Effects of low-dose acetylsalicylic acid on the inflammatory response to experimental sleep restriction in healthy humans.

BACKGROUND: Sleep deficiencies, such as manifested in short sleep duration or insomnia symptoms, are known to increase the risk for multiple disease conditions involving immunopathology. Inflammation is hypothesized to be a mechanism through which deficient sleep acts as a risk factor for these conditions. Thus, one potential way to mitigate negative health consequences associated with deficient sleep is to target inflammation. Few interventional sleep studies investigated whether improving sleep affects inflammatory processes, but results suggest that complementary approaches may be necessary to target inflammation associated with sleep deficiencies. We investigated whether targeting inflammation through low-dose acetylsalicylic acid (ASA, i.e., aspirin) is able to blunt the inflammatory response to experimental sleep restriction. METHODS: 46 healthy participants (19F/27M, age range 19-63 years) were studied in a double-blind randomized placebo-controlled crossover trial with three protocols each consisting of a 14-day at-home monitoring phase followed by an 11-day (10-night) in-laboratory stay (sleep restriction/ASA, sleep restriction/placebo, control sleep/placebo). In the sleep restriction/ASA condition, participants took low-dose ASA (81 mg/day) daily in the evening (22:00) during the at-home phase and the subsequent in-laboratory stay. In the sleep restriction/placebo and control sleep/placebo conditions, participants took placebo daily. Each in-laboratory stay started with 2 nights with a sleep opportunity of 8 h/night (23:00-07:00) for adaptation and baseline measurements. Under the two sleep restriction conditions, participants were exposed to 5 nights of sleep restricted to a sleep opportunity of 4 h/night (03:00-07:00) followed by 3 nights of recovery sleep with a sleep opportunity of 8 h/night. Under the control sleep condition, participants had a sleep opportunity of 8 h/night throughout the in-laboratory stay. During each in-laboratory stay, participants had 3 days of intensive monitoring (at baseline, 5th day of sleep restriction/control sleep, and 2nd day of recovery sleep). Variables, including pro-inflammatory immune cell function, C-reactive protein (CRP), and actigraphy-estimated measures of sleep, were analyzed using generalized linear mixed models. RESULTS: Low-dose ASA administration reduced the interleukin (IL)-6 expression in LPS-stimulated monocytes (p<0.05 for condition*day) and reduced serum CRP levels (p<0.01 for condition) after 5 nights of sleep restriction compared to placebo administration in the sleep restriction condition. Low-dose ASA also reduced the amount of cyclooxygenase (COX)-1/COX-2 double positive cells among LPS-stimulated monocytes after 2 nights of recovery sleep following 5 nights of sleep restriction compared to placebo (p<0.05 for condition). Low-dose ASA further decreased wake after sleep onset (WASO) and increased sleep efficiency (SE) during the first 2 nights of recovery sleep (p<0.001 for condition and condition*day). Baseline comparisons revealed no differences between conditions for all of the investigated variables (p>0.05 for condition). CONCLUSION: This study shows that inflammatory responses to sleep restriction can be reduced by preemptive administration of low-dose ASA. This finding may open new therapeutic approaches to prevent or control inflammation and its consequences in those experiencing sleep deficiencies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03377543.

Peer evaluations in an anonymous and open system: Intern reactions and evaluation analysis.

PURPOSE: Feedback and evaluation from peers is fundamental to trainees' professional development but may be uncomfortable to provide non-anonymously. We aimed to understand resident perception of anonymous and open written evaluation systems and to analyze evaluations in each of these systems. MATERIALS AND METHOD: We compared two years of intern peer evaluations at a large United States-based pediatric residency program - the 2018-2019 and 2019-2020 years during which intern peer evaluations were anonymous and open, respectively. We electronically surveyed interns about their perceptions of peer evaluations and analyzed four aspects of the evaluations themselves: (1) orientation, (2) caliber, (3) Likert-scale, and (4) word count. RESULTS: 40 (78%) and 38 (75%) interns participated in the survey in the anonymous and open years, respectively. Respondents reported being more likely to avoid writing constructive comments in the open year. There were more high caliber comments in the open year. Likert-scale ratings of peers were lower in the open year. Word count was longer in the open year. CONCLUSIONS: While interns expressed more discomfort evaluating peers in an open evaluation system, they wrote longer and more high caliber comments in an open system than in an anonymous system. Residency programs should consider professional development in writing peer evaluation.

Residents are uncomfortable writing constructive comments in peer evaluations, particularly in open formats.Residents write similar numbers of constructive comments whether the evaluation is delivered anonymously or in an open format.Residents write more high caliber comments when evaluations are delivered in an open format than when delivered anonymously.Residents write longer comments when evaluations are in an open format.Program leaders should weigh the increased number of high caliber peer evaluations in an open system with resident preference for an anonymous system when designing their peer evaluation systems.

Dismantling the Component-Specific Effects of Yogic Breathing: Feasibility of a Fully Remote Three-Arm RCT with Virtual Laboratory Visits and Wearable Physiology.

Despite the growing research base examining the benefits and physiological mechanisms of slow-paced breathing (SPB), mindfulness (M), and their combination (as yogic breathing, SPB + M), no studies have directly compared these in a "dismantling" framework. To address this gap, we conducted a fully remote three-armed feasibility study with wearable devices and video-based laboratory visits. Eighteen healthy participants (age 18-30 years, 12 female) were randomized to one of three 8-week interventions: slow-paced breathing (SPB, N = 5), mindfulness (M, N = 6), or yogic breathing (SPB + M, N = 7). The participants began a 24-h heart rate recording with a chest-worn device prior to the first virtual laboratory visit, consisting of a 60-min intervention-specific training with guided practice and experimental stress induction using a Stroop test. The participants were then instructed to repeat their assigned intervention practice daily with a guided audio, while concurrently recording their heart rate data and completing a detailed practice log. The feasibility was determined using the rates of overall study completion (100%), daily practice adherence (73%), and the rate of fully analyzable data from virtual laboratory visits (92%). These results demonstrate feasibility for conducting larger trial studies with a similar fully remote framework, enhancing the ecological validity and sample size that could be possible with such research designs.