Efficacy of metamizole versus ibuprofen and a short educational intervention versus standard care in acute and subacute low back pain: a study protocol of a randomised, multicentre, factorial trial (EMISI trial).

INTRODUCTION: Low back pain (LBP) is among the top three most common diseases worldwide, resulting in a life with pain-related disability. To date, no study has assessed the efficacy of metamizole (dipyrone), a non-opioid analgesic and antipyretic prodrug compared with the conventional non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug ibuprofen, in patients with an acute LBP episode. Further, it is unclear, whether a short educational intervention is superior to usual care alone. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study is to assess first, whether metamizole is non-inferior to ibuprofen in a new episode of acute or subacute LBP. Second, we aim to assess whether a short educational intervention including evidence-based patient information on the nature of LBP is superior to usual care alone. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: An investigator-initiated multicentre, randomised, double blind trial using a factorial design will be performed. A total of 120 participants with a new episode of LBP will be recruited from GP practices, outpatient clinics and from emergency departments, and randomised into four different treatment groups: ibuprofen alone, ibuprofen and short intervention, metamizole alone, metamizole and short intervention. The primary endpoint for the medical treatment will be change in pain assessed on an 11-point Numeric Rating Scale after 14 days. The primary outcome for the short intervention will be change in the Core Outcome Measures Index assessed after 42 days. ETHICS, DISSEMINATION AND FUNDING: This study has been approved by the responsible Ethics Board (Ethikkommission Bern/2018-01986) and the Swiss Agency for Therapeutic Products (Swissmedic/2019DR4002). Results will be published in open access policy peer-reviewed journals. The study is funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation (grant number 32 003B-179346). TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04111315.

Assessment of three frequently used blood glucose monitoring devices in clinical routine.

BACKGROUND: Self-monitoring of blood glucose plays an important role in the management of diabetes and has been shown to improve metabolic control. The use of blood glucose meters in clinical practice requires sufficient reliability to allow adequate treatment. Direct comparison of different blood glucose meters in clinical practice, independent of the manufactures is scarce. We, therefore, aimed to evaluate three frequently used blood glucose meters in daily clinical practice. METHODS: Capillary blood glucose was measured simultaneous using the following glucose meters: Contour® (Bayer Diabetes Care, Zürich, Switzerland), Accu-Chek® aviva (Roche Diagnostics, Rotkreuz, Switzerland), Free-Style® lite (Abbott Diabetes Care, Baar, Switzerland). The reference method consisted of the HemoCue® Glucose 201+ System (HemoCue® AB, Ängelholm, Sweden) with plasma conversion. The devices were assessed by comparison of the Mean Absolute Relative Differences (MARD), the Clarke Error Grid Analysis (EGA) and the compliance with the International Organization of Standardization criteria (ISO 15197:2003). RESULTS: Capillary blood samples were obtained from 150 patients. MARD was 10.1 ± 0.65%, 7.0 ± 0.62% and 7.8 ± 0.48% for Contour®, Accu-Chek® and Free-Style®, respectively. EGA showed 99.3% (Contour®), 98.7% (Accu-Chek®) and 100% (Free-Style®) of all measurements in zone A and B (clinically acceptable). The ISO criteria were fulfilled by Accu-Chek® (95.3%) and Free-Style® (96%), but not by Contour® (92%). CONCLUSIONS: In the present study the three glucose meters provided good agreement with the reference and reliable results in daily clinical routine. Overall, the Free-Style® and Accu-Chek® device slightly outperformed the Contour® device.