Questo è quello che abbiamo trovato per te
This audit study examines availability of and wait times for Medicaid enrollee appointments with psychiatric prescribing clinicians across 4 of the most populous US cities.
Introduction
Coronary microcirculation dysfunction (CMD) is prevalent in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). Current therapies for CMD are focused on pharmacotherapy, non-pharmacological treatments such as enhanced external counterpulsation (EECP) have shown favourable results in patients with CAD. However, whether EECP can improve CMD remains unknown. This study is designed to evaluate the effectiveness of EECP on CMD in patients with CAD, and to assess the feasibility of conducting a multicentre randomised controlled trial.
Methods and analysis
This study is a single-centre, outcome-assessor-blinded, parallel randomised controlled trial. A total of 110 participants with CAD will be included and randomly assigned to either the intervention group (EECP plus optimal medical therapy (OMT)) or the control group (OMT alone). EECP will be administered by operators for 60 min, 5 times per week for 7 weeks (35 times in total). Outcomes include patients’ retention rates, the primary outcome and secondary outcomes. The primary outcome is the change in Myocardial Perfusion Reserve Index with cardiac MRI from baseline to the end of follow-up. The planned study duration is from 2024 to 2026.
Ethics and dissemination
Ethical approval was obtained from the Ethics Committee of the Eighth Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University (ID: 2023-045-03). The findings will be disseminated in peer-reviewed publications.
Trial registration number
ChiCTR2300076231.
Introduction
Huntington’s disease (HD) is an autosomal dominant neurodegenerative disorder that presents with a progressive movement disorder along with cognitive and psychiatric problems. It is caused by a Cytosine-adenin-guanine (CAG) expansion in exon 1 of the huntingtin gene which codes for mutant huntingtin (mHTT) that over time accumulates in cells, causing dysfunction and then death through new toxic gain-of-function mechanisms. Autophagy has been shown to be critical for the degradation of diverse intracytoplasmic aggregate-prone proteins that cause neurodegenerative disease, including mHTT. From a screen of a library enriched in approved drugs, felodipine was selected as the most suitable candidate showing strong autophagy-inducing effects in preclinical models of HD. We are, therefore, conducting a trial to assess the safety and tolerability of felodipine in people with early HD.
Methods and analysis
FELL-HD is a phase II, single-centre, open-label, dose-finding trial in people with early HD. 18 participants with early clinical features of the disease will be treated with felodipine for 58 weeks, with a further 4-week follow-up. The primary outcome measure is the number of adverse events attributable to felodipine. Exploratory outcomes include additional measures of motor and cognitive function, non-motor symptoms and quality of life scales, as well as peripheral and central disease biomarkers assessed through brain MRI. Analysis of blood and cerebrospinal fluid will also be performed through an associated sample study, FELL HD-s.
Ethics and dissemination
The study was approved by the London-Brent Research Ethics Committee (reference 22/LO/0387) and has been accepted by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency for clinical trials authorisation (reference CTA 12854/0256/001-0001). A lay summary of the results of the trial will be uploaded to our research group website which is publicly accessible. A webinar or in-person open day, to present results of the trial to participants and our wider cohort of patients who attend our centre, will be held once the trial is completed. The results of the trial will also be published in scientific journals and presented at national and international conferences.
Trial registration numbers
EudraCT-2021-000897-27, ISRCTN56240656.
Introduction
Acute respiratory failure is a life-threatening condition frequently found in the emergency department. High-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) is increasingly used in emergency departments for patients with hypoxaemic acute respiratory failure. However, despite the increasing number of studies, its potential advantages regarding the need for therapeutic escalation and mortality have not been precisely evaluated. Our objective is to compare conventional oxygen therapy to HFNO when they are initiated during the first hour following the patient’s arrival at the emergency department, with the hypothesis that HFNO would reduce the need for ventilatory therapy escalation.
Methods and analysis
This is a multicentric, prospective, open and randomised superiority study. 500 inpatients will be randomised (1:1) to receive conventional oxygen therapy or HNFO. The primary outcome is a failure in the oxygen therapy defined as the need for a therapeutic escalation within 4 hours after therapy initiation.
Ethics and dissemination
The study has been submitted and approved by the Comité de Protection des Personnes Nord Ouest IV (20 October 2020). As required, a notification was sent to the Agence nationale de sécurité du médicament et des produits de santé (22 October 2020). The research results will be published in peer-reviewed publications and presented at international conferences.
Trial registration number
NCT04607967.
Introduction
Ensuring patient safety in radiation oncology is crucial for delivering high-quality healthcare. Patient safety indicators (PSIs) provide a mechanism for identifying, quantifying and evaluating risks and the effectiveness of safety measures. However, there is currently no specialised set of PSIs tailored for radiation oncology in Germany. This study seeks to: (1) create PSIs specifically designed for radiation oncology settings, (2) develop and psychometrically validate an instrument for assessing safety in German radiation oncology facilities and (3) evaluate the feasibility of implementing this instrument in routine clinical practice. The finalised questionnaire will serve as a self-assessment instrument for radiation oncology departments, aiding them in evaluating their efficacy in ensuring patient safety, prioritising safety interventions and tracking performance over time.
Methods and analysis
We are undertaking a 3-year, mixed methods study to address our objectives. For the identification of PSIs, we will conduct a comprehensive review on the PubMed database, along with reviewing national and international guidelines and recommendations. To refine the initial set of indicators, we will consult with experts, including physicians, medical physicists, nurses, administrators and radiation therapists through focus groups. We will employ a Delphi study for the final consensus and selection of indicators. Additionally, the perspectives of patients will be incorporated by formation of a project patient’s committee which meets throughout the project phases. We will reformulate the identified PSIs into questionnaire items. The questionnaire’s clarity and comprehensibility will be validated through cognitive interviews, followed by psychometric testing in a pilot group of over 150 participants from German radiation oncology departments. The final version of the questionnaire will then be implemented in routine healthcare settings and we will interview individual users about their experiences with the questionnaire in semistructured interviews. We will convene a subsequent expert workshop to discuss the study results and explore avenues for the questionnaire’s broader implementation. The finalised questionnaire will be made accessible via a web app. We hereby present the study potocol as a pre-results report.
Ethics and dissemination
Ethical approval for this study was granted by the Hamburg Ethics Committee (Approval Number: 2023-101018-BO-ff). This trial is registered by the ARO (Arbeitsgemeinschaft Radioonkologie /working group for radiation oncology of the German Cancer Society), protocol number 2023-03 and in the German register for clinical trials with the number DRKS00034690. Study results will be published in conference papers and talks as well as journal papers with focus on open access journals. The results will be also disseminated during the implementation workshop in phase III, which will involve a diverse group of stakeholders.
Trial registration number
DRKS00034690
Introduction
Postpartum anaemia is often caused by iron deficiency with onset during the antepartum period and can be exacerbated by excessive blood loss at birth. Its prevalence is estimated as 50–80% in low-income and middle-income countries. It poses adverse consequences on the mother and negatively impacts her ability to care for her newborn. Prompt treatment of postpartum anaemia is thus important. Adherence to oral iron is reportedly low in Nigeria due to its side effects and forgetfulness by the mothers. Intravenous iron such as ferric carboxymaltose, given as a single dose, might help overcome adherence issues, but investigation in a high-quality randomised control trial in Nigeria is first required while evaluation of challenges around its implementation is also warranted.
Objective
To determine the clinical effectiveness, tolerability and safety, of using intravenous ferric carboxymaltose (intervention) vs oral ferrous sulphate (control) for treating moderate to severe iron deficiency anaemia in postpartum women and to evaluate implementation of ferric carboxymaltose in treating postpartum anaemia in Nigeria.
Methods and analysis
This study is an open-label randomised controlled trial with a concurrent implementation study. It is a hybrid type 1 effectiveness-implementation design conducted in four states across Northern and Southern Nigeria. A total of 1400 eligible and consenting women with postpartum moderate to severe anaemia (haemoglobin concentration
Objectives
Patient-centredness of care during wait time before surgery can be improved. In this study we aimed to assess (1) patients’ experiences with and preferences regarding wait time before surgery; (2) the impact of wait time on quality of life (QoL) and (3) which factors influence patients’ wait time experience.
Design, setting, participants
We performed an exploratory sequential mixed-methods study among women with gynaecological cancer in two tertiary hospitals. We conducted semistructured interviews and identified aspects of QoL and factors that influenced wait time acceptability through thematic analysis. We developed a questionnaire from this thematic analysis which was completed by 97 women. Descriptive statistics and univariate and multivariate regression analyses were performed.
