How junior doctors perceive personalised yoga and group exercise in the management of occupational and traumatic stressors.

OBJECTIVES: Junior doctors are exposed to occupational and traumatic stressors, some of which are inherent to medicine. This can result in burnout, mental ill-health and suicide. Within a crossover pilot study comparing personalised, trauma-informed yoga to group-format exercise, qualitative interviews were conducted to understand the experience of junior doctors and whether such interventions were perceived to help manage these stressors. METHODS: Twenty-one doctors, 76% female, were order-randomised to consecutive 8-week yoga and exercise programmes. Fifty-two interviews were recorded before and after each programme. RESULTS: Many participants reported being time poor, sleep-affected, frequently stressed and occasionally in physical pain/distress. Major stressor themes were workplace incivility, death/human suffering and shift work with minimal support. Both interventions were acceptable for different reasons. Personalised yoga offered a therapeutic alliance, time to check-in and reduced anxiety/rumination. Group exercise provided energy and social connection. One participant found yoga beneficial following an acute workplace trauma: 'It was really eye opening how much I felt my body just needed to detox … I wouldn't have gone to a group fitness the next day … I just wanted to relax and breathe …We still had a big debrief which was great … (but) I almost felt like … I dealt with it physically and emotionally before going into it (P20).' CONCLUSION: Junior doctors found both interventions useful for stress management adjunctive to other organisational programmes though for different and complementary reasons, possibly related to delivery mode. Personalised, trauma-informed yoga provided a confidential therapeutic alliance whereas group exercise offered social connection.

Personalised yoga for burnout and traumatic stress in junior doctors.

OBJECTIVES: Junior doctors are frequently exposed to occupational and traumatic stress, sometimes with tragic consequences. Mindfulness-based and fitness interventions are increasingly used to mitigate this, but have not been compared.We conducted a randomised, controlled pilot trial to assess the feasibility, acceptability and effectiveness of these interventions in junior doctors. METHODS: We randomised participants (n=21) to weekly 1-hour sessions of personalised, trauma-informed yoga (n=10), with a 4-hour workshop, and eHealth homework; or group-format fitness (n=8) in an existing wellness programme, MDOK. Burnout, traumatic stress and suicidality were measured at baseline and 8 weeks. RESULTS: Both interventions reduced burnout, and yoga increased compassion satisfaction within group on the Professional Quality of Life scale, without difference between groups on this measure.Personalised yoga significantly reduced depersonalisation (z=-1.99, p=0.05) compared with group fitness on the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI-HSS (MP)) and showed greater flexibility changes. Both interventions increased MBI Personal Accomplishment, with no changes in other self-report psychological or physiological metrics, including breath-counting.Participants doing one-to-one yoga rated it more highly overall (p=0.02) than group fitness, and reported it comparatively more beneficial for mental (p=0.01) and physical health (p=0.05). Face-to-face weekly sessions were 100% attended in yoga, but only 45% in fitness. CONCLUSION: In this pilot trial, both yoga and fitness improved burnout, but trauma-informed yoga reduced depersonalisation in junior doctors more than group-format fitness. One-to-one yoga was better adhered than fitness, but was more resource intensive. Junior doctors need larger-scale comparative research of the effectiveness and implementation of individual, organisational and systemic mental health interventions. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ANZCTR 12618001467224.

Efficacy and safety of neuromodulators in inflammatory arthritis: a Cochrane systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy and safety of neuromodulators for pain management in patients with inflammatory arthritis. METHODS: A Cochrane systematic review was performed as part of the 3e Initiative on pain management in inflammatory arthritis. We searched Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central for studies to November 2010, and American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism meeting abstracts published in 2008-2009. Studies were included if they were randomized or quasirandomized controlled trials that compared any neuromodulator (excluding cannabis) to another therapy (active or placebo, including nonpharmacological therapies) for pain in patients with RA, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, or spondyloarthritis. Primary outcomes of interest were patient-reported pain relief of 30% or greater and withdrawals due to adverse events. Two authors independently extracted data and assessed methodological quality. A risk of bias assessment was performed using the methods recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration. RESULTS: Three trials, all in RA and all at high risk of bias, were included in this review. Two placebo-controlled trials evaluated nefopam (52 participants) and one placebo-controlled trial evaluated topical capsaicin 0.025% (31 participants). Pooled analysis showed a significant reduction in pain levels favoring nefopam over placebo after 2 weeks [weighted mean difference -21.2, 95% CI -35.6 to -6.7; number needed to treat (NNT) 2, 95% CI 1.4 to 9.5]. However, nefopam was associated with significantly more adverse events (RR 4.1, 95% CI 1.6 to 10.7; number needed to harm 9, 95% CI 2 to 367), predominantly nausea and sweating. In one trial, capsaicin reduced pain more than placebo at 1 and 2 weeks (MD -23.8, 95% CI -44.8 to -2.8; NNT 3, 95% CI 2-47, and -34.4, 95% CI -54.7 to -14.14; NNT 2, 95% CI 1.4 to 6, respectively). Of those who received capsaicin, 44% developed burning at the site of application and 2% withdrew as a result. CONCLUSION: Based on 3 small trials, which were all at high risk of bias, there is weak evidence that nefopam and capsaicin are superior to placebo in reducing pain in patients with RA, but both are associated with a significant side effect profile. There are no available data for other types of IA or for newer agents such as gabapentin or pregabalin.

