This randomized, placebo-controlled trial investigated the use of biofield healing (termed energy healing), compared to mock healing, for the alleviation of fatigue and inflammation after adjuvant or neoadjuvant therapy for breast cancer. Thirty-three women breast cancer survivors were studied at the UCSD General Clinical Research Center prior to and following 4 weeks of healing or mock healing, as well as immediately before and after healing or mock healing sessions. Participants received 8 one-hour sessions (twice per week) of either biofield or mock healing. Outcome measures included fatigue (via the MFSI- sf), depression (via the CESD), mood disturbance (via the POMS-sf), quality of life (via the FACT-B), and self- reported sleep quality (via the PSQI). In addition, the study examined potential changes in pro- and anti- inflammatory cytokines and receptors (IL-6, sIL-6R, sIL- 1Ra, IL-4, and TNF-RII), as well as circadian rhythms of the hormone cortisol. Participants also rated their guess of treatment (energy healing or touch alone). Intent-to- treat analyses were performed for all psychological outcome variables. Results indicated that both groups significantly decreased in overall fatigue over time. There was a trend toward significant differences between the healing group and mock group on overall MFSI-sf fatigue scores, with the healing group showing a notably steeper decline over time compared to the mock group. There was a significant group x time interaction for CESD scores, such that the healing group decreased in depression over time compared to the mock group. Both groups decreased significantly in overall POMS-sf Total Mood Disturbance over time. Expectation itself predicted changes in FACT-B scores. Repeated-measures ANCOVA analyses for cytokine data revealed a significant group x time interaction for IL-4, such that the healing group decreased in this marker over time compared to the mock group. There was also a significant group x time interaction for sIL-1Ra, such that the mock group increased in this marker over time compared to the healing group. This pattern was also reflected in a trend for a group x time interaction for IL-6. Both groups showed significant time effects for sIL-6r. There were significant group x time interactions for cortisol slopes and mean cortisol, with women in the healing group had more negative slopes (increased variability) and decreased mean cortisol. Results suggest a differential outcome profile for breast cancer survivors who received healing sessions vs. those who received mock healing. Further research is warranted to better ascertain the specific vs. nonspecific effects of biofield healing for fatigue and immune function in breast cancer survivors.

Biofield therapies (such as Reiki, therapeutic touch, and healing touch) are complementary medicine modalities that remain controversial and are utilized by a significant number of patients, with little information regarding their efficacy. This systematic review examines 66 clinical studies with a variety of biofield therapies in different patient populations. We conducted a quality assessment as well as a best evidence synthesis approach to examine evidence for biofield therapies in relevant outcomes for different clinical populations. Studies overall are of medium quality, and generally meet minimum standards for validity of inferences. Biofield therapies show strong evidence for reducing pain intensity in pain populations, and moderate evidence for reducing pain intensity hospitalized and cancer populations. There is moderate evidence for decreasing negative behavioral symptoms in dementia and moderate evidence for decreasing anxiety for hospitalized populations. There is equivocal evidence for biofield therapies' effects on fatigue and quality of life for cancer patients, as well as for comprehensive pain outcomes and affect in pain patients, and for decreasing anxiety in cardiovascular patients. There is a need for further high-quality studies in this area. Implications and future research directions are discussed.

Glucocorticoids contribute to obesity and metabolic syndrome; however, the mechanisms are unclear, and prognostic measures are unavailable. A systems level understanding of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA)-leptin axis may reveal novel insights. Eighteen obese premenopausal women provided blood samples every 10 min over 24 h, which were assayed for cortisol, adrenocorticotropin releasing hormone (ACTH) and leptin. A published personalized HPA systems model was extended to incorporate leptin, yielding three parameters: (i) cortisol inhibitory feedback signalling, (ii) ACTH-adrenal signalling, and (iii) leptin-cortisol antagonism. We investigated associations between these parameters and metabolic risk profiles: fat and lean body mass (LBM; using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry), and insulin resistance. Decreased cortisol inhibitory feedback signalling was significantly associated with greater fat (kg; p = 0.01) and insulin resistance (p = 0.03) but not LBM. Leptin significantly antagonized cortisol dynamics in eight women, who exhibited significantly lower 24 h mean leptin levels, LBM and higher ACTH-adrenal signalling nocturnally (all p < 0.05), compared with women without antagonism. Traditional neuroendocrine measures did not predict metabolic health, whereas a dynamic systems approach revealed that lower central inhibitory cortisol feedback signalling was significantly associated with greater metabolic risk. While exploratory, leptin-cortisol antagonism may reflect a 'neuroendocrine starvation' response.

Objective

Stage B, asymptomatic heart failure (HF) presents a therapeutic window for attenuating disease progression and development of HF symptoms, and improving quality of life. Gratitude, the practice of appreciating positive life features, is highly related to quality of life, leading to development of promising clinical interventions. However, few gratitude studies have investigated objective measures of physical health; most relied on self-report measures. We conducted a pilot study in Stage B HF patients to examine whether gratitude journaling improved biomarkers related to HF prognosis.

Methods

Patients (n = 70; mean [standard deviation] age = 66.2 [7.6] years) were randomized to an 8-week gratitude journaling intervention or treatment as usual. Baseline (T1) assessments included the six-item Gratitude Questionnaire, resting heart rate variability (HRV), and an inflammatory biomarker index. At T2 (midintervention), the six-item Gratitude Questionnaire was measured. At T3 (postintervention), T1 measures were repeated but also included a gratitude journaling task.

Results

The gratitude intervention was associated with improved trait gratitude scores (F = 6.0, p = .017, η = 0.10), reduced inflammatory biomarker index score over time (F = 9.7, p = .004, η = 0.21), and increased parasympathetic HRV responses during the gratitude journaling task (F = 4.2, p = .036, η = 0.15), compared with treatment as usual. However, there were no resting preintervention to postintervention group differences in HRV (p values > .10).

Conclusions

Gratitude journaling may improve biomarkers related to HF morbidity, such as reduced inflammation; large-scale studies with active control conditions are needed to confirm these findings.

Trial registration

Clinicaltrials.govidentifier:NCT01615094.