Geriatric assessment-guided interventions for older adults with multiple myeloma: A feasibility and acceptability study.

INTRODUCTION: Geriatric assessment (GA)-guided supportive care programs have been successful in improving treatment outcomes for older adults with solid-organ cancers. This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility of a GA-guided supportive care program among older adults treated for multiple myeloma (MM). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study utilized an existing registry of adults with plasma cell disorders at the University of North Carolina. Patients with MM, aged 60 or older, and having a GA-identified deficit in one or more problem area were offered referrals to supportive care resources during routine visits. Problem areas included physical function deficits, polypharmacy, and anxiety or depression. Patients with physical function deficits were offered referral to physical therapy (PT), those with polypharmacy to an Oncology Clinical Pharmacist Practitioner (CPP), and those with mental health symptoms to the Comprehensive Cancer Support Program (CCSP). RESULTS: Of the 58 individuals identified as having at least one deficit on the GA, PT was the most commonly identified relevant resource (79%), followed by CPP visits (57%). Among individuals that were offered referral(s) to at least one new supportive care resource, the acceptance rate was 50%. Referral acceptance rates were highest among those recommended for a CPP visit (55% of those approached) and lowest for CCSP (0%). DISCUSSION: The study examined the feasibility and acceptability of a referral program for supportive care resources among older adults with MM who have deficits on GA. The most commonly identified deficit was physical functioning, followed by polypharmacy and mental health. The study found that physical interventions and referrals to CPPs were the most accepted interventions. However, the low proportion of patients who accepted physical therapy referrals indicates the need for tailored and more personalized approaches. Further research is needed to explore the feasibility and impact of supportive care referral programs for older adults with MM.

A systematic review of using electrical stimulation to improve clinical outcomes after hip fractures.

BACKGROUND: Pain and muscles weakness often delays regaining independent mobility following hip fracture surgery. Electrical stimulation may relieve pain and improve muscle strength and function. PURPOSE: To systematically review and evaluate available literature examining the effectiveness of using electrical stimulation to promote clinical outcomes after hip fractures. METHODS: Two researchers independently searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Reviews, Physiotherapy Evidence Database, and PsycInfo from inception to July 1, 2018, with no restrictions. The quality and fidelity of the included interventions were assessed, and expert consultation was conducted to help explain the results. RESULTS: We identified 432 records through database searching. Initial screening indicated 24 articles were appropriate for full-text review, and four articles met the inclusion criteria. In included studies, electrical stimulation (i.e. TENS) reduced pain (mean difference (MD) = 3.3 points on 10-point Visual Analogue Scale, p < .001), improved range of motion (ROM) (MD: 25.7°, p < .001), and accelerated functional recovery immediately after hip fracture (p < .001). Conflicting evidence existed when using neuromuscular electrical stimulation to improve muscle strength and other functional outcomes (e.g. mobility); however, nine experts advised that longer-term interventions might be necessary to achieve significant improvment in muscle strength. CONCLUSION: Available evidence, albeit limited, supports the early application of noninvasive electrical stimulation (e.g. TENS) for improving clinical outcomes (i.e. reducing pain, improving ROM, and accelerating functional recovery after hip fractures). We could not find conclusive evidence on the effectiveness of using electrical stimulation to improve muscle strength. This review establishes the need for future additional high-quality trials in this field.

