Efficacy of osteopathic manipulation as an adjunctive treatment for hospitalized patients with pneumonia: a randomized controlled trial.

Donald R Noll, Brian F Degenhardt, Thomas F Morley, Francis X Blais, Kari A Hortos, Kendi Hensel, Jane C Johnson, David J Pasta, Scott T Stoll
{"title":"Efficacy of osteopathic manipulation as an adjunctive treatment for hospitalized patients with pneumonia: a randomized controlled trial.","authors":"Donald R Noll,&nbsp;Brian F Degenhardt,&nbsp;Thomas F Morley,&nbsp;Francis X Blais,&nbsp;Kari A Hortos,&nbsp;Kendi Hensel,&nbsp;Jane C Johnson,&nbsp;David J Pasta,&nbsp;Scott T Stoll","doi":"10.1186/1750-4732-4-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The Multicenter Osteopathic Pneumonia Study in the Elderly (MOPSE) is a registered, double-blinded, randomized, controlled trial designed to assess the efficacy of osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) as an adjunctive treatment in elderly patients with pneumonia.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>406 subjects aged >/= 50 years hospitalized with pneumonia at 7 community hospitals were randomized using concealed allocation to conventional care only (CCO), light-touch treatment (LT), or OMT groups. All subjects received conventional treatment for pneumonia. OMT and LT groups received group-specific protocols for 15 minutes, twice daily until discharge, cessation of antibiotics, respiratory failure, death, or withdrawal from the study. The primary outcomes were hospital length of stay (LOS), time to clinical stability, and a symptomatic and functional recovery score.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis (n = 387) found no significant differences between groups. Per-protocol (PP) analysis (n = 318) found a significant difference between groups (P = 0.01) in LOS. Multiple comparisons indicated a reduction in median LOS (95% confidence interval) for the OMT group (3.5 [3.2-4.0] days) versus the CCO group (4.5 [3.9-4.9] days), but not versus the LT group (3.9 [3.5-4.8] days). Secondary outcomes of duration of intravenous antibiotics and treatment endpoint were also significantly different between groups (P = 0.05 and 0.006, respectively). Duration of intravenous antibiotics and death or respiratory failure were lower for the OMT group versus the CCO group, but not versus the LT group.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>ITT analysis found no differences between groups. PP analysis found significant reductions in LOS, duration of intravenous antibiotics, and respiratory failure or death when OMT was compared to CCO. Given the prevalence of pneumonia, adjunctive OMT merits further study.</p>","PeriodicalId":87450,"journal":{"name":"Osteopathic medicine and primary care","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2010-03-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/1750-4732-4-2","citationCount":"90","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Osteopathic medicine and primary care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/1750-4732-4-2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 90

Abstract

Background: The Multicenter Osteopathic Pneumonia Study in the Elderly (MOPSE) is a registered, double-blinded, randomized, controlled trial designed to assess the efficacy of osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) as an adjunctive treatment in elderly patients with pneumonia.

Methods: 406 subjects aged >/= 50 years hospitalized with pneumonia at 7 community hospitals were randomized using concealed allocation to conventional care only (CCO), light-touch treatment (LT), or OMT groups. All subjects received conventional treatment for pneumonia. OMT and LT groups received group-specific protocols for 15 minutes, twice daily until discharge, cessation of antibiotics, respiratory failure, death, or withdrawal from the study. The primary outcomes were hospital length of stay (LOS), time to clinical stability, and a symptomatic and functional recovery score.

Results: Intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis (n = 387) found no significant differences between groups. Per-protocol (PP) analysis (n = 318) found a significant difference between groups (P = 0.01) in LOS. Multiple comparisons indicated a reduction in median LOS (95% confidence interval) for the OMT group (3.5 [3.2-4.0] days) versus the CCO group (4.5 [3.9-4.9] days), but not versus the LT group (3.9 [3.5-4.8] days). Secondary outcomes of duration of intravenous antibiotics and treatment endpoint were also significantly different between groups (P = 0.05 and 0.006, respectively). Duration of intravenous antibiotics and death or respiratory failure were lower for the OMT group versus the CCO group, but not versus the LT group.

Conclusions: ITT analysis found no differences between groups. PP analysis found significant reductions in LOS, duration of intravenous antibiotics, and respiratory failure or death when OMT was compared to CCO. Given the prevalence of pneumonia, adjunctive OMT merits further study.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

整骨疗法作为肺炎住院患者辅助治疗的疗效:一项随机对照试验。
背景:老年骨科肺炎多中心研究(MOPSE)是一项注册、双盲、随机对照试验,旨在评估骨科手法治疗(OMT)作为老年肺炎患者辅助治疗的疗效。方法:将7家社区医院406例年龄> 50岁的肺炎住院患者随机分为常规护理组(CCO)、轻触治疗组(LT)和OMT组。所有受试者均接受肺炎常规治疗。OMT组和LT组接受组特异性治疗方案,每次15分钟,每天两次,直到出院、停用抗生素、呼吸衰竭、死亡或退出研究。主要结局是住院时间(LOS)、临床稳定时间、症状和功能恢复评分。结果:意向治疗(ITT)分析(n = 387)发现两组间无显著差异。按方案(PP)分析(n = 318)发现各组间LOS有显著差异(P = 0.01)。多项比较表明,OMT组(3.5[3.2-4.0]天)与CCO组(4.5[3.9-4.9]天)相比,中位LOS(95%置信区间)有所降低,但与LT组(3.9[3.5-4.8]天)相比没有降低。静脉使用抗生素时间和治疗终点的次要结局组间差异也有统计学意义(P分别为0.05和0.006)。与CCO组相比,OMT组静脉注射抗生素的持续时间和死亡或呼吸衰竭的时间较短,但与LT组相比没有缩短。结论:ITT分析未发现组间差异。PP分析发现,与CCO相比,OMT显著减少了LOS、静脉注射抗生素持续时间、呼吸衰竭或死亡。鉴于肺炎的流行,辅助OMT值得进一步研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信