Neuromodulators for pain management in rheumatoid arthritis.

BACKGROUND: Pain management is a high priority for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Despite deficiencies in research data, neuromodulators have gained widespread clinical acceptance as adjuvants in the management of patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this review was to determine the efficacy and safety of neuromodulators in pain management in patients with RA. Neuromodulators included in this review were anticonvulsants (gabapentin, pregabalin, phenytoin, sodium valproate, lamotrigine, carbamazepine, levetiracetam, oxcarbazepine, tiagabine and topiramate), ketamine, bupropion, methylphenidate, nefopam, capsaicin and the cannabinoids. SEARCH METHODS: We performed a computer-assisted search of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2010, 4th quarter), MEDLINE (1950 to week 1 November 2010), EMBASE (Week 44, 2010) and PsycINFO (1806 to week 2 November 2010). We also searched the 2008 and 2009 American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and European League against Rheumatism (EULAR) conference abstracts and performed a handsearch of reference lists of articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials which compared any neuromodulator to another therapy (active or placebo, including non-pharmacological therapies) in adult patients with RA that had at least one clinically relevant outcome measure. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two blinded review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias in the trials. Meta-analyses were used to examine the efficacy of a neuromodulator on pain, depression and function as well as their safety. MAIN RESULTS: Four trials with high risk of bias were included in this review. Two trials evaluated oral nefopam (52 participants) and one trial each evaluated topical capsaicin (31 participants) and oromucosal cannabis (58 participants).The pooled analyses identified a significant reduction in pain levels favouring nefopam over placebo (weighted mean difference (WMD) -21.16, 95% CI -35.61 to -6.71; number needed to treat (NNT) 2, 95% CI 1.4 to 9.5) after two weeks. There were insufficient data to assess withdrawals due to adverse events. Nefopam was associated with significantly more adverse events (RR 4.11, 95% CI 1.58 to 10.69; NNTH 9, 95% CI 2 to 367), which were predominantly nausea and sweating.In a mixed population trial, qualitative analysis of patients with RA showed a significantly greater reduction in pain favouring topical capsaicin over placebo at one and two weeks (MD -23.80, 95% CI -44.81 to -2.79; NNT 3, 95% CI 2 to 47; MD -34.40, 95% CI -54.66 to -14.14; NNT 2, 95% CI 1.4 to 6 respectively). No separate safety data were available for patients with RA, however 44% of patients developed burning at the site of application and 2% withdrew because of this.One small, low quality trial assessed oromucosal cannabis against placebo and found a small, significant difference favouring cannabis in the verbal rating score 'pain at present' (MD -0.72, 95% CI -1.31 to -0.13) after five weeks. Patients receiving cannabis were significantly more likely to suffer an adverse event (risk ratio (RR) 1.82, 95% CI 1.10 to 3.00; NNTH 3, 95% CI 3 to 13). These were most commonly dizziness (26%), dry mouth (13%) and light headedness (10%). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is currently weak evidence that oral nefopam, topical capsaicin and oromucosal cannabis are all superior to placebo in reducing pain in patients with RA. However, each agent is associated with a significant side effect profile. The confidence in our estimates is not strong given the difficulties with blinding, the small numbers of participants evaluated and the lack of adverse event data. In some patients, however, even a small degree of pain relief may be considered worthwhile. Until further research is available, given the relatively mild nature of the adverse events, capsaicin could be considered as an add-on therapy for patients with persistent local pain and inadequate response or intolerance to other treatments. Oral nefopam and oromucosal cannabis have more significant side effect profiles however and the potential harms seem to outweigh any modest benefit achieved.