Impact of blinding on estimated treatment effects in randomised clinical trials: meta-epidemiological study

The effect of self-practicing systematic clinical observations in a multiplayer, immersive, interactive virtual reality application versus physical equipment: a randomized controlled trial

This study aimed to investigate whether group self-practice of systematic clinical observation using the airway, breathing, circulation, disability and exposure (ABCDE) approach in a multiplayer, immersive, interactive virtual reality (VR) application provided a non-inferior learning outcome compared to practicing with physical equipment in first-year medical and nursing students. The study was a non-inferior, parallel-group randomized controlled trial. After a 15-min introduction session on the ABCDE approach, all students were randomly allocated to practice ABCDE in groups of three for 20 min either in a fully immersive, interactive, multiplayer virtual reality application (the VR group) or with physical equipment (the TP group). The primary outcome was the number of students who documented all predefined observations in the correct order of the ABCDE approach on a practical test performed immediately after group practice. A total of 84% of all eligible students participated, with 146 students in the VR group and 143 in the TP group. On the primary outcome, 20% in the VR group and 21% in the TP group got everything correct (absolute difference 1% point, one-sided 95% confidence interval 1.0-8.8% points), showing non-inferiority of the virtual reality application. For other outcomes, the results were mostly similar between the groups. Group self-practice of the ABCDE approach in multiplayer, immersive, interactive virtual reality application was non-inferior to practice with physical equipment.

CopenFast trial: Faster-acting insulin Fiasp versus insulin NovoRapid in the treatment of women with type 1 or type 2 diabetes during pregnancy and lactation - a randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Faster-acting insulin aspart (Fiasp) is approved for use in pregnancy and lactation, but no clinical study has evaluated its effects during this life stage in women with pre-existing diabetes. The aim of the CopenFast trial is to evaluate the effect of Fiasp compared with insulin aspart (NovoRapid) on maternal glycaemic control during pregnancy, delivery and lactation and on fetal growth and infant health.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

An open-label randomised controlled trial of pregnant women with type 1 or type 2 diabetes including women on multiple daily injection (MDI) therapy or insulin pump therapy. During a 2-year inclusion period, approximately 220 women will be randomised 1:1 to Fiasp or NovoRapid in early pregnancy and followed until 3 months after delivery. At 9, 21 and 33 gestational weeks and during planned induction of labour or caesarean section, women are offered blinded continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) for 7 days. Randomisation will stratify for type of diabetes and insulin treatment modality (MDI or insulin pump therapy, respectively). Health status of the infants will be followed until 3 months of age. The primary outcome is birth weight SD score adjusted for gestational age and gender. Secondary outcomes include maternal glycaemic control including glycated haemoglobin, preprandial and postprandial self-monitored plasma glucose levels, episodes of mild and severe hypoglycaemia, maternal gestational weight gain and weight retention, CGM time spent in, above and below target ranges as well as pregnancy outcomes including pre-eclampsia, preterm delivery, perinatal mortality and neonatal morbidity. Data analysis will be performed according to the intention-to-treat principle.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The trial has been approved by the Regional Ethics Committee (H-19029966) on 7 August 2019. Results will be sought disseminated in peer-reviewed journals and at scientific meetings.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03770767.

Comparative efficacy and acceptability of different antihypertensive drug classes for cardiovascular disease prevention: protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Clinical practice guidelines differ in their recommendations on first-line antihypertensive drug classes. No adequately powered randomised controlled trial have assessed all major drug classes against each other, and previous meta-analyses have mainly relied on pairwise meta-analyses for treatment comparisons.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A systematic review and network meta-analysis will be carried out to assess the efficacy and acceptability of all major antihypertensive drug classes. PubMed and CENTRAL were searched on 21 February 2020 to identify randomised controlled trials with at least 1000 person-years of follow-up, assessing any antihypertensive agent against other agents or placebo. All trials fulfilling the inclusion criteria will be assessed for risk of bias using the second version of Cochrane's risk of bias assessment tool. The study selection process, risk of bias assessment and data extraction are done by two authors in duplicate. Relative risks from individual trials will be combined in pairwise meta-analyses; in the absence of important intransitivity, random-effects network meta-analysis will be performed. The primary outcome for efficacy will be major adverse cardiovascular events, whereas the primary acceptability outcome will be treatment discontinuation for any reason. Additional outcomes include all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction, heart failure and acute renal failure. The impact of differences within drug classes will be explored through alternative networks, including analysing thiazide-like and thiazide-type diuretics separately.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This review will only process aggregated study level data and does not require ethical approval. The findings will be published in a peer-reviewed medical journal.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020205482.

Effectiveness of placebo interventions for patients with nonspecific low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis

ABSTRACT

Little is known about the effectiveness of placebo interventions in patients with nonspecific low back pain (LBP). This systematic review assessed the magnitude of the effects of placebo interventions as compared to no intervention in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) including patients with LBP. Embase, MEDLINE (Ovid), and Cochrane CENTRAL databases were searched from inception to December 5, 2019. Randomized controlled trials comparing placebo intervention vs no intervention in adult patients with nonspecific LBP were included. Pain intensity, physical functioning, and health-related quality of life measured at short-term, medium-term, and long-term follow-up were the outcomes of this review. Twenty-one randomized controlled trials were included; one concerning acute LBP and one subacute LBP, whereas 19 studies reported on chronic LBP. In chronic LBP, placebo interventions were more effective than no intervention at short-term follow-up for pain intensity (standardized mean difference = -0.37, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -0.55 to -0.18, moderate-quality evidence), physical functioning (standardized mean difference -0.19, 95% CI = -0.39-0.01, moderate-quality evidence), and physical quality of life (mean difference = -2.71, 95% CI = -4.71-0.71, high-quality evidence), respectively. These effects were not significant at medium-term follow-up, and no data were available at long-term follow-up. These results show placebo interventions are more effective than no intervention at short-term follow-up in patients with chronic LBP. However, the magnitude of the effects is probably not clinically relevant (approximately 8 points on a 0-100 pain scale). Future research should identify effect modifiers and causal mechanisms explaining the short-term effects of placebo interventions in patients with chronic LBP.

