BackgroundEvidence on the effectiveness of the Epley manoeuvre in primary care is scarce.AimTo evaluate effectiveness at 1 week, 1 month, and 1 year of a single Epley manoeuvre versus a sham manoeuvre in primary care.Design and settingMulticentre, double-blind randomised controlled trial in two primary care practices in Spain from November 2012 to January 2015.MethodPatients were ≥18 years diagnosed with subjective or objective posterior benign paroxysmal positional vertigo (vertigo only, or vertigo and nystagmus after a Dix–Hallpike test [DHT]). The intervention group received the Epley manoeuvre, and the control group received a sham manoeuvre. Betahistine was prescribed following the same regimen in both groups. The main outcome measures were the DHT result classified as negative (neither vertigo nor nystagmus) or positive. Positive results were further divided into a positive result for both vertigo and nystagmus (positive DHT with nystagmus), and a positive result for vertigo only (positive DHT without nystagmus); self-reported resolution of vertigo; and self-reported severity of vertigo evaluated on a 10-point Likert scale (10 = worst imaginable vertigo).ResultsIn total, 134 patients were randomised to either the intervention group (n = 66) or the sham group (n = 68). The intervention group showed better results in the unadjusted analyses at 1 week, with a lower rate of positive DHT with nystagmus (P = 0.022). A positive baseline DHT with nystagmus was associated with a reduction in vertigo severity (marginal effect for 10-point Likert-like question −1.73, 95% confidence interval [CI] = −2.95 to −0.51) and better positive DHT rates in the intervention group (adjusted odds ratio 0.09, 95% CI = 0.01 to 0.92) in the multivariate analyses.ConclusionA single Epley manoeuvre performed in primary care is an effective treatment for reversing a positive DHT and reducing vertigo severity in patients with baseline nystagmus in the DHT.

AimsThe aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to synthesize the available evidence in scientific papers of smokefree legislation effects on respiratory diseases and sensory and respiratory symptoms (cough, phlegm, red eyes, runny nose) among all populations.Materials and methodsSystematic review and meta-analysis were carried out. A search between January 1995 and February 2015 was performed in PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases. Inclusion criteria were: 1) original scientific studies about smokefree legislation, 2) Data before and after legislation were collected, and 3) Impact on respiratory and sensory outcomes were assessed. Paired reviewers independently carried out the screening of titles and abstracts, data extraction from full-text articles, and methodological quality assessment.ResultsA total number of 1606 papers were identified. 50 papers were selected, 26 were related to symptoms (23 concerned workers). Most outcomes presented significant decreases in the percentage of people suffering from them, especially in locations with comprehensive measures and during the immediate post-ban period (within the first six months). Four (50%) of the papers concerning pulmonary function reported some significant improvement in expiratory parameters. Significant decreases were described in 13 of the 17 papers evaluating asthma hospital admissions, and there were fewer significant reductions in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease admissions (range 1–36%) than for asthma (5–31%). Six studies regarding different respiratory diseases showed discrepant results, and four papers about mortality reported significant declines in subgroups. Low bias risk was present in 23 (46%) of the studies.ConclusionsSmokefree legislation appears to improve respiratory and sensory symptoms at short term in workers (the overall effect being greater in comprehensive smokefree legislation in sensory symptoms) and, to a lesser degree, rates of hospitalization for asthma.

