Aims Hawthorn's efficacy when added to contemporary evidence‐based heart failure therapy is unknown. We aimed to determine whether hawthorn increases submaximal exercise capacity when added to standard medical therapy. Methods and results We performed a randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled trial in 120 ambulatory patients aged ≥18 years with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II‐III chronic heart failure. All patients received conventional medical therapy, as tolerated, and were randomized to either hawthorn 450 mg twice daily or placebo for 6 months. The primary outcome was change in 6 min walk distance at 6 months. Secondary outcomes included quality of life (QOL) measures, peak oxygen consumption, and anaerobic threshold during maximal treadmill exercise testing, NYHA classification, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), neurohormones, and measures of oxidative stress and inflammation. There were no significant differences between groups in the change in 6 min walk distance (P = 0.61), or on measures of QOL, functional capacity, neurohormones, oxidative stress, or inflammation. A modest difference in LVEF favoured hawthorn (P = 0.04). There were significantly more adverse events reported in the hawthorn group (P = 0.02), although most were non‐cardiac. Conclusion Hawthorn provides no symptomatic or functional benefit when given with standard medical therapy to patients with heart failure. This trial is registered in http://ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT00343902.

No abstract

BackgroundThere are growing numbers of refugees throughout the world. Refugee health is a relatively unstudied and rarely taught component of medical education. In response to this need, a Refugee Health Elective was begun. Medical student perceptions toward cultural aspects of medicine and refugee health before and after participation in the elective were measured.MethodsPreliminary questionnaires were given to all preclinical students at the academic year commencement with follow-up questionnaires at the refugee elective's conclusion. Both questionnaires examined students' comfort in interacting with patients and familiarity with refugee medical issues, alternative medical practices, and social hindrances to medical care. The preliminary answers served as a control and follow-up questionnaire data were separated into participant/non-participant categories. All preclinical medical students at two Midwestern medical schools were provided the opportunity to participate in the Refugee Health Elective and surveys. The 3 data groups were compared using unadjusted and adjusted analysis techniques with the Kruskall-Wallis, Bonferroni and ANCOVA adjustment. P-values < 0.05 were considered significant.Results408 and 403 students filled out the preliminary and follow-up questionnaires, respectfully, 42 of whom participated in the elective. Students considering themselves minorities or multilingual were more likely to participate. Elective participants were more likely to be able to recognize the medical/mental health issues common to refugees, to feel comfortable interacting with foreign-born patients, and to identify cultural differences in understanding medical/mental health conditions, after adjusting for minority or multilingual status.ConclusionAs medical schools integrate a more multicultural curriculum, a Refugee Health Elective for preclinical students can enhance awareness and promote change in attitude toward medical/mental health issues common to refugees. This elective format offers tangible and effective avenues for these topics to be addressed.

Perceptions of DVT risk factors and prophylaxis practices vary by both physician specialty and attending/resident status. Prophylaxis practice differences may result from these perceptions.