Explore the vast range of titles available.

Long-term loss of arm function after ischaemic stroke is common and might be improved by vagus nerve stimulation paired with rehabilitation. We aimed to determine whether this strategy is a safe and effective treatment for improving arm function after stroke. In this pivotal, randomised, triple-blind, sham-controlled trial, done in 19 stroke rehabilitation services in the UK and the USA, participants with moderate-to-severe arm weakness, at least 9 months after ischaemic stroke, were randomly assigned (1:1) to either rehabilitation paired with active vagus nerve stimulation (VNS group) or rehabilitation paired with sham stimulation (control group). Randomisation was done by ResearchPoint Global (Austin, TX, USA) using SAS PROC PLAN (SAS Institute Software, Cary, NC, USA), with stratification by region (USA vs UK), age (≤30 years vs >30 years), and baseline Fugl-Meyer Assessment-Upper Extremity (FMA-UE) score (20–35 vs 36–50). Participants, outcomes assessors, and treating therapists were masked to group assignment. All participants were implanted with a vagus nerve stimulation device. The VNS group received 0·8 mA, 100 μs, 30 Hz stimulation pulses, lasting 0·5 s. The control group received 0 mA pulses. Participants received 6 weeks of in-clinic therapy (three times per week; total of 18 sessions) followed by a home exercise programme. The primary outcome was the change in impairment measured by the FMA-UE score on the first day after completion of in-clinic therapy. FMA-UE response rates were also assessed at 90 days after in-clinic therapy (secondary endpoint). All analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03131960. Between Oct 2, 2017, and Sept 12, 2019, 108 participants were randomly assigned to treatment (53 to the VNS group and 55 to the control group). 106 completed the study (one patient for each group did not complete the study). On the first day after completion of in-clinic therapy, the mean FMA-UE score increased by 5·0 points (SD 4·4) in the VNS group and by 2·4 points (3·8) in the control group (between group difference 2·6, 95% CI 1·0–4·2, p=0·0014). 90 days after in-clinic therapy, a clinically meaningful response on the FMA-UE score was achieved in 23 (47%) of 53 patients in the VNS group versus 13 (24%) of 55 patients in the control group (between group difference 24%, 6–41; p=0·0098). There was one serious adverse event related to surgery (vocal cord paresis) in the control group. Vagus nerve stimulation paired with rehabilitation is a novel potential treatment option for people with long-term moderate-to-severe arm impairment after ischaemic stroke. MicroTransponder.

BackgroundOne-size-fits-all interventions reduce chronic low back pain (CLBP) a small amount. An individualised intervention called cognitive functional therapy (CFT) was superior for CLBP compared with manual therapy and exercise in one randomised controlled trial (RCT). However, systematic reviews show group interventions are as effective as one-to-one interventions for musculoskeletal pain. This RCT investigated whether a physiotherapist-delivered individualised intervention (CFT) was more effective than physiotherapist-delivered group-based exercise and education for individuals with CLBP.Methods206 adults with CLBP were randomised to either CFT (n=106) or group-based exercise and education (n=100). The length of the CFT intervention varied according to the clinical progression of participants (mean=5 treatments). The group intervention consisted of up to 6 classes (mean=4 classes) over 6–8 weeks. Primary outcomes were disability and pain intensity in the past week at 6 months and 12months postrandomisation. Analysis was by intention-to-treat using linear mixed models.ResultsCFT reduced disability more than the group intervention at 6 months (mean difference, 8.65; 95% CI 3.66 to 13.64; p=0.001), and at 12 months (mean difference, 7.02; 95% CI 2.24 to 11.80; p=0.004). There were no between-group differences observed in pain intensity at 6 months (mean difference, 0.76; 95% CI -0.02 to 1.54; p=0.056) or 12 months (mean difference, 0.65; 95% CI -0.20 to 1.50; p=0.134).ConclusionCFT reduced disability, but not pain, at 6 and 12 months compared with the group-based exercise and education intervention. Future research should examine whether the greater reduction in disability achieved by CFT renders worthwhile differences for health systems and patients.Trial registration number ClinicalTrials.gov registry (NCT02145728).

Older patients hospitalized for heart failure were randomly assigned to a rehabilitation intervention (which included multiple function domains) or control; the intervention began during, or early after, hospitalization and continued for 3 months. At 3 months, physical function, as assessed by the Short Physical Performance Battery, was better in the intervention group than in the control group.

ObjectiveCompare the effects and costs of remotely monitored exercise-based cardiac telerehabilitation (REMOTE-CR) with centre-based programmes (CBexCR) in adults with coronary heart disease (CHD).MethodsParticipants were randomised to receive 12 weeks of telerehabilitation or centre-based rehabilitation. REMOTE-CR provided individualised exercise prescription, real-time exercise monitoring/coaching and theory-based behavioural strategies via a bespoke telerehabilitation platform; CBexCR provided individualised exercise prescription and coaching via established rehabilitation clinics. Outcomes assessed at baseline, 12 and/or 24 weeks included maximal oxygen uptake (V̇O2max, primary) modifiable cardiovascular risk factors, exercise adherence, motivation, health-related quality of life and programme delivery, hospital service utilisation and medication costs. The primary hypothesis was a non-inferior between-group difference in V̇O2max at 12 weeks (inferiority margin=−1.25 mL/kg/min); inferiority margins were not set for secondary outcomes.Results162 participants (mean 61±12.7 years, 86% men) were randomised. V̇O2 max was comparable in both groups at 12 weeks and REMOTE-CR was non-inferior to CBexCR (REMOTE-CR-CBexCR adjusted mean difference (AMD)=0.51 (95% CI −0.97 to 1.98) mL/kg/min, p=0.48). REMOTE-CR participants were less sedentary at 24 weeks (AMD=−61.5 (95% CI −117.8 to −5.3) min/day, p=0.03), while CBexCR participants had smaller waist (AMD=1.71 (95% CI 0.09 to 3.34) cm, p=0.04) and hip circumferences (AMD=1.16 (95% CI 0.06 to 2.27) cm, p=0.04) at 12 weeks. No other between-group differences were detected. Per capita programme delivery (NZD1130/GBP573 vs NZD3466/GBP1758) and medication costs (NZD331/GBP168 vs NZD605/GBP307, p=0.02) were lower for REMOTE-CR. Hospital service utilisation costs were not statistically significantly different (NZD3459/GBP1754 vs NZD5464/GBP2771, p=0.20).ConclusionREMOTE-CR is an effective, cost-efficient alternative delivery model that could—as a complement to existing services—improve overall utilisation rates by increasing reach and satisfying unique participant preferences.

Arthroscopic sub-acromial decompression (decompressing the sub-acromial space by removing bone spurs and soft tissue arthroscopically) is a common surgery for subacromial shoulder pain, but its effectiveness is uncertain. We did a study to assess its effectiveness and to investigate the mechanism for surgical decompression. We did a multicentre, randomised, pragmatic, parallel group, placebo-controlled, three-group trial at 32 hospitals in the UK with 51 surgeons. Participants were patients who had subacromial pain for at least 3 months with intact rotator cuff tendons, were eligible for arthroscopic surgery, and had previously completed a non-operative management programme that included exercise therapy and at least one steroid injection. Exclusion criteria included a full-thickness torn rotator cuff. We randomly assigned participants (1:1:1) to arthroscopic subacromial decompression, investigational arthroscopy only, or no treatment (attendance of one reassessment appointment with a specialist shoulder clinician 3 months after study entry, but no intervention). Arthroscopy only was a placebo as the essential surgical element (bone and soft tissue removal) was omitted. We did the randomisation with a computer-generated minimisation system. In the surgical intervention groups, patients were not told which type of surgery they were receiving (to ensure masking). Patients were followed up at 6 months and 1 year after randomisation; surgeons coordinated their waiting lists to schedule surgeries as close as possible to randomisation. The primary outcome was the Oxford Shoulder Score (0 [worst] to 48 [best]) at 6 months, analysed by intention to treat. The sample size calculation was based upon a target difference of 4·5 points (SD 9·0). This trial has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01623011. Between Sept 14, 2012, and June 16, 2015, we randomly assigned 313 patients to treatment groups (106 to decompression surgery, 103 to arthroscopy only, and 104 to no treatment). 24 [23%], 43 [42%], and 12 [12%] of the decompression, arthroscopy only, and no treatment groups, respectively, did not receive their assigned treatment by 6 months. At 6 months, data for the Oxford Shoulder Score were available for 90 patients assigned to decompression, 94 to arthroscopy, and 90 to no treatment. Mean Oxford Shoulder Score did not differ between the two surgical groups at 6 months (decompression mean 32·7 points [SD 11·6] vs arthroscopy mean 34·2 points [9·2]; mean difference −1·3 points (95% CI −3·9 to 1·3, p=0·3141). Both surgical groups showed a small benefit over no treatment (mean 29·4 points [SD 11·9], mean difference vs decompression 2·8 points [95% CI 0·5–5·2], p=0·0186; mean difference vs arthroscopy 4·2 [1·8–6·6], p=0·0014) but these differences were not clinically important. There were six study-related complications that were all frozen shoulders (in two patients in each group). Surgical groups had better outcomes for shoulder pain and function compared with no treatment but this difference was not clinically important. Additionally, surgical decompression appeared to offer no extra benefit over arthroscopy only. The difference between the surgical groups and no treatment might be the result of, for instance, a placebo effect or postoperative physiotherapy. The findings question the value of this operation for these indications, and this should be communicated to patients during the shared treatment decision-making process. Arthritis Research UK, the National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre, and the Royal College of Surgeons (England).

