Health care has significant environmental impact. We performed a scoping review to map what is known about the environmental impact of health care for musculoskeletal conditions.
We included ...published papers of any design that measured or discussed environmental impact of health care or health support services for any musculoskeletal condition in terms of climate change or global warming (e.g., greenhouse gas emissions it produces). We searched MEDLINE and Embase from inception to 2 May 2022 using keywords for environmental health and musculoskeletal conditions, and performed keyword searches using Google and Google Scholar. Two independent reviewers screened studies. One author independently charted data, verified by a second author. A narrative synthesis was performed.
Of 12,302 publications screened and 73 identified from other searches, 122 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility, and 49 were included (published 1994 to 2022). Of 24 original research studies, 11 measured environmental impact relating to climate change in orthopaedics (n = 10), and medical aids for the knee (n = 1), one measured energy expenditure of laminar versus turbulent airflow ventilation systems in operating rooms during simulated hip replacements and 12 measured waste associated with orthopaedic surgery but did not relate waste to greenhouse gas emissions or environmental effects. Twenty-one editorials described a need to reduce environmental impact of orthopaedic surgery (n = 9), physiotherapy (n = 9), podiatry (n = 2) or occupational therapy (n = 1). Four narrative reviews discussed sustainability relating to hand surgery (n = 2), orthopaedic surgery (n = 1) and orthopaedic implants (n = 1).
Despite an established link between health care and greenhouse gas emissions we found limited empirical data estimating the impact of musculoskeletal health care on the environment. These data are needed to determine whether actions to lower the carbon footprint of musculoskeletal health care should be a priority and to identify those aspects of care that should be prioritised.
Colchicine for acute gout McKenzie, Bayden J; McKenzie, Bayden J; Wechalekar, Mihir D ...
Cochrane database of systematic reviews,
08/2021, Letnik:
2021, Številka:
8
Journal Article
Recenzirano
Odprti dostop
Background
This is an updated Cochrane Review, first published in 2006 and updated in 2014. Gout is one of the most common rheumatic diseases worldwide. Despite the use of colchicine as one of the ...first‐line therapies for the treatment of acute gout, evidence for its benefits and harms is relatively limited.
Objectives
To update the available evidence of the benefits and harms of colchicine for the treatment of acute gout.
Search methods
We updated the search of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Clinicaltrials.gov and WHO ICTRP registries to 28 August 2020. We did not impose any date or language restrictions in the search.
Selection criteria
We considered published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi‐randomised controlled trials (quasi‐RCTs) evaluating colchicine therapy compared with another therapy (placebo or active) in acute gout; low‐dose colchicine at clinically relevant doses compared with placebo was the primary comparison. The major outcomes were pain, participant global assessment of treatment success (proportion with 50% or greater decrease in pain from baseline up to 32 to 36 hours), reduction of inflammation, function of target joint, serious adverse events, total adverse events and withdrawals due to adverse events.
Data collection and analysis
We used standard methodological procedures as expected by Cochrane in this review update.
Main results
We included four trials (803 randomised participants), including two new trials, in this updated review. One three‐arm trial compared high‐dose colchicine (52 participants), low‐dose colchicine (74 participants) and placebo (59 participants); one trial compared high‐dose colchicine with placebo (43 participants); one trial compared low‐dose colchicine with non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (399 participants); and one trial compared low‐dose colchicine with Chuanhu anti‐gout mixture (traditional Chinese Medicine compound) (176 participants). We did not identify any trials comparing colchicine to glucocorticoids (by any route).
The mean age of participants ranged from 51.2 to 70 years, and trial duration from 48 hours to 12 weeks. Two trials were at low risk of bias, one was possibly susceptible to selection bias (random sequence generation), reporting bias and other bias, and one open‐label trial was at high risk of performance and detection bias.
For the primary comparison, low‐quality evidence from one trial (103 participants, downgraded for imprecision and bias) suggests low‐dose colchicine may improve treatment outcome compared to placebo with little or no increased risk of adverse events. The number of people who reported treatment success (50% or greater pain reduction) at 32 to 36 hours was slightly larger with low‐dose colchicine (418 per 1000) compared with placebo (172 per 1000; risk ratio (RR) 2.43, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.05 to 5.64; absolute improvement 25% more reported success (7% more to 42% more, the 95% CIs include both a clinically important and unimportant benefit); relative change of 143% more people reported treatment success (5% more to 464% more). The incidence of total adverse events was 364 per 1000 with low‐dose colchicine compared with 276 per 1000 with placebo: RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.68 to 2.56; absolute difference 9% more events with low‐dose colchicine (9% fewer to 43% more, the 95% CIs include both a clinically important effect and no effect); relative change of 32% more events (32% fewer to 156% more). No participants withdrew due to adverse events or reported any serious adverse events. Pain, inflammation and function were not reported.
