Effect of low doses of corticosteroids in septic shock patients with or without early acute respiratory distress syndrome

OBJECTIVE: We investigated the efficacy of low doses of corticosteroids in septic shock patients with or without early acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) by post hoc analysis of a previously completed clinical trial. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of a placebo-controlled, randomized, double-blind trial of low doses of corticosteroids in septic shock. SETTING: Nineteen intensive care units in France. PATIENTS: Among the 300 septic shock patients enrolled, we selected those meeting standard criteria for ARDS at inclusion. INTERVENTIONS: Seven-day treatment with 50 mg of hydrocortisone every 6 hrs and 50 microg of 9-alpha-fludrocortisone once a day. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: There were 177 patients with ARDS (placebo, n = 92; corticosteroids, n = 85) including 129 (placebo, n = 67; corticosteroids, n = 62) nonresponders and 48 (placebo, n = 25; corticosteroids, n = 23) responders. In nonresponders, there were 50 deaths (75%) in the placebo group and 33 deaths (53%) in the steroid group (hazard ratio 0.57, 95% confidence interval 0.36-0.89, p = .013; relative risk 0.71, 95% confidence interval 0.54-0.94, p = .011). The number of days alive and off the ventilator was 2.6 +/- 6.6 in the placebo group and 5.7 +/- 8.6 in the steroid group (p = .006). There was no significant difference between groups in responders. There was no significant difference between groups in the two subsets of patients without ARDS. Adverse events rates were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: This post hoc analysis shows that a 7-day treatment with low doses of corticosteroids was associated with better outcomes in septic shock-associated early ARDS nonresponders, but not in responders and not in septic shock patients without ARDS.     

Topiramate in patients with episodic migraine: reducing the risk for chronic forms of headache

OBJECTIVE: The aim was to evaluate whether preventive treatment with topiramate in patients with episodic migraine reduces the risk of developing chronic forms of headache. BACKGROUND: Chronic forms of headache, including chronic migraine or medication overuse headache (MOH), are characterized by 15 or more headache days per month. Acute medication overuse has been shown to be a risk factor for developing chronic headache, but it is not known whether preventive treatment can reduce the risk of developing chronic forms of headache or the development of MOH. METHODS: Pooled data from 3 trials in patients with episodic migraine randomized either to treatment with 100 mg topiramate per day (n = 384) or with placebo (n = 372) were analyzed with regard to the number of headache days during a prospective 4-week baseline period and the individual final 4 weeks of each patient's treatment during the planned 26-week double-blind treatment period. RESULTS: The number of headache days per month in the topiramate versus the placebo-treated groups was 7.3 +/- 3.0 versus 7.3 +/- 3.1 during baseline and 4.1 +/- 4.2 versus 5.6 +/- 4.9 during the final 4 weeks, respectively (P < .001). At the end of the study, 8 versus 16 patients fulfilled International Headache Society criteria of chronic headache (odds ratio: 2.11, P= .082). Moreover, a significantly lower number of patients receiving topiramate treatment reported an increase in headache days per month by the end of the study when compared to placebo (66 vs 88 patients, respectively; odds ratio: 1.49, P < .05). Finally, the number of days with usage of acute medication was significantly lower in the topiramate arm compared with placebo (3.3 +/- 3.7 vs 4.3 +/- 3.6, respectively; P < .001). CONCLUSION: Preventive treatment with topiramate in patients with episodic migraine may reduce the risk of developing chronic forms of headache.     

Prevention of catheter thrombosis increases survival, but does not modify lung injury in rats receiving long-term parenteral nutrition

It has previously been shown that rats receiving total parenteral nutrition (TPN) or each component of TPN die within 40 days of treatment. Central catheter thrombosis and lung injury were constant findings. The aim of the present study was to examine the impact of central thrombosis on lung injury and survival in rats receiving long-term parenteral nutrition. In the first part of the study TPN was infused via the jugular vein and incidence of central venous thrombosis and rate of survival were recorded. Addition of low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) reduced central thrombosis from 6 out of 7 animals to 2 out of 7 animals (p=0.027) and increased survival from 17.1+/-4.5 days to 32.4+/-4.9 days (p=0.04). In the second part of the study four infusion groups were established. Group 1 (controls) received saline 100 mL/kg/day via the jugular vein (n=6). Group 2 received Intralipid 40 mL/kg/day via the jugular vein (n = 7). Group 3 received Intralipid 40 mL/kg/day via the portal vein (n = 7). Group 4 received Intralipid 40 mL/kg/day with added LMWH 70 U/kg/day (n = 7). Lung injury and occurrence of central thrombosis were investigated. Lung injury was assessed by measuring pulmonary arterial pressure (Ppa), clearance of serotonin by the vascular endothelium and the capillary filtration coefficient (CFC). Either infusion via the portal vein or the addition of LMWH to the infusion via the jugular vein prevented central thrombus formation, but the lung injury was not modified by this method compared with infusing Intralipid via the jugular vein without LMWH. In conclusion, central thrombus formation contributes to death in rats receiving parenteral nutrition. The mechanism of the injurious effect of central thrombosis remains unknown, but central thrombus formation seems not to increase lung injury caused by Intralipid.     

