Summary Background Reoperation rates are high after surgery for hip fractures. We investigated the effect of a sliding hip screw versus cancellous screws on the risk of reoperation and other key outcomes. Methods For this international, multicentre, allocation concealed randomised controlled trial, we enrolled patients aged 50 years or older with a low-energy hip fracture requiring fracture fixation from 81 clinical centres in eight countries. Patients were assigned by minimisation with a centralised computer system to receive a single large-diameter screw with a side-plate (sliding hip screw) or the present standard of care, multiple small-diameter cancellous screws. Surgeons and patients were not blinded but the data analyst, while doing the analyses, remained blinded to treatment groups. The primary outcome was hip reoperation within 24 months after initial surgery to promote fracture healing, relieve pain, treat infection, or improve function. Analyses followed the intention-to-treat principle. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00761813. Findings Between March 3, 2008, and March 31, 2014, we randomly assigned 1108 patients to receive a sliding hip screw (n=557) or cancellous screws (n=551). Reoperations within 24 months did not differ by type of surgical fixation in those included in the primary analysis: 107 (20%) of 542 patients in the sliding hip screw group versus 117 (22%) of 537 patients in the cancellous screws group (hazard ratio [HR] 0.83, 95% CI 0.63–1.09; p=0.18). Avascular necrosis was more common in the sliding hip screw group than in the cancellous screws group (50 patients [9%] vs 28 patients [5%]; HR 1.91, 1.06–3.44; p=0.0319). However, no significant difference was found between the number of medically related adverse events between groups (p=0.82; appendix); these events included pulmonary embolism (two patients [<1%] vs four [1%] patients; p=0.41) and sepsis (seven [1%] vs six [1%]; p=0.79). Interpretation In terms of reoperation rates the sliding hip screw shows no advantage, but some groups of patients (smokers and those with displaced or base of neck fractures) might do better with a sliding hip screw than with cancellous screws. Funding National Institutes of Health, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Stichting NutsOhra, Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development, Physicians’ Services Incorporated.

The purpose of this study to compare the long-term clinical outcome of early versus delayed rasagiline treatment in early Parkinson's disease (PD). Subjects (N = 404) were randomly assigned to initial treatment with rasagiline (early-start group) or placebo for 6 months followed by rasagiline (delayed-start group) in the TEMPO study. Subjects who chose to participate in an open-label extension (N = 306) continued to receive rasagiline as well as other PD medications as needed. Average (+/-SD) duration in the study was 3.6 +/- 2.1 years; 177 subjects received rasagiline for > or =5.0 years. Over the entire 6.5-year follow-up period, the adjusted mean difference in change from baseline in total UPDRS scores was 2.5 units (SE 1.1; P = 0.021) or 16% (SE 5.7; P = 0.006) in favor of the early-start versus delayed-start rasagiline group. Although the interaction between treatment and time was significant, values for the early-start group were better than the delayed-start group across all time points. Significantly less worsening (percent change) in total UPDRS scores was observed in the early-start group at the time points 0.5, 1.5, 2.0, 3.0, 4.5, 5.0, and 5.5 years (P < 0.05). Compared to delayed start, early initiation of rasagiline provided long-term clinical benefit, even in the face of treatment with other dopaminergic agents. This might reflect enduring benefits due to neuroprotection or effects on compensatory mechanisms in early PD.

After patient education and referral to endocrinology, significantly more patients began calcium and vitamin D supplementation. However, up to 50% of patients with osteoporosis would not complete follow-up visits and/or did not adhere to treatment recommendations for osteoporosis.

No abstract

No abstract