METHODS: Women at their first hospitalization for hyperemesis gravidarum were enrolled on admission to the ward and randomly assigned to receive either 5% dextrose-0.9% saline or 0.9% saline by intravenous infusion at a rate 125 mL/h over 24 hours in a double-blind trial. All participants also received thiamine and an antiemetic intravenously. Oral intake was allowed as tolerated. Primary outcomes were resolution of ketonuria and well-being (by 10-point visual numerical rating scale) at 24 hours. Nausea visual numerical rating scale scores were obtained every 8 hours for 24 hours.
RESULTS: Persistent ketonuria rates after the 24-hour study period were 10 of 101 (9.9%) compared with 11 of 101 (10.9%) (P>.99; relative risk 0.9, 95% confidence interval 0.4-2.2) and median (interquartile range) well-being scores at 24 hours were 9 (8-10) compared with 9 (8-9.5) (P=.73) in the 5% dextrose-0.9% saline and 0.9% saline arms, respectively. Repeated measures analysis of variance of the nausea visual numerical rating scale score as assessed every 8 hours during the 24-hour study period showed a significant difference in favor of the 5% dextrose-0.9% saline arm (P=.046) with the superiority apparent at 8 and 16 hours, but the advantage had dissipated by 24 hours. Secondary outcomes of vomiting, resolution of hyponatremia, hypochloremia and hypokalemia, length of hospitalization, duration of intravenous antiemetic, and rehydration were not different.
CONCLUSIONS: Intravenous rehydration with 5% dextrose-0.9% saline or 0.9% saline solution in women hospitalized for hyperemesis gravidarum produced similar outcomes.
CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Register, www.controlled-trials.com/isrctn, ISRCTN65014409.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: I.
OBJECTIVE: We have conducted a systematic review of two major (FIGHT and LIVE) placebo-controlled trials of liraglutide and its clinical effect on the ejection fraction of subjects with heart failure.
METHODS: Medline data was retrieved for trials involving liraglutide from 2012 to 2020. The inclusion criteria for trials were: subjects with or without type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), subjects with heart failure with rLVEF, major trials (phase II or III) on liraglutide, trials included liraglutide with defined efficacy primary outcome of patients with heart failure with rLVEF. The search was limited to the English language, whereby two trials [FIGHT and LIVE] had been included and two trials were excluded due to different primary outcomes. Participants (541) had been randomized for either liraglutide or placebo for 24 weeks.
RESULTS: In the FIGHT trial the primary intention-to-treat, sensitivity, and diabetes subgroup analyses have shown no significant between-group difference in the global rank scores (mean rank of 146 in the liraglutide group versus 156 in the placebo group; Wilcoxon rank-sum P=.31), number of deaths, re-hospitalizations for heart failure, or the composite of death or change in NT-pro BNP level (P= .94). In the LIVE trial, the change in the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) from baseline to week 24 was not significantly different between treatment groups. The overall discontinuation rate of liraglutide was high in the FIGHT trial (29%, 86) as compared to that in the LIVE trial (11.6%, 28).
CONCLUSION: FIGHT and LIVE trials have demonstrated that liraglutide use in subjects with heart failure and rLVEF was implicated with an increased adverse risk of heart failure-related outcomes.
METHODS: A three-limbed double-blinded randomized control trial was conducted in a Level 3 neonatal intensive care unit. Forty five preterm neonates undergoing ROP screening were included. Eligible babies were randomly assigned to one of the three groups that orally received either expressed breast milk (n = 14), 10% dextrose solution (n = 14) or sterile water (n = 17), one minute before eye examination. The outcome measure was PIPP score.
RESULTS: All 3 groups were similar in baseline characteristics. The mean PIPP scores were comparable (p = 0.18) in the three groups (11.8 ± 2.8 vs. 9.8 ± 3.3 vs. 10.2 ± 2.9). The behavioral and physiological variables were also similar across all three groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Expressed breast milk, 10% dextrose or sterile water administered orally before ROP screening in preterm neonates have similar analgesic effects and do not significantly alleviate pain during the procedure.
DESIGN: A double-blind, cluster-randomized approach was used as a randomization method for this study to evaluate the stress management interventional program.
