Rationale and Methods for a Trial Assessing Placebo, Echinacea, and Doctor-Patient Interation in the Common Cold

Background: Clinical medicine and healthcare policy are increasingly guided by randomized controlled trials, which in turn are dependent on the validity of placebo control. It is important to understand the effects of placebo control on outcome measurement, especially for assessment of symptoms and functional impairments where subjectivity, expectancy, and motivation may significantly impact outcome evaluation. This paper describes the rationale and methodology of a trial designed to evaluate placebo effects related to taking pills and to compare these with effects attributable to standard or enhanced (patient-oriented) doctor-patient interaction. Design: This trial uses two-way factorial allocation to randomize people with new onset common cold in two directions: pill related and doctor related. In one direction, participants are randomized to (1) no pills, (2) blinded placebo, (3) blinded echinacea, or (4) unblinded open-label echinacea. In the other direction, participants are randomized to: (1) no doctor-patient interaction, (2) standard doctor-patient interaction, and (3) enhanced doctor-patient interaction. Enhanced interaction includes education, empathy, empowerment, positive prognosis, and connectedness. Area under the time severity curve is the primary outcome, with the Wisconsin Upper Respiratory Symptom Survey (WURSS-21) the measure of severity. A priori power studies called for a sample size of N = 720 trial finishers to detect 15% to 20% between-group differences in this outcome. Secondary outcomes include general health-related quality of life, perceived stress, interpersonal support, optimism, patient satisfaction, and positive and negative affectivity. Two biomarkers are also assessed: interleukin-8 (inflammatory cytokine) and neurotrophil count from nasal wash. Importance: This paper describes the rationale and methodology of a trial assessing placebo effects related to pills and to doctor-patient interaction. This is one of very few similar studies and is the first in the common cold. Data collected will also provide an excellent opportunity to investigate relationships among demographic (age, sex, education, income) and psycho-social (perceived stress, interpersonal support, optimism, affectivity) indicators in relation to common cold outcomes

Our Common Past, Our Future. III ESACH Meeting, Madrid 7th-9th June 2021. Book of Proceedings

The III ESACH 2021 Madrid Meeting, "Our Common Past, Our Future", was organised by the European Students' Association for Cultural Heritage (ESACH), and the MA Cultural Heritage in the 21st Century: Management and Research (a joint postgraduate degree of the Universidad Complutense de Madrid and the Universidad Politécnica de Madrid). This conference has been a meeting to exchange knowledge and ideas about our European heritage, but also to think about sustainable ways to manage it - because we are the future of Europe and that must be our commitment

Health status after invasive or conservative care in coronary and advanced kidney disease

BACKGROUND In the ISCHEMIA-CKD trial, the primary analysis showed no significant difference in the risk of death or myocardial infarction with initial angiography and revascularization plus guideline-based medical therapy (invasive strategy) as compared with guideline-based medical therapy alone (conservative strategy) in participants with stable ischemic heart disease, moderate or severe ischemia, and advanced chronic kidney disease (an estimated glomerular filtration rate of <30 ml per minute per 1.73 m2 or receipt of dialysis). A secondary objective of the trial was to assess angina-related health status. METHODS We assessed health status with the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) before randomization and at 1.5, 3, and 6 months and every 6 months thereafter. The primary outcome of this analysis was the SAQ Summary score (ranging from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating less frequent angina and better function and quality of life). Mixed-effects cumulative probability models within a Bayesian framework were used to estimate the treatment effect with the invasive strategy. RESULTS Health status was assessed in 705 of 777 participants. Nearly half the participants (49%) had had no angina during the month before randomization. At 3 months, the estimated mean difference between the invasive-strategy group and the conservative-strategy group in the SAQ Summary score was 2.1 points (95% credible interval, 120.4 to 4.6), a result that favored the invasive strategy. The mean difference in score at 3 months was largest among participants with daily or weekly angina at baseline (10.1 points; 95% credible interval, 0.0 to 19.9), smaller among those with monthly angina at baseline (2.2 points; 95% credible interval, 122.0 to 6.2), and nearly absent among those without angina at baseline (0.6 points; 95% credible interval, 121.9 to 3.3). By 6 months, the between-group difference in the overall trial population was attenuated (0.5 points; 95% credible interval, 122.2 to 3.4). CONCLUSIONS Participants with stable ischemic heart disease, moderate or severe ischemia, and advanced chronic kidney disease did not have substantial or sustained benefits with regard to angina-related health status with an initially invasive strategy as compared with a conservative strategy

Management of coronary disease in patients with advanced kidney disease

BACKGROUND Clinical trials that have assessed the effect of revascularization in patients with stable coronary disease have routinely excluded those with advanced chronic kidney disease. METHODS We randomly assigned 777 patients with advanced kidney disease and moderate or severe ischemia on stress testing to be treated with an initial invasive strategy consisting of coronary angiography and revascularization (if appropriate) added to medical therapy or an initial conservative strategy consisting of medical therapy alone and angiography reserved for those in whom medical therapy had failed. The primary outcome was a composite of death or nonfatal myocardial infarction. A key secondary outcome was a composite of death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. RESULTS At a median follow-up of 2.2 years, a primary outcome event had occurred in 123 patients in the invasive-strategy group and in 129 patients in the conservative-strategy group (estimated 3-year event rate, 36.4% vs. 36.7%; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79 to 1.29; P=0.95). Results for the key secondary outcome were similar (38.5% vs. 39.7%; hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.29). The invasive strategy was associated with a higher incidence of stroke than the conservative strategy (hazard ratio, 3.76; 95% CI, 1.52 to 9.32; P=0.004) and with a higher incidence of death or initiation of dialysis (hazard ratio, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.04 to 2.11; P=0.03). CONCLUSIONS Among patients with stable coronary disease, advanced chronic kidney disease, and moderate or severe ischemia, we did not find evidence that an initial invasive strategy, as compared with an initial conservative strategy, reduced the risk of death or nonfatal myocardial infarction