Treatment of myofascial trigger points in common shoulder disorders by physical therapy: A randomized controlled trial [ISRCTN75722066]

Background  

Shoulder disorders are a common health problem in western societies. Several treatment protocols have been developed for the clinical management of persons with shoulder pain. However available evidence does not support any protocol as being superior over others. Systematic reviews provide some evidence that certain physical therapy interventions (i.e. supervised exercises and mobilisation) are effective in particular shoulder disorders (i.e. rotator cuff disorders, mixed shoulder disorders and adhesive capsulitis), but there is an ongoing need for high quality trials of physical therapy interventions. Usually, physical therapy consists of active exercises intended to strengthen the shoulder muscles as stabilizers of the glenohumeral joint or perform mobilisations to improve restricted mobility of the glenohumeral or adjacent joints (shoulder girdle). It is generally accepted that a-traumatic shoulder problems are the result of impingement of the subacromial structures, such as the bursa or rotator cuff tendons. Myofascial trigger points (MTrPs) in shoulder muscles may also lead to a complex of symptoms that are often seen in patients diagnosed with subacromial impingement or rotator cuff tendinopathy. Little is known about the treatment of MTrPs in patients with shoulder disorders.     

ANGIOTENSIN-CONVERTING ENZYME INHIBITION AS FIRST-LINE TREATMENT FOR HYPERTENSION

1. Perindopril (4 mg) was compared with atenolol (50 mg), captopril (25 mg b. d.) or a diuretic (hydrochlorothiazide 50 mg and amiloride 5 mg) in three studies involving a total of 503 hypertensive patients with a diastolic blood pressure (DBP) of 95–125 mmHg.
2. A 4 week single-blind placebo period preceded 12 weeks of active treatment. Dose titration was at weeks 4 and 8 if supine DBP >90 mmHg. The dose was doubled and if necessary a diuretic was added in the atenolol or captopril comparisons, and atenolol was added in the diuretic study.
3. The fall in supine blood pressure (BP) was 27/17 mmHg with perindopril and 21/16 mmHg for atenolol. Monotherapy controlled 55% of patients on perindopril and 48% on atenolol, increasing to 78% and 58% with the addition of hydrochlorothiazide, respectively. Captopril caused a BP fall of 19/12 mmHg compared with 27/18 mmHg for perindopril, with 49% of both groups being controlled on monotherapy.
4. Diuretic addition produced a greater antihypertensive effect with perindopril (75%) compared with 57% for captopril in achieving control. Perindopril caused a comparable fall in supine BP to the diuretic combination 27/19 mmHg and 31/18 mmHg, but the fall in erect systolic BP was significantly greater for the diuretic. At 3 months, 85% of the diuretic group and 78% of the perindopril group achieved the target BP.
5. A multicentre trial of 856 patients treated with perindopril (690 patients treated for 1 year or more) has shown that BP control is maintained in the long term with a low incidence of side-effects (7.9%) causing withdrawal from treatment. These studies demonstrate that perindopril compares favourably with standard first-line therapy for mild to moderate hypertension.