METHODS: A cluster-randomized controlled trial was carried out in eight comprehensive healthcare centres in Amman city, Jordan; four centres were randomly assigned to each experimental and control group. One hundred and seventy nurses were selected randomly from March 2019 - August 2019 and data were collected by using the Nursing Stress Scale & brief COPE over three data collection times. Both descriptive and inferential statistics (repeated measure ANOVA, Independent t test, and chi-squared) were used to answer the research questions of this study.
RESULTS: The results showed that both the levels of occupational stress and coping strategies were significantly different between the two study groups over the three data collection points (p method that can be used to reduce stress levels and improve coping strategies for public health nurses. The implementation of stress management interventions in health care is likely to help nurses manage occupational stress in practice.
IMPACT: Nurses suffer from a high level of occupational stress. In particular, approximately74% of nurses experience severe occupational stress, which can lead to many mental and physical disorders. However, nurses were less able to utilize the correct stress preventive strategies due to gaps in knowledge, skills, and awareness. This study contributed to the provision of empirical evidence of the effectiveness of the stress management program in reducing occupational stress and improving coping strategies among public health nurses. A stress management intervention program is a valuable non-invasive method that can be used by healthcare organizations to reduce stress levels and improve coping strategies for nurses in practice.
CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03833986.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy of 1.8 and 3.6 mL of the same anaesthetic solution for IANBs when treating mandibular teeth with irreversible pulpitis.
METHODS: A literature search was performed in PubMed, Scopus and EBSCOhost databases until May 2020. Randomized clinical trials published in English, comparing 1.8 with 3.6 mL of the same anaesthetic solution for IANBs in permanent mandibular teeth with irreversible pulpitis, were included. The risk of bias of the included trials was appraised using the revised Cochrane risk of bias tool. A meta-analysis was performed using the random-effects model. The effect of random errors on the results of the meta-analysis was evaluated by trial sequential analysis and the quality of evidence was appraised using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.
RESULTS: Four clinical trials involving 280 teeth from patients with ages ranging from 18 to 65 years were included. Among the four trials, three were categorized as having a 'low' risk of bias and one was categorized as having 'some concerns'. The primary meta-analysis revealed that 3.6 mL of anaesthetic solution when administered for IANBs was associated with significantly greater success rates compared with 1.8 mL (RR = 1.94; 95% CI, 1.07, 3.52; I2 = 77%). Similarly, the results of the sensitivity analysis (restricting trials only to those that used the Heft-Parker visual analogue pain scale) revealed that the use of 3.6 mL significantly increased the success of IANBs compared with 1.8 mL. The trial sequential analysis confirmed the evidence for the beneficial effect of 3.6 mL to achieve success for IANBs was 'conclusive'. The quality of evidence was graded as 'high'.
CONCLUSION: Increasing the volume of anaesthetic solution from 1.8 to 3.6 mL improved the success rate for IANBs in mandibular molars with irreversible pulpitis. The quality of the evidence was 'high'. Future high-quality clinical trials are required with different types of anaesthetic solutions and other types of teeth.
METHODS: Patients undergoing elective midline laparotomy through standardized incisions in two tertiary hospitals from February 2017 to September 2018 were randomized to either LS or SS. The primary outcome was post-operative patient-controlled analgesia morphine usage at 24 h. Secondary outcomes were presence of surgical site infection and length of hospital stay (LOHS). Categorical variables were analysed using chi-squared analysis. Outcomes of study were tested for normal distribution. Skewed data were analysed using Mann-Whitney U-test.
RESULTS: Eighty-six patients were recruited (42 SS and 44 LS). The median age was 66 (interquartile range (IQR) 15). Majority were males (62.8%) and Chinese (50%). The median incision length was 17 cm in both groups. The median patient-controlled analgesia morphine usage 24 h post-operatively did not differ significantly (SS 21 mg, IQR 28.3; LS 18.5 mg, IQR 33.8, P = 0.829). The median pain score at rest (SS 1, IQR 1; LS 1, IQR 2, P = 0.426) and movement (SS 3, IQR 1; LS 3, IQR 2, P = 0.307) did not differ significantly. LOHS was shorter in the SS group (SS 6, IQR 4; LS 8, IQR 5, P = 0.034). The rate of surgical site infection trended lower in the SS group with no statistical difference.
CONCLUSION: There were no differences in post-operative pain between SS and LS but we found that there were shorter LOHS in SS arm as secondary outcome.
