An intervention to reassure patients about test results in rapid access chest pain clinic: a pilot randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Most people referred to rapid access chest pain clinics have non-cardiac chest pain, and in those diagnosed with stable coronary heart disease, guidance recommends that first-line treatment is usually medication rather than revascularisation. Consequently, many patients are not reassured they have the correct diagnosis or treatment. A previous trial reported that, in people with non-cardiac chest pain, a brief discussion with a health psychologist before the tests about the meaning of potential results led to people being significantly more reassured. The aim of this pilot was to test study procedures and inform sample size for a future multi-centre trial and to gain initial estimates of effectiveness of the discussion intervention. METHODS: This was a two-arm pilot randomised controlled trial in outpatient rapid access chest pain clinic in 120 people undergoing investigation for new onset, non-urgent chest pain. Eligible participants were randomised to receive either: a discussion about the meaning and implication of test results, delivered by a nurse before tests in clinic, plus a pre-test pamphlet covering the same information (Discussion arm) or the pre-test pamphlet alone (Pamphlet arm). Main outcome measures were recruitment rate and feasibility for a future multi-centre trial, with an estimate of reassurance in the groups at month 1 and 6 using a 5-item patient-reported scale. RESULTS: Two hundred and seventy people attended rapid access chest pain clinic during recruitment and 120/270 participants (44%) were randomised, 60 to each arm. There was no evidence of a difference between the Discussion and Pamphlet arms in the mean reassurance score at month 1 (34.2 vs 33.7) or at month 6 (35.3 vs 35.9). Patient-reported chest pain and use of heart medications were also similar between the two arms. CONCLUSIONS: A larger trial of the discussion intervention in the UK would not be warranted. Patients reported high levels of reassurance which were similar in patients receiving the discussion with a nurse and in those receiving a pamphlet alone. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN60618114 (assigned 27.05.2011). ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1471-2261-14-138) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users

Kisspeptin modulates sexual and emotional brain processing in humans

Background. Sex, emotion, and reproduction are fundamental and tightly entwined aspects of human behaviour. At a population level in humans, both the desire for sexual stimulation and the desire to bond with a partner are important precursors to reproduction. However, the relationships between these processes are incompletely understood. The limbic brain system has key roles in sexual and emotional behaviours, and is a likely candidate system for the integration of behaviour with the hormonal reproductive axis. We investigated the effects of kisspeptin, a recently identified key reproductive hormone, on limbic brain activity and behaviour. Methods. Using a combination of hormonal, functional neuroimaging and psychometric analyses we compared the effects of kisspeptin versus vehicle administration in 29 healthy heterosexual young men. Results. We demonstrate that kisspeptin enhances limbic brain activity specifically in response to sexual and couple-bonding stimuli. Furthermore, kisspeptin’s enhancement of limbic brain structures correlated with psychometric measures of reward, drive, mood and sexual aversion providing functional significance. In addition, kisspeptin administration attenuated negative mood. Conclusion. Collectively, our data provide evidence of a novel role for kisspeptin in the integration of sexual and emotional brain processing with reproduction in humans, and have important implications for our understanding of reproductive biology highly relevant to the current pharmacological development of kisspeptin as a potential therapeutic agent for patients with common disorders of reproductive function

The epidemiology of alopecia areata:a population-based cohort study in UK primary care

BACKGROUND: There is a lack of population‐based information on the disease burden and management of alopecia areata (AA). OBJECTIVES: To describe the epidemiology of AA, focusing on incidence, demographics and patterns of healthcare utilization. METHODS: Population‐based cohort study of 4·16 million adults and children, using UK electronic primary care records from the Oxford‐Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) Research and Surveillance Centre (RSC) network database, 2009–2018. The incidence and point prevalence of AA were estimated. Variation in AA incidence by age, sex, deprivation, geographical distribution and ethnicity was examined. Patterns of healthcare utilization were evaluated in people with incident AA. RESULTS: The AA incidence rate was 0·26 per 1000 person‐years. AA point prevalence in 2018 was 0·58% in adults. AA onset peaked at age 25–29 years for both sexes, although the peak was broader in females. People of nonwhite ethnicity were more likely to present with AA, especially those of Asian ethnicity [incidence rate ratio (IRR) 3·32 (95% confidence interval 3·11–3·55)]. Higher AA incidence was associated with social deprivation [IRR most vs. least deprived quintile 1·47 (1·37–1·59)] and urban living [IRR 1·23 (1·14–1·32)]. People of higher social deprivation were less likely to be referred for specialist dermatology review. CONCLUSIONS: By providing the first large‐scale estimates of the incidence and point prevalence of AA, our study helps to understand the burden of AA on the population. Understanding the variation in AA onset between different population groups may give insight into the pathogenesis of AA and its management

Development and validation of a clinical prediction rule for chest wall syndrome in primary care.

Chest wall syndrome (CWS), the main cause of chest pain in primary care practice, is most often an exclusion diagnosis. We developed and evaluated a clinical prediction rule for CWS. Data from a multicenter clinical cohort of consecutive primary care patients with chest pain were used (59 general practitioners, 672 patients). A final diagnosis was determined after 12 months of follow-up. We used the literature and bivariate analyses to identify candidate predictors, and multivariate logistic regression was used to develop a clinical prediction rule for CWS. We used data from a German cohort (n = 1212) for external validation. From bivariate analyses, we identified six variables characterizing CWS: thoracic pain (neither retrosternal nor oppressive), stabbing, well localized pain, no history of coronary heart disease, absence of general practitioner's concern, and pain reproducible by palpation. This last variable accounted for 2 points in the clinical prediction rule, the others for 1 point each; the total score ranged from 0 to 7 points. The area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was 0.80 (95% confidence interval 0.76-0.83) in the derivation cohort (specificity: 89%; sensitivity: 45%; cut-off set at 6 points). Among all patients presenting CWS (n = 284), 71% (n = 201) had a pain reproducible by palpation and 45% (n = 127) were correctly diagnosed. For a subset (n = 43) of these correctly classified CWS patients, 65 additional investigations (30 electrocardiograms, 16 thoracic radiographies, 10 laboratory tests, eight specialist referrals, one thoracic computed tomography) had been performed to achieve diagnosis. False positives (n = 41) included three patients with stable angina (1.8% of all positives). External validation revealed the ROC curve to be 0.76 (95% confidence interval 0.73-0.79) with a sensitivity of 22% and a specificity of 93%. This CWS score offers a useful complement to the usual CWS exclusion diagnosing process. Indeed, for the 127 patients presenting CWS and correctly classified by our clinical prediction rule, 65 additional tests and exams could have been avoided. However, the reproduction of chest pain by palpation, the most important characteristic to diagnose CWS, is not pathognomonic