Does prophylactic antidepressant treatment boost interferon-alpha treatment completion in HCV?

Depression is often a side effect of interferon-alpha treatment for hepatitis C, and is recognized as a cause for treatment discontinuation. When detected, antidepressant treatment begins promptly. In contrast to this rescue approach, prophylactic antidepressant treatment has been considered as a superior approach. While studies indicate that depression is lower with prophylaxis, no study has prospectively evaluated the degree that treatment completion might be boosted by the prophylactic strategy. A structured literature search was conducted to discover all trials of antidepressant prophylaxis for patients undergoing antiviral treatment for chronic hepatitis C. Selection criteria included: antidepressant prophylaxis study; report of depression treatment outcome; report of numbers discontinuing and reason for discontinuation (including any of the following: discontinuation data for medical side effects (i.e., thrombocytopenia); discontinuation due to lack of antiviral response; discontinuation due to lack of antidepressant effect; discontinuation due to antidepressant side effects; discontinuation due to patient preference; discontinuation due to loss to follow-up; or unspecified discontinuation). Across the studies, total enrollees were determined for the prophylaxis arms and the rescue arms, and then, again across studies, those discontinuing for reasons other than lack of antiviral response or medical side effect were summed for each of these two arms. Twelve studies were discovered. One was a retrospective chart review, one was an uncontrolled trial, and ten were controlled trials. Discontinuation of antiviral therapy was not less common in the prophylaxis arms: of the 396 patients treated by the prophylaxis strategy, 47 (11.9%) discontinued; of the 380 patients in the rescue strategy, 45 (11.8%) discontinued. While the prophylaxis strategy seems to manage depression symptoms, it does not seem to boost treatment completion. Rescue was a very successful strategy when indicated. While antidepressant prophylaxis has benefit in antiviral treatment, it should not generally be valued for boosting the likelihood of treatment completion.     

Effectiveness of diclofenac versus paracetamol in knee osteoarthritis: a randomised controlled trial in primary care

Background

The effectiveness of diclofenac versus paracetamol in primary care patients with pain caused by knee osteoarthritis is unclear.

Aim

To assess the effectiveness of diclofenac compared with paracetamol over a period of 2, 4, and 12 weeks in patients with knee osteoarthritis.

Design and setting

Randomised controlled trial in general practice.

Method

There were 104 patients included in the study, they were aged ≥45 years consulting their GP with knee pain caused by knee osteoarthritis. Patients were randomly allocated to diclofenac (n = 52) or paracetamol (n = 52) for at least 2 weeks. Primary outcomes were daily knee pain severity, and knee pain and function measured with the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS).

Results

Over a period of 2- and 4-weeks follow-up, no significant difference in daily knee pain was found between the patient groups: estimated differences of 0.5 (95% CI = −0.2 to 1.3) and −0.2 (95% CI = −1.0 to 0.7), respectively. Over the 12-weeks follow-up, no significant differences were found between both groups for KOOS pain: estimated difference of −2.8 (95% CI = −10.7 to 5.1) and KOOS function of −2.7 (−10.6 to 5.0).

Conclusion

Over a period of 2- and 4-weeks follow-up no significant difference in daily measured knee pain severity was found between primary care patients with knee osteoarthritis taking paracetamol or diclofenac. Also, over a period of 12-weeks follow-up no significant differences were found regarding KOOS pain and KOOS function between both groups. Patients more frequently reported minor adverse events after taking diclofenac (64%) than paracetamol (46%).     

Phospholipase A2 levels in acute chest syndrome of sickle cell disease

Acute chest syndrome (ACS) is associated with significant morbidity and is the leading cause of death in patients with sickle cell disease (SCD). Recent reports suggest that bone marrow fat embolism can be detected in many cases of severe ACS. Secretory phospholipase A2 (sPLA2) is an important inflammatory mediator and liberates free fatty acids, which are felt to be responsible for the acute lung injury of the fat embolism syndrome. We measured SPLA2 levels in 35 SCD patients during 20 admissions for ACS, 10 admissions for vaso-occlusive crisis, and during 12 clinic visits when patients were at the steady state. Eleven non-SCD patients with pneumonia were also evaluated. To determine if there was a relationship between sPLA2 and the severity of ACS we correlated SPLA2 levels with the clinical course of the patient. In comparison with normal controls (mean = 3.1 +/- 1.1 ng/mL), the non- SCD patients with pneumonia (mean = 68.6 +/- 82.9 ng/mL) and all three SCD patient groups had an elevation of SPLA2 (steady state mean = 10.0 +/- 8.4 ng/mL; vaso-occlusive crisis mean = 23.7 +/- 40.5 ng/mL; ACS mean = 336 +/- 209 ng/mL). In patients with ACS sPLA2 levels were 100- fold greater than normal control values, 35 times greater than values in SCD patients at baseline, and five times greater than non-SCD patients with pneumonia. The degree of SPLA2 elevation in ACS correlated with three different measures of clinical severity and, in patients followed sequentially, the rise in SPLA2 coincided with the onset of ACS. The dramatic elevation of SPLA2 in patients with ACS but not in patients with vaso-occlusive crisis or non-SCD patients with pneumonia and the correlation between levels of SPLA2 and clinical severity suggest a role for SPLA2 in the diagnosis and, perhaps, in the pathophysiology of patients with ACS.     

The Role of One-Stage Exchange for Prosthetic Joint Infection

Purpose of Review

In an era of increasing numbers of hip and knee replacements, strategies to manage prosthetic joint infection (PJI) that are effective at infection control with good patient-reported outcomes and cost containment for health systems are needed. Interest in single-stage exchange for PJI is rising and we assess evidence from the last 5 years related to this treatment strategy.

Recent Findings

Only five series for total knee replacement and ten series for total hip replacement have been reported in the last five years. More review articles and opinion pieces have been written. Reinfection rates in these recent studies range from 0 to 65%, but a meta-analysis and systematic review of all studies showed a reinfection rate of 7.6% (95% CI 3.4–13.1) and 8.8% (95% CI 7.2–10.6) for single-stage and two-stage revisions respectively. There is emerging evidence to support single-stage revision in the setting of significant bony deficiency and atypical PJIs such as fungal infections.

Summary

Prospective randomised studies are recruiting and are necessary to guide the direction of single-stage revision selection criteria. The onus of surgical excellence in mechanical removal of implants, necrotic tissue, and biofilms lies with the arthroplasty surgeon and must remain the cornerstone of treatment. Single-stage revision may be considered the first-line treatment for all PJIs unless the organism is unknown, the patient is systemically septic, or there is a poor tissue envelope.