Determining the feasibility of a trial to evaluate the effectiveness of phototherapy versus placebo at reducing pain during physical activity for people with knee osteoarthritis: a pilot randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Although practice guidelines recommend physical activity and exercise for the management of knee osteoarthritis, pain is a common barrier to participation. Phototherapy has been shown to reduce pain intensity for people with knee osteoarthritis, but it is unclear if it reduces pain during physical activity or contributes to improved rehabilitation outcomes. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to assess the feasibility of performing a fully powered randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing an active phototherapy intervention versus placebo on pain during physical activity for people with knee osteoarthritis. METHODS: A pilot RCT was conducted to test the feasibility of a trial comparing 8-sessions (4 weeks) of active phototherapy versus placebo. People were able to participate if they (1) were an English speaking adult (> 18 years of age), (2) had received a diagnosis of knee osteoarthritis from a physician, and (3) self-reported experiencing pain and disability related to their knee osteoarthritis for > 3 months. Primary outcomes were the feasibility of participant recruitment, retention, assessment procedures, and maintaining high treatment fidelity. Secondary outcomes piloted for a full trial included pain during physical activity (primary outcome of full trial); self-reported pain severity, physical function, stiffness, adherence to prescribed exercise, global rating of change, patient satisfaction, and adverse events; 6-min walk test; and pressure pain threshold. RESULTS: Twenty participants (4 men; 16 women) with knee osteoarthritis and a mean age of 63.95 (SD: 9.27) years were recruited over a 3-week period (6.7 participants per week). Fifteen out of 20 (75%) of participants completed the primary outcome assessment at 4 weeks and 19/20 (95%) of participants were retained and completed the final 16-week assessment. Overall, 89% of all assessment items were completed by participants across all time-points. Fifteen out of 20 participants (75%) completed all 8 treatment sessions. Treatment fidelity was 100% for all completed treatment sessions. No adverse events were reported by participants in either group. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that the trial methodology and intervention are feasible for implementation in a fully powered randomized controlled trial to determine the effectiveness of phototherapy at reducing pain during physical activity for people with knee osteoarthritis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT04234685 , January 21, 2020-Retrospectively registered.

Manual therapy and exercise for neck pain: a systematic review.

Manual therapy is often used with exercise to treat neck pain. This cervical overview group systematic review update assesses if manual therapy, including manipulation or mobilisation, combined with exercise improves pain, function/disability, quality of life, global perceived effect, and patient satisfaction for adults with neck pain with or without cervicogenic headache or radiculopathy. Computerized searches were performed to July 2009. Two or more authors independently selected studies, abstracted data, and assessed methodological quality. Pooled relative risk (pRR) and standardized mean differences (pSMD) were calculated. Of 17 randomized controlled trials included, 29% had a low risk of bias. Low quality evidence suggests clinically important long-term improvements in pain (pSMD-0.87(95% CI: -1.69, -0.06)), function/disability, and global perceived effect when manual therapy and exercise are compared to no treatment. High quality evidence suggests greater short-term pain relief [pSMD-0.50(95% CI: -0.76, -0.24)] than exercise alone, but no long-term differences across multiple outcomes for (sub)acute/chronic neck pain with or without cervicogenic headache. Moderate quality evidence supports this treatment combination for pain reduction and improved quality of life over manual therapy alone for chronic neck pain; and suggests greater short-term pain reduction when compared to traditional care for acute whiplash. Evidence regarding radiculopathy was sparse. Specific research recommendations are made.

Manual therapy with or without physical medicine modalities for neck pain: a systematic review.

Manual therapy interventions are often used with or without physical medicine modalities to treat neck pain. This review assessed the effect of 1) manipulation and mobilisation, 2) manipulation, mobilisation and soft tissue work, and 3) manual therapy with physical medicine modalities on pain, function, patient satisfaction, quality of life (QoL), and global perceived effect (GPE) in adults with neck pain. A computerised search for randomised trials was performed up to July 2009. Two or more authors independently selected studies, abstracted data, and assessed methodological quality. Pooled relative risk (RR) and standardised mean differences (SMD) were calculated when possible. We included 19 trials, 37% of which had a low risk of bias. Moderate quality evidence (1 trial, 221 participants) suggested mobilisation, manipulation and soft tissue techniques decrease pain and improved satisfaction when compared to short wave diathermy, and that this treatment combination paired with advice and exercise produces greater improvements in GPE and satisfaction than advice and exercise alone for acute neck pain. Low quality evidence suggests a clinically important benefit favouring mobilisation and manipulation in pain relief [1 meta-analysis, 112 participants: SMD -0.34(95% CI: -0.71, 0.03), improved function and GPE (1 trial, 94 participants) for participants with chronic cervicogenic headache when compared to a control at intermediate and long term follow-up; but no difference when used with various physical medicine modalities.

