Efficacy and tolerability of an ulcer compression stocking for therapy of chronic venous ulcer compared with a below-knee compression bandage: results from a prospective, randomized, multicentre trial

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the possibility of improving healing rates in ulcus cruris venosum by using an ulcer compression stocking (U-Stocking) (Venotrain ulcertec) as compared to compression bandages. RESEARCH DESIGN AND SETTING: Prospective, multicentre, open-labelled, randomized, active-controlled study with blinded assessment of the primary endpoint. Sixteen phlebology outpatient clinics in Germany or the Netherlands or German medical practices specialized in phlebology. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 134 patients with venous leg ulcers entered the study. Among others, patients with infected ulcer or obesity were excluded. 121 patients were eligible for primary efficacy analyses. U-Stocking or bandages applied for at least eight hours per day and for up to 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was the healing rate after 12 weeks as assessed by planimetric measures. The secondary outcome variables were time to healing, changes in ulcer size (planimetry), experience of use and patient compliance. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Therapy with the U-Stocking produced a significantly higher rate of complete healing of 47.5% (29/61) versus 31.7% (19/60) with bandages, 1-sided p = 0.0129 [CI: 95% for differences: 4.3% to 28.5%]. Mean time to healing was 46 days in both groups. Time required for application of the U-Stocking was a mean of 5.4 min (SD 5.4) versus 8.5 min (SD 6.5) for bandages, p = 0.0001. Around three patients in each treatment group were affected by serious adverse events. All treatment-related adverse events are known for compression therapy. CONCLUSIONS: The U-Stocking was superior to bandages in compression therapy for venous ulcer. This is of significance to new treatment standards as well as to future studies of longer term therapy (> 12 weeks) for unhealed ulcers or prevention of recurrence.     

Is a Shared Decision–Making Approach Effective in Improving Hypertension Management?

The authors assessed whether patient empowerment in the management of hypertension improved more with the practice of shared decision making (SDM) than by education programs. In a prospective controlled clinical study, 15 general practitioners in Nuremberg, Germany who were specially trained to conduct SDM consultations participated in a 12-month study. Hypertensive patients ( N =86) were included; N =40 were in the SDM group and N =46 were in the control group, if blood pressures were ≥135/85 mm Hg (self measurement) and patients had no signs of cardiovascular complications or severe hypertension. All participants in the SDM group and the control group were enrolled in an education program on hypertension in small groups. The SDM group participants also had 4 special consultations to share medical decisions. The main outcome measures were the effect of SDM on blood pressure control. After 1 year blood pressure had decreased in all participants: Δ−9.26±10.2 mm Hg/Δ−5.33±9.5 mm Hg in the SDM group ( P <0.001) compared to Δ−6.0±11.8 mm Hg/Δ−3.0±8.3 mm Hg in the control group. There was no significant difference between the 2 groups. The study group practiced more SDM than controls, but blood pressure control was not significantly better. Patient empowerment by means of an education program in small groups and creating awareness of hypertensive disease helps to improve the outcome of hypertension treatment. SDM, however, did not improve management when compared to an education program, which is much easier to implement in general practice.     

Validation of the Augmentation Severity Rating Scale (ASRS): a multicentric, prospective study with levodopa on restless legs syndrome

BACKGROUND: Augmentation is the main complication during long-term dopaminergic treatment of restless legs syndrome (RLS) and reflects an overall increase in RLS severity. Its severity varies considerably from a minor problem to a devastating exacerbation of disease. Despite its clinical relevance, systematic evaluations have rarely been undertaken and there has been no development of methods to assess the severity of augmentation. To fill this gap, the European RLS Study Group (EURLSSG) has developed the Augmentation Severity Rating Scale (ASRS), using three items that assess the degree of change in three specific dimensions of augmentation. The changes in each dimension are summed to give an ASRS total score. METHODS: The ASRS was developed to cover the basic dimensions defining RLS augmentation. The items were developed by an interactive process involving professional and patient input. The ASRS that was evaluated included four major items and two alternative forms of one item. The validation was conducted using 63 (85%) mostly untreated RLS patients from six centers, who were treated for six months with levodopa (L-Dopa) (up to 500 mg/day, as clinically needed). Two consecutive assessments before and at baseline measured test-retest reliability. Consecutive ASRS ratings by two independent raters on a subsample of patients evaluated inter-rater reliability. Comparison with clinical severity ratings of two independent experts provided external validation of the ASRS. Comparison of patients with and without augmentation with regard to the items and the total score of the ASRS added discriminant validity. RESULTS: Sixty patients (63% females, mean age: 53 years, baseline International RLS Severity Rating (IRLS) score 24.7+/-5.2) were treated with a median daily dose of 300 mg L-Dopa (range: 50-500 mg). Thirty-six patients (60%) experienced augmentation. Item analyses indicated that one item could be removed as it did not contribute significantly to the test score and only one form of the duplicated item needed to be used. The final ASRS then included three items. Test-retest reliability for the total score was rho=0.72, and inter-rater reliability was rcc=0.94. Cronbach's alpha was 0.62. Validity as assessed by the correlation between the worst ASRS total score during the trial and the expert rating was rho=0.72. ASRS total score differed between patients without versus with augmentation (mean: 7.4 (standard deviation (SD)=4.0) vs. 2.0 (2.7) (P<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The ASRS is a reliable and valid scale to measure the severity of augmentation. Due to the need to systematically quantify augmentation for both long-term efficacy and tolerability, the ASRS may become a useful tool to monitor augmentation in future clinical trials.     

One year open-label safety and efficacy trial with rotigotine transdermal patch in moderate to severe idiopathic restless legs syndrome

BackgroundLong-term efficacy and tolerability data are not yet available for patch formulations of dopamine agonists in restless legs syndrome.MethodsEfficacy and safety of rotigotine (0.5–4 mg/24 h), formulated as a once-daily transdermal system (patch), were investigated in an open extension (SP710) of a preceding 6-week placebo-controlled trial (SP709, 341 randomized patients) in patients with idiopathic restless legs syndrome. For efficacy assessment the international RLS severity scale (IRLS), the RLS-6 scales, the clinical global impressions (CGI) and the QoL-RLS questionnaire were administered. In addition, long-term tolerability and safety were assessed.ResultsOf 310 patients who finished the controlled trial, 295 (mean age 58 ± 10 years, 66% females) with a mean IRLS score of 27.8 ± 5.9 at baseline of SP709 were included. We report results after one year of this ongoing long-term trial. Two hundred twenty patients (retention rate = 74.6%) completed the 12-month follow-up period. The mean daily dose was 2.8 ± 1.2 mg/24 h with 4 mg/24 h (40.6%) being the most frequently applied dose; 14.8% were sufficiently treated with 0.5 or 1.0 mg/24 h. The IRLS total score improved by −17.4 ± 9.9 points between baseline and end of Year 1 (p < 0.001). The other measures of severity, sleep satisfaction and quality of life supported the efficacy of rotigotine (p < 0.001 for pre-post-comparisons of all efficacy variables). The tolerability was described as “good” or “very good” by 80.3% of all patients. The most common adverse events were application site reactions (40.0%), which led to withdrawal in 13.2%. Further relatively frequent adverse events were nausea (9.5%) and fatigue (6.4%). Two drug-related serious adverse events, nausea and syncope, required hospitalization. Symptoms of augmentation were not reported by the patients.ConclusionRotigotine provided a stable, clinically relevant improvement in all efficacy measures throughout one year of maintenance therapy. The transdermal patch was safe and generally well tolerated by the majority of patients. Comparable to any transdermal therapy, application site reactions were the main treatment complication.