Results
Average ideal wait time was 3.5 weeks (±1.7 weeks), minimum and maximum acceptable wait times were 2.2 and 5.6 weeks. Many patients scored above the threshold of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale for anxiety (48%) or depression (34%), had sleeping problems (56%) or experienced pain (54%). A number of factors were more common in patients who indicated that their wait time had been too long: low education level (OR 7.4, 95% CI 0.5 to 5.0, p=0.007), time to surgery >4 weeks (OR 7.0, 95% CI 0.8 to 4.4, p=0.002) and experienced sleep disturbance (OR 3.27, 95% CI 0.0 to 3.1, p=0.05). If patients expectation of wait time was >4 weeks (OR 0.20, 95% CI –4.0 to –0.5 p=0008) or if patients experienced pain (OR 0.26, 95% CI –3.6 to –0.3, p=0.03), they less frequently indicated that wait time had been too long.
Conclusion
To improve patient-centredness of care, healthcare providers should aim to reduce wait time to 3–4 weeks and ensure that patients are well informed about the length of wait time and are aware of high levels of anxiety, depression and pain during this time. Future studies should evaluate what interventions can improve QoL during wait time.
Background
Many cancer treatments pose a threat to fertility for patients. Semen cryopreservation before cancer treatment is an effective method to preserve fertility. There are sparse long-term data on the usage of samples from Canadian oncology sperm banks.
Methods
A retrospective chart review of all oncology sperm banking samples at a Canadian academic fertility centre from 2001 to 2020 was conducted.
Results
From 2001 to 2020, 4521 samples were banked by 2504 patients. The most frequent diagnoses among these patients were testicular cancer (29.5%) and lymphoma (26.9%). Of these patients, only 81 (3.2%) patients returned to use their samples with intrauterine insemination (IUI) or in vitro fertilisation (IVF) treatment and 62 (2.5%) patients transferred their samples to another clinic. The time between banking and return for usage of the sperm ranged from 1 to 131 months with a median of 18 months after banking. A total of 66 IVF cycles (104 embryo transfers) and 101 IUI cycles from 67 patients were reviewed. Of the 67 couples who used their samples, 53.7% achieved a clinical pregnancy. The clinical pregnancy rate was 6.6% per cycle for IUI and 30.8% per embryo transfer for IVF. Higher sperm concentration or total motile count was not associated with a higher chance of pregnancy. Patients who conceived had on average 1.90.8 (p=0.02) more usable embryos per cycle than those who did not conceive.
Conclusions
Sperm cryopreservation provides a valuable option for patients with cancer to achieve parenthood after potentially gonadotoxic cancer treatment. However, the overall usage of banked oncology sperm samples is very low.
Circulation, Volume 150, Issue 7, Page 513-515, August 13, 2024.
Introduction
Endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) is associated with an excellent outcome in the treatment of great saphenous vein (GSV) incompetence. However, the use of thermal ablation requires tumescent anaesthesia and is associated with a risk of thermal damage. Mechanochemical endovenous ablation (MOCA) is a non-thermal ablation (NTA) alternative, which combines mechanical endothelial damage with the infusion of a sclerosant liquid or foam. Tumescent anaesthesia is not required. Preliminary experiences with MOCA using the Clarivein device show less intraprocedural and postprocedural pain and a faster clinical improvement compared with EVLA. Flebogrif (Balton, Poland) is a relatively new MOCA device. To determine the role of MOCA using Flebogrif, a well-designed, randomised controlled clinical trial of sufficient sample size and follow-up time is required. In this article, we provide the study protocol for the REBORN trial, aiming to demonstrate that MOCA using Flebogrif is not inferior to EVLA for the outcome of anatomical success in the treatment of GSV incompetence.
Methods and analysis
This multicentre, open-label, non-inferiority, observer-blinded, randomised controlled trial randomises patients who are diagnosed with GSV incompetence and aged 18–80 years between Flebogrif and EVLA. 310 patients in 3 participating centres (Northwest Clinics Alkmaar, Skin and Vein Clinic Oosterwal Alkmaar and Red Cross Hospital Beverwijk) will be included. The primary outcome is anatomical success at 12 months. Secondary outcomes are intraprocedural pain, operation time, technical success, postprocedural pain, safety, anatomical success during other follow-up moments, complications, clinical success, aesthetic result, disease-specific quality of life, reinterventions, anterior accessory saphenous vein reflux and neovascularisation. Patients will be followed up at 1 week, 1, 6, 12, 24 and 60 month(s) after treatment.
