9 research outputs found

    A united statement of the global chiropractic research community against the pseudoscientific claim that chiropractic care boosts immunity.

    Get PDF
    BACKGROUND: In the midst of the coronavirus pandemic, the International Chiropractors Association (ICA) posted reports claiming that chiropractic care can impact the immune system. These claims clash with recommendations from the World Health Organization and World Federation of Chiropractic. We discuss the scientific validity of the claims made in these ICA reports. MAIN BODY: We reviewed the two reports posted by the ICA on their website on March 20 and March 28, 2020. We explored the method used to develop the claim that chiropractic adjustments impact the immune system and discuss the scientific merit of that claim. We provide a response to the ICA reports and explain why this claim lacks scientific credibility and is dangerous to the public. More than 150 researchers from 11 countries reviewed and endorsed our response. CONCLUSION: In their reports, the ICA provided no valid clinical scientific evidence that chiropractic care can impact the immune system. We call on regulatory authorities and professional leaders to take robust political and regulatory action against those claiming that chiropractic adjustments have a clinical impact on the immune system

    Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on treat-to-target strategies and physical consultations in >7000 patients with inflammatory arthritis

    No full text
    OBJECTIVES: To explore the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on treat-to-target strategies (disease activity, remission rates) and access to physical consultations in patients with inflammatory rheumatic disease, as well as to explore characteristics of patients with/without physical consultations in the clinic and the impact of early vs established disease. METHODS: Patients with RA, PsA or axial SpA (axSpA) prospectively followed in the nationwide DANBIO registry answered online questionnaires and reported patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in June and November 2020. Patient characteristics, disease activity and physical consultations in the clinic before and during the pandemic were identified in DANBIO [all patients and subgroups with early disease (disease duration ≤2 years)]. In individual patients, changes in PROs before and during the pandemic were calculated. Characteristics of patients with/without physical consultations were described (age, gender, education level, comorbidities, disease duration, treatment). RESULTS: We included 7836 patients (22% of eligible patients), 12% of which had early disease. PROs were stable before and during the pandemic, with median changes approximating zero, as well as in patients with early disease. Remission rates were stable. The relative decrease in the number of patients with physical consultations was 21–72%, which was highest in axSpA. Characteristics of patients with/without physical consultations were similar. Self-reported satisfaction with treatment options and access was >70%; the preferred contact form was physical consultation (66%). CONCLUSION: In this nationwide study performed during the first 8 months of the pandemic, patient satisfaction was high and the PROs and remission rates remained stable despite the remarkable reduction in physical consultations, as well as in patients with early disease. Characteristics of patients with/without physical consultations appeared similar

    Remote Ischemic Conditioning for Acute Stroke:The RESIST Randomized Clinical Trial

    No full text
    IMPORTANCE: Despite some promising preclinical and clinical data, it remains uncertain whether remote ischemic conditioning (RIC) with transient cycles of limb ischemia and reperfusion is an effective treatment for acute stroke.OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of RIC when initiated in the prehospital setting and continued in the hospital on functional outcome in patients with acute stroke.DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This was a randomized clinical trial conducted at 4 stroke centers in Denmark that included 1500 patients with prehospital stroke symptoms for less than 4 hours (enrolled March 16, 2018, to November 11, 2022; final follow-up, February 3, 2023).INTERVENTION: The intervention was delivered using an inflatable cuff on 1 upper extremity (RIC cuff pressure, ≤200 mm Hg [n = 749] and sham cuff pressure, 20 mm Hg [n = 751]). Each treatment application consisted of 5 cycles of 5 minutes of cuff inflation followed by 5 minutes of cuff deflation. Treatment was started in the ambulance and repeated at least once in the hospital and then twice daily for 7 days among a subset of participants.MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary end point was improvement in functional outcome measured as a shift across the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score (range, 0 [no symptoms] to 6 [death]) at 90 days in the target population with a final diagnosis of ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke.RESULTS: Among 1500 patients who were randomized (median age, 71 years; 591 women [41%]), 1433 (96%) completed the trial. Of these, 149 patients (10%) were diagnosed with transient ischemic attack and 382 (27%) with a stroke mimic. In the remaining 902 patients with a target diagnosis of stroke (737 [82%] with ischemic stroke and 165 [18%] with intracerebral hemorrhage), 436 underwent RIC and 466 sham treatment. The median mRS score at 90 days was 2 (IQR, 1-3) in the RIC group and 1 (IQR, 1-3) in the sham group. RIC treatment was not significantly associated with improved functional outcome at 90 days (odds ratio [OR], 0.95; 95% CI, 0.75 to 1.20, P = .67; absolute difference in median mRS score, -1; -1.7 to -0.25). In all randomized patients, there were no significant differences in the number of serious adverse events: 169 patients (23.7%) in the RIC group with 1 or more serious adverse events vs 175 patients (24.3%) in the sham group (OR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.85 to 1.11; P = .68). Upper extremity pain during treatment and/or skin petechia occurred in 54 (7.2%) in the RIC group and 11 (1.5%) in the sham group.CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: RIC initiated in the prehospital setting and continued in the hospital did not significantly improve functional outcome at 90 days in patients with acute stroke.TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03481777.</p
    corecore