Dural puncture epidural versus conventional epidural block for labor analgesia: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials

IntroductionDural puncture epidural (DPE) analgesia is a modification of conventional epidural analgesia that involves the intentional puncture of the dura with a spinal needle through the needle placed in the epidural space, without a medication being injected intrathecally. There have been contradictory findings regarding better analgesia and better block quality.MethodsA systematic literature search was done to identify randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing DPE with epidural analgesia. The risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane tool. Risk ratio and 95% confidence intervals were calculated.ResultsFive RCTs including 581 patients were identified. One RCT on caesarean section was excluded. Single studies suggested slightly better analgesia by finding a median time to achieve sufficient analgesia of two minutes less in the DPE group, a higher number of women having a pain score <10/100 at 20 min, a reduction in the number of epidural top-ups and better sacral spread. The studies did not show a difference between DPE and epidural analgesia for catheter replacement or manipulation rates, the incidence of intravascular placement or unilateral block.ConclusionThere is a lack of clear evidence on either the benefits or the risks of the DPE technique, such that a recommendation for or against its routine use is premature. Two of the three studies showing a beneficial effect of DPE came from the same institution and replication of the findings by other groups is warranted.     

Improving medication adherence with adjuvant aromatase inhibitor in women with breast cancer: A randomised controlled trial to evaluate the effect of short message service (SMS) reminder

BackgroundMedication adherence is crucial for improving clinical outcomes in the treatment of patients. We evaluate the effect of short message service (SMS) reminder on medication adherence and serum hormones in patients with breast cancer on aromatase inhibitors.MethodsAn open-label, multi-centre, prospective randomised controlled trial of SMS versus Standard Care was conducted. Medication adherence was assessed via self-report using the Simplified Medication Adherence Questionnaire at baseline, 6 month, and 1 year. Androstenedione, estradiol, and estrone were measured at baseline and 1 year. The χ² test and mixed effects logistic regression was performed to compare medication adherence between groups. Difference in androstenedione and estrone levels were assessed using analysis of covariance, whereas χ² test and logistic regression was used for estradiol. Analysis was based on intention-to-treat.ResultsA total of 244 patients were randomised to receive weekly SMS reminder (n = 123) or Standard Care (n = 121) between May 2015 and December 2018. The odds of adherence was higher at 6-month in SMS (OR = 1.78, 95% CI 1.04–3.05, p = 0.034), and not significantly different at 1-year (OR = 1.15, 95% CI: 0.67–1.96 p = 0.617). Mixed effects logistic regression analysis showed higher odds of adherence in SMS over the 1-year period (OR = 2.35, 95% CI: 1.01–5.49, p = 0.048). There was no difference in serum hormone levels between groups.ConclusionSMS reminder improved medication adherence in the short-term but had no effect on serum hormones levels in the longer term. Future studies could investigate the use of tailored SMS intervention according to patient preference to improve its sustainability.     

Economic Evaluation of Factorial Trials: Cost-Utility Analysis of the Atorvastatin in Factorial With Omega EE90 Risk Reduction in Diabetes 2 × 2 × 2 Factorial Trial of Atorvastatin,Omega-3 Fish Oil,and Action Planning

ObjectivesWe applied principles for conducting economic evaluations of factorial trials to a trial-based economic evaluation of a cluster-randomized 2 × 2 × 2 factorial trial. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of atorvastatin, omega-3 fish oil, and an action-planning leaflet, alone and in combination, from a UK National Health Service perspective.MethodsThe Atorvastatin in Factorial With Omega EE90 Risk Reduction in Diabetes (AFORRD) Trial randomized 800 patients with type 2 diabetes to atorvastatin, omega-3, or their respective placebos and randomized general practices to receive a leaflet-based action-planning intervention designed to improve compliance or standard care. The trial was conducted at 59 UK general practices. Sixteen-week outcomes for each trial participant were extrapolated for 70 years using the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study Outcomes Model v2.01. We analyzed the trial as a 2 × 2 factorial trial (ignoring interactions between action-planning leaflet and medication), as a 2 × 2 × 2 factorial trial (considering all interactions), and ignoring all interactions.ResultsWe observed several qualitative interactions for costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) that changed treatment rankings. However, different approaches to analyzing the factorial design did not change the conclusions. There was a ≥99% chance that atorvastatin is cost-effective and omega-3 is not, at a £20 000/QALY threshold.ConclusionsAtorvastatin monotherapy was the most cost-effective combination of the 3 trial interventions at a £20 000/QALY threshold. Omega-3 fish oil was not cost-effective, while there was insufficient evidence to draw firm conclusions about action planning. Recently-developed methods for analyzing factorial trials and combining parameter and sampling uncertainty were extended to estimate cost-effectiveness acceptability curves within a 2x2x2 factorial design with model-based extrapolation.     

Additional bedtime H2‐receptor antagonist for the control of nocturnal gastric acid breakthrough: A Cochrane systematic review

OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of additional bedtime H₂‐receptor antagonists (H₂RAs) in suppressing nocturnal gastric acid breakthrough (NAB) via a systematic review. METHODS: Eligible trials were identified by searching the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Cochrane Library Issue 2, 2004), MEDLINE (January 1966–June 2004), EMBASE (January 1980–June 2004) and CINAHL (January 1982–June 2004). Additional hand‐searching was conducted on the proceedings of correlated conferences, eight important Chinese journals and references of all included trials. All randomized controlled trials evaluating H₂RAs for the control of NAB were eligible for inclusion. The systematic review was conducted using methods recommended by The Cochrane Collaboration. RESULTS: Only two randomized crossover studies, comprising 32 participants, met the inclusion criteria. Because the design, dosage and duration of the treatments were different between the studies, it was not possible to conduct meta‐analysis. There were no consistent conclusions found between the two included studies in evaluating H₂RAs for the control of NAB. CONCLUSIONS: No implications for practice at this stage can be concluded. Appropriately designed large‐scale randomized controlled trials with long‐term follow up are needed to determine the effects of additional bedtime H₂RAs in suppressing NAB.