Carbamezapine for pain management in Guillain-Barré syndrome patients in the intensive care unit

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate carbamezapine (CBZ) for neuritic pain relief in Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). DESIGN: Prospective, double-blind, randomly allocated cross-over study days. SETTING: ICU in a tertiary care university hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Twelve consecutive, conscious adult (22-54 yrs) patients with GBS during recovery from the muscular weakness and receiving pressure-support ventilation in the ICU. All patients complained of severe backache and/or leg cramps and tenderness in muscles, and they required opioids for pain relief. INTERVENTIONS: CBZ (100 mg every 8 hrs) or equivalent placebo was given to nursing staff in coded powder form. Medication was given to patients through a nasogastric feeding tube. The same coded medicine was given for 3 days, and after a 1-day omission, a second set of coded powder was given for the next 3 days in a randomized, double-blind, crossover fashion. Pethidine (1 mg x kg(-1)) was given intravenously in between, if the pain score was >2. Group 1 (n = 6) patients were given a placebo on the first 3 days, followed by CBZ. Group 2 (n = 6) patients were given CBZ on the first 3 days, followed by a placebo. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: In these two study periods of different medications, we observed and scored pain (1, no pain; 5, severe pain), sedation (1, alert; 6, asleep, does not respond to verbal command), and total pethidine requirement per day. In group 1 patients, a significant (p < .001) improvement in the sedation score and a low requirement for pethidine was observed 3 days later, when CBZ was started. However, in group 2 patients, a gradual increase in the pethidine requirement and a high sedation score were noteworthy in the later days of placebo medication. Observations were also analyzed for CBZ days vs. placebo days. Overall, the pain score (1.7 +/- 0.8) during the CBZ period of both regimens was significantly (p < .001) lower than during the placebo days (3.1 +/- 0.9). Significantly higher doses of pethidine (3.7 +/- 0.9 mg/kg/day) were used on the placebo days than on the CBZ days (1.7 +/- 1.0 mg/kg/day). CONCLUSION: The pain in GBS has a dual origin, and we recommend CBZ as an adjuvant to treat pain in GBS patients, during the recovery phase in the ICU, to reduce the narcotic requirement.     

35例SARS患者临床特征分析

目的 :探讨严重急性呼吸综合征 (SARS)的临床特征。方法 :回顾分析过去 5个月里我院收治的 35例SARS患者的临床特征 ,并与普通的社区获得性肺炎患者进行比较。同时用流式细胞仪检测了 13例 SARS患者和 10例健康志愿者的外周血 CD+ 4和 CD+ 8T淋巴细胞。结果 :SARS最常见的表现为发热 (10 0 .0 0 % )、咳嗽(74 .30 % )、头痛 (4 5 .70 % )、全身肌肉酸痛 (4 5 .70 % )及淋巴细胞减少 (2 0 /33)。 X线胸片表现为进行性发展的多发性肺浸润病灶。 13例 SARS患者外周血 CD+ 4和 CD+ 8明显降低〔 CD+ 4为 (16 .10± 4 .31) %比 (38.30±8.5 2 ) % ,CD+ 8为 (19.90± 5 .4 0 ) %比 (2 8.38± 4 .33) % ;t值分别为 8.174和 4 .0 5 5 ,P均 <0 .0 1〕,SARS组患者平均退热时间较肺炎组长〔(13.92± 8.35 ) d比 (3.86± 1.4 2 ) d,t=16 .4 90 ,P=0 .0 0 0〕;肺总病变吸收时间也明显延长〔(11.97± 4 .4 1) d比 (9.2 1± 4 .4 2 ) d,t=3.0 82 ,P=0 .0 0 3〕。结论 :SARS患者主要表现为发热、咳嗽、头痛、全身肌肉酸痛 ,外周血淋巴细胞计数减少 ,CD+ 4和 CD+ 8细胞明显降低 ,肺内多发性浸润病灶。     

Safety and efficacy of a traditional herbal medicine (Throat Coat) in symptomatic temporary relief of pain in patients with acute pharyngitis: a multicenter,prospective, randomized,double-blinded,placebo-controlled study