Low‐quality evidence (downgraded for imprecision and bias) from two trials (124 participants) suggests that high‐dose colchicine compared to placebo may improve symptoms, but with increased risk of harms. More participants reported treatment success at 32 to 36 hours with high‐dose colchicine (518 per 1000) compared with placebo (240 per 1000): RR 2.16, 95% CI 1.28 to 3.65, absolute improvement 28% (8% more to 46% more); more also had reduced inflammation at this time point with high‐dose colchicine (504 per 1000) compared with placebo (48 per 1000): RR 10.50, 95% CI 1.48 to 74.38; absolute improvement 45% greater (22% greater to 68% greater); but more adverse events were reported with high‐dose colchicine (829 per 1000 compared with 260 per 1000): RR 3.21, 95% CI 2.01 to 5.11, absolute difference 57% (26% more to 74% more). Pain and function were not reported.
Low‐quality evidence from a single trial comparing high‐dose to low‐dose colchicine indicates there may be little or no difference in benefit in terms of treatment success at 32 to 36 hours but more adverse events associated with the higher dose. Similarly, low‐quality evidence from a single trial indicates there may also be little or no benefit of low‐dose colchicine over NSAIDs in terms of treatment success and pain reduction at seven days, with a similar number of adverse events reported at four weeks follow‐up. Reduction of inflammation, function of target joint and withdrawals due to adverse events were not reported in either of these trials, and pain was not reported in the high‐dose versus low‐dose colchicine trial.
We were unable to estimate the risk of serious adverse events for most comparisons as there were few events reported in the trials. One trial (399 participants) reported three serious adverse (one in a participant receiving low‐dose colchicine and two in participants receiving NSAIDs), due to reasons unrelated to the trial (low‐quality evidence downgraded for bias and imprecision).
Authors' conclusions
We found low‐quality evidence that low‐dose colchicine may be an effective treatment for acute gout when compared to placebo and low‐quality evidence that its benefits may be similar to NSAIDs. We downgraded the evidence for bias and imprecision. While both high‐ and low‐dose colchicine improve pain when compared to placebo, low‐quality evidence suggests that high‐dose (but not low‐dose) colchicine may increase the number of adverse events compared to placebo, while low‐quality evidence indicates that the number of adverse events may be similar with low‐dose colchicine and NSAIDs.
Further trials comparing colchicine to placebo or other treatment will likely have an important impact on our confidence in the effect estimates and may change the conclusions of this review. There are no trials reporting the effect of colchicine in populations with comorbidities or in comparison with other commonly used treatments, such as glucocorticoids.
Abstract Background There is a need to increase the capacity and capability of musculoskeletal researchers to design, conduct, and report high-quality clinical trials. The objective of this study was ...to identify and prioritise clinical trial learning needs of musculoskeletal researchers in Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand. Findings will be used to inform development of an e-learning musculoskeletal clinical trials course. Methods A two-round online modified Delphi study was conducted with an inter-disciplinary panel of musculoskeletal researchers from Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand, representing various career stages and roles, including clinician researchers and consumers with lived experience of musculoskeletal conditions. Round 1 involved panellists nominating 3–10 topics about musculoskeletal trial design and conduct that they believe would be important to include in an e-learning course about musculoskeletal clinical trials. Topics were synthesised and refined. Round 2 asked panellists to rate the importance of all topics (very important, important, not important), as well as select and rank their top 10 most important topics. A rank score was calculated whereby higher scores reflect higher rankings by panellists. Results Round 1 was completed by 121 panellists and generated 555 individual topics describing their musculoskeletal trial learning needs. These statements were grouped into 37 unique topics for Round 2, which was completed by 104 panellists. The topics ranked as most important were: (1) defining a meaningful research question (rank score 560, 74% of panellists rated topic as very important); (2) choosing the most appropriate trial design (rank score 410, 73% rated as very important); (3) involving consumers in trial design through to dissemination (rank score 302, 62% rated as very important); (4) bias in musculoskeletal trials and how to minimise it (rank score 299, 70% rated as very important); and (5) choosing the most appropriate control/comparator group (rank score 265, 65% rated as very important). Conclusions This modified Delphi study generated a ranked list of clinical trial learning needs of musculoskeletal researchers. Findings can inform training courses and professional development to improve researcher capabilities and enhance the quality and conduct of musculoskeletal clinical trials.
