers. Although all parties share a common goal and wish to use limited health-care resources to support interventions most likely to result in clinically meaningful improvements, there is often uncertainty about the most appropriate intervention for a particular patient. To help understand and evaluate the various commonly used nonsurgical approaches to CLBP, the North American Spine Society has sponsored this special focus issue of The Spine Journal, titled Evidence Informed Management of Chronic Low Back Pain Without Surgery. Articles in this supplement were contributed by leading spine practitioners and researchers, who were invited to summarize the best available evidence for a particular intervention and encouraged to make this information accessible to nonexperts. Each of the articles contains five sections (description, theory, evidence of efficacy, harms, and summary) with common subheadings to facilitate comparison across the 24 different interventions profiled in this special focus issue, blending narrative and systematic review methodology as deemed appropriate by the authors. It is hoped that articles in this special focus issue will be informative and aid in decision making for the many stakeholders evaluating nonsurgical interventions for CLBP.

Acute toxicity evaluation of proliferol: a dose-escalating, placebo-controlled study in rats.

Proliferol is an investigational new drug containing lidocaine hydrochloride 0.25%, dextrose 12.5%, glycerin 12.5%, and phenol 1.0% in aqueous solution. Despite extensive human experience with similar drugs administered by intraligamentous injection for chronic musculoskeletal disorders, little is known concerning preclinical toxicity. The purpose of this study was to assess the acute toxicity of intramuscular Proliferol in 96 (48 male, 48 female) Charles River strain rats, which were randomly assigned to low- (1x), medium- (5x), or high- (10x) dose Proliferol (derived from a human dose of 20 ml on a volume per bodyweight basis), or high-dose saline placebo. Observations included clinical observations, biochemistry, hematology, urinalysis, and full histopathology after 24 h or 14 days. There were no signs of ill health or reaction to treatment, and gait and body temperature were within normal limits. Biochemistry findings at 24 h included elevated aspartate aminotransferase, alanine aminotransferase, and haptoglobin; at 14 days all values were within normal ranges. Urinalysis findings at 24 h included increased urobilinogen and blood in all dose groups compared with placebo. Urine concentrations of phenol and lidocaine were greatest at 2 h and absent at 24 h. Histopathology findings included localized acute inflammatory soft tissue changes at the injection sites at 24 h and skeletal muscle regeneration at 14 days, which were consistent with the anticipated mechanism of action of Proliferol. There was no evidence of systemic toxicity from intramuscular injection of Proliferol in rats at up to 10x the human dose.

Side effects and adverse events related to intraligamentous injection of sclerosing solutions (prolotherapy) for back and neck pain: A survey of practitioners.

OBJECTIVE: To study the side effects and adverse events related to intraligamentous injection of sclerosing solutions (prolotherapy) for back and neck pain. DESIGN: Practitioner postal survey. SETTING: Postal survey of practitioners of prolotherapy for back and neck pain in the United States and Canada. PARTICIPANTS: A sample of prolotherapy practitioners from 2 professional organizations were surveyed about their training and experience, use of specific treatment procedures, estimated prevalence of side effects, and adverse events related to prolotherapy for back and neck pain. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Prevalence of side effects and adverse events. RESULTS: Surveys were completed by 171 practitioners (response rate, 50%). Ninety-eight percent held medical degrees, and 83% were board certified in various disciplines. Respondents had a median of 10 years of experience, during which they had treated a median of 500 patients and given a median of 2000 treatments. Side effects with the highest median estimated prevalence were pain (70%), stiffness (25%), and bruising (5%). There were 472 reports of adverse events, including 69 that required hospitalization and 5 that resulted in permanent injury secondary to nerve injury. The vast majority (80%) were related to needle injuries such as spinal headache (n = 164), pneumothorax (n=123), temporary systemic reactions (n = 73), nerve damage (n = 54), hemorrhage (n = 27), nonsevere spinal cord insult (ie, meningitis, paralysis, spinal cord injury) (n = 9), and disk injury (n = 2). CONCLUSIONS: Side effects related to prolotherapy for back and neck pain, such as temporary postinjection pain, stiffness, and bruising, are common and benign. Adverse events related to prolotherapy for back and neck pain are similar in nature to other widely used spinal injection procedures. Further study is needed to fully describe the adverse event profile of prolotherapy for back and neck pain.