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the safety and efficacy of Throat Coat) (Traditional Medicinals,) Sebastopol, CA), a traditional demulcent herbal tea, in comparison with a placebo tea in the symptomatic treatment of acute pharyngitis. DESIGN: Multicenter, prospective, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, two-armed, parallel-group clinical trial. SETTINGS: Three primary care clinics in Duluth, MN, Madison, WI, and Middleton, WI. SUBJECTS: Patients of both genders (>or=18 years of age) with clinical diagnoses of acute pharyngitis. INTERVENTIONS: Patients (n = 60) were randomly assigned to receive 5-8 oz of Throat Coat (n = 30) or a placebo (n = 30), four to six times daily. The study period was 2 to 7 days with a window for the follow-up visit of 2-10 days accounting for the variable duration of sore throat symptoms. OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary efficacy parameter: sum of pain intensity differences (SPID) for pain in throat on swallowing, calculated as the area under the curve (AUC) of pain intensity difference scores (assessed at 1 minute, 5 minutes, 10 minutes, 15 minutes, 20 minutes, and 30 minutes after treatment). Secondary efficacy parameter: total pain relief (TOTPAR), calculated as the AUC from time 0 (baseline) to 30 minutes of pain relief (assessed at 1 minute, 5 minutes, 10 minutes, 15 minutes, 20 minutes, and 30 minutes). RESULTS: Compared to placebo, intensity of throat pain when swallowing was significantly reduced by Throat Coat in intention to treat and valid for efficacy analysis (VEA). Significant differences in change from baseline pain were observed at 5 min (p = 0.007), 10 min (p = 0.005), 15 minutes (p = 0.01), 20 minutes (p = 0.05), and 30 minutes (p = 0.04) after completion of the first dose (VEA analysis). There was a statistically significant improvement of SPID in the Throat Coat-treated group: Least square means +/- standard error of the means (SEM) of SPID were -16.5 +/- 13.9 in the placebo group and -43.8 +/- 11.9 in the Throat Coat-treated group (p = 0.012). TOTPAR was also significantly higher in the Throat Coat-treated group: Least square means +/- SEM of TOTPAR were 32.4 +/- 12.8 in the placebo group and 53.6 +/- 10.9 in the Throat Coat-treated group (p = 0.031). This study shows that Throat Coat is significantly superior to placebo and provided a rapid, temporary relief of sore throat pain in patients with pharyngitis.     

Diagnostic value of some markers of infection in cardiosurgical patients in the early postoperative period

The diagnostic value of traditional markers of infection and procalcitonin test (PCT) in the early postoperative period was compared in 60 cardiosurgical patients with acquired cardiac diseases and at risk for postoperative infectious complications. The mean age of the patients was 51 +/- 11 years. Preoperatively, all the patients had no signs of infections. The patients were examined before and on days 1, 2, 3, and 6 after surgery. Along with the routine studies (thermometry, general blood analysis), the plasma concentration of PCT was determined by immunoluminometric technique (LUMI-test PCT, Brahms Aktiengesellschaft, Germany). The preoperative level of PCT did not exceed the normal values ( < 0.5 ng/ml). On postoperative days 2 to 17, 14 (23.3%) patients developed infectious complications (Group 2); the other patients were included into a group of comparison (Group 1). Just within the first postoperative days, the levels of PCT were significantly higher in Group 2 patients than in Group 1 (7.58 +/- 2.34 and 3.51 +/- 0.71 ng/ml, respectively; p < 0.05). A difference was found in the count of white blood cells between the groups only from day 3. There were no significant differences in body temperature between the groups. At the second stage of analysis of the data, in accordance with the level of PCT on the first day after surgery and its subsequent changes, all the patients were divided into 4 groups (A-D). The level of PCT on postoperative day was less than 0.5 ng/ml in Group A (n = 6), 0.5-2 ng/ml in Group B (n = 23) and more than 2 ng/ml in groups C (n = 26) and D (n = 5). Subsequently, it was in the normal range in Group A, decreased to the normal values in Groups B and C by day 6 following surgery. The persistence of the high level of PCT was observed in Group D where there were the bulk (60%) of infectious complications. As compared with the traditional clinical and laboratory criteria (fever, leukocytosis), PCT is the earliest and most specific marker of bacterial infection in cardiosurgical patients in the early postoperative period. The level of PCT > 3.5 ng/ml within the first 24 hours after surgery is shown to be a predictor of postoperative infectious complications.     

A randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, multicenter, placebo-controlled study of the safety and efficacy of extended-release guaifenesin/pseudoephedrine hydrochloride for symptom relief as an adjunctive therapy to antibiotic treatment of acute respiratory infections

Purpose: This study assessed the effi cacy and safety of guaifenesin 600 mg and pseudoephedrine hydrochloride 60 mg extended-release bilayer tablets in providing relief of acute respiratory symptoms when used as an adjunct to antibiotics in patients with an acute respiratory infection (ARI). Methods: Adult patients experiencing symptoms of ARI and meeting the physician's usual diagnostic criteria for oral antibiotic treatment were prescribed an antibiotic and randomized to adjunctive guaifenesin/pseudoephedrine hydrochloride or matching placebo twice daily for 7 days. Patients completed symptom diaries and treatment assessments twice daily and attended offi ce visits on Days 4 and 8. Results: The safety/intent-to-treat (ITT) population analysis included 601 patients (guaifenesin/ pseudoephedrine, n = 303; placebo, n = 298). Mean symptom scores were lower with guaifenesin/ pseudoephedrine from Day 3 for every symptom assessed, with statistically significant improvements in total symptom score from Day 3 (P = 0.026). The greatest effects of treatment with guaifenesin/pseudoephedrine were observed for nasal congestion and sinus headache. Time to overall relief was shorter with guaifenesin/pseudoephedrine (P = 0.038). Signifi cantly more patients reported "the medication was helping during the day" on Day 2 with guaifenesin/ pseudoephedrine (P = 0.002). Patient assessments of symptom relief showed a signifi cant preference for guaifenesin/pseudoephedrine versus placebo (P = 0.021). Treatment with guaifenesin/ pseudoephedrine was well tolerated. Insomnia (2.6%), nausea (2.3%), and headache (1.3%) were the most common treatment-related adverse effects. Conclusions: As adjunctive therapy for symptom relief for patients taking antibiotics for ARIs, guaifenesin/pseudoephedrine shortened time to relief and improved bothersome respiratory symptoms better than placebo, with greatest effects seen for nasal congestion and sinus headache.     