Azithromycin for community treatment of suspected COVID-19 in people at increased risk of an adverse clinical course in the UK (PRINCIPLE): a randomised, controlled, open-label, adaptive platform trial

BACKGROUND

Azithromycin, an antibiotic with potential antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties, has been used to treat COVID-19, but evidence from community randomised trials is lacking. We aimed to assess the effectiveness of azithromycin to treat suspected COVID-19 among people in the community who had an increased risk of complications.

METHODS

In this UK-based, primary care, open-label, multi-arm, adaptive platform randomised trial of interventions against COVID-19 in people at increased risk of an adverse clinical course (PRINCIPLE), we randomly assigned people aged 65 years and older, or 50 years and older with at least one comorbidity, who had been unwell for 14 days or less with suspected COVID-19, to usual care plus azithromycin 500 mg daily for three days, usual care plus other interventions, or usual care alone. The trial had two coprimary endpoints measured within 28 days from randomisation: time to first self-reported recovery, analysed using a Bayesian piecewise exponential, and hospital admission or death related to COVID-19, analysed using a Bayesian logistic regression model. Eligible participants with outcome data were included in the primary analysis, and those who received the allocated treatment were included in the safety analysis. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN86534580.

FINDINGS

The first participant was recruited to PRINCIPLE on April 2, 2020. The azithromycin group enrolled participants between May 22 and Nov 30, 2020, by which time 2265 participants had been randomly assigned, 540 to azithromycin plus usual care, 875 to usual care alone, and 850 to other interventions. 2120 (94%) of 2265 participants provided follow-up data and were included in the Bayesian primary analysis, 500 participants in the azithromycin plus usual care group, 823 in the usual care alone group, and 797 in other intervention groups. 402 (80%) of 500 participants in the azithromycin plus usual care group and 631 (77%) of 823 participants in the usual care alone group reported feeling recovered within 28 days. We found little evidence of a meaningful benefit in the azithromycin plus usual care group in time to first reported recovery versus usual care alone (hazard ratio 1·08, 95% Bayesian credibility interval [BCI] 0·95 to 1·23), equating to an estimated benefit in median time to first recovery of 0·94 days (95% BCI -0·56 to 2·43). The probability that there was a clinically meaningful benefit of at least 1·5 days in time to recovery was 0·23. 16 (3%) of 500 participants in the azithromycin plus usual care group and 28 (3%) of 823 participants in the usual care alone group were hospitalised (absolute benefit in percentage 0·3%, 95% BCI -1·7 to 2·2). There were no deaths in either study group. Safety outcomes were similar in both groups. Two (1%) of 455 participants in the azothromycin plus usual care group and four (1%) of 668 participants in the usual care alone group reported admission to hospital during the trial, not related to COVID-19.

INTERPRETATION

Our findings do not justify the routine use of azithromycin for reducing time to recovery or risk of hospitalisation for people with suspected COVID-19 in the community. These findings have important antibiotic stewardship implications during this pandemic, as inappropriate use of antibiotics leads to increased antimicrobial resistance, and there is evidence that azithromycin use increased during the pandemic in the UK.

FUNDING

UK Research and Innovation and UK Department of Health and Social Care.

Natural unblinding of BCG vaccination trials

There is significant public and clinical interest in the potential for Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) vaccination to protect against type 2 Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) induced COVID-19. This question could be best answered by blinded and placebo controlled clinical trials. However, a skin reaction occurs within days at the site of BCG injection, making it rather challenging to blind this vaccination. Here, we examined registered clinical trials in ClinicalTrials.gov on BCG against COVID-19 by October 9th 2020, and found that 94.7% of such trials were listed as placebo controlled (all with normal saline as placebo), and single to quadruple blinded. The mode of overcoming the natural unblinding by the BCG induced skin reaction was not clarified on the website in either of the trials. We conclude that detailed description of the strategy towards overcoming the BCG vaccination induced skin reaction associated unblinding hurdle will be important for the interpretation of the theoretically blinded COVID-19 directed clinical trials.

Efficacy and safety of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine for treatment of COVID-19 patients-a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

The coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) pandemic has caused significant morbidity and mortality worldwide and an effective treatment is needed. Chloroquine (CQ) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) have shown in vitro antiviral activity against SARS-CoV-2 which causes the disease, but the evidence from in vivo studies so far has been inconclusive.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of CQ and HCQ in the treatment of COVID-19.

DATA SOURCES

We systematically searched the PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL, CINAHL, Scopus, Joanna Briggs Institute Database, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR) for all articles published between 01 January 2020 to 15 September 2020 on CQ/HCQ and COVID-19 using a predefined search protocol; without any language restrictions. A search of grey literature repositories (New York Academy of Medicine Grey Literature and Open Grey), and pre-publication server deposits (medRxIV and bioRxIV) was also performed.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized clinical trials (RCT) which compared CQ/HCQ to standard supportive therapy in treating COVID-19 were included.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Data were extracted from original publications by four independent reviewers. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's assessment tool. Data were meta-analyzed using a random-effect models. Results are reported according to PRISMA guidelines. Main Outcome(s) and Measure(s): The primary prespecified efficacy outcome was all-cause mortality. The primary safety outcome was any adverse effect attributed to use of CQ/HCQ.

RESULTS

Eight RCTs were included and pooled in the mortality meta-analysis (6,592 unique participants; mean age = 59.4 years; 42% women). CQ/HCQ did not show any mortality benefit when compared to standard supportive therapy (Pooled Relative Risk [RR] 1.07; 95% CI = 0.97-1.18; I2 statistic = 0.00%). Sensitivity and sub-group analyses showed similar findings. Any adverse event was significantly higher in patients randomized to CQ/HCQ (RR = 2.51; 95% CI = 1.53-4.12; n = 1,818 patients), but the risk of developing severe adverse event was not statistically significant (RR = 0.99, 95% CI = 0.53-1.86; n = 6,456 patients).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Evidence from currently published RCTs do not demonstrate any added benefit for the use of CQ or HCQ in the treatment of COVID-19 patients.

