METHODS: In an international, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study, symptomatic individuals classified CEAP C0s to C4s were randomized in either treatment arm and treated for 8 weeks. Lower limb symptoms (discomfort, pain and heaviness) were assessed using Visual Analog Scales (VAS), and quality of life (QoL) was measured with the CIVIQ-20 Questionnaire.
RESULTS: A total of 1139 patients were included in the study. Both MPFF treatment regimens were well tolerated and associated with a significant reduction in lower limb symptoms. A non-inferiority of MPFF 1000-mg oral suspension once daily compared to MPFF 500-mg tablet twice daily (P<0.0001) was found for lower limb discomfort (-3.33 cm for MPFF 1000 mg and -3.37 cm for MPFF 500 mg), leg pain (-3.27 cm for MPFF 1000 mg and -3.31 cm for MPFF 500 mg) and leg heaviness (-3.41 cm for MPFF 1000 mg and -3.46 cm for MPFF 500 mg). The patients' QoL was improved by about 20 points on the CIVIQ scale in both groups (19.33 points for MPFF 1000 mg and 20.28 points for MPFF 500 mg).
CONCLUSIONS: MPFF 1000-mg oral suspension and MPFF 500-mg tablets treatments were associated with similar reductions in lower limb symptoms and QoL improvement. The new once daily MPFF1000-mg oral suspension has a similar safety profile to two tablets of MPFF 500 mg, with the advantage of one daily intake, potentially associated with improved patient adherence and easier CVD management.
METHODS: Patients fulfilling the International Headache Society (IHS) criteria for TN were prospectively interviewed for their demographic and clinical data. Pain intensity was rated with a visual analog scale (VAS), anxiety and depression were determined by the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), and QoL was assessed by the Short-Form 36 (SF-36) questionnaire. Chi-square, Mann-Whitney U, and Spearman correlation tests were used to test for differences considering a significance level of P < .05.
RESULTS: Of the 75 included patients, 52 (69.3%) were women with a mean ± standard deviation (SD) onset age of 52.0 ± 12.7 years, and 57.3% were Chinese, 24.0% Malay, and 18.7% Indian. Pain was more common on the right side (69.3%) and in the maxillary and mandibular divisions. VAS scores for pain at its worst were higher in anxious/borderline anxious patients compared to non-anxious patients (89.5 ± 15.9 vs 80.9 ± 17.2, respectively; P < .05), and VAS scores for pain at its least were higher in depressed/borderline depressed subjects compared to non-depressed subjects (38.4 ± 25.8 vs 23.0 ± 19.2, respectively; P < .05). Chinese patients had lower VAS scores for pain at its least compared to Indian patients (19.7 ± 16.1 vs 39.9 ± 24.7; P < .01). TN patients scored lower in all eight domains of the SF-36 compared to the general population. Indian patients had lower scores in role limitations due to physical health (8.9 ± 23.2 vs 49.4 ± 43.8; P < .01) and social function (56.3 ± 13.6 vs 76.5 ± 23.6; P < .01) than Chinese patients, and Malay patients had lower mental health scores compared to Chinese patients (59.1 ± 19.5 vs 73.0 ± 21.0; P < .01).
CONCLUSION: Clinical characteristics of TN patients were similar to those of other populations. There were differences in pain ratings and QoL between TN patients of different ethnicities, as well as between those with anxiety and depression.
METHODS: An open-label study was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of the addition of 1.5 mcg/kg intranasal fentanyl to 2 mg/kg intravenous tramadol (fentanyl + tramadol arm, n = 10) as compared to the administration of 2 mg/kg intravenous tramadol alone (tramadol-only arm, n = 10) in adult patients with moderate to severe pain due to acute musculoskeletal injuries.
RESULTS: When analysed using the independent t-test, the difference between the mean visual analogue scale scores pre-intervention and ten minutes post-intervention was 29.8 ± 8.4 mm in the fentanyl + tramadol arm and 19.6 ± 9.7 mm in the tramadol-only arm (t[18] = 2.515, p = 0.022, 95% confidence interval 1.68-18.72 mm). A statistically significant, albeit transient, reduction in the ten-minute post-intervention mean arterial pressure was noted in the fentanyl + tramadol arm as compared to the tramadol-only arm (13.35 mmHg vs. 7.65 mmHg; using Mann-Whitney U test with U-value 21.5, p = 0.029, r = 0.48). There was a higher incidence of transient dizziness ten minutes after intervention among the patients in the fentanyl + tramadol arm.
CONCLUSION: Although effective, intranasal fentanyl may not be appropriate for routine use in adult patients, as it could result in a significant reduction in blood pressure.
METHODS: A cross-sectional descriptive study was conducted among PLWHA attending an ART centre of a tertiary care hospital in Islamabad, Pakistan. HRQoL was assessed using a validated Urdu version of EuroQol 5 dimensions 3 level (EQ-5D-3L) and its Visual Analogue Scale (EQ-VAS).
RESULTS: Of the 602 patients included in the analyses, 59.5% (n = 358) reported no impairment in self-care, while 63.1% (n = 380) were extremely anxious/depressed. The overall mean EQ-5D utility score and visual analogue scale (EQ-VAS) score were 0.388 (SD: 0.41) and 66.20 (SD: 17.22), respectively. Multivariate linear regression analysis revealed that the factors significantly associated with HRQoL were: female gender; age > 50 years; having primary and secondary education; > 1 year since HIV diagnosis; HIV serostatus AIDS-converted; higher CD 4 T lymphocytes count; detectable viral load; and increased time to ART.
CONCLUSIONS: The current findings have shown that PLWHA in Pakistan adherent to ART had a good overall HRQoL, though with significantly higher depression. Some of the factors identified are amenable to institution-based interventions while mitigating depression to enhance the HRQoL of PLWHA in Pakistan. The HRQoL determined in this study could be useful for future economic evaluation studies for ART and in designing future interventions.
METHOD: A randomized controlled open-label study was performed at the cardiothoracic intensive care unit of Penang Hospital, Malaysia. A total of 28 patients who underwent cardiac surgeries were randomly assigned to receive either dexmedetomidine or morphine. Both groups were similar in terms of preoperative baseline characteristics. Efficacy measures included sedation scores and pain intensity and requirements for additional sedative/analgesic. Mean heart rate and arterial blood pressure were used as safety measures. Other measures were additional inotropes, extubation time and other concurrent medications.
RESULTS: The mean dose of dexmedetomidine infused was 0.12 [SD 0.03] μg kg⁻¹ h⁻¹, while that of morphine was 13.2 [SD 5.84] μg kg⁻¹ h⁻¹. Dexmedetomidine group showed more benefits in sedation and pain levels, additional sedative/analgesic requirements, and extubation time. No significant differences between the two groups for the outcome measures, except heart rate, which was significantly lower in the dexmedetomidine group.
CONCLUSION: This preliminary study suggests that dexmedetomidine was at least comparable to morphine in terms of efficacy and safety among cardiac surgery patients. Further studies with larger samples are recommended in order to determine the significant effects of the outcome measures.