Manipulation or mobilisation for neck pain: a Cochrane Review.

Manipulation and mobilisation are often used, either alone or combined with other treatment approaches, to treat neck pain. This review assesses if manipulation or mobilisation improves pain, function/disability, patient satisfaction, quality of life (QoL), and global perceived effect (GPE) in adults experiencing neck pain with or without cervicogenic headache or radicular findings. A computerised search was performed in July 2009. Randomised trials investigating manipulation or mobilisation for neck pain were included. Two or more authors independently selected studies, abstracted data, and assessed methodological quality. Pooled relative risk (pRR) and standardised mean differences (pSMD) were calculated. 33% of 27 trials had a low risk of bias. Moderate quality evidence showed cervical manipulation and mobilisation produced similar effects on pain, function and patient satisfaction at intermediate-term follow-up. Low quality evidence suggested cervical manipulation may provide greater short-term pain relief than a control (pSMD -0.90 (95%CI: -1.78 to -0.02)). Low quality evidence also supported thoracic manipulation for pain reduction (NNT 7; 46.6% treatment advantage) and increased function (NNT 5; 40.6% treatment advantage) in acute pain and immediate pain reduction in chronic neck pain (NNT 5; 29% treatment advantage). Optimal technique and dose need to be determined.

Manipulation or mobilisation for neck pain.

BACKGROUND: Manipulation and mobilisation are often used, either alone or combined with other treatment approaches, to treat neck pain. OBJECTIVES: To assess if manipulation or mobilisation improves pain, function/disability, patient satisfaction, quality of life, and global perceived effect in adults with acute/subacute/chronic neck pain with or without cervicogenic headache or radicular findings. SEARCH STRATEGY: CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2009, issue 3) and MEDLINE, EMBASE, Manual Alternative and Natural Therapy, CINAHL, and Index to Chiropractic Literature were updated to July 2009. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials on manipulation or mobilisation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies, abstracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Pooled relative risk and standardised mean differences (SMD) were calculated. MAIN RESULTS: We included 27 trials (1522 participants).Cervical Manipulation for subacute/chronic neck pain : Moderate quality evidence suggested manipulation and mobilisation produced similar effects on pain, function and patient satisfaction at intermediate-term follow-up. Low quality evidence showed manipulation alone compared to a control may provide short- term relief following one to four sessions (SMD pooled -0.90 (95%CI: -1.78 to -0.02)) and that nine or 12 sessions were superior to three for pain and disability in cervicogenic headache. Optimal technique and dose need to be determined.Thoracic Manipulation for acute/chronic neck pain : Low quality evidence supported thoracic manipulation as an additional therapy for pain reduction (NNT 7; 46.6% treatment advantage) and increased function (NNT 5; 40.6% treatment advantage) in acute pain and favoured a single session of thoracic manipulation for immediate pain reduction compared to placebo for chronic neck pain (NNT 5, 29% treatment advantage).Mobilisation for subacute/chronic neck pain: In addition to the evidence noted above, low quality evidence for subacute and chronic neck pain indicated that 1) a combination of Maitland mobilisation techniques was similar to acupuncture for immediate pain relief and increased function; 2) there was no difference between mobilisation and acupuncture as additional treatments for immediate pain relief and improved function; and 3) neural dynamic mobilisations may produce clinically important reduction of pain immediately post-treatment. Certain mobilisation techniques were superior. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Cervical manipulation and mobilisation produced similar changes. Either may provide immediate- or short-term change; no long-term data are available. Thoracic manipulation may improve pain and function. Optimal techniques and dose are unresolved. Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate.