Statins do not commonly cause muscle pain and stiffness

BMJ ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. n3060
Author(s):  
Helen Saul ◽  
Deniz Gursul ◽  
Samantha Cassidy ◽  
Liam Smeeth ◽  
Alexander Perkins
Keyword(s):  

The studyHerrett E, Williamson E, Brack K, et al. The effect of statins on muscle symptoms in primary care: the StatinWISE series of 200 N-of-1 RCTs. Health Technol Assess 2021;25:16.To read the full NIHR Alert, go to: https://evidence.nihr.ac.uk/alert/statins-not-likely-to-cause-muscle-pain-stiffness/

Trials ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ubiratan Cardinalli Adler ◽  
Maristela Schiabel Adler ◽  
Livia Mitchiguian Hotta ◽  
Ana Elisa Madureira Padula ◽  
Amarilys de Toledo Cesar ◽  
...  

Abstract Objectives To investigate the effectiveness and safety of homeopathic medicine Natrum muriaticum (LM2) for mild cases of COVID-19 in Primary Health Care. Trial design A randomized, two-armed (1:1), parallel, placebo-controlled, double-blind, clinical trial is being performed to test the following hypotheses: H0: homeopathic medicines = placebo (null hypothesis) vs. H1: homeopathic medicines ≠ placebo (alternative hypothesis) for mild cases of COVID-19 in Primary Care. Participants Setting: Primary Care of São Carlos – São Paulo – Brazil. One hundred participants aged 18 years or older, with Influenza-like symptoms and a positive RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2. Willingness to give informed consent and to comply with the study procedures is also required. Exclusion criterium: severe acute respiratory syndrome. Intervention and comparator Homeopathy: 1 globule of Natrum muriaticum LM2 diluted in 20 mL of alcohol 30% and dispensed in a 30 ml bottle. Placebo: 20 mL of alcohol 30% dispensed in a 30 ml bottle. Posology: one drop taken orally every 4 hours (6 doses/day) while there is fever, cough, tiredness, or pain (headache, sore throat, muscle aches, chest pain, etc.) followed by one drop every 6 hours (4 doses/day) until the fourteenth day of use. The bottle of study medication should be submitted to 10 vigorous shakes (succussions) before each dose. Posology may be changed by telemedicine, with no break in blinding. Study medication should be maintained during home isolation. According to the Primary Care protocol, the home isolation period lasts until the 10th day after the appearance of the first symptom, or up to 72 hours without symptoms. Main outcomes The primary endpoint will be time to recovery, defined as the number of days elapsed before all COVID-19 Influenza-like symptoms are recorded as mild or absent during home isolation period. Secondary measures are recovery time for each COVID-19 symptom; score of the scale created for the study (COVID-Simile Scale); medicines used during follow-up; number of days of follow-up; number of visits to emergency services; number of hospitalizations; other symptoms and Adverse Events during home isolation period. Randomisation The study Statistician generated a block randomization list, using a 1:1 ratio of the two groups (denoted as A and B) and a web-based tool (http://www.random.org/lists). Blinding (masking) The clinical investigators, the statistician, the Primary Care teams, the study collaborators, and the participants will remain blinded from the identity of the two treatment groups until the end of the study. Numbers to be randomised (sample size) One hundred participants are planned to be randomized (1:1) to placebo (50) or homeopathy (50). Trial Status Protocol version/date May 21, 2020. Recruitment is ongoing. First participant was recruited/included on June 29,2020. Due to recruitment adaptations to Primary Care changes, the authors anticipate the trial will finish recruiting on April 10, 2021. Trial registration COVID-Simile Study was registered at the University Hospital Medical Information Network (UMIN - https://www.umin.ac.jp/ctr/index.htm) on June 1st, 2020, and the trial start date was June 15, 2020. Unique ID: UMIN000040602. Full protocol The full protocol is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interest in expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol.


2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Audrey Rankin ◽  
◽  
Cathal A. Cadogan ◽  
Heather E. Barry ◽  
Evie Gardner ◽  
...  