Headache and musculoskeletal pain in school children are associated with uncorrected vision problems and need for glasses: a case-control study

Musculoskeletal pain and headache are leading causes of years lived with disability, and an escalating problem in school children. Children spend increasingly more time reading and using digital screens, and increased near tasks intensify the workload on the precise coordination of the visual and head-stabilizing systems. Even minor vision problems can provoke headache and neck- and shoulder (pericranial) pain. This study investigated the association between headaches, pericranial tenderness, vision problems, and the need for glasses in children. An eye and physical examination was performed in twenty 10–15 year old children presenting to the school health nurse with headache and pericranial pain (pain group), and twenty age-and-gender matched classmates (control group). The results showed that twice as many children in the pain group had uncorrected vision and needed glasses. Most children were hyperopic, and glasses were recommended mainly for near work. Headache and pericranial tenderness were significantly correlated to reduced binocular vision, reduced distance vision, and the need for new glasses. That uncorrected vision problems are related to upper body musculoskeletal symptoms and headache, indicate that all children with these symptoms should have a full eye examination to promote health and academic performance.

Physical relaxation for occupational stress in healthcare workers: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVES

Work related stress is a major occupational health problem that is associated with adverse effects on physical and mental health. Healthcare workers are particularly vulnerable in the era of COVID-19. Physical methods of stress relief such as yoga and massage therapy may reduce occupational stress. The objective of this systematic review and network meta-analysis is to determine the effects of yoga, massage therapy, progressive muscle relaxation, and stretching on alleviating stress and improving physical and mental health in healthcare workers.

METHODS

Databases were searched for randomized controlled trials on the use of physical relaxation methods for occupational stress in healthcare workers with any duration of follow-up. Meta-analysis was performed for standard mean differences in stress measures from baseline between subjects undergoing relaxation vs non-intervention controls. Network meta-analysis was conducted to determine the best relaxation method.

RESULTS

Fifteen trials representing 688 healthcare workers were identified. Random-effects meta-analysis shows that physical relaxation methods overall reduced measures of occupational stress at the longest duration of follow-up vs baseline compared to non-intervention controls (SMD -0.53; 95% CI [-0.74 to -0.33]; p < .00001). On network meta-analysis, only yoga alone (SMD -0.71; 95% CI [-1.01 to -0.41]) and massage therapy alone (SMD -0.43; 95% CI [-0.72 to -0.14]) were more effective than control, with yoga identified as the best method (p-score = .89).

CONCLUSION

Physical relaxation may help reduce occupational stress in healthcare workers. Yoga is particularly effective and offers the convenience of online delivery. Employers should consider implementing these methods into workplace wellness programs.

The effect of osteopathic medicine on pain in musicians with nonspecific chronic neck pain: a randomized controlled trial

Background:

Nonspecific chronic neck pain (cNP) is common in adult violinists and violists and is often treated with osteopathic medicine (OM), although the effectiveness of this treatment has not been determined to date. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of OM in adult violinists and violists with cNP.

Methods:

In a two-armed randomized controlled single-center open trial, adult violinists and violists, including music students, with cNP (⩾12 weeks) were randomized to either five individualized OM sessions (OM group) or to no intervention (control group, CG) in the outpatient clinic for integrative medicine, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Germany. All patients received a musicians’ medicine consultation and paracetamol on demand. The primary outcome parameter was the neck pain intensity on a visual analog scale (VAS, 0–100 mm, 0 = no pain, 100 = worst imaginable pain) after 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes included neck pain disability (Neck Disability Index, NDI, 0–100%) after 12 weeks. The last follow-up visit was after 52 weeks. Statistical analysis included analysis of covariance adjusted for respective baseline value.

Results:

Altogether, 62 outpatients were included [OM group (n = 28), CG (n = 34); 81% female; mean age, 41.6 ± 11.1 years; mean baseline neck pain, 55.9 ± 11.6 mm]. After 12 weeks, OM was associated with an improvement in the OM group versus the CG in neck pain on the VAS [14.6 mm (95% confidence interval 8.0; 21.2) versus 40.8 mm (34.7; 46.9), p < 0.001, Cohen’s d = 1.4], and neck pain disability as determined by the NDI [8.8% (6.7; 10.8) versus 17.2% (15.3; 19.1), p < 0.001]. Some improvements were maintained until 52 weeks of follow-up. No serious adverse events were observed.

Conclusions:

The results of this study suggest that OM might be effective in reducing pain intensity in adult violinists and violists with nonspecific cNP. Further studies should investigate the efficacy of OM in comparison with a sham procedure and with other effective therapy methods in high-quality multicenter trials.

Trial registration:

WHO Trial Registration https://apps.who.int/trialsearch/NoAccess.aspx?aspxerrorpath=/trialsearch/Trial2.aspx by German Clinical Trials Register DRKS00009258, Universal Trial Number (UTN): U1111-1173-5943.

Oedema on STIR modified the effect of amoxicillin as treatment for chronic low back pain with Modic changes-subgroup analysis of a randomized trial

Objective

To evaluate potential MRI-defined effect modifiers of amoxicillin treatment in patients with chronic low back pain and type 1 or 2 Modic changes (MCs) at the level of a previous lumbar disc herniation (index level).

Methods

In a prospective trial (AIM), 180 patients (25–64 years; mean age 45; 105 women) were randomised to receive amoxicillin or placebo for 3 months. Primary outcome was the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) score (0–24 scale) at 1 year. Mean RMDQ score difference between the groups at 1 year defined the treatment effect; 4 RMDQ points defined the minimal clinically important effect. Predefined baseline MRI features of MCs at the index level(s) were investigated as potential effect modifiers. The predefined primary hypothesis was a better effect of amoxicillin when short tau inversion recovery (STIR) shows more MC-related high signal. To evaluate this hypothesis, we pre-constructed a composite variable with three categories (STIR1/2/3). STIR3 implied MC-related STIR signal increases with volume ≥ 25% and height > 50% of vertebral body and maximum intensity increase ≥ 25% and presence on both sides of the disc. As pre-planned, interaction with treatment was analysed using ANCOVA in the per protocol population (n = 155).

