Communicating statin evidence to support shared decision-making.

BACKGROUND: The practice of clinical medicine rests on a foundation of ethical principles as well as scientific knowledge. Clinicians must artfully balance the principle of beneficence, doing what is best for patients, with autonomy, allowing patients to make their own well-informed health care decisions. The clinical communication process is complicated by varying degrees of confidence in scientific evidence regarding patient-oriented benefits, and by the fact that most medical options are associated with possible harms as well as potential benefits. DISCUSSION: Evidence-based clinical guidelines often neglect patient-oriented issues involved with the thoughtful practice of shared decision-making, where individual values, goals, and preferences should be prioritized. Guidelines on the use of statin medications for preventing cardiovascular events are a case in point. Current guidelines endorse the use of statins for people whose 10-year risk of cardiovascular events is as low as 7.5%. Previous guidelines set the 10-year risk benchmark at 20%. Meta-analysis of randomized trials suggests that statins can reduce cardiovascular event rates by about 25%, bringing 10-year risk from 7.5 to 5.6%, for example, or from 20 to 15%. Whether or not these benefits should justify the use of statins for individual patients depends on how those advantages are valued in comparison with disadvantages, such as side effect risks, and with inconveniences associated with taking a pill each day and visiting clinicians and laboratories regularly. CONCLUSIONS: Whether or not the overall benefit-harm balance justifies the use of a medication for an individual patient cannot be determined by a guidelines committee, a health care system, or even the attending physician. Instead, it is the individual patient who has a fundamental right to decide whether or not taking a drug is worthwhile. Researchers and professional organizations should endeavor to develop shared decision-making tools that provide up-to-date best evidence in easily understandable formats, so as to assist clinicians in helping their patients to make the decisions that are right for them.

Placebo effects and the common cold: a randomized controlled trial.

PURPOSE: We wanted to determine whether the severity and duration of illness caused by the common cold are influenced by randomized assignment to open-label pills, compared with conventional double-blind allocation to active and placebo pills, compared with no pills at all. METHODS: We undertook a randomized controlled trial among a population with new-onset common cold. Study participants were allocated to 4 parallel groups: (1) those receiving no pills, (2) those blinded to placebo, (3) those blinded to echinacea, and (4) those given open-label echinacea. Primary outcomes were illness duration and area-under-the-curve global severity. Secondary outcomes included neutrophil count and interleukin 8 levels from nasal wash at intake and 2 days later. RESULTS: Of 719 randomized study participants, 2 were lost and 4 exited early. Participants were 64% female, 88% white, and aged 12 to 80 years. Mean illness duration for each group was 7.03 days for those in the no-pill group, 6.87 days for those blinded to placebo, 6.34 days for those blinded to echinacea, and 6.76 days for those in the open-label echinacea group. Mean global severity scores for the 4 groups were no pills, 286; blinded to placebo, 264; blinded to echinacea, 236; and open-label echinacea, 258. Between-group differences were not statistically significant. Comparing the no-pill with blinded to placebo groups, differences (95% confidence interval [CI]) were -0.16 days (95% CI, -0.90 to 0.58 days) for illness duration and -22 severity points (95% CI, -70 to 26 points) for global severity. Comparing the group blinded to echinacea with the open-label echinacea group, differences were 0.42 days (95% CI, -0.28 to 1.12 days) and 22 severity points (95% CI, -19 to 63 points). Median change in interleukin 8 concentration and neutrophil cell count, respectively by group, were 30 pg/mL and 1 cell for the no-pill group, 39 pg/mL and 1 cell for the group binded to placebo, 58 pg/mL and 2 cells for the group blinded to echinacea, and 70 pg/mL and 1 cell for the group with open-label echinacea, also not statistically significant. Among the 120 participants who at intake rated echinacea's effectiveness as greater than 50 on a 100-point scale for which 100 is extremely effective, illness duration was 2.58 days shorter (95% CI, -4.47 to -0.68 days) in those blinded to placebo rather than no pill, and mean global severity score was 26% lower but not significantly different (-97.0, 95% CI, -249.8 to 55.8 points). In this subgroup, neither duration nor severity differed significantly between the group blinded to echinacea and the open-label echinacea group. CONCLUSIONS: Participants randomized to the no-pill group tended to have longer and more severe illnesses than those who received pills. For the subgroup who believed in echinacea and received pills, illnesses were substantively shorter and less severe, regardless of whether the pills contained echinacea. These findings support the general idea that beliefs and feelings about treatments may be important and perhaps should be taken into consideration when making medical decisions.

