Search

Current myocarditis guidelines do not advocate treatment to prevent myocardial injury and scar deposition in patients with myocarditis and normal left ventricular ejection fraction. We aimed to ascertain the utility of beta blockers, calcium channel blockers and antagonists of the renin–angiotensin system in ameliorating myocardial injury, scar formation and calcification in animal in vivo models of myocarditis. The project was prospectively registered with the PROSPERO database of systematic reviews (CRD42018089336). Primary outcomes (necrosis, fibrosis and calcification) were meta-analysed with random-effects modelling. 52 studies were systematically reviewed. Meta-analysis was performed compared with untreated controls. In each study, we identified all independent comparisons of treatment versus control groups. The pooled weighted mean difference (WMD) indicated treatment reduced necrosis by 16.9% (71 controlled analyses, 95% CI 13.2–20.7%; P

Background Recovery following a stroke is a long and ongoing process. Post-stroke follow-up after leaving the hospital is recommended. Methods for follow-up patients include face-to-face, via the telephone, post or online (internet). However, there is a debate which method is preferred by patients. This study aimed to determine whether telephone interview, online questionnaire and postal questionnaire were as acceptable as face-to-face follow-up. Methods In a blinded, UK-wide, multi-centre, Zelen’s designed, 4-arm (postal, online, telephone, compared to face-to-face), pragmatic non-inferiority randomised controlled trial of the mode of administration, stroke survivors were randomised to postal, online, telephone and face-to-face assessment, in an equal ratio (1:1:1:1). The primary outcome was the proportion of participants that responded to the three allocation groups, compared to the face-to-face group. Subgroup analyses for age, aphasia and type and severity of stroke were carried out. A non-inferiority margin of 0.025 was used, and Holm-Bonferroni multiplicity adjustment was made. Results Of the 2074 eligible patients randomised, 55% were male (1142/2074), with an average age of 73.0 years old (SD = 13.2). Of those randomised, 22% (116/525), 9% (47/515) and 20% (101/513) responded in postal, online and telephone, respectively, compared to 17% (89/521) in the face-to-face group. The reduction in the online response rate compared to face-to-face was found to be both inferior and not non-inferior and estimated as an 8% reduction (95% CI 3.9 to 12.0%; p

ObjectiveTo estimate the comparative clinical efficacy and acceptability of non-surgical brain stimulation for the acute treatment of major depressive episodes in adults.DesignSystematic review with pairwise and network meta-analysis.Data sourcesElectronic search of Embase, PubMed/Medline, and PsycINFO up to 8 May 2018, supplemented by manual searches of bibliographies of several reviews (published between 2009 and 2018) and included trials.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesClinical trials with random allocation to electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), transcranial magnetic stimulation (repetitive (rTMS), accelerated, priming, deep, and synchronised), theta burst stimulation, magnetic seizure therapy, transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), or sham therapy.Main outcome measuresPrimary outcomes were response (efficacy) and all cause discontinuation (discontinuation of treatment for any reason) (acceptability), presented as odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals. Remission and continuous depression severity scores after treatment were also examined.Results113 trials (262 treatment arms) that randomised 6750 patients (mean age 47.9 years; 59% women) with major depressive disorder or bipolar depression met the inclusion criteria. The most studied treatment comparisons were high frequency left rTMS and tDCS versus sham therapy, whereas recent treatments remain understudied. The quality of the evidence was typically of low or unclear risk of bias (94 out of 113 trials, 83%) and the precision of summary estimates for treatment effect varied considerably. In network meta-analysis, 10 out of 18 treatment strategies were associated with higher response compared with sham therapy: bitemporal ECT (summary odds ratio 8.91, 95% confidence interval 2.57 to 30.91), high dose right unilateral ECT (7.27, 1.90 to 27.78), priming transcranial magnetic stimulation (6.02, 2.21 to 16.38), magnetic seizure therapy (5.55, 1.06 to 28.99), bilateral rTMS (4.92, 2.93 to 8.25), bilateral theta burst stimulation (4.44, 1.47 to 13.41), low frequency right rTMS (3.65, 2.13 to 6.24), intermittent theta burst stimulation (3.20, 1.45 to 7.08), high frequency left rTMS (3.17, 2.29 to 4.37), and tDCS (2.65, 1.55 to 4.55). Network meta-analytic estimates of active interventions contrasted with another active treatment indicated that bitemporal ECT and high dose right unilateral ECT were associated with increased response. All treatment strategies were at least as acceptable as sham therapy.ConclusionsThese findings provide evidence for the consideration of non-surgical brain stimulation techniques as alternative or add-on treatments for adults with major depressive episodes. These findings also highlight important research priorities in the specialty of brain stimulation, such as the need for further well designed randomised controlled trials comparing novel treatments, and sham controlled trials investigating magnetic seizure therapy.

