| 1. |
- Andren, Ann, et al.
(author)
-
Effects of treatment with oral appliance on 24-h blood pressure in patients with obstructive sleep apnea and hypertension : a randomized clinical trial
- 2013
-
In: Sleep and Breathing. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1520-9512 .- 1522-1709. ; 17:2, s. 705-712
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Continuous positive airway pressure treatment has been shown to lower blood pressure (BP) in patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). The aims of the present pilot study were to evaluate the potential effects of oral appliance (OA) therapy on BP, to assess various outcome BP measures, and to inform sample size calculation. Seventy-two patients with OSA and hypertension were randomly assigned to intervention with either an OA with mandibular advancement (active group) or an OA without advancement (control group). Before and after 3 months of treatment, the patients underwent nocturnal somnographic registration and 24-h ambulatory BP monitoring. Among the various BP measures, the largest trend toward effect of OA treatment was seen in 24-h mean systolic BP with a 1.8 mmHg stronger BP reduction in the active group compared with controls. A stronger trend toward effect was seen in a subgroup with baseline ambulatory daytime mean systolic BP > 135/85 mmHg where the mean systolic BP fell, on average, 2.6 mmHg. Additional exclusion of patients with baseline apnea hypopnea index (AHI) a parts per thousand currency sign15 gave a significant reduction in mean systolic BP of 4.4 mmHg (P = 0.044) in the active group compared with controls. In patients with OSA and hypertension, OA treatment had a modest trend toward effect on reducing BP. A stronger trend toward treatment effect was seen after excluding patients with normal baseline ambulatory BP. Additional exclusion of patients with baseline AHI a parts per thousand currency sign15 showed a significant treatment effect. Data to inform sample size for an adequately powered randomized study are provided.
|
|
| 2. |
- Westman, Anders, 1946-, et al.
(author)
-
Controlled 3-year follow-up of a multidisciplinary pain rehabilitation program in primary health care
- 2010
-
In: Disability and Rehabilitation. - Oxon, United Kingdom : Taylor & Francis. - 0963-8288 .- 1464-5165. ; 32:4, s. 307-316
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Purpose: The high prevalence of musculoskeletal pain generates significant costs for primary health care and the whole of society. The development of appropriate interventions is therefore necessary. The aim of this effectiveness study was to assess the long-term effects of a primary health care multidisciplinary rehabilitation program in Sweden.Methods: An experimental group comprising 89 patients from two primary health care units received individualised treatment interventions after a multidisciplinary investigation. A control group of 69 patients with the same inclusion criteria from four other primary health care units were treated according to routine. All participants completed questionnaires measuring pain, sick leave, quality of life, health care utilisation, drug consumption and psychosocial factors at baseline and at 3-year follow-up.Results: After 3 years, utilisation of primary health care was significantly lower in the experimental group and work capacity was slightly but not significantly higher. The control group showed a trend of having a higher risk of high consumption after 3 years compared to the intervention group. There was no significant difference between the two groups concerning remaining variables such as function, catastrophising and pain.Conclusion: Both groups demonstrated considerable improvement over the course of 3 years. The experimental group had lower health care utilisation and a reduced risk of using large amounts of medication at the 3-year follow-up, indicating that compared with participants in the control group they were coping in a better way with pain.
|
|
| 3. |
- Westman, Anders, 1946-, et al.
(author)
-
Quality of life and maintenance of improvements after early multimodal rehabilitation : a 5-year follow-up
- 2006
-
In: Disability and Rehabilitation. - London : Taylor & Francis. - 0963-8288 .- 1464-5165. ; 28:7, s. 437-446
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Purpose. There is a paucity of long-term evaluations on rehabilitation of musculoskeletal disorders, e.g., neck, shoulder or back pain. The aim of this study was to assess quality of life and the effect of early multimodal rehabilitation on 91 patients with musculoskeletal pain and disability at a 5-year follow-up. Method. The follow-up assessment, which included questions on pain, function, quality of life, perceived health, sick leave and psychosomatic symptoms, was performed 5 years after the assessment of baseline status. Results. Improvements in pain, perceived health and psychosomatic symptoms were maintained at the 5-year follow-up. In addition, improvements in function, quality of life, and level of acceptable pain were significant in comparison to baseline. At the time of the baseline assessment all patients were on sick leave (13% were on partial sick leave). At the 5-year follow-up, 58% of the patients were at work part or full time. The results show that those working differed significantly from those not working at the 5-year follow-up on almost all variables, indicating that those working enjoy better health. The most salient prognostic factors for return to work were perceived health and educational level at the time of the baseline evaluation. Conclusions. These results show that treatment improved quality of life and the effects were basically maintained at 5 years. Work capacity as reflected in return to work increased greatly (81%) at a 1-year follow-up and was substantial (58%) at the 5-year follow-up. Moreover, perceived health and educational levels were important prognostic factors. Finally, the fact that patients working reported better health underscores the probable importance of return to work. Our results imply that it may be feasible to obtain long-term benefits from such a primary care-based intervention.
|
|