Ethics and dissemination
The institutional review board (Medical Ethical Review Committee of the Vrije Universiteit Medical Center) approved this study on 17 May 2021 under case number 2020.0740. Written informed consent is obtained by the coordinating investigator from all participants prior to study enrolment. After completion of the trial, the results will be submitted to an international scientific journal for peer-reviewed publication.
Trial registration number
Overzicht van Medisch-wetenschappelijk Onderzoek in Nederland, NL-OMON25145, previously NL9527; Centrale Commissie Mensgebonden Onderzoek, NL74491.029.20.
Introduction
Supervised injectable opioid treatment (SIOT) is an evidence-based intervention targeting opioid-dependent people for whom existing treatments have been ineffective. This project will primarily assess the feasibility and the acceptability of time-limited SIOT using injectable hydromorphone delivered in an existing Australian public opioid treatment programme, with secondary outcomes of safety, cost, changes in drug use and other health outcomes. If feasible, the goal is to scale up the intervention to be more widely available in Australia.
Methods and analysis
Between 20 and 30 participants will be offered two times per day hydromorphone to inject under direct observation, in addition to their current opioid agonist treatment (OAT), for up to 2 years. At the end of 2 years of supervised hydromorphone treatment, participants will be continued on standard OAT only. Informed consent will be obtained from all participants included in the study. This is a single-site, uncontrolled, open-label study where quantitative and qualitative interview data will be collected at baseline, 12 months and lastly at 3 months following their final hydromorphone dose. The main outcome measures are feasibility, as assessed by recruitment, retention and participation in treatment, and acceptability to participants, clinic staff and other stakeholders assessed by qualitative interviews. Secondary outcome measures of safety, as assessed by adverse events, and cost will also be assessed, as well as a range of other drug and health outcomes.
Ethics and dissemination
This study received ethical approval from the St Vincent’s Hospital Human Research Ethics Committee (2019/ETH00418). This will be the first study of time-limited SIOT in the Australian setting. All results will be submitted to peer-reviewed journals, scientific conferences and local practice meetings. A preliminary report on outcomes will also be presented to local health policy makers. A consumer and community forum will also be held to feedback results to a broader audience.
Trial registration number
ACTRN12621001729819.
JAMA Oncology is committed to publishing influential original research, opinions, and reviews that advance the science of oncology and improve the clinical care of patients with cancer.
The Original Investigation titled “Clinical Decision Support for Hypertension Management in Chronic Kidney Disease: A Randomized Clinical Trial,” published online March 11, 2024, has been updated to be an open-access article.
For the Original Investigation titled “Postrecurrence Treatment in Neoadjuvant or Adjuvant FDA Registration Trials: A Systematic Review,” published online June 20, 2024, the publication status was changed to open access (CC-BY). This article has been corrected online.
Introduction
Postoperative radiotherapy in patients with breast cancer with one to three lymph node metastases, particularly within the pT1–2N1M0 cohort with a low clinical risk of local–regional recurrence (LRR), has incited a discourse surrounding personalised treatment strategies. Multigene testing for Recurrence Index (RecurIndex) model capably differentiates patients based on their level of LRR risk. This research aims to validate whether a more aggressive treatment approach can enhance clinical outcomes in N1 patients who possess a clinically low risk of LRR, yet a high RecurIndex-determined risk of LRR. Specifically, this entails postoperative whole breast irradiation combined with regional lymph node irradiation (RNI) following breast-conserving surgery or chest wall irradiation with RNI after mastectomy.
Methods and analysis
The RIGAIN (RecurIndex-Guided postoperative radiotherapy with or without Avoidance of Irradiation of regional Nodes in 1–3 node-positive breast cancer) Study is a multicentre, prospective, randomised, open-label, phase III clinical trial that is being conducted in China. In this study, patients with low clinical LRR risk but high RecurIndex-LRR risk are randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to the experimental group or the control group. In the experimental group, RNI is performed and the control group omits RNI. Efficacy and safety analyses will be conducted, enrolling a total of 540 patients (270 per group). The primary endpoint is invasive disease-free survival, and secondary endpoints include any first recurrence, LRR-free survival, distant metastasis-free survival, recurrence-free survival, overall survival, disease-free survival, breast cancer-specific mortality and assessment of patient quality of life. The study began in April 2023 and with a follow-up period of 60 months after the last participant completes radiation therapy.
Ethics and dissemination
The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Sun Yat-Sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-Sen University (SYSKY-2022-097-02, V.3.1). It adheres to the Helsinki Declaration and Good Clinical Practice. Research findings will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals.
Trial registration number
NCT04069884.