Tramadol/acetaminophen combination tablets for the treatment of osteoarthritis flare pain: a multicenter, outpatient, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, add-on study

BACKGROUND: In a flare of osteoarthritis (OA) pain, increasing the dose of standard anti-inflammatory or routine analgesic drugs may not be practical because of an increased incidence of side effects. In patients achieving inadequate pain relief from traditional non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) or cyclooxygenase (COX)-2-selective inhibitors, it may be appropriate to add an analgesic agent with a different mechanism of action, thereby targeting multiple components of the pain pathway. OBJECTIVE: The addition of tramadol/acetaminophen tablets to existing therapy was compared with the addition of placebo in the treatment of OA flare pain. METHODS: This was a multicenter, outpatient, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, add-on study. Patients received 1 or 2 tramadol/acetaminophen (37.5 mg/325 mg) tablets QID or matching placebo for 10 days in addition to ongoing NSAID or COX-2-selective inhibitor therapy. The primary outcome measures were average daily pain intensity and average daily pain relief scores from days 1 through 5. RESULTS: Three hundred eight patients were randomized to tramadoUacetaminophen (n = 197) or placebo (n = 111) and were followed for up to 10 days. Patients had a mean (+/-SD) age of 60.1 +/- 9.87 years, and were predominantly female (71.8%) and white (87.7%). Their mean (+/- SD) pain visual analog score at baseline was 73.2 +/- 11.8 mm, and their mean pain intensity score was 2.4 +/- 0.5 (on a scale from 0 = none to 3 = severe). Average daily pain intensity and pain relief scores were significantly improved with tramadol/acetaminophen compared with placebo on the primary assessment of efficacy from days 1 through 5 (both, P < 0.001) and on the assessment of efficacy from days I through 10 (both, P < 0.001) Tramadol/acetaminophen was significantly superior to placebo on the patients' and physicians' overall assessments of medication (both, P < 0.001) and on 3 of 4 subscales (pain [P = 0.004], physical function [P = 0.013], and overall [P = 0.008]) of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index Questionnaire. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events with tramadol/acetaminophen were nausea, vomiting, and dizziness. No serious adverse events were reported in the tramadol/acetaminophen group. CONCLUSION: In this study, addition of tramadol/acetaminophen to NSAID or COX-2-selective inhibitor therapy was well tolerated and effective in the treatment of OA flare pain.     

A placebo-controlled comparison of the efficacy and tolerability of candesartan cilexetil, 8 mg, and losartan, 50 mg, as monotherapy in patients with essential hypertension, using 36-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring

This double-blind, randomised, controlled study compared the efficacy of candesartan cilexetil 8 mg (n = 87) and losartan 50 mg (n = 89), once daily for 6 weeks, relative to placebo (n = 80) in patients with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension (diastolic blood pressure (DBP): 95-115 mmHg). Ambulatory BP measurements were done every 15 min over 36 h. At the end of the 6-week treatment, the mean change in DBP between the baseline and the 0-24-h period after the last dose of study medication was greater in patients receiving candesartan cilexetil 8 mg (-7.3 mmHg +/- 6.9 mmHg) compared with losartan 50 mg (-5.1 mmHg +/- 4.9 mmHg) (p < 0.05) or placebo (0.3 mmHg +/- 6.5 mmHg) (p < 0.001). The mean change in systolic BP (SBP) during this time was greater in patients receiving candesartan cilexetil 8 mg (-10.8 mmHg +/- 11.3 mmHg), or losartan 50 mg (-8.8 mmHg +/- 8.9 mmHg) than placebo (1.2 mmHg +/- 9.9 mmHg) (p < 0.001). Candesartan cilexetil 8 mg was associated with a greater reduction in DBP and SBP, relative to placebo, when compared with losartan 50 mg, during both daytime and night-time, and between 12 and 24 h after dosing (p < 0.001). Both active treatments were well tolerated. In patients with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension, candesartan cilexetil 8 mg therefore had greater, more consistent antihypertensive efficacy throughout the day and the night, and long-lasting efficacy after the last dose, compared with losartan 50 mg. This greater efficacy is maintained with an excellent tolerability associated with members of the angiotensin Il type 1-receptor blocker class.     

