Shifts in doctor-patient communication between 1986 and 2002: a study of videotaped General Practice consultations with hypertension patients

BACKGROUND: Departing from the hypotheses that over the past decades patients have become more active participants and physicians have become more task-oriented, this study tries to identify shifts in GP and patient communication patterns between 1986 and 2002. METHODS: A repeated cross-sectional observation study was carried out in 1986 and 2002, using the same methodology. From two existing datasets of videotaped routine General Practice consultations, a selection was made of consultations with hypertension patients (102 in 1986; 108 in 2002). GP and patient communication was coded with RIAS (Roter Interaction Analysis System). The data were analysed, using multilevel techniques. RESULTS: No gender or age differences were found between the patient groups in either study period. Contrary to expectations, patients were less active in recent consultations, talking less, asking fewer questions and showing less concerns or worries. GPs provided more medical information, but expressed also less often their concern about the patients' medical conditions. In addition, they were less involved in process-oriented behaviour and partnership building. Overall, these results suggest that consultations in 2002 were more task-oriented and businesslike than sixteen years earlier. CONCLUSION: The existence of a more equal relationship in General Practice, with patients as active and critical consumers, is not reflected in this sample of hypertension patients. The most important shift that could be observed over the years was a shift towards a more businesslike, task-oriented GP communication pattern, reflecting the recent emphasis on evidence-based medicine and protocolized care. The entrance of the computer in the consultation room could play a role. Some concerns may be raised about the effectiveness of modern medicine in helping patients to voice their worries

Determining factors for compensatory movements of the left arm and shoulder in violin playing

IntroductionDespite a large number of available ergonomic aids and recommendations regarding instrument positioning, violin players at any proficiency level still display a worrying incidence of task-specific complaints of incompletely understood etiology. Compensatory movement patterns of the left upper extremity form an integral part of violin playing. They are highly variable between players but remain understudied despite their relevance for task-specific health problems.MethodsThis study investigated individual position effects of the instrument and pre-existing biomechanical factors likely determining the degree of typical compensatory movements in the left upper extremity: (1) left elbow/upper arm adduction (“Reference Angle α”, deviation from the vertical axis), (2) shoulder elevation (“Coord x”, in mm), and (3) shoulder protraction (“Coord y”, in mm). In a group of healthy music students (N = 30, 15 m, 15 f, mean age = 22.5, SD = 2.6), “Reference Angle α” was measured by 3D motion capture analysis. “Coord x” and “Coord y” were assessed and ranked by a synchronized 2D HD video monitoring while performing a pre-defined 16-s tune under laboratory conditions. These three primary outcome variables were compared between four typical, standardized violin positions varying by their sideward orientation (“LatAx-CSP”) and/or inclination (“LoAx-HP”) by 30°, as well as the players’ usual playing position. Selected biomechanical hand parameter data were analyzed as co-factors according to Wagner’s Biomechanical Hand Measurement (BHM).ResultsMean “Reference Angle α” decreased significantly from 24.84 ± 2.67 to 18.61 ± 3.12° (p < 0.001), “Coord x” from 22.54 ± 7.417 to 4.75 ± 3.488 mm (p < 0.001), and “Coord y” from 5.66 ± 3.287 to 1.94 ± 1.901) mm (p < 0.001) when increasing LatAx-CSP and LoAx-HP by 30°. Concerning the biomechanical co-factors, “Reference Angle α”, “Coord y”, but not “Coord x”, were found to be significantly increased overall, with decreasing passive supination range (r = −0.307, p = <0.001 for “Passive Supination 250 g/16Ncm”, and r = −0.194, p = <0.001 for “Coord y”). Compensatory movements were larger during tune sections requiring high positioning of the left hand and when using the small finger.DiscussionResults may enable to adapt individually suitable instrument positions to minimize strenuous and potentially unhealthy compensation movements of the left upper extremity

La industrialización posible de la vivienda latinoamericana

La industrialización posible de la vivienda latinoamerican

Synergistic antitumour effects of rapamycin and oncolytic reovirus.

There are currently numerous oncolytic viruses undergoing clinical trial evaluation in cancer patients and one agent, Talimogene laherparepvec, has been approved for the treatment of malignant melanoma. This progress highlights the huge clinical potential of this treatment modality, and the focus is now combining these agents with conventional anticancer treatments or agents that enhance viral replication, and thereby oncolysis, in the tumour microenvironment. We evaluated the combination of reovirus with rapamycin in B16F10 cell, a murine model of malignant melanoma, based on potential mechanisms by which mTOR inhibitors might enhance viral oncolysis. Rapamycin was not immunomodulatory in that it had no effect on the generation of an antireovirus-neutralising antibody response in C57/black 6 mice. The cell cycle effects of reovirus (increase G0/G1 fraction) were unaffected by concomitant or sequential exposure of rapamycin. However, rapamycin attenuated viral replication if given prior or concomitantly with reovirus and similarly reduced reovirus-induced apoptotic cell death Annexin V/PI and caspase 3/7 activation studies. We found clear evidence of synergistic antitumour effects of the combination both in vitro and in vivo, which was sequence dependent only in the in vitro setting. In conclusion, we have demonstrated synergistic antitumour efficacy of reovirus and rapamycin combination

Detection and localization of early- and late-stage cancers using platelet RNA

Cancer patients benefit from early tumor detection since treatment outcomes are more favorable for less advanced cancers. Platelets are involved in cancer progression and are considered a promising biosource for cancer detection, as they alter their RNA content upon local and systemic cues. We show that tumor-educated platelet (TEP) RNA-based blood tests enable the detection of 18 cancer types. With 99% specificity in asymptomatic controls, thromboSeq correctly detected the presence of cancer in two-thirds of 1,096 blood samples from stage I–IV cancer patients and in half of 352 stage I–III tumors. Symptomatic controls, including inflammatory and cardiovascular diseases, and benign tumors had increased false-positive test results with an average specificity of 78%. Moreover, thromboSeq determined the tumor site of origin in five different tumor types correctly in over 80% of the cancer patients. These results highlight the potential properties of TEP-derived RNA panels to supplement current approaches for blood-based cancer screening

Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK.

BACKGROUND: A safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials. METHODS: This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 1010 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674. FINDINGS: Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0-75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4-97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8-80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3-4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation. INTERPRETATION: ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes for Health Research (NIHR), Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Lemann Foundation, Rede D'Or, Brava and Telles Foundation, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca