BACKGROUND: Reports vary considerably concerning characteristics of patients who will respond to mobilizing exercises or manipulation. The objective of this prospective cohort study was to identify characteristics of patients with a changeable lumbar condition, i.e. presenting with centralization or peripheralization, that were likely to benefit the most from either the McKenzie method or spinal manipulation.

METHODS: 350 patients with chronic low back pain were randomized to either the McKenzie method or manipulation. The possible effect modifiers were age, severity of leg pain, pain-distribution, nerve root involvement, duration of symptoms, and centralization of symptoms. The primary outcome was the number of patients reporting success at two months follow-up. The values of the dichotomized predictors were tested according to the prespecified analysis plan.

RESULTS: No predictors were found to produce a statistically significant interaction effect. The McKenzie method was superior to manipulation across all subgroups, thus the probability of success was consistently in favor of this treatment independent of predictor observed. When the two strongest predictors, nerve root involvement and peripheralization, were combined, the chance of success was relative risk 10.5 (95% CI 0.71-155.43) for the McKenzie method and 1.23 (95% CI 1.03-1.46) for manipulation (P = 0.11 for interaction effect).

CONCLUSIONS: We did not find any baseline variables which were statistically significant effect modifiers in predicting different response to either McKenzie treatment or spinal manipulation when compared to each other. However, we did identify nerve root involvement and peripheralization to produce differences in response to McKenzie treatment compared to manipulation that appear to be clinically important. These findings need testing in larger studies.

TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT00939107.

OBJECTIVE: Although a reduced aflibercept (2.0 mg) injection frequency relative to the approved dosing posology is included in national treatment guidelines for wet age-related macular degeneration (AMD), there is limited evidence of its comparative efficacy. The objective was to compare the efficacy and safety of reduced frequency dosing for aflibercept, relative to other approved and marketed vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors for wet AMD, over 12 months.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Based on a systematic literature review performed according to a pre-specified protocol, a Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted to indirectly compare posologies of aflibercept and ranibizumab (0.5 mg). The efficacy outcome, mean change from baseline in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) on the ETDRS chart, was evaluated at 3 and 12 months; and safety data at 12 months. Standard NMA models were used to analyze change at 3 months, and fractional polynomial regression over 12 months. Safety data were analyzed using binomial models with a logistic link function.

RESULTS: Five trials formed a complete evidence network. At 3 months, all posologies of aflibercept and ranibizumab resulted in similar changes in BCVA. Over 12 months, approved posologies of aflibercept and ranibizumab resulted in similar changes from baseline, between 6.7 (95% credible interval [CrI], 5.5, 7.8) and 9.1 (8.1, 10.1) ETDRS letters; however, reduced frequency aflibercept was associated with a smaller change (1.8 letters, [-25.9, 29.2]). There was a trend towards a greater change in BCVA, with increasing frequency of dosing. All posologies performed similarly with respect to safety, and CrIs were wide.

CONCLUSIONS: Approved posologies of ranibizumab and aflibercept are similarly effective treatments for wet AMD. Reduced frequency aflibercept was associated with the poorest visual outcomes, and sample sizes were small. Findings from these analyses provide novel evidence of the comparative efficacy and safety of aflibercept and ranibizumab for wet AMD.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain is prevalent and is a frequent cause of disability and sick leave among working adults. Individuals with low back pain often consult general practice or other health care providers which often results in a unilateral intervention focussed on their symptoms. Employment is associated with physical and mental well-being, so, patients may benefit from an early additional occupational medicine intervention. For individuals with physically demanding jobs it can be especially challenging to retain their jobs. The aim of the 'GoBack trial' is to develop and evaluate the efficacy and feasibility of an occupational medicine intervention for individuals with low back pain in physically demanding jobs.

METHODS/DESIGN: We will conduct a randomised controlled trial enrolling 300 participants with difficulty in maintaining physically demanding jobs due to low back pain for a current period of 2 to 4 weeks. Participants will be randomised and stratified according to their age and gender before being allocated in a 1:1 ratio to either control or additional occupational medicine intervention. Both groups will receive conventional treatment for their low back pain during the study. All participants will be thoroughly assessed for causes of low back pain and potential prognostic factors by questionnaires, clinical specialist assessments and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans of the lumbar spine. Primary outcome is the accumulated duration of self-assessed sick leave (in days) due to low back pain during 6 months from baseline. Secondary outcomes include general self-rated back pain, disability and screening for potential prognostic factors: fear avoidance behaviour, disability, health status and degenerative MRI findings. For tertiary purposes selected outcomes will also be assessed after 1 and 2 years from baseline.

DISCUSSION: Many guidelines exist for the management of low back pain, but they provide limited guidance on occupational aspects. The findings from this randomised trial will provide high-quality evidence for the efficacy and feasibility of an occupational medicine intervention model for individuals with low back pain in physically demanding jobs.

TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier: NCT02015572 ) on 29 November 2013.

BACKGROUND: Serious infections are a major concern for patients considering treatments for rheumatoid arthritis. Evidence is inconsistent as to whether biological drugs are associated with an increased risk of serious infection compared with traditional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). We did a systematic review and meta-analysis of serious infections in patients treated with biological drugs compared with those treated with traditional DMARDs.

METHODS: We did a systematic literature search with Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov from their inception to Feb 11, 2014. Search terms included "biologics", "rheumatoid arthritis" and their synonyms. Trials were eligible for inclusion if they included any of the approved biological drugs and reported serious infections. We assessed the risk of bias with the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. We did a Bayesian network meta-analysis of published trials using a binomial likelihood model to assess the risk of serious infections in patients with rheumatoid arthritis who were treated with biological drugs, compared with those treated with traditional DMARDs. The odds ratio (OR) of serious infection was the primary measure of treatment effect and calculated 95% credible intervals using Markov Chain Monte Carlo methods.

FINDINGS: The systematic review identified 106 trials that reported serious infections and included patients with rheumatoid arthritis who received biological drugs. Compared with traditional DMARDs, standard-dose biological drugs (OR 1.31, 95% credible interval [CrI] 1.09-1.58) and high-dose biological drugs (1.90, 1.50-2.39) were associated with an increased risk of serious infections, although low-dose biological drugs (0.93, 0.65-1.33) were not. The risk was lower in patients who were methotrexate naive compared with traditional DMARD-experienced or anti-tumour necrosis factor biological drug-experienced patients. The absolute increase in the number of serious infections per 1000 patients treated each year ranged from six for standard-dose biological drugs to 55 for combination biological therapy, compared with traditional DMARDs.

INTERPRETATION: Standard-dose and high-dose biological drugs (with or without traditional DMARDs) are associated with an increase in serious infections in rheumatoid arthritis compared with traditional DMARDs, although low-dose biological drugs are not. Clinicians should discuss the balance between benefit and harm with the individual patient before starting biological treatment for rheumatoid arthritis.

FUNDING: Rheumatology Division at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

OBJECTIVE: Safety data regarding the use of etoricoxib and other nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and other spondyloarthritis (SpA) patients are rather limited. Our objective was to estimate and compare rates of gastrointestinal, renovascular, and cardiovascular adverse events in patients exposed to etoricoxib, celecoxib, or nonselective NSAIDs or totally unexposed to NSAIDs.

METHODS: We performed a national register-based cohort study on patients with AS or SpA (n = 21,872) identified in the Swedish national patient register from 1987-2009. Treatment exposure was assessed time dependently based on the prescription drug register from 2006-2009, adjusting for sociodemographics and comorbidities derived from national population-based registers.

RESULTS: Exposure to etoricoxib, celecoxib, and nonselective NSAIDs was 7.6%, 3.9%, and 71.2%, respectively. No major risk differences for serious cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, or renal adverse events were seen among the 3 exposure groups. Patients unexposed to NSAIDs had more baseline comorbidities and an increased relative risk for congestive heart failure events during the study period (2.0, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 1.3-3.2). The relative risk for atherosclerotic events was nonsignificant when compared to the nonselective NSAID group (1.0, 95% CI 0.7-1.5), while the relative risk for gastrointestinal events was lower for unexposed patients (0.5, 95% CI 0.4-0.7).

CONCLUSION: Overall, serious adverse events related to nonselective NSAIDs, etoricoxib, and celecoxib were similar and in the range of what would be expected in a group of SpA patients. Patients unexposed to NSAIDs had considerably more baseline comorbidities and increased risk for congestive heart failure, reflecting a selection of patients being prescribed NSAIDs in clinical practice.