Efficacy and safety of topiramate for the treatment of chronic migraine: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of topiramate (100 mg/day) compared with placebo for the treatment of chronic migraine. METHODS: This was a randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, multicenter study consisting of 16 weeks of double-blind treatment. Subjects aged 18 to 65 years with 15 or more headache days per month, at least half of which were migraine/migrainous headaches, were randomized 1:1 to either topiramate 100 mg/day or placebo. An initial dose of topiramate 25 mg/day (or placebo) was titrated upward in weekly increments of 25 mg/day to a maximum of 100 mg/day (or to the maximum tolerated dose). Concomitant preventive migraine treatment was not allowed, and acute headache medication use was not to exceed 4 days per week during the double-blind maintenance period. The primary efficacy endpoint was the change from baseline in the mean monthly number of migraine/migrainous days; the change in the mean monthly number of migraine days also was analyzed. A fixed sequence approach (ie, gatekeeper approach) using analysis of covariance was used to analyze the efficacy endpoints. Assessments of safety and tolerability included physical and neurologic examinations, clinical laboratory parameters, and spontaneous reports of clinical adverse events. RESULTS: The intent-to-treat population included 306 (topiramate, n = 153; placebo, n = 153) of 328 randomized subjects who provided at least 1 efficacy assessment; 55.8% of the topiramate group and 55.2% on placebo were trial completers. The mean final topiramate maintenance dose was 86.0 mg/day. The mean duration of therapy was 91.7 days for the topiramate group and 90.6 days for the placebo group. Topiramate treatment resulted in a statistically significant mean reduction of migraine/migrainous headache days (topiramate -6.4 vs placebo -4.7, P= .010) and migraine headache days relative to baseline (topiramate -5.6 vs placebo -4.1, P= .032). Treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 132 (82.5%) and 113 (70.2%) of topiramate-treated and placebo-treated subjects, respectively, and were generally of mild or moderate severity. Most commonly reported adverse events in the topiramate group were paresthesia (n = 46, 28.8%), upper respiratory tract infection (n = 22, 13.8%), and fatigue (n = 19, 11.9%). The most common adverse events in the placebo group were upper respiratory tract infection (n = 20, 12.4%), fatigue (n = 16, 9.9%), and nausea (n = 13, 8.1%). Discontinuations due to adverse events occurred in 18 (10.9%) topiramate subjects and 10 (6.1%) placebo subjects. There were no serious adverse events or deaths. CONCLUSIONS: Topiramate treatment at daily doses of approximately 100 mg resulted in statistically significant improvements compared with placebo in mean monthly migraine/migrainous and migraine headache days. Topiramate is safe and generally well tolerated in this group of subjects with chronic migraine, a burdensome condition with important unmet treatment needs. Safety and tolerability of topiramate were consistent with experience in previous clinical trials involving the drug.     

Chronic daily headache prophylaxis with tizanidine: a double-blind,placebo-controlled,multicenter outcome study

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy of tizanidine hydrochloride versus placebo as adjunctive prophylactic therapy for chronic daily headache (chronic migraine, migrainous headache, or tension-type headache). BACKGROUND: Tizanidine is an alpha2-adrenergic agonist that inhibits the release of norepinephrine at both the spinal cord and brain, with antinociceptive effects that are independent of the endogenous opioid system. Previous open-label studies have suggested the drug may be effective for treatment of chronic daily headache. METHODS: Two hundred patients completed a 4-week, single-blind, placebo baseline period, with 134 fulfilling selection criteria and then randomized to tizanidine or placebo. Ninety-two patients completed at least 8 weeks of treatment (tizanidine, n = 45; placebo, n = 47), and 85 patients completed 12 weeks of treatment (tizanidine, n = 44; placebo, n = 41). Most patients (77%) met the diagnostic criteria for migraine of the International Headache Society; 23% had either chronic migrainous headache or chronic tension-type headache. Tizanidine was slowly titrated over 4 weeks to 24 mg or the maximum dose tolerated (mean, 18 mg; SD, 6.4; median, 20.0; range, 2 to 24), divided equally over three dose intervals per day. Overall headache index ([headache days x average intensity x duration in hours]/28 days) was the primary end point. RESULTS: Tizanidine was shown to be superior to placebo in reducing the overall headache index (P =.0025), as well as mean headache days per week (P =.0193), severe headache days per week (P =.0211), average headache intensity (P =.0108), peak headache intensity (P =.0020), and mean headache duration (P =.0127). The mean percentage improvement during the last 4 weeks of treatment with tizanidine versus placebo was 54% versus 19% for the headache index (P =.0144), 55% versus 21% for severe headache days (P =.0331), 35% versus 19% for headache duration (P =.0142), 35% versus 20% for peak headache intensity (P =.0106), 33% versus 20% for average headache intensity (P =.0281), and 30% versus 22% for total headache days (P =.0593). Patients receiving tizanidine also scored higher ratings of overall headache improvement on a visual analog scale (P =.0069). There was no statistically significant difference in outcome for patients with chronic migraine versus those with only migrainous or tension-type headache. Adverse effects reported by more than 10% of the patients included somnolence (47%), dizziness (24%), dry mouth (23%), and asthenia (19%). Dropouts due to adverse events did not differ significantly between tizanidine and placebo. CONCLUSIONS: The results support tizanidine as an effective prophylactic adjunct for chronic daily headache, including migraine, migrainous headache, and tension-type headache. These results also suggest the possible importance of an alpha2-adrenergic mechanism underlying the pathophysiology of this spectrum of headache disorders.     