Results

The STIR3 composite group (n = 41) and STIR signal volume ≥ 25% alone (n = 45) modified the treatment effect of amoxicillin. As hypothesised, STIR3 patients reported the largest effect (− 5.1 RMDQ points; 95% CI − 8.2 to − 1.9; p for interaction = 0.008).

Conclusions

Predefined subgroups with abundant MC-related index-level oedema on STIR modified the effect of amoxicillin. This finding needs replication and further support.

Key Points

• In the primary analysis of the AIM trial, the effect of amoxicillin in patients with chronic low back pain and type 1 or 2 MCs did not reach the predefined cut-off for clinical importance.

• In the present MRI subgroup analysis of AIM, predefined subgroups with abundant MC-related oedema on STIR reported an effect of amoxicillin.

• This finding requires replication and further support.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00330-020-07542-w.

Effectiveness of an mHealth Intervention Combining a Smartphone App and Smart Band on Body Composition in an Overweight and Obese Population: Randomized Controlled Trial (EVIDENT 3 Study)

Background

Mobile health (mHealth) is currently among the supporting elements that may contribute to an improvement in health markers by helping people adopt healthier lifestyles. mHealth interventions have been widely reported to achieve greater weight loss than other approaches, but their effect on body composition remains unclear.

Objective

This study aimed to assess the short-term (3 months) effectiveness of a mobile app and a smart band for losing weight and changing body composition in sedentary Spanish adults who are overweight or obese.

Methods

A randomized controlled, multicenter clinical trial was conducted involving the participation of 440 subjects from primary care centers, with 231 subjects in the intervention group (IG; counselling with smartphone app and smart band) and 209 in the control group (CG; counselling only). Both groups were counselled about healthy diet and physical activity. For the 3-month intervention period, the IG was trained to use a smartphone app that involved self-monitoring and tailored feedback, as well as a smart band that recorded daily physical activity (Mi Band 2, Xiaomi). Body composition was measured using the InBody 230 bioimpedance device (InBody Co., Ltd), and physical activity was measured using the International Physical Activity Questionnaire.

Results

The mHealth intervention produced a greater loss of body weight (–1.97 kg, 95% CI –2.39 to –1.54) relative to standard counselling at 3 months (–1.13 kg, 95% CI –1.56 to –0.69). Comparing groups, the IG achieved a weight loss of 0.84 kg more than the CG at 3 months. The IG showed a decrease in body fat mass (BFM; –1.84 kg, 95% CI –2.48 to –1.20), percentage of body fat (PBF; –1.22%, 95% CI –1.82% to 0.62%), and BMI (–0.77 kg/m², 95% CI –0.96 to 0.57). No significant changes were observed in any of these parameters in men; among women, there was a significant decrease in BMI in the IG compared with the CG. When subjects were grouped according to baseline BMI, the overweight group experienced a change in BFM of –1.18 kg (95% CI –2.30 to –0.06) and BMI of –0.47 kg/m² (95% CI –0.80 to –0.13), whereas the obese group only experienced a change in BMI of –0.53 kg/m² (95% CI –0.86 to –0.19). When the data were analyzed according to physical activity, the moderate-vigorous physical activity group showed significant changes in BFM of –1.03 kg (95% CI –1.74 to –0.33), PBF of –0.76% (95% CI –1.32% to –0.20%), and BMI of –0.5 kg/m² (95% CI –0.83 to –0.19).

Conclusions

The results from this multicenter, randomized controlled clinical trial study show that compared with standard counselling alone, adding a self-reported app and a smart band obtained beneficial results in terms of weight loss and a reduction in BFM and PBF in female subjects with a BMI less than 30 kg/m² and a moderate-vigorous physical activity level. Nevertheless, further studies are needed to ensure that this profile benefits more than others from this intervention and to investigate modifications of this intervention to achieve a global effect.

Trial Registration

Clinicaltrials.gov NCT03175614; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03175614.

International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)

RR2-10.1097/MD.0000000000009633

Sample size, study length, and inadequate controls were the most common self-acknowledged limitations in manual therapy trials: A methodological review

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to quantify and analyze the presence and type of self-acknowledged limitations (SALs) in a sample of manual therapy (MT) randomized controlled trials.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We randomly selected 120 MT trials. We extracted data related to SALs from the original reports and classified them into 12 categories. After data extraction, specific limitations within each category were identified. A descriptive analysis was performed using frequencies and percentages for qualitative variables.

RESULTS

The number of SALs per trial article ranged from 0 to 8, and more than two-thirds of trials acknowledged at least two different limitations. Despite its small proportion, 9% of trials did not report SALs. The most common limitation declared, in almost half of our sample, related to sample size (47.5%) followed by limitations related to study length and follow-up (33.3%) and inadequate controls (32.5%).

CONCLUSION

Our results indicate that at least two different limitations are consistently acknowledged in MT trial reports, the most common being those related to sample size, study length, follow-up, and inadequate controls. Analysis of the reasons behind the SALs gives some insights about the main difficulties in conducting research in this field and may help develop strategies to improve future research.