Background: Non-surgical brain stimulation techniques have been applied as tertiary treatments in major depression. However, the relative efficacy and acceptability of individual protocols is uncertain. Our aim was to estimate the comparative clinical efficacy and acceptability of non-surgical brain stimulation for the acute treatment of major depressive episodes in adults. Methods: Embase, PubMed/MEDLINE and PsycINFO were searched up until May 8, 2018, supplemented by manual searches of bibliographies of recent reviews and included trials. We included clinical trials with random allocation to electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), accelerated TMS (aTMS), priming TMS (pTMS), deep TMS (dTMS), theta burst stimulation (TBS), synchronised TMS (sTMS), magnetic seizure therapy (MST) or transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) protocols or sham. Data were extracted from published reports and outcomes were synthesised using pairwise and network random-effects meta-analysis. Primary outcomes were response (efficacy) and all-cause discontinuation (acceptability). We computed odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Remission and continuous post-treatment depression severity scores were also examined. Results: 113 trials (262 treatment arms) randomising 6,750 patients (mean age = 47.9 years; 59% female) with major depressive disorder or bipolar depression met our inclusion criteria. In terms of efficacy, 10 out of 18 treatment protocols were associated with higher response relative to sham in network meta-analysis: bitemporal ECT (OR=8.91, 95%CI 2.57-30.91), high-dose right-unilateral ECT (OR=7.27, 1.90-27.78), pTMS (OR=6.02, 2.21-16.38), MST (OR=5.55, 1.06-28.99), bilateral rTMS (OR=4.92, 2.93-8.25), bilateral TBS (OR=4.44, 1.47-13.41), low-frequency right rTMS (OR=3.65, 2.13-6.24), intermittent TBS (OR=3.20, 1.45-7.08), high-frequency left rTMS (OR=3.17, 2.29-4.37) and tDCS (OR=2.65, 1.55-4.55). Comparing active treatments, bitemporal ECT and high-dose right-unilateral ECT were associated with increased response. All treatment protocols were at least as acceptable as sham treatment. Conclusion: We found that non-surgical brain stimulation techniques constitute viable alternative or add-on treatments for adult patients with major depressive episodes. Our findings also highlight the need to consider other patient and treatment-related factors in addition to antidepressant efficacy and acceptability when making clinical decisions; and emphasize important research priorities in the field of brain stimulation.

We conducted a systematic review with meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials that evaluated the effect of diabetes apps. 1550 participants from 21 studies were included. For type 1 diabetes, a significant 0.49% reduction in HbA1c was seen (95%CI 0.04 to 0.94; I2=84%), with unexplained heterogeneity and a low GRADE of evidence. For type 2 diabetes, using diabetes apps was associated with a mean reduction of 0.57% (95%CI 0.32 to 0.82, I2=77%). The results had severe heterogeneity that was explained by the frequency of HCP feedback. In studies with no HCP feedback, low frequency, and high frequency HCP feedback, the mean reduction is 0.24% (95%CI ‐0.02 to 0.49; I2=0%), 0.33% (95%CI 0.07 to 0.59; I2=47%), and 1.12% (95%CI 0.91 to 1.32; I2=0%) respectively, with high GRADE of evidence. There is evidence that diabetes apps improve glycemic control in type 1 diabetes patients. A reduction of 0.57% in HbA1c was found in type 2 diabetes patients. However, HCP functionality is important to achieve clinical effectiveness. Futures studies need to explore the cost‐effectiveness of diabetes apps and optimal intensity of HCP feedback.

ObjectiveTreatment options for severe, enduring anorexia nervosa (SE-AN) are limited. Non-invasive neuromodulation is a promising emerging intervention. Our study is a feasibility randomised controlled trial of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) in individuals with SE-AN, which aims to inform the design of a future large-scale trial.DesignDouble-blind, parallel group, two-arm, sham-controlled trial.SettingSpecialist eating disorders centre.ParticipantsCommunity-dwelling people with anorexia nervosa, an illness duration of ≥3 years and at least one previous completed treatment.InterventionsParticipants received 20 sessions (administered over 4 weeks) of MRI-guided real or sham high-frequency rTMS to the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex in addition to treatment-as-usual.OutcomesPrimary outcomes were recruitment, attendance and retention rates. Secondary outcomes included body mass index (BMI), eating disorder symptoms, mood, quality of life and rTMS safety and tolerability. Assessments were conducted at baseline, post-treatment and follow-up (ie, at 0 month, 1 month and 4 months post-randomisation).ResultsThirty-four participants (17 per group) were randomly allocated to real or sham rTMS. One participant per group was withdrawn prior to the intervention due to safety concerns. Two participants (both receiving sham) did not complete the treatment. rTMS was safe and well tolerated. Between-group effect sizes of change scores (baseline to follow-up) were small for BMI (d=0.2, 95% CI −0.49 to 0.90) and eating disorder symptoms (d=0.1, 95% CI −0.60 to 0.79), medium for quality of life and moderate to large (d=0.61 to 1.0) for mood outcomes, all favouring rTMS over sham.ConclusionsThe treatment protocol is feasible and acceptable to participants. Outcomes provide preliminary evidence for the therapeutic potential of rTMS in SE-AN. Largest effects were observed on variables assessing mood. This study supports the need for a larger confirmatory trial to evaluate the effectiveness of multi-session rTMS in SE-AN. Future studies should include a longer follow-up period and an assessment of cost-effectiveness.Trial registration numberISRCTN14329415; Pre-results.

Objective\udThis study aimed to examine the relationship between pre-screening expectations and psychological responses to low-dose computerised tomography (LDCT) screening among high-risk individuals in the United Kingdom Lung Cancer Screening (UKLS) pilot trial.\ud\udMethods\udPrior to screening, high-risk individuals randomised into the intervention arm of the UKLS were asked about their expected screening test result. Their actual LDCT scan result was compared with their baseline screening expectation to determine the level of congruence. Levels of concern about and perceived accuracy of the result were assessed in a questionnaire two weeks following receipt of their test result.\ud\udResults\udThe sample included 1589 participants. Regardless of their expected results, patients who required follow-up investigations after their initial LDCT scan were the most concerned about their result (p < 0.001). Participants who expected to require follow-up, but did not need it, perceived the test to be least accurate (p = 0.006).\ud\udConclusions\udLung cancer screening participants who require follow-up or who have unexpected negative results can be identified for supportive interventions.\ud\udPractical Implications: These findings can be used to ensure that any future LDCT lung cancer screening programme is tailored to identify and support those high-risk individuals who may benefit from additional help.