Echinacea for treating the common cold: a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Echinacea is widely used to treat the common cold. OBJECTIVE: To assess the potential benefits of echinacea as a treatment of common cold. DESIGN: Randomized, controlled trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov registration number: NCT00065715) SETTING: Dane County, Wisconsin. PATIENTS: 719 patients, aged 12 to 80 years, with new-onset common cold. INTERVENTION: Patients were assigned to 1 of 4 parallel groups: no pills, placebo pills (blinded), echinacea pills (blinded), or echinacea pills (unblinded, open-label). Echinacea groups received the equivalent of 10.2 g of dried echinacea root during the first 24 hours and 5.1 g during each of the next 4 days. Indistinguishable placebo tablets contained only inert ingredients. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was the area under the curve for global severity, with severity assessed twice daily by self-report using the Wisconsin Upper Respiratory Symptom Survey, short version. Secondary outcomes included interleukin-8 levels and neutrophil counts from nasal wash, assessed at intake and 2 days later. RESULTS: Of the 719 patients enrolled, 713 completed the protocol. Mean age was 33.7 years, 64% were female, and 88% were white. Mean global severity was 236 and 258 for the blinded and unblinded echinacea groups, respectively; 264 for the blinded placebo group; and 286 for the no-pill group. A comparison of the 2 blinded groups showed a 28-point trend (95% CI, -69 to 13 points) toward benefit for echinacea (P = 0.089). Mean illness duration in the blinded and unblinded echinacea groups was 6.34 and 6.76 days, respectively, compared with 6.87 days in the blinded placebo group and 7.03 days in the no-pill group. A comparison of the blinded groups showed a nonsignificant 0.53-day (CI, -1.25 to 0.19 days) benefit (P = 0.075). Median change in interleukin-8 levels and neutrophil counts were also not statistically significant (30 ng/L and 1 cell/high-power field [hpf] in the no-pill group, 39 ng/L and 1 cell/hpf in the blinded placebo group, 58 ng/L and 2 cells/hpf in the blinded echinacea group, and 70 ng/L and 1 cell/hpf in the open-label echinacea group). LIMITATION: Higher-than-expected variability limited power to detect small benefits. CONCLUSION: Illness duration and severity were not statistically significant with echinacea compared with placebo. These results do not support the ability of this dose of the echinacea formulation to substantively change the course of the common cold. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

Introduction to integrative primary care: the health-oriented clinic.

Integrative medicine is healing-oriented medicine that accounts for the whole person (body, mind, and spirit), including all aspects of lifestyle. Integrative medicine emphasizes the therapeutic relationship and makes use of all appropriate therapies, both conventional and alternative. This article describes ways to bring the integrative perspective into primary care practice. Several approaches are described, including some that are routinely used in the authors' practice. Changes in practice philosophy that can (1) help inform primary care redesign, (2) facilitate the creation of patient-centered medical homes, (3) strengthen provider-patient relationships, and (4) enhance patient satisfaction are also provided.

CAM Curriculum Activities to Enhance Professionalism Training in Medical Schools.

Enhancing the professionalism of graduates is a major objective of most health care education institutions today. Educating conventional health care providers about complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) may directly and indirectly improve trainee professionalism by expanding trainees' knowledge and appreciation of diverse health care beliefs and practices, improving physician-patient communication, enhancing self-care, and increasing sense of competence and job satisfaction. A survey based on professional competencies proposed by the Consortium of Academic Health Centers for Integrative Medicine was administered to the grantees of the National Institutes of Health, National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine R-25 CAM education project initiative. The survey's aim was to identify project activities that taught professionalism skills. All projects reported curricular features that enhanced trainee professionalism, with substantial percentages of project effort directed toward professionalism-related activities.

Rationale and methods for a trial assessing placebo, echinacea, and doctor-patient interaction in the common cold.

BACKGROUND: Clinical medicine and healthcare policy are increasingly guided by randomized controlled trials, which in turn are dependent on the validity of placebo control. It is important to understand the effects of placebo control on outcome measurement, especially for assessment of symptoms and functional impairments where subjectivity, expectancy, and motivation may significantly impact outcome evaluation. This paper describes the rationale and methodology of a trial designed to evaluate placebo effects related to taking pills and to compare these with effects attributable to standard or enhanced (patient-oriented) doctor-patient interaction. DESIGN: This trial uses two-way factorial allocation to randomize people with new onset common cold in two directions: pill related and doctor related. In one direction, participants are randomized to (1) no pills, (2) blinded placebo, (3) blinded echinacea, or (4) unblinded open-label echinacea. In the other direction, participants are randomized to: (1) no doctor-patient interaction, (2) standard doctor-patient interaction, and (3) enhanced doctor-patient interaction. Enhanced interaction includes education, empathy, empowerment, positive prognosis, and connectedness. Area under the time severity curve is the primary outcome, with the Wisconsin Upper Respiratory Symptom Survey (WURSS-21) the measure of severity. A priori power studies called for a sample size of N = 720 trial finishers to detect 15% to 20% between-group differences in this outcome. Secondary outcomes include general health-related quality of life, perceived stress, interpersonal support, optimism, patient satisfaction, and positive and negative affectivity. Two biomarkers are also assessed: interleukin-8 (inflammatory cytokine) and neutrophil count from nasal wash. IMPORTANCE: This paper describes the rationale and methodology of a trial assessing placebo effects related to pills and to doctor-patient interaction. This is one of very few similar studies and is the first in the common cold. Data collected will also provide an excellent opportunity to investigate relationships among demographic (age, sex, education, income) and psychosocial (perceived stress, interpersonal support, optimism, affectivity) indicators in relation to common cold outcomes.