Patients who experience both vertigo and nystagmus in the Dix-Hallpike test (DHT) are diagnosed with objective benign paroxysmal positional vertigo (BPPV). This test provokes only vertigo in between 11% and 48% of patients, who are diagnosed with subjective BPPV. Detection of nystagmus has important diagnostic and prognostic implications. To compare the characteristics of patients diagnosed with objective and subjective BPPV in primary care. Cross-sectional descriptive study. Two urban primary care centers. Adults (≥18 years) diagnosed with objective or subjective BPPV between November 2012 and January 2015. DHT results (vertigo or vertigo plus nystagmus; dependent variable: nistagmus as response to DHT), age, sex, time since onset, previous vertigo episodes, self-reported vertigo severity (Likert scale, 0–10), comorbidities (recent viral infection, traumatic brain injury, headache, anxiety/depression, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, dyslipidemia, cardiovascular disease, altered thyroid function, osteoporosis, cervical spondylosis, neck pain). In total, 134 patients (76.1% women) with a mean age of 52 years were included; 59.71% had subjective BPPV. Objective BPPV was significantly associated with hypertension, antihypertensive therapy, and cervical spondylosis in the bivariate analysis and with cervical spondylosis (OR = 3.94, p = 0.021) and antihypertensive therapy (OR 3.02, p = 0.028) in the multivariate analysis. Patients with subjective BPPV were more likely to be taking benzodiazepines [OR 0.24, p = 0.023]. The prevalence of subjective BPPV was higher than expected. Cervical spondylosis and hypertensive therapy were associated with objective BPPV, while benzodiazepines were associated with subjective BPPV.

BackgroundVertigo is a common medical condition with a broad spectrum of diagnoses which requires an integrated approach to patients through a structured clinical interview and physical examination. The main cause of vertigo in primary care is benign paroxysmal positional vertigo (BPPV), which should be confirmed by a positive D-H positional test and treated with repositioning maneuvers. The objective of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of Epley’s maneuver performed by general practitioners (GPs) in the treatment of BPPV.Methods/DesignThis study is a randomized clinical trial conducted in the primary care setting. The study’s scope will include two urban primary care centers which provide care for approximately 49,400 patients. All patients attending these two primary care centers, who are newly diagnosed with benign paroxysmal positional vertigo, will be invited to participate in the study and will be randomly assigned either to the treatment group (Epley’s maneuver) or to the control group (a sham maneuver). Both groups will receive betahistine. Outcome variables will be: response to the D-H test, patients’ report on presence or absence of vertigo during the previous week (dichotomous variable: yes/no), intensity of vertigo symptoms on a Likert-type scale in the previous week, total score on the Dizziness Handicap Inventory (DHI) and quantity of betahistine taken.We will use descriptive statistics of all variables collected. Groups will be compared using the intent-to-treat approach and either parametric or nonparametric tests, depending on the nature and distribution of the variables. Chi-square test or Fisher’s exact test will be conducted to compare categorical measures and Student’s t-test or Mann–Whitney U-test will be used for intergroup comparison variables.DiscussionPositive results from our study will highlight that treatment of benign paroxysmal positional vertigo can be performed by trained general practitioners (GPs) and, therefore, its widespread practice may contribute to improve the quality of life of BPPV patients.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01969513.

Posterior canal benign paroxysmal positional vertigo (pc-BPPV) causes physical, functional, and emotional impairment. The treatment is the Epley manoeuvre (EM). Objective The purpose of the study was to compare the impact of the EM and a sham manoeuvre in primary care on self-perceived disability. Design Randomised, double-blind, sham-controlled clinical trial conducted in primary care with a follow-up of 1 year. Participants Patients aged ≥18 years old diagnosed with pc-BPPV according to the Dix–Hallpike test (DHT) were randomised to: Interventions Intervention (EM) group or a control (sham manoeuvre) group. Main measurements The main study covariates were age, sex, history of depression and anxiety, presence of nystagmus in the DHT, patient-perceived disability assessed with the Dizziness Handicap Inventory – screening version (DHI-S). Data were analyzed using bivariate and multivariate mixed Tobit analyses. Results Overall, 134 patients were studied: 66 in the intervention group and 68 in the control group. Median age was 52 years (interquartile range [IQR], 38.25–68.00 years. standard deviation, 16.98) and 76.12% of the patients were women. The DHT triggered nystagmus in 40.30% of patients. The median total DHI-S score for the overall sample at baseline was 16 (IQR, 8.00–22.00); 16 [IQR, 10.5–24.0] vs 10 [6.0–14.0] for women vs men ( P < .001). Patients treated with the EM experienced a mean reduction of 2.03 points in DHI-S score over the follow-up period compared with patients in the sham group. Conclusions Pc-BPPV affects the quality of life of primary care patients. A single EM can improve self-perceptions of disability by around 2 points on the DHI-S scale.