Long-term glucocorticoids for rheumatoid arthritis McKenzie, Bayden J; Whittle, Samuel L; Johnston, Renea V ...
Cochrane database of systematic reviews,
12/2021, Letnik:
2021, Številka:
12
Journal Article
Recenzirano
Odprti dostop
This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows:
To evaluate the benefits and harms of long‐term glucocorticoid therapy (longer than six months) for adults with ...rheumatoid arthritis.
This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows:
To determine the benefits and harms of dose reduction or discontinuation of biological or targeted synthetic ...disease‐modifying anti‐rheumatic drugs in adults with axial spondyloarthritis and low disease activity or remission.
This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows:
To assess the safety, patient preference for, and cost of intravenous anti‐cancer therapy (chemotherapy or ...immunotherapy) delivered at home as an alternative to the same intravenous anti‐cancer therapy regimen delivered in a hospital or community settings, in adults with cancer.
This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows:
The primary objective is to assess the benefits and harms of short‐term glucocorticoid therapy (six months or ...less) compared to placebo, for adults with rheumatoid arthritis who experience a disease flare while receiving standard disease‐modifying anti‐rheumatic drug (DMARD) therapy.
The secondary objective is to maintain the currency of the evidence, using a living systematic review approach.
The objective of the study is to clarify potential risks to the dorsal nerve of the clitoris (DNC) and obturator canal using different minimally invasive slings.
Ten embalmed hemipelves were ...dissected to demonstrate the course of the DNC and the obturator canal. On each cadaver, tension-free vaginal tape (TVT), transobturator in-out (TVT-O) and transobturator out-in (Monarc) procedures were performed. Distances between the DNC and the obturator canal to the different devices were measured.
The DNC passes beneath the pubic bone at a distance of 14.3 +/- 4.7 mm of the midline. The distances of the different devices to the DNC were similar. The distance to the obturator canal was significantly different, with TVT being the furthest (40.1 +/- 3.7 mm) and TVT-O the closest (19.3 +/- 3.1 mm; p < 0.0001).
Given the course of the DNC along the medial aspect of the ischiopubic ramus, the out-in technique may be safer. The in-out technique is the closest to the obturator canal.
BackgroundHealth care has significant environmental impact. We performed a scoping review to map what is known about the environmental impact of health care for musculoskeletal conditions.MethodsWe ...included published papers of any design that measured or discussed environmental impact of health care or health support services for any musculoskeletal condition in terms of climate change or global warming (e.g., greenhouse gas emissions it produces). We searched MEDLINE and Embase from inception to 2 May 2022 using keywords for environmental health and musculoskeletal conditions, and performed keyword searches using Google and Google Scholar. Two independent reviewers screened studies. One author independently charted data, verified by a second author. A narrative synthesis was performed.ResultsOf 12,302 publications screened and 73 identified from other searches, 122 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility, and 49 were included (published 1994 to 2022). Of 24 original research studies, 11 measured environmental impact relating to climate change in orthopaedics (n = 10), and medical aids for the knee (n = 1), one measured energy expenditure of laminar versus turbulent airflow ventilation systems in operating rooms during simulated hip replacements and 12 measured waste associated with orthopaedic surgery but did not relate waste to greenhouse gas emissions or environmental effects. Twenty-one editorials described a need to reduce environmental impact of orthopaedic surgery (n = 9), physiotherapy (n = 9), podiatry (n = 2) or occupational therapy (n = 1). Four narrative reviews discussed sustainability relating to hand surgery (n = 2), orthopaedic surgery (n = 1) and orthopaedic implants (n = 1).ConclusionDespite an established link between health care and greenhouse gas emissions we found limited empirical data estimating the impact of musculoskeletal health care on the environment. These data are needed to determine whether actions to lower the carbon footprint of musculoskeletal health care should be a priority and to identify those aspects of care that should be prioritised.
