Displaying all 9 publications

Abstract:
Sort:
  1. Abhishek A, Curran DJ, Bilwani F, Jones AC, Towler MR, Doherty M
    Rheumatology (Oxford), 2016 Feb;55(2):379-80.
    PMID: 26342227 DOI: 10.1093/rheumatology/kev339
    Study done in England
  2. Kundakci B, Kaur J, Goh SL, Hall M, Doherty M, Zhang W, et al.
    Pain, 2022 Aug 01;163(8):1432-1445.
    PMID: 34813518 DOI: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000002500
    Fibromyalgia is a highly heterogeneous condition, but the most common symptoms are widespread pain, fatigue, poor sleep, and low mood. Nonpharmacological interventions are recommended as first-line treatment of fibromyalgia. However which interventions are effective for the different symptoms is not well understood. The objective of this study was to assess the efficacy of nonpharmacological interventions on symptoms and disease-specific quality of life. Seven databases were searched from their inception until June 1, 2020. Randomised controlled trials comparing any nonpharmacological intervention to usual care, waiting list, or placebo in people with fibromyalgia aged >16 years were included without language restriction. Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ) was the primary outcome measure. Standardised mean difference and 95% confidence interval were calculated using random effects model. The risk of bias was evaluated using the modified Cochrane tool. Of the 16,251 studies identified, 167 randomised controlled trials (n = 11,012) assessing 22 nonpharmacological interventions were included. Exercise, psychological treatments, multidisciplinary modality, balneotherapy, and massage improved FIQ. Subgroup analysis of different exercise interventions found that all forms of exercise improved pain (effect size [ES] -0.72 to -0.96) and depression (ES -0.35 to -1.22) except for flexibility exercise. Mind-body and strengthening exercises improved fatigue (ES -0.77 to -1.00), whereas aerobic and strengthening exercises improved sleep (ES -0.74 to -1.33). Psychological treatments including cognitive behavioural therapy and mindfulness improved FIQ, pain, sleep, and depression (ES -0.35 to -0.55) but not fatigue. The findings of this study suggest that nonpharmacological interventions for fibromyalgia should be individualised according to the predominant symptom.
  3. Goh SL, Persson MSM, Stocks J, Hou Y, Lin J, Hall MC, et al.
    Ann Phys Rehabil Med, 2019 Sep;62(5):356-365.
    PMID: 31121333 DOI: 10.1016/j.rehab.2019.04.006
    BACKGROUND: Exercise is an effective treatment for osteoarthritis. However, the effect may vary from one patient (or study) to another.

    OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of exercise and its potential determinants for pain, function, performance, and quality of life (QoL) in knee and hip osteoarthritis (OA).

    METHODS: We searched 9 electronic databases (AMED, CENTRAL, CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE Ovid, PEDro, PubMed, SPORTDiscus and Google Scholar) for reports of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing exercise-only interventions with usual care. The search was performed from inception up to December 2017 with no language restriction. The effect size (ES), with its 95% confidence interval (CI), was calculated on the basis of between-group standardised mean differences. The primary endpoint was at or nearest to 8 weeks. Other outcome time points were grouped into intervals, from<1 month to≥18 months, for time-dependent effects analysis. Potential determinants were explored by subgroup analyses. Level of significance was set at P≤0.10.

    RESULTS: Data from 77 RCTs (6472 participants) confirmed statistically significant exercise benefits for pain (ES 0.56, 95% CI 0.44-0.68), function (0.50, 0.38-0.63), performance (0.46, 0.35-0.57), and QoL (0.21, 0.11-0.31) at or nearest to 8 weeks. Across all outcomes, the effects appeared to peak around 2 months and then gradually decreased and became no better than usual care after 9 months. Better pain relief was reported by trials investigating participants who were younger (mean age<60 years), had knee OA, and were not awaiting joint replacement surgery.

    CONCLUSIONS: Exercise significantly reduces pain and improves function, performance and QoL in people with knee and hip OA as compared with usual care at 8 weeks. The effects are maximal around 2 months and thereafter slowly diminish, being no better than usual care at 9 to 18 months. Participants with younger age, knee OA and not awaiting joint replacement may benefit more from exercise therapy. These potential determinants, identified by study-level analyses, may have implied ecological bias and need to be confirmed with individual patient data.