METHODS AND ANALYSIS: At least 51 patients with an acute GPP flare will be randomised 2:1 to receive a single 900 mg intravenous dose of spesolimab or placebo and followed for up to 28 weeks. The primary endpoint is a Generalized Pustular Psoriasis Physician Global Assessment (GPPGA) pustulation subscore of 0 (pustule clearance) at Week 1. The key secondary endpoint is a GPPGA score of 0 or 1 (clear or almost clear) at Week 1. Safety will be assessed over the study duration by the occurrence of treatment-emergent adverse events. Blood and skin biopsies will be collected to assess biomarkers. Superiority of spesolimab over placebo in the proportion of patients achieving the primary and key secondary endpoints will be evaluated.
ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study complies with the ethical principles of the Declaration of Helsinki, the International Council for Harmonisation's Good Clinical Practice and local regulations. Ethics committee approvals have been obtained for each centre from all participating countries and are listed in online supplementary file 1. Primary results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.
TRIAL REGISTRATION DETAILS: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03782792; Pre-results.
METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study is a single-centre double-blind randomised placebo-controlled trial. Sixty-eight patients will be randomised to receive under ultrasound guidance either a single injection of leucocyte-rich PRP (LR-PRP) or normal saline. All patients will undergo a standardised hamstring rehabilitation programme under the supervision of a sports physiotherapist. Outcome data will be collected before intervention (baseline), and thereafter on a weekly basis. The primary outcome measure is the duration to return-to-play. It is defined as the duration (in days) from the date on which the injury occurred until the patients were pain-free, able to perform the active knee extension test and have regained hamstring muscle strength. Secondary outcome measures include assessment of pain intensity and the effect of pain on to day-to-day functions using the self-reported Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form questionnaire. Both the primary and secondary outcomes were assessed at baseline and thereafter once a week until return to play. Also, hamstring injury recurrence within the first 6 months after recovery will be monitored via telephone. The results of this study will provide insights into the effect of LR-PRP in muscle and may help to identify the best PRP application protocol for muscle injuries.
ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval were obtained from the Medical Research Ethics Committee of the University of Malaya Medical Centre. Results of this trial will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN76844299.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A double-blind randomized controlled trial (RCT) on systemically healthy smokers was conducted. A total of 78 smokers, aged 18 to 40 years, were enrolled as per exclusion/inclusion criteria. An alkaline mouthwash was provided to the intervention group and a placebo to control group. Salivary pH and inflammatory biomarker interleukin (IL)-1β levels were evaluated at baseline and at follow-up (14 ± 2 days).
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Chi-squared test, independaent t-test, and paired t-test were used to observe the changes in parameters among and between groups before and after intervention using SPSS v16 with a significance level of p≤0.050.
RESULTS: Sixty eight salivary samples were analyzed. All study parameters of the study sample were statistically insignificant between both intervention and control groups at baseline. pH level was 6.56 ± 0.53 at baseline and 6.62 ± 0.45 at follow-up in the intervention group; respective values for control group were 6.70 ± 0.36 and 6.83 ± 0.44 and the changes were not significant (p≥0.071). IL-1β level was 9.39 ± 10.23 pg/µL at baseline and 5.40 ± 6.62 pg/µL at a follow-up in the intervention group and the change was significant (p = 0.001); respective values for the control group were 10.63 ± 11.50, and 9.33 ± 11.73 and the difference was nonsignificant (p = 0.076).
CONCLUSION: This randomized trial indicated that sodium bicarbonate mouth rinse is effective in decreasing IL-1β levels and increasing salivary pH favorable for prevention of oral diseases.
METHODS: Randomised patients (N = 900) received monthly subcutaneous injections of placebo, erenumab 70 mg, or 140 mg (3:3:2) for 3 months. Primary endpoint was change from baseline in monthly migraine days at Month 3. Other endpoints included achievement of ≥50%, ≥75%, and 100% reduction in monthly migraine days, change in monthly acute migraine-specific medication treatment days, patient-reported outcomes, and safety assessment.
RESULTS: At baseline, mean (standard deviation) age was 37.5 (9.9) years, 81.9% were women, and monthly migraine days was 8.2 (2.8). At Month 3, change from baseline in monthly migraine days (primary endpoint) was -3.1, -4.2, and -4.8 days for placebo, erenumab 70 mg, and erenumab 140 mg, respectively, with a statistically significant difference for erenumab versus placebo (P = 0.002 [70 mg], P