Effects of Psychoactive Massage in Outpatients with Depressive Disorders: A Randomized Controlled Mixed-Methods Study

The clinical picture of depressive disorders is characterized by a plethora of somatic symptoms, psychomotor retardation, and, particularly, anhedonia. The number of patients with residual symptoms or treatment resistance is high. Touch is the basic communication among humans and animals. Its application professionally in the form of, e.g., psychoactive massage therapy, has been shown in the past to reduce the somatic and mental symptoms of depression and anxiety. Here, we investigated the effects of a specially developed affect-regulating massage therapy (ARMT) vs. individual treatment with a standardized relaxation procedure, progressive muscle relaxation (PMR), in 57 outpatients with depression. Patients were given one ARMT or PMR session weekly over 4 weeks. Changes in somatic and cognitive symptoms were assessed by standard psychiatric instruments (Hamilton Depression Scale (HAMD) and the Bech–Rafaelsen–Melancholia–Scale (BRMS)) as well as a visual analogue scale. Furthermore, oral statements from all participants were obtained in semi-structured interviews. The findings show clear and statistically significant superiority of ARMT over PMR. The results might be interpreted within various models. The concept of interoception, as well as the principles of body psychotherapy and phenomenological aspects, offers cues for understanding the mechanisms involved. Within a neurobiological context, the significance of C-tactile afferents activated by special touch techniques and humoral changes such as increased oxytocin levels open additional ways of interpreting our findings.

Interventions to improve linear growth during exclusive breastfeeding life-stage for children aged 0-6 months living in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review with network and pairwise meta-analyses

Background: Exclusive breastfeeding (EBF) during the first six months of life is critical for child's linear growth. While there is strong evidence in favor of EBF, the evidence with regards to other interventions for linear growth is unclear. We evaluated intervention domains of micronutrients, food supplements, deworming, maternal education, water sanitation and hygiene (WASH), and kangaroo care, for their comparative effectiveness on linear growth. Methods: For this review, we searched for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of the interventions provided to infants aged 0-6 months and/or their breastfeeding mothers in low- and middle-income countries reporting on length-for-age z-score (LAZ), stunting, length, and head circumference. We searched for reports published until September 17 th, 2019 and hand-searched bibliographies of existing reviews. For LAZ and stunting, we used network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare the effects of all interventions except for kangaroo care, where we used pairwise meta-analysis to compare its effects versus standard-of-care. For length and head circumference, we qualitatively summarized our findings. Results: We found 29 RCTs (40 papers) involving 35,119 mother and infant pairs reporting on the effects of aforementioned interventions on linear growth outcomes. Our NMA on LAZ found that compared to standard-of-care, multiple micronutrients administered to infants (MMN-C) improved LAZ (mean difference: 0.20; 95% credible interval [CrI]: 0.03,0.35), whereas supplementing breastfeeding mothers with MMN did not (MMN-M, mean difference: -0.02, 95%CrI: -0.18,0.13). No interventions including MMN-C (relative risk: 0.74; 95%CrI: 0.36,1.44) reduced risk for stunting compared to standard-of-care. Kangaroo care, on the other hand, improved head circumference (mean difference: 0.20 cm/week; 95% confidence intervals [CI]: 0.09,0.31 cm/week) and length (mean difference: 0.23 cm/week; 95%CI: 0.10,0.35 cm/week) compared to standard-of-care.   Conclusion: Our study found important improvements for kangaroo care, but we did not find sufficient evidence for other interventions. Registration: PROSPERO CRD42018110450; registered on 17 October 2018.

Protocol for the DisCoVeRy trial: multicentre, adaptive, randomised trial of the safety and efficacy of treatments for COVID-19 in hospitalised adults

INTRODUCTION

To find effective and safe treatments for COVID-19, the WHO recommended to systemically evaluate experimental therapeutics in collaborative randomised clinical trials. As COVID-19 was spreading in Europe, the French national institute for Health and Medical Research (Inserm) established a transdisciplinary team to develop a multi-arm randomised controlled trial named DisCoVeRy. The objective of the trial is to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of different investigational re-purposed therapeutics relative to Standard of Care (SoC) in patients hospitalised with COVID-19.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

DisCoVeRy is a phase III, open-label, adaptive, controlled, multicentre clinical trial in which hospitalised patients with COVID-19 in need of oxygen therapy are randomised between five arms: (1) a control group managed with SoC and four therapeutic arms with re-purposed antiviral agents: (2) remdesivir + SoC, (3) lopinavir/ritonavir + SoC, (4) lopinavir/ritonavir associated with interferon (IFN)-β-1a + SoC and (5) hydroxychloroquine + SoC. The primary endpoint is the clinical status at Day 15 on the 7-point ordinal scale of the WHO Master Protocol (V.3.0, 3 March 2020). This trial involves patients hospitalised in conventional departments or intensive care units both from academic or non-academic hospitals throughout Europe. A sample size of 3100 patients (620 patients per arm) is targeted. This trial has begun on 22 March 2020. Since 5 April 2020, DisCoVeRy has been an add-on trial of the Solidarity consortium of trials conducted by the WHO in Europe and worldwide. On 8 June 2020, 754 patients have been included.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Inserm is the sponsor of DisCoVeRy. Ethical approval has been obtained from the institutional review board on 13 March 2020 (20.03.06.51744) and from the French National Agency for Medicines and Health Products (ANSM) on 9 March 2020. Results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04315948 Eudra-CT 2020-000936-23.

Goal Attainment Scaling Rehabilitation Improves Satisfaction with Work Activities for Younger Working Patients After Knee Arthroplasty: Results from the Randomized Controlled ACTION Trial

BACKGROUND

Knee arthroplasty (KA) is increasingly performed in relatively young, active patients. This heterogeneous patient population often has high expectations, including work resumption and performance of knee-demanding leisure-time activities. Goal attainment scaling (GAS) may personalize rehabilitation by using patient-specific, activity-oriented rehabilitation goals. Since unmet expectations are a leading cause of dissatisfaction after KA, personalized rehabilitation may improve patient satisfaction. We hypothesized that, compared with standard rehabilitation, GAS-based rehabilitation would result in younger, active patients having higher satisfaction regarding activities after KA.