Continuous low-level heatwrap therapy for treating acute nonspecific low back pain

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of 8 hours of continuous low-level heatwrap therapy for the treatment of acute nonspecific low back pain (LBP). DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, parallel, single-blind (investigator), placebo-controlled, multicenter clinical trial. SETTING: Five community-based research facilities. PARTICIPANTS: Two-hundred nineteen subjects, aged 18 to 55 years, with acute nonspecific LBP. INTERVENTION: Subjects were stratified by baseline pain intensity and gender and randomized to one of the following groups: evaluation of efficacy (heatwrap, n=95; oral placebo, n=96) and blinding (oral ibuprofen, n=12; unheated back, wrap n=16). All treatments were administered for 3 consecutive days with 2 days of follow-up. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary: day 1 mean pain relief (0- to 5-point verbal response scale). Secondary: muscle stiffness (101-point numeric rating scale), lateral trunk flexibility (fingertip-floor distance), and Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire over 3 days of treatment and 2 days of follow-up. RESULTS: Heatwrap therapy was shown to provide significant therapeutic benefits when compared with placebo during both the treatment and follow-up period. On day 1, the heatwrap group had greater pain relief (1.76+/-.10 vs 1.05+/-.11, P <.001), less muscle stiffness (43.1+/-1.21 vs 47.6+/-1.21, P=.008), and increased flexibility (18.6+/-.44 cm vs 16.5+/-.45 cm, P=.001) compared with placebo. Disability was also reduced in the heatwrap group (5.3 vs 7.4, P=.0002). Adverse events were mild and infrequent. CONCLUSION: Continuous low-level heatwrap therapy was shown to be effective for the treatment of acute, nonspecific LBP.     

A multi-centre, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of liposomal prostaglandin E1 (TLC C-53) in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety of liposomal PGE1 (TLC C-53) in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), and determine its efficacy in improving oxygenation and reducing ventilator dependency. DESIGN: A multi-centre, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical study. SETTING: Thirty-one hospitals in six European countries. PATIENTS: One hundred two patients with ARDS. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive infusions of either the study drug TLC C-53 or placebo. Infusions were given over 60 min every 6 h for 7 days. The dose of study drug started at 0.6 microg/kg per h, rising over 24 h to a maximum dose of 1.8 microg/kg per h. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Seventy patients received the study drug and 32 placebo. Sixty-nine patients (47 treatment, 22 placebo) completed the study protocol. Patients were monitored for changes in the PaO2/FIO2 ratio, changes in lung compliance, time to off-ventilator and 28-day mortality, in addition to basic haematological and haemodynamic parameters. There were no significant differences in demographics and baseline characteristics between the two groups. There were no differences in the time to off-ventilation (16 days with treatment, 16.6 days with placebo, p=0.94) or in 28-day mortality (30% with treatment, 28% with placebo, p=0.78). There was a difference in the time to achieve a PaO2/FIO2 ratio above 300 in favour of TLC C-53 (10.3 versus 26.5 days) but this was not statistically significant (p=0.23). CONCLUSIONS: TLC C-53 was generally well-tolerated but failed to reduce mortality or duration of mechanical ventilation.     

A randomized,controlled study comparing a lidocaine patch,a placebo patch,and anesthetic injection for treatment of trigger points in patients with myofascial pain syndrome: Evaluation of pain and somatic pain thresholds

Background: Myofascial pain syndrome (MPS), a regional pain condition caused by trigger points in muscle or muscle fascia, produces muscle pain, tenderness, and disability. The gold standard of treatment for MPS—infiltration of trigger points with anesthetic—may provoke discomfort to the patients and require medical intervention.Objectives: This study was designed to compare the effects of a topical lidocaine patch, a placebo patch, and injection of anesthetic (infiltration) for the symptoms of MPS in terms of pain, disability, and local tissue hypersensitivity, and to determine the acceptability of the lidocaine patch to the patients.Methods: Patients were randomly allocated to receive 1 of 3 treatments: a lidocaine patch applied to the trigger point for 4 days (replacement every 12 hours; total daily dose, 350 mg), a placebo patch applied to the trigger point for 4 days (replacement every 12 hours), or infiltration of the trigger point with two 1-mL injections of 0.5% bupivacaine hydrochloride given 2 days apart. Treatment with the patches was double-blinded, whereas treatment with infiltration was single-blinded. The number of pain attacks, pain intensity at rest and on movement, and pain-related interference with daily activity, work activity, mood, and quality of life were recorded before, during, and after treatment using a visual analog scale (VAS). Pressure and electrical pain thresholds of the skin, subcutis, and muscle in the trigger point, target area, and a pain-free area were evaluated before starting therapy (day 1) and on days 5 and 9. A VAS was used to measure discomfort from therapy, and a diary was given to each patient to record requests for additional treatment (if needed) and adverse effects.Results: Sixty white patients (46 women and 14 men) 19 to 76 years of age were studied. Mean (SD) age was 46.88 (15.37) years, and mean (SD) weight was 69.58 (13.94) kg. Twenty patients were assigned to each treatment group. Subjective symptoms did not change with placebo, but decreased significantly with the lido-caine patch and infiltration (both, P < 0.001) relative to baseline. Pain thresholds did not vary with the placebo patch, but increased significantly with the lidocaine patch and infiltration (all, P < 0.001); effects at muscle trigger points and target areas were greater with infiltration. Discomfort from therapy was greater with infiltration than with the lidocaine patch. Only patients in the placebo group requested additional treatment (P < 0.001). No adverse events occurred in any group.Conclusion: Lidocaine patches were effective in, and highly acceptable to, these patients with MPS and high tissue hypersensitivity.     

