Does self-control improve with practice? Evidence from a 6-week training program

Can self-control be improved through practice? Several studies have found that repeated practice of tasks involving self-control improves performance on other tasks relevant to self-control. However, in many of these studies, improvements after training could be attributable to methodological factors (e.g., passive control conditions). Moreover, the extent to which the effects of training transfer to real-life settings is not yet clear. In the present research, participants (N = 174) completed a 6-week training program of either cognitive or behavioral self-control tasks. We then tested the effects of practice on a range of measures of self-control, including lab-based and real-world tasks. Training was compared to both active and no-contact control conditions. Despite high levels of adherence to the training tasks, there was no effect of training on any measure of self-control. Trained participants did not, for example, show reduced ego depletion effects, become better at overcoming their habits, or report exerting more self-control in everyday life. Moderation analyses found no evidence that training was effective only among particular groups of participants. Bayesian analyses suggested that the data was more consistent with a null effect of training on self-control than with previous estimates of the effect of practice. The implication is that training self-control through repeated practice does not result in generalized improvements in self-control

Compartmentalised expression of meprin in small intestinal mucosa: enhanced expression in lamina propria in coeliac disease

Epithelial cells in the human small intestine express meprin, an astacin-like metalloprotease, which accumulates normally at the brush border membrane and in the gut lumen. Therefore, meprin is targeted towards luminal components. In coeliac disease patients, peptides from ingested cereals trigger mucosal inflammation in the small intestine, disrupting epithelial cell differentiation and function. Using in situ hybridisation on duodenal tissue sections, we observed a marked shift of meprin mRNA expression from epithelial cells, the predominant expression site in normal mucosa, to lamina propria leukocytes in coeliac disease. Meprin thereby gains access to the substrate repertoire present beneath the epitheliu

Comparison of single and combination diuretics on glucose tolerance (PATHWAY-3):protocol for a randomised double-blind trial in patients with essential hypertension

INTRODUCTION: Thiazide diuretics are associated with increased risk of diabetes mellitus. This risk may arise from K(+)-depletion. We hypothesised that a K(+)-sparing diuretic will improve glucose tolerance, and that combination of low-dose thiazide with K(+)-sparing diuretic will improve both blood pressure reduction and glucose tolerance, compared to a high-dose thiazide.METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a parallel-group, randomised, double-blind, multicentre trial, comparing hydrochlorothiazide 25-50 mg, amiloride 10-20 mg and combination of both diuretics at half these doses. A single-blind placebo run-in of 1 month is followed by 24 weeks of blinded active treatment. There is forced dose-doubling after 3 months. The Primary end point is the blood glucose 2 h after oral ingestion of a 75 g glucose drink (OGTT), following overnight fasting. The primary outcome is the difference between 2 h glucose at weeks 0, 12 and 24. Secondary outcomes include the changes in home systolic blood pressure (BP) and glycated haemoglobin and prediction of response by baseline plasma renin. Eligibility criteria are: age 18-79, systolic BP on permitted background treatment ≥140 mm Hg and home BP ≥130 mm Hg and one component of the metabolic syndrome additional to hypertension. Principal exclusions are diabetes, estimated-glomerular filtration rate &lt;45 mL/min, abnormal plasma K(+), clinic SBP &gt;200 mm Hg or DBP &gt;120 mm Hg (box 2). The sample size calculation indicates that 486 patients will give 80% power at α=0.01 to detect a difference in means of 1 mmol/L (SD=2.2) between 2 h glucose on hydrochlorothiazide and comparators.ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: PATHWAY-3 was approved by Cambridge South Ethics Committee, number 09/H035/19. The trial results will be published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: Eudract number 2009-010068-41 and clinical trials registration number: NCT02351973.</p

Multicentre, prospective, randomised, open-label, blinded end point trial of the efficacy of allopurinol therapy in improving cardiovascular outcomes in patients with ischaemic heart disease: protocol of the ALL-HEART study

Introduction Ischaemic heart disease (IHD) is one of the most common causes of death in the UK and treatment of patients with IHD costs the National Health System (NHS) billions of pounds each year. Allopurinol is a xanthine oxidase inhibitor used to prevent gout that also has several positive effects on the cardiovascular system. The ALL-HEART study aims to determine whether allopurinol improves cardiovascular outcomes in patients with IHD. Methods and Analysis The ALL-HEART study is a multicentre, controlled, prospective, randomised, open-label blinded end point (PROBE) trial of allopurinol (up to 600 mg daily) versus no treatment in a 1:1 ratio, added to usual care, in 5215 patients aged 60 years and over with IHD. Patients are followed up by electronic record linkage and annual questionnaires for an average of 4 years. The primary outcome is the composite of non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke or cardiovascular death. Secondary outcomes include all-cause mortality, quality of life and cost-effectiveness of allopurinol. The study will end when 631 adjudicated primary outcomes have occurred. The study is powered at 80% to detect a 20% reduction in the primary end point for the intervention. Patient recruitment to the ALL-HEART study started in February 2014. Ethics and Dissemination The study received ethical approval from the East of Scotland Research Ethics Service (EoSRES) REC 2 (13/ES/0104). The study is event-driven and results are expected after 2019. Results will be reported in peer-reviewed journals and at scientific meetings. Results will also be disseminated to guideline committees, NHS organisations and patient groups

Prevention And Treatment of Hypertension With Algorithm-based therapy (PATHWAY) number 2: protocol for a randomised crossover trial to determine optimal treatment for drug-resistant hypertension.