METHODS

We performed a single-center randomized controlled trial. Eligible patients were <65 years of age, working outside the home, and scheduled to undergo unicompartmental or total KA. The required sample size was 120 patients. Using GAS, patients developed personal activity goals with a physiotherapist preoperatively. These goals were used to monitor patients' goal attainment and provide goal-specific feedback during postoperative outpatient rehabilitation. Standard rehabilitation consisted of regular outpatient physiotherapy visits. The primary outcome measures were visual analogue scale (VAS) scores (scale of 0 to 100) for satisfaction regarding activities of daily living and work and leisure-time activities 1 year postoperatively, which were analyzed using generalized estimating equation models.

RESULTS

Patient satisfaction with work activities was significantly higher in the GAS group (β = 10.7 points, 98% confidence interval [CI] = 2.0 to 19.4 points) than in the control group. Patient satisfaction with activities of daily living and leisure-time activities did not differ between groups. We found no differences in VAS satisfaction scores between unicompartmental KA and total KA.

CONCLUSIONS

Personalized, goal-specific rehabilitation using GAS resulted in higher patient satisfaction with work activities, compared with standard rehabilitation, 1 year after KA.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Psychological and pharmacological interventions for posttraumatic stress disorder and comorbid mental health problems following complex traumatic events: Systematic review and component network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Complex traumatic events associated with armed conflict, forcible displacement, childhood sexual abuse, and domestic violence are increasingly prevalent. People exposed to complex traumatic events are at risk of not only posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) but also other mental health comorbidities. Whereas evidence-based psychological and pharmacological treatments are effective for single-event PTSD, it is not known if people who have experienced complex traumatic events can benefit and tolerate these commonly available treatments. Furthermore, it is not known which components of psychological interventions are most effective for managing PTSD in this population. We performed a systematic review and component network meta-analysis to assess the effectiveness of psychological and pharmacological interventions for managing mental health problems in people exposed to complex traumatic events.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We searched CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, MEDLINE, Published International Literature on Traumatic Stress, PsycINFO, and Science Citation Index for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs of psychological and pharmacological treatments for PTSD symptoms in people exposed to complex traumatic events, published up to 25 October 2019. We adopted a nondiagnostic approach and included studies of adults who have experienced complex trauma. Complex-trauma subgroups included veterans; childhood sexual abuse; war-affected; refugees; and domestic violence. The primary outcome was reduction in PTSD symptoms. Secondary outcomes were depressive and anxiety symptoms, quality of life, sleep quality, and positive and negative affect. We included 116 studies, of which 50 were conducted in hospital settings, 24 were delivered in community settings, seven were delivered in military clinics for veterans or active military personnel, five were conducted in refugee camps, four used remote delivery via web-based or telephone platforms, four were conducted in specialist trauma clinics, two were delivered in home settings, and two were delivered in primary care clinics; clinical setting was not reported in 17 studies. Ninety-four RCTs, for a total of 6,158 participants, were included in meta-analyses across the primary and secondary outcomes; 18 RCTs for a total of 933 participants were included in the component network meta-analysis. The mean age of participants in the included RCTs was 42.6 ± 9.3 years, and 42% were male. Nine non-RCTs were included. The mean age of participants in the non-RCTs was 40.6 ± 9.4 years, and 47% were male. The average length of follow-up across all included studies at posttreatment for the primary outcome was 11.5 weeks. The pairwise meta-analysis showed that psychological interventions reduce PTSD symptoms more than inactive control (k = 46; n = 3,389; standardised mean difference [SMD] = -0.82, 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.02 to -0.63) and active control (k-9; n = 662; SMD = -0.35, 95% CI -0.56 to -0.14) at posttreatment and also compared with inactive control at 6-month follow-up (k = 10; n = 738; SMD = -0.45, 95% CI -0.82 to -0.08). Psychological interventions reduced depressive symptoms (k = 31; n = 2,075; SMD = -0.87, 95% CI -1.11 to -0.63; I2 = 82.7%, p = 0.000) and anxiety (k = 15; n = 1,395; SMD = -1.03, 95% CI -1.44 to -0.61; p = 0.000) at posttreatment compared with inactive control. Sleep quality was significantly improved at posttreatment by psychological interventions compared with inactive control (k = 3; n = 111; SMD = -1.00, 95% CI -1.49 to -0.51; p = 0.245). There were no significant differences between psychological interventions and inactive control group at posttreatment for quality of life (k = 6; n = 401; SMD = 0.33, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.66; p = 0.021). Antipsychotic medicine (k = 5; n = 364; SMD = -0.45; -0.85 to -0.05; p = 0.085) and prazosin (k = 3; n = 110; SMD = -0.52; -1.03 to -0.02; p = 0.182) were effective in reducing PTSD symptoms. Phase-based psychological interventions that included skills-based strategies along with trauma-focused strategies were the most promising interventions for emotional dysregulation and interpersonal problems. Compared with pharmacological interventions, we observed that psychological interventions were associated with greater reductions in PTSD and depression symptoms and improved sleep quality. Sensitivity analysis showed that psychological interventions were acceptable with lower dropout, even in studies rated at low risk of attrition bias. Trauma-focused psychological interventions were superior to non-trauma-focused interventions across trauma subgroups for PTSD symptoms, but effects among veterans and war-affected populations were significantly reduced. The network meta-analysis showed that multicomponent interventions that included cognitive restructuring and imaginal exposure were the most effective for reducing PTSD symptoms (k = 17; n = 1,077; mean difference = -37.95, 95% CI -60.84 to -15.16). Our use of a non-diagnostic inclusion strategy may have overlooked certain complex-trauma populations with severe and enduring mental health comorbidities. Additionally, the relative contribution of skills-based intervention components was not feasibly evaluated in the network meta-analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we observed that trauma-focused psychological interventions are effective for managing mental health problems and comorbidities in people exposed to complex trauma. Multicomponent interventions, which can include phase-based approaches, were the most effective treatment package for managing PTSD in complex trauma. Establishing optimal ways to deliver multicomponent psychological interventions for people exposed to complex traumatic events is a research and clinical priority.