Effects of sequential connective tissue massage on autonomic nervous system of middle-aged and elderly adults

The purpose of this study was to describe autonomic nervous system responses to serial connective tissue massage (CTM) in healthy middle-aged and elderly subjects. Fourteen healthy middle-aged or elderly subjects (means age = 61.3 years) were randomly assigned to either a CTM or placebo group. Subjects received nine separate treatments (CTM or placebo) on alternate days over a three-week period. Each treatment was divided into 15-minute control, intervention, and recovery periods. Subjects in the CTM Group (n = 8) were given CTM on the basic section (low back), and subjects in the Placebo Group (n = 6) had sham ultrasound applied to the same area. Variables monitored were skin temperature (right great toe and popliteal fossa), galvanic skin response, mean arterial blood pressure, and heart rate. Variable measurements were made every five minutes. An analysis of variance and single-case analyses showed no changes in the variables measured in the CTM or Placebo Group. The results of this study suggest that CTM has no consistent immediate or long-term effects on the autonomic nervous system in healthy middle-aged and elderly subjects.     

大剂量地塞米松联合乌司他丁治疗严重肺挫伤

目的：研究大剂量地塞米松联合乌司他丁治疗严重肺挫伤的疗效与安全性。方法：选择58例严重肺挫伤患者,随机分为A组（n=29）和B组（n=29）。A组接受常规治疗,包括使用地塞米松20~40mg,2次/d,连续3d。B组在常规治疗的基础上联合乌司他丁20万U加入0.9%氯化钠液100mL静脉滴注,每8h1次,连用7d;2组患者治疗第1、第7天行血气分析,并检测治疗第1、第4、第7天血清肿瘤坏死因子-α（TNF-α）、白介素-6（IL-6）的含量。比较治疗期间2组患者急性呼吸窘迫综合征（ARDS）的发生率。结果：治疗前2组血气分析指标及血清TNF-α、IL-6水平无显著差异（P〉0.05）;治疗后B组血气分析指标较同期A组显著改善（P〈0.05）,血清TNF-α、IL-6水平较A组显著下降更明显（P〈0.05）。ARDS发生率B组显著低于A组（P〈0.05）。结论：大剂量地塞米松联合应用乌司他丁能显著抑制炎症介质的释放,有效保护严重肺挫伤患者的肺功能。     

A comparison of levalbuterol with racemic albuterol in the treatment of acute severe asthma exacerbations in adults

This multicenter, randomized, double-blind trial compared nebulized levalbuterol (Lev) and racemic albuterol (Rac) in the treatment of acute asthma. METHODS: Adults with acute asthma exacerbations (FEV(1) 20%-55% predicted) received prednisone and either Lev (1.25 mg, n = 315) or Rac (2.5 mg, n = 312). Nebulized treatments were administered every 20 minutes in the first hour, then every 40 minutes for 3 additional doses, then as necessary for up to 24 hours. The primary end point was time to meet discharge criteria. Secondary end points included changes in lung function and hospitalization rates. A subset of 160 patients had plasma (S)-albuterol concentrations determined at study entry. RESULTS: Time to meet discharge criteria did not differ between the 2 treatments. FEV(1) improvement was greater following Lev compared with Rac, both after dose 1 and cumulatively over the entire treatment period (dose 1 in intent to treat [ITT] group: Lev 0.50 +/- 0.43 L, Rac 0.43 +/- 0.37 L; P = .02), particularly among the 60% of patients not on recent steroid therapy (dose 1: Lev 0.58 +/- 0.47 L, Rac 0.44 +/- 0.37 L; P < .01), and patients whose entry (S)-albuterol concentrations were in the highest quartile of those measured. A small and similar proportion of Lev-treated (7.0%) and Rac-treated (9.3%) patients required hospitalization (P = .28). Among patients not on steroids, fewer Lev- than Rac-treated patients required admission (3.8% vs 9.3%, P = .03), as was also the case for patients with high plasma (S)-albuterol concentrations. Asthma relapses (5% in 30 days) were lower than in previous reports and did not differ between groups. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that early, regular nebulized beta(2)-agonist and systemic corticosteroid therapy may reduce hospitalization and relapse rates in patients with acute severe asthma. Lev was well tolerated and compared favorably with Rac in improving airway function, particularly in those who were not on inhaled or oral corticosteroids and in those who had high plasma (S)-albuterol concentrations at presentation.     