Abstract Background The use of multiple medications (polypharmacy) is a concern in older people (≥65 years) and is associated with negative health outcomes. For older populations with multimorbidity, polypharmacy is the reality and the key challenge is ensuring appropriate polypharmacy (as opposed to inappropriate polypharmacy). This external pilot cluster randomised controlled trial (cRCT) aims to further test a theory-based intervention to improve appropriate polypharmacy in older people in primary care in two jurisdictions, Northern Ireland (NI) and the Republic of Ireland (ROI). Methods Twelve GP practices across NI (n=6) and the six counties in the ROI that border NI will be randomised to either the intervention or usual care group. Members of the research team have developed an intervention to improve appropriate polypharmacy in older people in primary care using the Theoretical Domains Framework of behaviour change. The intervention consists of two components: (1) an online video which demonstrates how a GP may prescribe appropriate polypharmacy during a consultation with an older patient and (2) a patient recall process, whereby patients are invited to scheduled medication review consultations with GPs. Ten older patients receiving polypharmacy (≥4 medications) will be recruited per GP practice (n=120). GP practices allocated to the intervention arm will be asked to watch the online video and schedule medication reviews with patients on two occasions; an initial and a 6-month follow-up appointment. GP practices allocated to the control arm will continue to provide usual care to patients. The study will assess the feasibility of recruitment, retention and study procedures including collecting data on medication appropriateness (from GP records), quality of life and health service use (i.e. hospitalisations). An embedded process evaluation will assess intervention fidelity (i.e. was the intervention delivered as intended), acceptability of the intervention and potential mechanisms of action. Discussion This pilot cRCT will provide evidence of the feasibility of a range of study parameters such as recruitment and retention, data collection procedures and the acceptability of the intervention. Pre-specified progression criteria will also be used to determine whether or not to proceed to a definitive cRCT. Trial registration ISRCTN, ISRCTN41009897. Registered 19 November 2019. ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04181879. Registered 02 December 2019.


2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Merlin Willcox ◽  
Catherine Simpson ◽  
Sam Wilding ◽  
Beth Stuart ◽  
Dia Soilemezi ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Pelargonium sidoides DC (Geraniaceae) root extract, EPs®7630 or “Kaloba®”, is a widely used herbal remedy for respiratory infections, with some evidence of effectiveness for acute bronchitis. However, it is not yet widely recommended by medical professionals in the UK. There is a need to undertake appropriately designed randomised trials to test its use as an alternative to antibiotics. The aim was to assess the feasibility of conducting a double-blind randomised controlled trial of Pelargonium sidoides root extract for treatment of acute bronchitis in UK primary care, investigating intervention compliance, patient preference for dosage form and acceptability of patient diaries. Study design Feasibility double-blind randomised placebo-controlled clinical trial. Methods We aimed to recruit 160 patients with cough (≤ 21 days) caused by acute bronchitis from UK general practices. Practices were cluster-randomised to liquid or tablet preparations and patients were individually randomised to Kaloba® or placebo. We followed participants up for 28 days through self-reported patient diaries with telephone support and reviewed medical records at one month. Outcomes included recruitment, withdrawal, safety, reconsultation and symptom diary completion rates. We also assessed treatment adherence, antibiotic prescribing and consumption, mean symptom severity (at days 2–4 after randomisation) and time to symptom resolution. We interviewed 29 patients and 11 health professionals to identify barriers and facilitators to running such a randomised trial. Results Of 543 patients screened, 261 were eligible, of whom 134 (51%) were recruited and 103 (77%) returned a completed diary. Overall, 41% (41/100) of patients took antibiotics (Kaloba® liquid group: 48% [15/31]; placebo liquid group: 23% [6/26]; Kaloba® tablet group: 48% [9/21]; placebo tablet group: 50% [11/22]). Most patients adhered to the study medication (median 19 out of 21 doses taken in week 1, IQR 18–21 - all arms combined). There were no serious adverse events relating to treatment. Most patients interviewed found study recruitment to be straightforward, but some found the diary too complex. Conclusions It was feasible and acceptable to recruit patients from UK primary care to a double-blind placebo-controlled trial of herbal medicine (Kaloba®) for the treatment of acute bronchitis, with good retention and low data attrition. Trial registration HATRIC was registered on the ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN17672884) on 16 August 2018, retrospectively registered. The record can be found at http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN17672884.


2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (6) ◽  
pp. e001921
Author(s):  
Max Oscar Bachmann ◽  
Eric D Bateman ◽  
Rafael Stelmach ◽  
Alvaro A Cruz ◽  
Matheus Pacheco de Andrade ◽  
...  