Setting and techniques for monitoring blood pressure during pregnancy

BACKGROUND

Regular blood pressure (BP) measurement is crucial for the diagnosis and management of hypertensive disorders in pregnancy, such as pre-eclampsia. BP can be measured in various settings, such as conventional clinics or self-measurement at home, and with different techniques, such as using auscultatory or automated BP devices. It is important to understand the impact of different settings and techniques of BP measurement on important outcomes for pregnant women.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of setting and technique of BP measurement for diagnosing hypertensive disorders in pregnancy on subsequent maternal and perinatal outcomes, women's quality of life, or use of health service resources.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) on 22 April 2020, and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving pregnant women, using validated BP devices in different settings or using different techniques.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

Of the 21 identified studies, we included three, and excluded 11; seven were ongoing. Of the three included RCTs (536,607 women), one was a cluster-RCT, with a substantially higher number of participants (536,233 deliveries) than the other two trials, but did not provide data for most of our outcomes. We generally judged the included studies at low risk of bias, however, the certainty of the evidence was low, due to indirectness and imprecision. Meta-analysis was not possible because each study investigated a different comparison. None of the included studies reported our primary outcome of systolic BP greater than or equal to 150 mmHg. None of the studies reported any of these important secondary outcomes: antenatal hospital admissions, neonatal unit length of stay, or neonatal endotracheal intubation and use of mechanical ventilation. Setting of BP measurement: self-measurement versus conventional clinic measurement (one study, 154 women) There were no maternal deaths in either the self-monitoring group or the usual care group. The study did not report perinatal mortality. Self-monitoring may lead to slightly more diagnoses of pre-eclampsia compared with usual care (risk ratio (RR) 1.49, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.87 to 2.54; 154 women; 1 study; low-certainty evidence) but the wide 95% CI is consistent with possible benefit and possible harm. Self-monitoring may have little to no effect on the likelihood of induction of labour compared with usual care (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.45; 154 women; 1 study; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain if self-monitoring BP has any effect on maternal admission to intensive care (RR 1.54, 95% CI 0.06 to 37.25; 154 women; 1 study; low-certainty evidence), stillbirth (RR 2.57, 95% CI 0.13 to 52.63; 154 women; 1 study; low-certainty evidence), neonatal death (RR 1.54, 95% CI 0.06 to 37.25; 154 women; 1 study; low-certainty evidence) or preterm birth (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.37 to 3.55; 154 women; 1 study; low-certainty evidence), compared with usual care because the certainty of evidence is low and the 95% CI is consistent with appreciable harms and appreciable benefits. Self-monitoring may lead to slightly more neonatal unit admissions compared with usual care (RR 1.53, 95% CI 0.65 to 3.62; 154 women; 1 study; low-certainty evidence) but the wide 95% CI includes the possibility of slightly fewer admissions with self-monitoring. Technique of BP measurement: Korotkoff phase IV (K4, muffling sound) versus Korotkoff phase V (K5, disappearance of sound) to represent diastolic BP (one study, 220 women) There were no maternal deaths in either the K4 or K5 group. There may be little to no difference in the diagnosis of pre-eclampsia between using K4 or K5 for diastolic BP (RR 1.16; 95% CI 0.89 to 1.49; 1 study; 220 women; low-certainty evidence), since the wide 95% CI includes the possibility of more diagnoses with K4. We are uncertain if there is a difference in perinatal mortality between the groups because the quality of evidence is low and the 95% CI is consistent with appreciable harm and appreciable benefit (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.16 to 7.92; 1 study, 220 women; low-certainty evidence). The trial did not report data on maternal admission to intensive care, induction of labour, stillbirth, neonatal death, preterm birth, or neonatal unit admissions. Technique of BP measurement: CRADLE intervention (CRADLE device, a semi-automated BP monitor with additional features, and an education package) versus usual care (one study, 536,233 deliveries) There may be little to no difference between the use of the CRADLE device and usual care in the number of maternal deaths (adjusted RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.30 to 2.11; 536,233 women; 1 study; low-certainty evidence), but the 95% CI is consistent with appreciable harm and appreciable benefit. The trial did not report pre-eclampsia, induction of labour, perinatal mortality, preterm birth, or neonatal unit admissions. Maternal admission to intensive care and perinatal outcomes (stillbirths and neonatal deaths) were only collected for a small proportion of the women, identified by an outcome not by baseline characteristics, thereby breaking the random allocation. Therefore, any differences between the groups could not be attributed to the intervention, and we did not extract data for these outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The benefit, if any, of self-monitoring BP in hypertensive pregnancies remains uncertain, as the evidence is limited to one feasibility study. Current practice of using K5 to measure diastolic BP is supported for women with pregnancy hypertension. The benefit, if any, of using the CRADLE device to measure BP in pregnancy remains uncertain, due to the limitations and instability of the trial study design.

Clinical and methodological considerations for psychological treatment of cognitive impairment in major depressive disorder

BACKGROUND

Cognitive impairment is considered a core feature of major depressive disorder (MDD) and research into psychological treatments aiming to address cognitive impairment are gaining momentum. Compared with the well-established research base of cognitive treatment trials in schizophrenia, including meta-analyses, mood disorder research is much more preliminary.

AIMS

To focus on identifying the important factors to consider in developing larger-scale psychological treatment trials targeting cognitive impairment in mood disorders. Trial design recommendations have been published for cognitive treatment trials in bipolar disorder.

METHOD

An in-depth discussion of methodological considerations in the development of cognitive treatment trials for MDD.

RESULTS

Methodological considerations include: screening for, and defining, cognitive impairment; mood state when cognitive intervention begins; medication monitoring during cognitive interventions; use of concomitant therapy; level of therapist involvement; duration and dose of treatment; choice of specific cognitive training exercises; home practice; improving adherence; appropriate comparison therapies in clinical trials; and choice of primary outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

As well as guidance for clinical trial development, this review may be helpful for clinicians wanting to provide cognitive interventions for individuals with MDD.

Oseltamivir for coronavirus illness: post-hoc exploratory analysis of an open-label, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial in European primary care from 2016 to 2018

Background

Patients infected with the novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) are being treated empirically with oseltamivir, but there is little evidence from randomised controlled trials to support the treatment of coronavirus infections with oseltamivir.

