Novel study designs to investigate the placebo response

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Investigating the size and mechanisms of the placebo response in clinical trials have relied on experimental procedures that simulate the double-blind randomized placebo-controlled design. However, as the conventional design is thought to elucidate drug rather than placebo actions, different methodological procedures are needed for the placebo response.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We reviewed the respective literature for trials designs that may be used to elucidate the size of the placebo response and the mechanisms associated with it.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>In general, this can be done by either manipulation the information provided to the subjects, or by manipulation the timing of the drug applied. Two examples of each strategy are discussed: the "balanced placebo design" (BDP) and the "balanced cross-over design" (BCD) and their variants are based on false information, while the "hidden treatment" (HT) and the ""delayed response test" (DRT) are based on manipulating the time of drug action. Since most such approaches include deception or incomplete information of the subjects they are suitable for patient only with authorized deception.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Both manipulating the information provided to subjects (BDP, DCD) or manipulating the timing of drug application (HT, DRT) allows overcoming some of the restrictions of conventional drug trials in the assessment of the placebo response, but they are feasible mostly in healthy subjects for ethical reasons.</p

Volunteer patients and small groups contribute to abdominal examination&#39;s success

Helen M Shields,1 Nielsen Q Fernandez-Becker,2 Sarah N Flier,2 Byron P Vaughn,2 Melissa H Tukey,2 Stephen R Pelletier,3 Douglas A Horst2 1Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women&rsquo;s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, 2Department of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, 3Center for Evaluation, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA Background: Prior to 2007, we taught the abdominal examination in a hospital based group to 40 students, at one hospital. We used volunteer patients, small groups, repetition, and required faculty development sessions. In 2007, our medical school changed its &ldquo;Introduction to Physical Examination&rdquo; session so that the entire class was to be taught in a geographically central session. Our hospital was selected to lead the abdominal examination portion of the session. Aim: Our aim was to answer three questions. First, could we quadruple the recruitment of volunteer patients, and faculty? Second, was it volunteer patients, small groups, repetition, or faculty training that was most valued by the students? Third, would volunteer patients and/or faculty agree to participate a second time? Methods: A total of 43-46 patients and 43-46 faculty were recruited and 43-46 examining rooms were obtained for each of the 5 years of this study. Teachers were required to attend a 1-hour faculty development session. The class of about 170 students was divided into 43&ndash;46 groups each year. The teacher demonstrated the abdominal examination and each student practiced the examination on another student. Each student then repeated the full abdominal examination on a volunteer patient. Results: Over the 5-year time period (2008&ndash;2012), the abdominal examination ranked first among all organ systems&rsquo; &ldquo;Introductory Sessions&rdquo;. The abdominal examination ratings had the best mean score (1.35) on a Likert scale where 1 is excellent and 5 is poor. The students gave the most positive spontaneous comments to having volunteer patients, with small groups coming in as the second most appreciated educational element. Conclusion: We successfully quadrupled the number of faculty, patients, and examining rooms and created a highly rated educational program as measured by anonymous student evaluations, patient and faculty participation, and the medical school&rsquo;s selecting the abdominal examination methods as an &ldquo;Advanced Examination&rdquo; for the Pathways Curriculum. Keywords: abdominal examination, volunteer patients, small groups, repetition, faculty developmen

Topical therapies in inflammatory bowel disease

Due to misunderstandings about their effectiveness and feasibility, topical (or rectal) therapies with aminosalicylates (5-aminosalicylic acid, 5-ASA) and steroids are often underused in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC). However, many of these patients could be treated solely with rectal/topical therapies, or could benefit from them in combination with oral therapies. We review the evidence for topical therapies containing 5-ASA and budesonide in UC and discuss how these therapies can be optimized in daily practice, thereby improving compliance. Finally, we provide a brief summary of studies on the use of other topical treatments in UC, the results of which were both promising and negative

Preoperative nasopharyngeal swab testing and postoperative pulmonary complications in patients undergoing elective surgery during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Surgical services are preparing to scale up in areas affected by COVID-19. This study aimed to evaluate the association between preoperative SARS-CoV-2 testing and postoperative pulmonary complications in patients undergoing elective cancer surgery. METHODS: This international cohort study included adult patients undergoing elective surgery for cancer in areas affected by SARS-CoV-2 up to 19 April 2020. Patients suspected of SARS-CoV-2 infection before operation were excluded. The primary outcome measure was postoperative pulmonary complications at 30 days after surgery. Preoperative testing strategies were adjusted for confounding using mixed-effects models. RESULTS: Of 8784 patients (432 hospitals, 53 countries), 2303 patients (26.2 per cent) underwent preoperative testing: 1458 (16.6 per cent) had a swab test, 521 (5.9 per cent) CT only, and 324 (3.7 per cent) swab and CT. Pulmonary complications occurred in 3.9 per cent, whereas SARS-CoV-2 infection was confirmed in 2.6 per cent. After risk adjustment, having at least one negative preoperative nasopharyngeal swab test (adjusted odds ratio 0.68, 95 per cent confidence interval 0.68 to 0.98; P = 0.040) was associated with a lower rate of pulmonary complications. Swab testing was beneficial before major surgery and in areas with a high 14-day SARS-CoV-2 case notification rate, but not before minor surgery or in low-risk areas. To prevent one pulmonary complication, the number needed to swab test before major or minor surgery was 18 and 48 respectively in high-risk areas, and 73 and 387 in low-risk areas. CONCLUSION: Preoperative nasopharyngeal swab testing was beneficial before major surgery and in high SARS-CoV-2 risk areas. There was no proven benefit of swab testing before minor surgery in low-risk areas

Outcomes from elective colorectal cancer surgery during the SARS‐CoV‐2 pandemic

Aim This study aimed to describe the change in surgical practice and the impact of SARS-CoV-2 on mortality after surgical resection of colorectal cancer during the initial phases of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Method This was an international cohort study of patients undergoing elective resection of colon or rectal cancer without preoperative suspicion of SARS-CoV-2. Centres entered data from their first recorded case of COVID-19 until 19 April 2020. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes included anastomotic leak, postoperative SARS-CoV-2 and a comparison with prepandemic European Society of Coloproctology cohort data. Results From 2073 patients in 40 countries, 1.3% (27/2073) had a defunctioning stoma and 3.0% (63/2073) had an end stoma instead of an anastomosis only. Thirty-day mortality was 1.8% (38/2073), the incidence of postoperative SARS-CoV-2 was 3.8% (78/2073) and the anastomotic leak rate was 4.9% (86/1738). Mortality was lowest in patients without a leak or SARS-CoV-2 (14/1601, 0.9%) and highest in patients with both a leak and SARS-CoV-2 (5/13, 38.5%). Mortality was independently associated with anastomotic leak (adjusted odds ratio 6.01, 95% confidence interval 2.58–14.06), postoperative SARS-CoV-2 (16.90, 7.86–36.38), male sex (2.46, 1.01–5.93), age >70 years (2.87, 1.32–6.20) and advanced cancer stage (3.43, 1.16–10.21). Compared with prepandemic data, there were fewer anastomotic leaks (4.9% versus 7.7%) and an overall shorter length of stay (6 versus 7 days) but higher mortality (1.7% versus 1.1%). Conclusion Surgeons need to further mitigate against both SARS-CoV-2 and anastomotic leak when offering surgery during current and future COVID-19 waves based on patient, operative and organizational risks