  4. Goh SL, Persson MS, Bhattacharya A, Hall M, Doherty M, Zhang W
    Syst Rev, 2016 09 02;5(1):147.
    PMID: 27590834 DOI: 10.1186/s13643-016-0321-6
    BACKGROUND: 'Exercise' is universally recommended as a core treatment for knee and hip osteoarthritis (OA). However, there are very few head-to-head comparative trials to determine the relative efficacy between different types of exercise. The aim of this study is to benchmark different types of exercises against each other through the use of a common comparator in a network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

    METHODS: This study will include only RCTs published in peer-reviewed journals. A systematic search will be conducted in several electronic databases and other relevant online resources. No limitations are imposed on language or publication date. Participants must be explicitly identified by authors as having OA. Interventions that involved exercise or comparators in any form will be included. Pain is the primary outcome of interest; secondary outcomes will include function and quality of life measures. Quality assessment of studies will be based on the modified Cochrane's risk of bias assessment tool. At least two investigators will be involved throughout all stages of screening and data acquisition. Conflicts will be resolved through discussion. Conventional meta-analysis will be performed based on random effects model and network meta-analysis on a Bayesian model. Subgroup analysis will also be conducted based on study, patient and disease characteristics.

    DISCUSSION: This study will provide for the first time comprehensive research evidence for the relative efficacy of different exercise regimens for treatment of OA. We will use network meta-analysis of existing RCT data to answer this question.

    SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42016033865.

  5. Persson MS, Fu Y, Bhattacharya A, Goh SL, van Middelkoop M, Bierma-Zeinstra SM, et al.
    Syst Rev, 2016 Sep 26;5(1):165.
    PMID: 27686859
    BACKGROUND: Pain is the most troubling issue to patients with osteoarthritis (OA), yet current pharmacological treatments offer only small-to-moderate pain reduction. Current guidelines therefore emphasise the need to identify predictors of treatment response. In line with these recommendations, an individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis will be conducted. The study aims to investigate the relative treatment effects of topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and topical capsaicin in OA and to identify patient-level predictors of treatment response.
    METHODS: IPD will be collected from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of topical NSAIDs and capsaicin in OA. Multilevel regression modelling will be conducted to determine predictors for the specific and the overall treatment effect.
    DISCUSSION: Through the identification of treatment responders, this IPD meta-analysis may improve the current understanding of the pain mechanisms in OA and guide clinical decision-making. Identifying and prescribing the treatment most likely to be beneficial for an individual with OA will improve the efficiency of patient management.
    SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION:
    CRD42016035254.
    KEYWORDS: Capsaicin; Individual patient data meta-analysis; NSAIDs; Osteoarthritis; Topical
  6. Goh SL, Persson MSM, Stocks J, Hou Y, Welton NJ, Lin J, et al.
    Sports Med, 2019 May;49(5):743-761.
    PMID: 30830561 DOI: 10.1007/s40279-019-01082-0
    BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend exercise as a core treatment for osteoarthritis (OA). However, it is unclear which type of exercise is most effective, leading to inconsistency between different recommendations.

    OBJECTIVES: The aim of this systematic review and network meta-analysis was to investigate the relative efficacy of different exercises (aerobic, mind-body, strengthening, flexibility/skill, or mixed) for improving pain, function, performance and quality of life (QoL) for knee and hip OA at, or nearest to, 8 weeks.

    METHODS: We searched nine electronic databases up until December 2017 for randomised controlled trials that compared exercise with usual care or with another exercise type. Bayesian network meta-analysis was used to estimate the relative effect size (ES) and corresponding 95% credibility interval (CrI) (PROSPERO registration: CRD42016033865).

    FINDINGS: We identified and analysed 103 trials (9134 participants). Aerobic exercise was most beneficial for pain (ES 1.11; 95% CrI 0.69, 1.54) and performance (1.05; 0.63, 1.48). Mind-body exercise, which had pain benefit equivalent to that of aerobic exercise (1.11; 0.63, 1.59), was the best for function (0.81; 0.27, 1.36). Strengthening and flexibility/skill exercises improved multiple outcomes at a moderate level. Mixed exercise was the least effective for all outcomes and had significantly less pain relief than aerobic and mind-body exercises. The trend was significant for pain (p = 0.01), but not for function (p = 0.07), performance (p = 0.06) or QoL (p = 0.65).

    CONCLUSION: The effect of exercise varies according to the type of exercise and target outcome. Aerobic or mind-body exercise may be the best for pain and function improvements. Strengthening and flexibility/skill exercises may be used for multiple outcomes. Mixed exercise is the least effective and the reason for this merits further investigation.

  7. Weng Q, Goh SL, Wu J, Persson MSM, Wei J, Sarmanova A, et al.
    Br J Sports Med, 2023 Aug;57(15):990-996.
    PMID: 36593092 DOI: 10.1136/bjsports-2022-105898
    OBJECTIVE: Clinical guidelines recommend exercise as a core treatment for knee or hip osteoarthritis (OA). However, how its analgesic effect compares to analgesics, for example, oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and paracetamol-the most commonly used analgesics for OA, remains unknown.

    DESIGN: Network meta-analysis.

    DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Library and Web of Science from database inception to January 2022.

    ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing exercise therapy with oral NSAIDs and paracetamol directly or indirectly in knee or hip OA.

    RESULTS: A total of n=152 RCTs (17 431 participants) were included. For pain relief, there was no difference between exercise and oral NSAIDs and paracetamol at or nearest to 4 (standardised mean difference (SMD)=-0.12, 95% credibility interval (CrI) -1.74 to 1.50; n=47 RCTs), 8 (SMD=0.22, 95% CrI -0.05 to 0.49; n=2 RCTs) and 24 weeks (SMD=0.17, 95% CrI -0.77 to 1.12; n=9 RCTs). Similarly, there was no difference between exercise and oral NSAIDs and paracetamol in functional improvement at or nearest to 4 (SMD=0.09, 95% CrI -1.69 to 1.85; n=40 RCTs), 8 (SMD=0.06, 95% CrI -0.20 to 0.33; n=2 RCTs) and 24 weeks (SMD=0.05, 95% CrI -1.15 to 1.24; n=9 RCTs).

    CONCLUSIONS: Exercise has similar effects on pain and function to that of oral NSAIDs and paracetamol. Given its excellent safety profile, exercise should be given more prominence in clinical care, especially in older people with comorbidity or at higher risk of adverse events related to NSAIDs and paracetamol.CRD42019135166.

  8. Fu Y, Persson MS, Bhattacharya A, Goh SL, Stocks J, van Middelkoop M, et al.
    Syst Rev, 2016 10 28;5(1):183.
    PMID: 27793184
    BACKGROUND: The management of osteoarthritis (OA) is unsatisfactory, as most treatments are not clinically effective over placebo and most drugs have considerable side effects. On average, 75 % of the analgesic effect from OA treatments in clinical trials can be attributed to a placebo response, and this response varies greatly from patient to patient. This individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis aims to identify placebo responders and the potential determinants of the placebo response in OA.

    METHODS: This study is undertaken in conjunction with the OA Trial Bank, an ongoing international consortium aiming to collect IPD from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) for all treatments of OA. RCTs for each treatment of OA have been systematically searched for, and authors of the relevant trials have been contacted to request the IPD. We will use the IPD of placebo-controlled RCTs held by the OA Trial Bank for this project. The IPD in placebo groups will be used to investigate the placebo response according to the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) threshold (e.g. 20 % pain reduction). Responders to placebo will be compared with non-responders to identify predictors of response. The quality of the trials will be assessed and potential determinants will be examined using multilevel logistic regression analyses.

    DISCUSSION: This study explores the varying magnitude of the placebo response and the proportion of participants that experience a clinically important placebo effect in OA RCTs. Potential determinants of the placebo response will also be investigated. These determinants may be useful for future studies as it may allow participants to be stratified into groups based on their likely response to placebo. The results of this study may also be useful for pharmaceutical companies, who could improve the design of their studies in order to separate the specific treatment from the non-specific contextual (i.e. placebo) effects.

    SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42016033212.
  9. Fong CH, Meti N, Kruser T, Weiss J, Liu ZA, Takami H, et al.
    J Thorac Dis, 2023 Aug 31;15(8):4367-4378.
    PMID: 37691657 DOI: 10.21037/jtd-22-697
    BACKGROUND: The role for radiotherapy or surgery in the upfront management of brain metastases (BrM) in epidermal growth factor receptor mutant (EGFRm) or anaplastic lymphoma kinase translocation positive (ALK+) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is uncertain because of a lack of prospective evidence supporting tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) monotherapy. Further understanding of practice heterogeneity is necessary to guide collaborative efforts in establishing guideline recommendations.

    METHODS: We conducted an international survey among medical (MO), clinical (CO), and radiation oncologists (RO), as well as neurosurgeons (NS), of treatment recommendations for asymptomatic BrM (in non-eloquent regions) EGFRm or ALK+ NSCLC patients according to specific clinical scenarios. We grouped and compared treatment recommendations according to specialty. Responses were summarized using counts and percentages and analyzed using the Fisher exact test.

    RESULTS: A total of 449 surveys were included in the final analysis: 48 CO, 85 MO, 60 NS, and 256 RO. MO and CO were significantly more likely than RO and NS to recommend first-line TKI monotherapy, regardless of the number and/or size of asymptomatic BrM (in non-eloquent regions). Radiotherapy in addition to TKI as first-line management was preferred by all specialties for patients with ≥4 BrM. NS recommended surgical resection more often than other specialties for BrM measuring >2 cm.

    CONCLUSIONS: Recommendations for the management of BrM from EGFRm or ALK+ NSCLC vary significantly according to oncology sub-specialties. Development of multidisciplinary guidelines and further research on establishing optimal treatment strategies is warranted.

Related Terms
Filters
Contact Us

Please provide feedback to Administrator ([email protected])

External Links