Aim

To determine whether adding oseltamivir to usual care reduces time to recovery in symptomatic patients who have tested positive for coronavirus (not including SARS-CoV-2).

Design and setting

Exploratory analysis of data from an open-label, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial during three influenza seasons, from 2016 to 2018, in primary care research networks, in 15 European countries.

Method

Patients aged ≥1 year presenting to primary care with influenza-like illness (ILI), and who tested positive for coronavirus (not including SARS-CoV-2), were randomised to usual care or usual care plus oseltamivir. The primary outcome was time to recovery defined as a return to usual activities, with minor or absent fever, headache, and muscle ache.

Results

Coronaviruses (CoV-229E, CoV-OC43, CoV-KU1 and CoV-NL63) were identified in 308 (9%) out of 3266 randomised participants in the trial; 153 of these were allocated to usual care and 155 to usual care plus oseltamivir; the primary outcome was ascertained in 136 and 147 participants, respectively. The median time to recovery was shorter in patients randomised to oseltamivir: 4 days (interquartile range [IQR] 3–6) versus 5 days (IQR 3–8; hazard ratio 1.31; 95% confidence interval = 1.03 to 1.66; P = 0.026).

Conclusion

Primary care patients with ILI testing positive for coronavirus (not including SARS-CoV-2) recovered sooner when oseltamivir was added to usual care compared with usual care alone. This may be of relevance to the primary care management of COVID-19.

Infraclavicular nerve block reduces postoperative pain after distal radial fracture fixation: a randomized controlled trial

Background

It is unclear whether regional anesthesia with infraclavicular nerve block or general anesthesia provides better postoperative analgesia after distal radial fracture fixation, especially when combined with regular postoperative analgesic medications. The aim of this study was to compare the postoperative analgesic effects of regional versus general anesthesia.

Methods

In this prospective, observer blinded, randomized controlled trial, 52 patients undergoing distal radial fracture fixation received either general anesthesia (n = 26) or regional anesthesia (infraclavicular nerve block, n = 26). Numerical rating scale pain scores, analgesic consumption, patient satisfaction, adverse effects, upper limb functional scores (Patient-Rated Wrist Evaluation, QuickDASH), health related quality of life (SF12v2), and psychological status were evaluated after surgery.

Result

Regional anesthesia was associated with significantly lower pain scores both at rest and with movement on arrival to the post-anesthetic care unit; and at 1, 2, 24 and 48 h after surgery (p ≤ 0.001 at rest and with movement). Morphine consumption in the post-anesthetic care unit was significantly lower in the regional anesthesia group (p<0.001). There were no differences in oral analgesic consumption. Regional anesthesia was associated with lower incidences of nausea (p = 0.004), and vomiting (p = 0.050). Patient satisfaction was higher in the regional anesthesia group (p = 0.003). There were no long-term differences in pain scores and other patient outcomes.

Conclusion

Regional anesthesia with ultrasound guided infraclavicular nerve block was associated with better acute pain relief after distal radial fracture fixation, and may be preferred over general anesthesia.

Trial registration

Before subject enrollment, the study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03048214) on 9th February 2017.

Efficacy and safety of renal denervation in addition to pulmonary vein isolation for atrial fibrillation and hypertension-Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Introduction

This systematic review and meta‐analysis aimed to assess the latest evidence on the use of renal denervation (RDN) + pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) compared to PVI alone for treating atrial fibrillation (AF) with hypertension.

Methods

A systematic literature search from several electronic databases was performed up until January 2020. The primary outcome was AF recurrence defined as AF/atrial flutter (AFL)/atrial tachycardia (AT) ≥30 seconds at 12‐month follow‐up and the secondary outcome was procedure‐related complications.

Results

There were 568 subjects from five studies. AF recurrence was 90/280 (32.1%) in the RDN + PVI group and 142/274 (51.8%) in the PVI group. RDN + PVI was associated with a lower incidence of AF recurrence (RR 0.62 [0.51, 076], P < .001; I²: 0%). Pooled analysis of HR showed that RDN + PVI was associated with reduced AF recurrence (HR 0.51 [0.38, 0.70], P < .001; I²: 0%). Complications were 7/241 (2.9%) in the RDN + PVI group and 8/237 (3.4%) in the PVI group. The rate of complications between the groups was similar (RR 0.87 [0.33, 2.29], P = .77; I²: 0%). In the subgroup analysis of paroxysmal AF, RDN + PVI was shown to reduce AF recurrence (RR 0.64 [0.49, 0.82], P < .001; I²: 0% and HR 0.56 [0.38, 0.82], P = .003; I²: 0%) compared to PVI alone. RDN + PVI has a moderate certainty of evidence in the reducing AF recurrence with an absolute reduction of 197 fewer per 1000 (from 254 fewer to 124 fewer).

Conclusion

RDN in addition to PVI, is associated with reduced 12‐month AF recurrence and similar procedure‐related complications compared to PVI alone.

The Trials and Tribulations of Selecting Comparison Groups in Randomized Trials of Nonpharmacological Complementary and Integrative Health Interventions

Editor's Note: For over two decades, JACM Editorial Board member Karen Sherman, PhD has been among the most respected clinical trialists in complementary and integrative health research. The epidemiologist and Senior Researcher at Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute has focused on pain conditions and has led or been part of teams exploring the roles of such therapies as yoga, acupuncture, mind-body and manual therapies. In this Invited Commentary, Sherman shares wisdom gleaned from the process: trial designs, principles for selecting controls, benefits and liabilities of placebo and sham controls, attention controls, usual care controls, and more. She also discusses the effects of comparison groups on sample sizes, comparison groups for mechanistic studies, and other comparison groups' considerations. This commentary should prove a useful primer wherever research methods in complementary and integrative health are taught. We are pleased to offer it here through JACM. -John Weeks, Editor-in-Chief, JACM (johnweeks-integrator.com).