IntroductionThe Practical Approach to Care Kit (PACK) guide was localised for Brazil, where primary care doctors and nurses were trained to use it.MethodsTwenty-four municipal clinics in Florianópolis were randomly allocated to receive outreach training and the guide, and 24 were allocated to receive only the guide. 6666 adult patients with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) were enrolled, and trial outcomes were measured over 12 months, using electronic medical records. The primary outcomes were composite scores of treatment changes and spirometry, and new asthma and COPD diagnosis rates.ResultsAsthma scores in 2437 intervention group participants were higher (74.8%, 20.4% and 4.8% with scores of 0, 1 and 2, respectively) than in 2633 control group participants (80.0%, 16.8% and 3.2%) (OR for higher score 1.32, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.61, p=0.006). Adjusted for asthma scores recorded in each clinic before training started, the OR was 1.24 (95% CI 1.03 to 1.50, p=0.022). COPD scores in 1371 intervention group participants (77.7%, 17.9% and 4.3% with scores of 0, 1 and 2) did not differ from those in 1181 control group participants (80.5%, 15.8% and 3.7%) (OR 1.21, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.55, p=0.142). Rates of new asthma and COPD diagnoses, and hospital admission, and indicators of investigation, diagnosis and treatment of comorbid cardiovascular disease, diabetes and depression, and tobacco cessation did not differ between trial arms.ConclusionPACK training increased guideline-based treatment and spirometry for asthma but did not affect COPD or comorbid conditions, or diagnosis rates.Trial registrationNCT02786030 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/).


Trials ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeremy Horwood ◽  
Melanie Chalder ◽  
Ben Ainsworth ◽  
James Denison-Day ◽  
Frank de Vocht ◽  
...  

Abstract Objectives To examine the effectiveness of randomising dissemination of the Germ Defence behaviour change website via GP practices across England UK. Trial design A two-arm (1:1 ratio) cluster randomised controlled trial implementing Germ Defence via GP practices compared with usual care. Participants Setting: All Primary care GP practices in England. Participants: All patients aged 16 years and over who were granted access by participating GP practices. Intervention and comparator Intervention: We will ask staff at GP practices randomised to the intervention arm to share the weblink to Germ Defence with all adult patients registered at their practice during the 4-month trial implementation period and care will otherwise follow current standard management. Germ Defence is an interactive website (http://GermDefence.org/) employing behaviour change techniques and practical advice on how to reduce the spread of infection in the home. The coronavirus version of Germ Defence helps people understand what measures to take and when to take them to avoid infection. This includes hand washing, avoiding sharing rooms and surfaces, dealing with deliveries and ventilating rooms. Using behaviour change techniques, it helps users think through and adopt better home hygiene habits and find ways to solve any barriers, providing personalised goal setting and tailored advice that fits users’ personal circumstances and problem solving to overcome barriers. Comparator: Patients at GP practices randomised to the usual care arm will receive current standard management for the 4-month trial period after which we will ask staff to share the link to Germ Defence with all adult patients registered at their practice. Main outcomes The primary outcome is the effects of implementing Germ Defence on prevalence of all respiratory tract infection diagnoses during the 4-month trial implementation period. The secondary outcomes are: 1) incidence of COVID-19 diagnoses 2) incidence of COVID-19 symptom presentation 3) incidence of gastrointestinal infections 4) number of primary care consultations 5) antibiotic usage 6) hospital admissions 7) uptake of GP practices disseminating Germ Defence to their patients 8) usage of the Germ Defence website by individuals who were granted access by their GP practice Randomisation GP practices will be randomised on a 1:1 basis by the independent Bristol Randomised Trials Collaboration (BRTC). Clinical Commission Groups (CCGs) in England will be divided into blocks according to region, and equal numbers in each block will be randomly allocated to intervention or usual care. The randomisation schedule will be generated in Stata statistical software by a statistician not otherwise involved in the enrolment of general practices into the study. Blinding (masking) The principal investigators, the statistician and study collaborators will remain blinded from the identity of randomised practices until the end of the study. Numbers to be randomised (sample size) To detect planned effect size (based on PRIMIT trial, Little et al, 2015): 11.1 million respondents from 6822 active GP practices. Assuming 25% of these GP practices will engage, we will contact all GP practices in England spread across 135 Clinical Commissioning Groups. Trial status Protocol version 2.0, dated 13 January 2021. Implementation is ongoing. The implementation period started on 10 November 2020 and will end on 10 March 2021. Trial registration This trial was registered in the ISRCTN registry (isrctn.com/ISRCTN14602359) on 12 August 2020. Full protocol The full protocol is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interest in expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol.


2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 00188-2020
Author(s):  
Marjan Kerkhof ◽  
Isha Chaudhry ◽  
Ian D. Pavord ◽  
Marc Miravitlles ◽  
Chin Kook Rhee ◽  
...  