Liposomal prostaglandin E1 (TLC C-53) in acute respiratory distress syndrome: a controlled, randomized, double-blind, multicenter clinical trial. TLC C-53 ARDS Study Group.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of an intravenous liposomal dispersion of prostaglandin E1 as TLC C-53 in the treatment of patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). DESIGN: Randomized, prospective, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III clinical trial. SETTING: Forty-seven community and university-affiliated hospitals in the United States. PATIENTS: A total of 350 patients with ARDS were enrolled in this clinical trial. INTERVENTION: Patients were prospectively randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either liposomal prostaglandin E1 or placebo. The study drug was infused intravenously for 60 mins every 6 hrs for 7 days starting with a dosage of 0.15 microg/kg/hr. The dose was increased every 12 hrs until the maximal dose (3.6 microg/kg/hr) was attained or intolerance to further increases developed. Patients received standard aggressive medical/surgical care during the infusion period. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was the time it took to wean the patient from the ventilator. Secondary end points included time to improvement of the PaO2/FIO2 ratio (defined as first PaO2/FIO2 > 300 mm Hg), day 28 mortality, ventilator dependence at day 8, changes in PaO2/FIO2, incidence of and time to development/resolution of organ failure other than ARDS. RESULTS: A total of 348 patients could be evaluated for efficacy. The distribution of variables at baseline describing gender, lung injury scores, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II scores, PaO2/FIO2, pulmonary compliance, and time from onset of ARDS or from institution of mechanical ventilation to the first dose of study drug was similar among patients in the liposomal prostaglandin E1 (n = 177) and the placebo (n = 171) treatment arms. There was no significant difference in the number of days to the discontinuation of ventilation in the liposomal prostaglandin E1 group compared with the placebo group (median number of days to off mechanical ventilation, 16.9 in patients receiving liposomal prostaglandin E1 and 19.6 in those administered placebo; p = .94). Similarly, mortality at day 28 was not significantly different in the two groups (day 28 mortality, 57 of 176 (32%) in the liposomal prostaglandin E1 group and 50 of 170 (29%) in patients receiving placebo; p = .55). In contrast, treatment with liposomal prostaglandin E1 was associated with a significantly shorter time to reach a PaO2/FIO2 ratio of >300 mm Hg (median number of days to reaching a PaO2/FIO2 ratio >300 mm Hg: 9.8 days in the liposomal prostaglandin E1 group and 13.7 days in patients receiving the placebo; p = .02). Among the subgroups examined, time to off mechanical ventilation was significantly reduced in patients who received at least 85% of a full dose (i.e., > 45.9 microg/kg) of liposomal prostaglandin E1 (median number of days to discontinuation of ventilation, 10.3 in the liposomal prostaglandin E1 group and 16.3 days in patients receiving placebo; p = .05). The overall incidence of serious adverse events was not significantly different in the liposomal prostaglandin E1 (40%) or placebo-treated (37%) groups. Drug-related adverse events of all kinds were reported in 69% of the patients receiving liposomal prostaglandin E1 compared with 33% of the placebo group, with hypotension and hypoxia (occurring in 52% and 24% of the liposomal prostaglandin E1-treated patients, respectively, and 17% and 5% of the placebo-treated patients, respectively) being noted most frequently. CONCLUSIONS: In the intent-to-treat population of patients with ARDS, treatment with liposomal prostaglandin E1 accelerated improvement in indexes of oxygenation but did not decrease the duration of mechanical ventilation and did not improve day 28 survival.     

严重急性呼吸综合征(非典型肺炎)的胸片研究

目的分析严重急性呼吸综合征(severeacuteresplratorysyndrome，SARS)患者治疗前后的x线表现，探讨胸片在SARs诊断与治疗中的临床价值。方法61例SARS患者在治疗前与治疗后的不同时间作了胸部x线平片检查。男2j例，女38例，年龄17～63岁，平均33岁。观察一系列X线平片表现。结果61例均见肺纹理增粗，23例并网格状改变，肺内见薄雾状(10例)、云絮状(33例)、浓烟状(11例)或磨玻璃样(23例)阴影。首诊时肺内阴影在单侧单叶29例，单侧多叶9例，双侧23例。38例阴影出现在单侧者，28例在右侧(74％)。肺内阴影共累及129个肺叶，下肺叶71个(j5％)。患者还合并膈胸膜增厚(6例)、纵隔气肿(3例)、心影增大(1例)。18例胸片随访见肺部阴影增多，其中13例阴影由单侧向双侧发展。激素治疗可使肺部阴影在4～37天后吸收。结论SARS的胸片表现多种多样，无特异性。但胸片检查是SARS诊断、疗效观察及指导治疗的必需手段。