Non-immersive virtual reality is an emerging strategy to enhance motor performance for stroke rehabilitation. There has been rapid adoption of non-immersive virtual reality as a rehabilitation strategy despite the limited evidence about its safety and effectiveness. Our aim was to compare the safety and efficacy of virtual reality with recreational therapy on motor recovery in patients after an acute ischaemic stroke. In this randomised, controlled, single-blind, parallel-group trial we enrolled adults (aged 18–85 years) who had a first-ever ischaemic stroke and a motor deficit of the upper extremity score of 3 or more (measured with the Chedoke-McMaster scale) within 3 months of randomisation from 14 in-patient stroke rehabilitation units from four countries (Canada [11], Argentina [1], Peru [1], and Thailand [1]). Participants were randomly allocated (1:1) by a computer-generated assignment at enrolment to receive a programme of structured, task-oriented, upper extremity sessions (ten sessions, 60 min each) of either non-immersive virtual reality using the Nintendo Wii gaming system (VRWii) or simple recreational activities (playing cards, bingo, Jenga, or ball game) as add-on therapies to conventional rehabilitation over a 2 week period. All investigators assessing outcomes were masked to treatment assignment. The primary outcome was upper extremity motor performance measured by total time to complete the Wolf Motor Function Test (WMFT) at the end of the 2 week intervention period, analysed in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NTC01406912. The study was done between May 12, 2012, and Oct 1, 2015. We randomly assigned 141 patients: 71 received VRWii therapy and 70 received recreational activity. 121 (86%) patients (59 in the VRWii group and 62 in the recreational activity group) completed the final assessment and were included in the primary analysis. Each group improved WMFT performance time relative to baseline (decrease in median time from 43·7 s [IQR 26·1–68·0] to 29·7 s [21·4–45·2], 32·0% reduction for VRWii vs 38·0 s [IQR 28·0–64·1] to 27·1 s [21·2–45·5], 28·7% reduction for recreational activity). Mean time of conventional rehabilitation during the trial was similar between groups (VRWii, 373 min [SD 322] vs recreational activity, 397 min [345]; p=0·70) as was the total duration of study intervention (VRWii, 528 min [SD 155] vs recreational activity, 541 min [142]; p=0·60). Multivariable analysis adjusted for baseline WMFT score, age, sex, baseline Chedoke-McMaster, and stroke severity revealed no significant difference between groups in the primary outcome (adjusted mean estimate of difference in WMFT: 4·1 s, 95% CI −14·4 to 22·6). There were three serious adverse events during the trial, all deemed to be unrelated to the interventions (seizure after discharge and intracerebral haemorrhage in the recreational activity group and heart attack in the VRWii group). Overall incidences of adverse events and serious adverse events were similar between treatment groups. In patients who had a stroke within the 3 months before enrolment and had mild-to-moderate upper extremity motor impairment, non-immersive virtual reality as an add-on therapy to conventional rehabilitation was not superior to a recreational activity intervention in improving motor function, as measured by WMFT. Our study suggests that the type of task used in motor rehabilitation post-stroke might be less relevant, as long as it is intensive enough and task-specific. Simple, low-cost, and widely available recreational activities might be as effective as innovative non-immersive virtual reality technologies. Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada and Ontario Ministry of Health.