We examined associations between blood eosinophil counts (BEC) and risk of treatment failure or hospital readmission following acute oral corticosteroid (OCS)-treated COPD exacerbations.We conducted studies from the Optimum Patient Care Research Database (OPCRD) (www.optimumpatientcare.org/opcrd) and Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) (www.cprd.com/home/), validated databases for medical research, with linked Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) data for ∼20 000 COPD patients aged ≥40 years. For patients with OCS-treated COPD exacerbations treated in primary care, with BECs recorded on first day of OCS treatment (Cohort 1), we assessed treatment failure (COPD-related hospitalisations and OCS prescriptions beyond index OCS course). For patients hospitalised for COPD exacerbations, with BEC measured over an exacerbation-free period during the year prior to admission (Cohort 2), we assessed readmission rate. Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was adjusted for confounders to estimate the association between BEC and treatment outcomes.Of patients treated with OCS for COPD exacerbations in primary care (Cohort 1), 44% experienced treatment failure following single OCS courses, and 10% (255/2482) were hospitalised for ≤6 weeks. Greater BEC was associated with reduced hospital-admission risk (hazard ratio [HR]=0.26; 95% CI: 0.12–0.56, per 100 cells·µL−1 increase). BEC increases of ≥200 cells·µL−1 from exacerbation-free periods to exacerbations were associated with least hospitalisation risk (HR=0.32; 95% CI: 0.15–0.71) versus no BEC change. For patients hospitalised for COPD exacerbations (Cohort 2), 4-week hospital readmission was 12% (1189/10 245). BEC increases during an exacerbation-free period within the past year were associated with reduced risk of short-term readmission (HR=0.78; 95% CI: 0.63–0.96).Greater BEC predicted better outcomes for patients with OCS-treated COPD exacerbations, whether community or hospital managed. Eosinopenia predicted worse outcomes.


2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Francois van Loggerenberg ◽  
Michael McGrath ◽  
Dickens Akena ◽  
Harriet Birabwa-Oketcho ◽  
Camilo Andrés Cabarique Méndez ◽  
...  

Abstract Background DIALOG+ is a resource-oriented and evidence-based intervention to improve quality of life and reduce mental distress. While it has been extensively studied in mental health care, there is little evidence for how to use it in primary care settings for patients with chronic physical conditions. Considering that DIALOG+ is used in existing routine patient-clinician meetings and is very low cost, it may have the potential to help large numbers of patients with chronic physical conditions, mental distress and poor quality of life who are treated in primary care. This is particularly relevant in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) where resources for specialised services for such patients are scarce or non-existent. Methods An exploratory non-controlled trial will be conducted to primarily assess the feasibility and acceptability and, secondarily, outcomes of delivering DIALOG+ to patients with chronic physical conditions and poor quality of life in primary care settings in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Colombia and Uganda. Thirty patients in each country will receive DIALOG+ up to three times in monthly meetings over a 3-month period. Feasibility will be assessed by determining the extent to which the intervention is implemented as planned. Experiences will be captured in interviews and focus groups with care providers and participants to understand acceptability. Quality of life, symptoms of anxiety and depression, objective social situation and health status will be assessed at baseline and again after the three-session intervention. Discussion This study will inform our understanding of the extent to which DIALOG+ may be used in the routine care of patients with chronic physical conditions in different primary care settings. The findings of this exploratory trial can inform the design of future full randomised controlled trials of DIALOG+ in primary care settings in LMICs. Trial registration All studies were registered prospectively (on 02/12/2020 for Uganda and Bosnia and Herzegovina, and 01/12/2020 for Colombia) within the ISRCTN Registry. ISRCTN17003451 (Bosnia and Herzegovina), ISRCTN14018729 (Colombia) and ISRCTN50335796 (Uganda). Protocol version and date: v2.0; 28/07/2020 (Bosnia and Herzegovina), v0.3 02/08/2020 (Colombia) and v1.0, 05/11/2020 (Uganda).


Trials ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Elena Bustamante Estebanez ◽  
Lucía Lavín Alconero ◽  
Beatriz Josa Fernández ◽  
Monica Gozalo Marguello ◽  
Juan Carlos López Caro ◽  
...  