This is the final published version. It first appeared at http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/8/e008951.full.INTRODUCTION: Resistant hypertension is inadequately controlled blood pressure (BP) despite treatment with at least three BP-lowering drugs. A popular hypothesis is that resistant hypertension is due to excessive Na(+)-retention, and that 'further diuretic therapy' will be superior to alternative add-on drugs. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Placebo-controlled, random crossover study of fourth-line treatment when added to standard (A+C+D) triple drug therapy: ACE inhibitor or Angiotensin receptor blocker (A) +Calcium channel blocker (C)+Diuretic (D). Patients (aged 18-79 years) with clinical systolic BP ≥ 140 mm Hg (135 mm Hg in diabetics) and Home BP Monitoring (HBPM) systolic BP average ≥ 130 mm Hg on treatment for at least 3 months with maximum tolerated doses of A+C+D are randomised to four consecutive randomly allocated 12-week treatment cycles with an α-blocker, β-blocker, spironolactone and placebo. The hierarchical coprimary end point is the difference in HBPM average systolic BP between (in order) spironolactone and placebo, spironolactone and the average of the other two active drugs, spironolactone and each of the other two drugs. A key secondary outcome is to determine whether plasma renin predicts the BP response to the different drugs. A sample size of 346 (allowing 15% dropouts) will confer 90% power to detect a 3 mm Hg HBPM average systolic BP difference between any two drugs. The study can also detect a 6 mm Hg difference in HBPM average systolic BP between each patient's best and second-best drug predicted by tertile of plasma renin. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study was initiated in May 2009 and results are expected in 2015. These will provide RCT evidence to support future guideline recommendations for optimal drug treatment of resistant hypertension. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02369081, EUDract number: 2008-007149-30.The study is funded by a special project grant from the British Heart Foundation (number SP/08/002). Further funding is provided by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Comprehensive Local Research Networks. BW is supported by the NIHR UCL/UCL Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre

Methodology of a large prospective, randomised, open, blinded endpoint streamlined safety study of celecoxib versus traditional non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in patients with osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis:protocol of the standard care versus celecoxib outcome trial (SCOT)

Introduction Cyclooxygenase 2 (COX-2) inhibitors have less upper gastrointestinal toxicity than traditional non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). However, both COX-2 inhibitors and traditional NSAIDs may be associated with adverse cardiovascular side effects. Data from randomised and observational studies suggest that celecoxib has similar cardiovascular toxicity to traditional NSAIDs. The overall safety balance of a strategy of celecoxib therapy versus traditional NSAID therapy is unknown. The European Medicines Agency  requested studies of the cardiovascular safety of celecoxib within Europe. The Standard care versus Celecoxib Outcome Trial (SCOT) compares the cardiovascular safety of celecoxib with traditional NSAID therapy in the setting of the European Union healthcare system. Methods and analysis SCOT is a large streamlined safety study conducted in Scotland, England, Denmark and the Netherlands using the Prospective Randomised Open Blinded Endpoint design. Patients aged over 60 years with osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis, free from established cardiovascular disease and requiring chronic NSAID therapy, are randomised to celecoxib or their previous traditional NSAID. They are then followed up for events by record-linkage within their normal healthcare setting. The hypothesis is non-inferiority with a confidence limit of 1.4. The primary endpoint is the first occurrence of hospitalisation or death for the Anti-Platelet Trialists’ Collaboration (APTC) cardiovascular endpoint of non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke or cardiovascular death. Secondary endpoints are (1) first hospitalisation or death for upper gastrointestinal ulcer complications (bleeding, perforation or obstruction); (2) first occurrence of hospitalised upper gastrointestinal ulcer complications or APTC endpoint; (3) first hospitalisation for heart failure; (4) first hospitalisation for APTC endpoint plus heart failure; (5) all-cause mortality and (6) first hospitalisation for new or worsening renal failure. Ethics and dissemination SCOT has been approved by the relevant ethics committees. The trial results will be published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.</p

Study protocol for statin web-based investigation of side effects (StatinWISE):a series of randomised controlled N-of-1 trials comparing atorvastatin and placebo in UK primary care

Introduction: Statins are effective at preventing cardiovascular disease, widely prescribed, and their use is growing. Uncertainty persists about whether they cause symptomatic muscle adverse effects, such as pain and weakness, in the absence of statin myopathy. Discrepancies between data from observational studies, which suggest statins are associated with excess muscle symptoms, and from randomised trials, which suggest no such excess, have caused confusion. N-of-1 trials offer the opportunity to establish whether muscle symptoms during statin use are caused by statins in particular individuals. Methods and analysis: This series of 200 randomised, double blinded N-of-1 trials in primary care will determine (i) the effect of statins on all muscle symptoms, and (ii) the effect of statins on muscle pain that is perceived to be statin related. Patients who are considering discontinuing statin use due to muscle symptoms, and those who have discontinued in the last three years due to such symptoms, will be recruited. Participants will be randomised to a sequence of six two-month treatment periods during which they will receive atorvastatin 20mg daily or matched placebo. On each of the last seven days of each treatment period, participants will rate their muscle symptoms on a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). At the end of their trial, participants will be shown numerical and graphical summaries of their own symptom data during statin and placebo periods. The primary analysis on the aggregate data from all participants will be a linear mixed model for VAS muscle symptom score, comparing scores during treatment with statin and placebo. Ethics and dissemination: This trial received a favourable opinion from South Central - Hampshire A Research Ethics Committee. Results will be published in a peer-reviewed medical journal. Dissemination of results to patients will take place via the media, website (statinwise.lshtm.ac.uk) and patient organisations