Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: David C W Lau, Jan 13, 2015
  • Source

    Full-text · Article · May 2014 · The Canadian journal of cardiology
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Randomized controlled trials are considered the hallmark of evidence-based medicine. This conveys the idea that up-to-date evidence applied consistently in clinical practice, in combination with clinicians' individual expertise and patients own preference/expectations are enjoined to achieve the best possible outcome. Since its inception in 1990s, evidence-based medicine has evolved in conjunction with numerous changes in the healthcare environment. However, the benefits of evidence-based medicine have not materialized for spinal pain including surgical interventions. Consequently, the debate continues on the efficacy and medical necessity of multiple interventions provided in managing spinal pain. Friedly et al published a randomized controlled trial of epidural glucocorticoid injections for spinal stenosis in the July 2014 edition of the highly prestigious New England Journal of Medicine. This was accompanied by an editorial from Andersson. This manuscript provided significant sensationalism for the media and confusion for the spine community. This randomized trial of epidural glucocorticoid injections for spinal stenosis and accompanying editorial concluded that epidural injections of glucocorticoids plus lidocaine offered minimal or no short-term benefit as compared with epidural injections of lidocaine alone, with the editorial emphasizing proceeding directly to surgical intervention. In addition media statements by the authors also emphasized the idea that exercise or surgery might be better options for patients suffereing from narrowing of the spinal canal. The interventional pain management community believes that there are severe limitations to this study, manuscript, and accompanying editorial. The design, inclusion criteria, outcomes assessment, analysis of data and interpretation, and conclusions of this trial point to the fact that this highly sophisticated and much publicized randomized trial may not be appropriate and lead to misinformation. The design of the trial was inappropriate with failure to include existing randomized trials, with inclusion criteria that did not incorporate conservative management,or caudal epidural injections. Simultaneously, acute pain patients were included, multilevel stenosis and various other factors were not identified. The interventions included lumbar interlaminar and transforaminal epidural injections with highly variable volumes of medication being injected per patient. Outcomes assessment was not optimal with assessment of the patients at 3 and 6 weeks for a procedure which provides on average 3 weeks of relief and utilizing an instrument which is more appropriately utilized in acute and subacute low back pain. Analysis of the data was hampered by inadequate subgroup analysis leading to inappropriate interpretation. Based on the available data epidural local anesthetic with steroids was clearly superior at 3 weeks and potentially at 6 weeks. Further, both treatments were effective considering the baseline to 3 week and 6 week assessment, appropriate subgroup analysis seems to have yielded significant superiority for interlaminar epidural injections compared to transforaminal epidural injections with local anesthetic with or without steroids specifically with proportion of patients achieving greater than 50% improvement at 3 and 6 week levels. This critical assessment shows that this study suffers from a challenging design, was premised on the exclusion of available high-quality literature, and had inadequate duration of follow-up for an interventional technique with poor assessment criteria and reporting. Finally the analysis and interpretation of data has led to inaccurate and inappropriate conclusions which we do not believe is based on scientific evidence.
    Full-text · Article · Jul 2014 · Pain physician
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: Achievement of target low-density lipoprotein (LDL) levels for secondary prevention is endorsed in Canadian guidelines but has been de-emphasized in the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association coronary artery disease (CAD) guidelines in favor of initiation of statins or triple therapy (antiplatelet agent, angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin II receptor blocker, and statins). Our objective was to determine which of these 3 process-of-care metrics achieved within 6 months would be associated with 5-year rates of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke and thus be suitable as an end point for quality improvement studies in patients with CAD. Methods: This was a cohort study that followed 448 participants for 5 years after their involvement in a 6-month secondary prevention trial. Results: Over 5 years, 37 patients died, 23 had myocardial infarction, and 20 had stroke. Six months after randomization, 125 (27.9%) had achieved the LDL target (≤ 2.0 mmol/L), 399 (89.1%) received statins, and 256 (57.1%) received triple therapy. The 5-year composite event rate was significantly lower in patients who achieved the LDL target during the 6-month trial than in those who did not (8.8% vs 17.3%; adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.52; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.27-0.99), even accounting for statin use (adjusted P = 0.038). Conversely, 5-year event rates were not lower in patients taking statins at 6 months compared with those who were not (14.8% vs 16.3%; aHR, 1.23; 95% CI, 0.58-2.61) or in those receiving triple therapy and those who were not (14.5% vs 15.6%; aHR, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.71-1.94). Conclusions: Achievement of LDL targets at 6 months is suitable as a metric for CAD quality-improvement studies; medication use alone was not independently associated with longer term outcomes.
    No preview · Article · Jul 2014 · The Canadian journal of cardiology
Show more