Acute toxicity pilot evaluation of proliferol in rats and swine.

Proliferol is an investigational new drug containing lidocaine hydrochloride 0.25%, dextrose 12.5%, glycerin 12.5%, and phenol 1.0% in aqueous solution. Despite extensive previous experience with similar drug solutions administered in humans by intraligamentous injection for chronic musculoskeletal conditions for over 50 years, animal toxicity data are unavailable. A pilot study was conducted to assess acute toxic effects prior to undertaking further assessment of this drug. Test animals were four Sprague-Dawley rats and four Yucatan mini-swine. Rats received injections into lumbar paraspinal muscles, whereas swine received injections into lumbosacral ligaments in an attempt to mirror the method of administration in humans. Two doses were studied equivalent to 1x and 5x the typical human dose. Outcomes measured at 24 h and 14 days included clinical observations, clinical chemistry, hematology, urinalysis, local tolerance, and major organ histopathology. In rats and swine, results from clinical chemistry, hematology, and urinalysis were indicative of acute local inflammation. At the high dose, marked (rats) and moderate (swine) short-term above-normal levels in certain liver enzymes were noted. In rats and swine, local tolerance results were indicative of acute local inflammatory changes in the skin, subcutis, and muscle around the injection sites. In rats and swine, major organ histopathology results did not reveal lesions attributable to the drug and clinical observations were within normal limits. In swine, fibroplasia was noted in deeper muscle tissues after 14 days. Injections of Proliferol in lumbar paraspinal muscles in rats and lumbosacral ligaments in swine elicited a modest acute local inflammatory response with no other indications of local or systemic toxicity.

Intraligamentous injection of sclerosing solutions (prolotherapy) for spinal pain: a critical review of the literature.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: The injection of various solutions aimed at producing a sclerosing effect has been used to treat soft tissues injuries (eg, inguinal hernia) for more than 100 years. In the 1930s, this treatment approach was applied to injured joints in an attempt to stimulate connective tissue repair. Although several studies have been published about this method of treatment for various orthopedic and spinal indications (termed prolotherapy), its use remains controversial. PURPOSE: To conduct a critical review of the literature on prolotherapy for spinal pain. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Critical review of the literature. METHODS: Computerized medical literature databases (Medline, CINAHL, Mantis, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) were searched to uncover all published information about the use of sclerosing injections in humans with spinal pain disorders. Search results were reviewed for relevance, and information was abstracted from full-text articles. RESULTS: Our search uncovered almost 200 reference materials in various media related to prolotherapy, including 31 clinical studies related to spinal pain. There were 26 observational cohorts and 5 randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Indications in these studies were low back pain (22), neck pain (3), cervical headaches (3) and dorsal or thoracic pain (3). A total of 20 sclerosing solutions were used in these studies; the most common was a mixture of dextrose 12.5%, glycerin 12.5%, phenol 1.25% and lidocaine 0.25%. Wide variations were found in treatment protocols, such as dose, number of treatments and use of adjunct therapies. Most cohort studies were only of moderate quality and varied greatly in the substances injected and the use of co-interventions. Most clinical studies reported positive results such as decreased pain or disability, although differences between treatment and control groups did not always reach statistical significance. Commonly reported adverse reactions to this treatment include temporary postinjection pain and stiffness. A handful of more serious adverse events were reported in the 1950s and 1960s with stronger or unknown solutions. CONCLUSION: Prolotherapy describes a variety of treatment approaches rather than a specific protocol. Results from clinical studies published to date indicate that it may be effective at reducing spinal pain. Great variation was found in the injection and treatment protocols used in these studies that preclude definite conclusions. Future research should focus on those solutions and protocols that are most commonly used in clinical practice and have been used in trials reporting effectiveness to help determine which patients, if any, are most likely to benefit from this treatment.