Abstract Background There is no strong evidence that any drug is beneficial either for the treatment of SARS-CoV-2 disease or for post-exposure prophylaxis. Therefore, clinical research is crucial to generate results and evaluate strategies against COVID-19. Primary care (PC) centers, the first level of care in the health system, are in a favorable position to carry out clinical trials (CD), as they work with a large volume of patients with varied profiles (from acute to chronic pathologies). During the COVID-19 pandemic, the need for hospital admission and mortality is higher in people > 60 years. Therefore, this is a target population to try to reduce the serious complications and lethality of COVID pneumonia and to avoid overloading the hospital system. Given the pharmacological properties of colchicine (anti-inflammatory and anti-fibrotic, possible inhibition of viral replication, and inhibitory effect on coagulation activation), early treatment with colchicine may reduce the rate of death and serious pulmonary complications from COVID-19 in vulnerable patients. Methods The COLCHICOVID study is a randomized, multicenter, controlled, open-label parallel group (2:1 ratio), phase III clinical trial to investigate the efficacy of early administration of colchicine in reducing the development of severe pulmonary complications associated with COVID-19 infection in patients over 60 years of age with at-risk comorbidities. Discussion This is a pragmatic clinical trial, adapted to usual clinical practice. The demonstration that early administration of colchicine has clinical effectiveness in reducing the complications of SARS-CoV-2 infection in a population highly susceptible may mitigate the health crisis and prevent the collapse of the health system in the successive waves of the coronavirus pandemic. In addition, colchicine is a well-known medicine, simple to use in the primary care setting and with a low cost for the health system. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.govNCT04416334. Registered on 4 June 2020. Protocol version: v 3.0, dated 22 September 2020.


2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ricard Carrillo Muñoz ◽  
◽  
José Luis Ballve Moreno ◽  
Iván Villar Balboa ◽  
Yolanda Rando Matos ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Benign paroxysmal positional vertigo (BPPV) is the most common cause of vertigo. Little is known on how posterior canal BPPV affects health-related quality of life in patients diagnosed and treated at primary care facilities or on whether patients with subjective and objective disease perceive the effects differently. This study was designed to describe how patients diagnosed with posterior canal BPPV in primary care perceive disability. Methods Cross-sectional descriptive study performed at two urban primary care centers. Participants were patients aged 18 years or older with suspected posterior canal BPPV recruited for baseline evaluation in a clinical trial on the effectiveness of the Epley maneuver in primary care. The recruitment period was from November 2012 to January 2015. Perceived disability was evaluated using the Dizziness Handicap Inventory – Screening version (DHI-S). Other variables collected were age and sex, a history or diagnosis of anxiety or depression, treatment with antidepressants and/or anxiolytics, and results of the Dix-Hallpike (DH) test, which was considered positive when it triggered vertigo with or without nystagmus and negative when it triggered neither. Results The DH test was positive in 134 patients, 40.30% of whom had objective BPPV (vertigo with nystagmus). The median age of the patients was 52 years (interquartile range [IQR], 39.00–68.50 years) and 76.1% were women. The median total score on the DHI-S was 16 out of 40 (IQR, 8.00–22.00). Scores were higher (greater perceived disability) in women (p < 0.001) and patients with subjective BPPV (vertigo without nystagmus) (p = 0.033). The items perceived as causing the greatest disability were feeling depressed (67.1%) and worsening of the condition on turning over in bed (88%). Conclusions Patients diagnosed with posterior canal BPPV in primary care perceive their condition as a disability according to DHI-S scores, with higher levels of disability reported by women and patients with subjective BPPV. Feelings of depression and turning over in bed were associated with the greatest perceived difficulties. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01969513. Retrospectively registered. First Posted: October 25, 2013. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01969513


2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Imaan Bayoumi ◽  
Catherine S. Birken ◽  
Kimberly M. Nurse ◽  
Patricia C. Parkin ◽  
Jonathon L. Maguire ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Household food insecurity (FI), even at marginal levels, is associated with poor child health outcomes. The Nutrition Screening Tool for Every Preschooler (NutriSTEP®) is a valid and reliable 17-item parent-completed measure of nutrition risk and includes a single item addressing FI which may be a useful child-specific screening tool. We evaluated the diagnostic test properties of the single NutriSTEP® FI question using the 2-item Hunger Vital Sign™ as the criterion measure in a primary care population of healthy children ages 18 months to 5 years. Results The sample included 1174 families, 53 (4.5%) of which were marginally food secure. An affirmative response to the single NutriSTEP® question “I have difficulty buying food I want to feed my child because food is expensive” had a sensitivity of 85% and specificity of 91% and demonstrated good construct validity when compared with the Hunger Vital Sign™. Conclusion The single NutriSTEP® question may be an effective screening tool in clinical practice to identify marginal food security in families with young children and to link families with community-based services or financial assistance programs including tax benefits. Trial registration TARGet Kids! practice-based research network (Registered June 5, 2013 at www.clinicaltrials.gov; NCT01869530); www.targetkids.ca


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document