METHODS: This is a retrospective, international, multicenter study of trauma across participating centers in the Pan Asian Trauma Outcome Study (PATOS) registry, which included trauma cases aged ≥18 years, brought to the emergency department (ED) by emergency medical services (EMS) from October 2015 to November 2018. Data of older adults (≥65 years) and younger adults (<65 years) were analyzed and compared. The primary outcome measure was in-hospital mortality, and secondary outcomes were disability at discharge and hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) length of stays.
RESULTS: Of 39,804 trauma patients, 10,770 (27.1%) were older adults. Trauma occurred more among older adult women (54.7% vs 33.2%, p
METHODS: Traumatic cardiac arrest patients from 13 countries in the Pan-Asian Resuscitation Outcomes Study registry from 2009 to 2018 were analyzed. Multilevel logistic regression was performed to identify factors associated with the primary outcomes of survival to hospital discharge and favorable neurological outcome (Cerebral Performance Category (CPC) 1-2), and the secondary outcome of return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC).
RESULTS: There were 207,455 out-of-hospital cardiac arrest cases, of which 13,631 (6.6%) were trauma patients aged 18 years and above with resuscitation attempted and who had survival outcomes reported. The median age was 57 years (interquartile range 39-73), 23.0% received bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), 1750 (12.8%) had ROSC, 461 (3.4%) survived to discharge, and 131 (1.0%) had CPC 1-2. Factors associated with higher rates of survival to discharge and favorable neurological outcome were arrests witnessed by emergency medical services or private ambulances (survival to discharge adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 2.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.99-4.38; CPC 1-2 aOR = 2.57, 95% CI = 1.25-5.27), bystander CPR (survival to discharge aOR = 2.16; 95% CI 1.71-2.72; CPC 1-2 aOR = 4.98, 95% CI = 3.27-7.57), and initial shockable rhythm (survival to discharge aOR = 12.00; 95% CI = 6.80-21.17; CPC 1-2 aOR = 33.28, 95% CI = 11.39-97.23) or initial pulseless electrical activity (survival to discharge aOR = 3.98; 95% CI = 2.99-5.30; CPC 1-2 aOR = 5.67, 95% CI = 3.05-10.53) relative to asystole.
CONCLUSIONS: In traumatic cardiac arrest, early aggressive resuscitation may not be futile and bystander CPR may improve outcomes.
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: A previous systematic review identified 115 outcomes in 60 trials and systematic reviews evaluating treatments for children with appendicitis, suggesting the need for a COS.
METHODS: The development process consisted of 4 phases: (1) an updated systematic review identifying all previously reported outcomes, (2) a 2-stage international Delphi study in which parents with their children and surgeons rated these outcomes for inclusion in the COS, (3) focus groups with young people to identify missing outcomes, and (4) international expert meetings to ratify the final COS.
RESULTS: The systematic review identified 129 outcomes which were mapped to 43 unique outcome terms for the Delphi survey. The first-round included 137 parents (8 countries) and 245 surgeons (10 countries), the second-round response rates were 61% and 85% respectively, with 10 outcomes emerging with consensus. After 2 young peoples' focus groups, 2 additional outcomes were added to the final COS (12): mortality, bowel obstruction, intraabdominal abscess, recurrent appendicitis, complicated appendicitis, return to baseline health, readmission, reoperation, unplanned appendectomy, adverse events related to treatment, major and minor complications.
CONCLUSION: An evidence-informed COS based on international consensus, including patients and parents has been developed. This COS is recommended for all future studies evaluating treatment ofsimple appendicitis in children, to reduce heterogeneity between studies and facilitate data synthesis and evidence-based decision-making.
METHODS: VALID is a prospective, multi-center, multinational validation study that will assess the accuracy and feasibility of measuring VA function, defined as the need for interventions to enable and maintain the use of a VA for HD. The primary objective is to determine whether VA function can be measured accurately by clinical staff as part of routine clinical practice (Assessor 1) compared to the reference standard of documented VA procedures collected by a VA expert (Assessor 2) during a 6-month follow-up period. Secondary outcomes include feasibility and acceptability of measuring VA function and the time to, rate of, and type of VA interventions. An estimated 612 participants will be recruited from approximately 10 dialysis units of different size, type (home-, in-center and satellite), governance (private versus public), and location (rural versus urban) across Australia, Canada, Europe, and Malaysia. Validity will be measured by the sensitivity and specificity of the data acquisition process. The sensitivity corresponds to the proportion of correctly identified interventions by Assessor 1, among the interventions identified by Assessor 2 (reference standard). The feasibility of measuring VA function will be assessed by the average data collection time, data completeness, feasibility questionnaires and semi-structured interviews on key feasibility aspects with the assessors.
DISCUSSION: Accuracy, acceptability, and feasibility of measuring VA function as part of routine clinical practice are required to facilitate global implementation of this core outcome across all HD trials. Global use of a standardized, patient-centered outcome measure for VA function in HD research will enhance the consistency and relevance of trial evidence to guide patient-centered care.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03969225. Registered on 31st May 2019.
METHODS: Prospectively collected clinical and EDx data were available in 957 IGOS patients from 115 centers. Only the first EDx study was included in the current analysis.
RESULTS: Median timing of the EDx study was 7 days (interquartile range 4-11) from symptom onset. Methodology varied between centers, countries and regions. Reference values from the responding 103 centers were derived locally in 49%, from publications in 37% and from a combination of these in the remaining 15%. Amplitude measurement in the EDx studies (baseline-to-peak or peak-to-peak) differed from the way this was done in the reference values, in 22% of motor and 39% of sensory conduction. There was marked variability in both motor and sensory reference values, although only a few outliers accounted for this.
CONCLUSIONS: Our study showed extensive variation in the clinical practice of EDx in GBS patients among IGOS centers across the regions.
SIGNIFICANCE: Besides EDx variation in GBS patients participating in IGOS, this diversity is likely to be present in other neuromuscular disorders and centers. This underlines the need for standardization of EDx in future multinational GBS studies.
METHODS: We used prospective data from the first 1,500 patients included in IGOS, aged ≥6 years and unable to walk independently. We evaluated whether the mEGOS at entry and week 1 could predict the inability to walk unaided at 4 and 26 weeks in the full cohort and in regional subgroups, using 2 measures for model performance: (1) discrimination: area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and (2) calibration: observed vs predicted probability of being unable to walk independently. To improve the model predictions, we recalibrated the model containing the overall mEGOS score, without changing the individual predictive factors. Finally, we assessed the predictive ability of the individual factors.
RESULTS: For validation of mEGOS at entry, 809 patients were eligible (Europe/North America [n = 677], Asia [n = 76], other [n = 56]), and 671 for validation of mEGOS at week 1 (Europe/North America [n = 563], Asia [n = 65], other [n = 43]). AUC values were >0.7 in all regional subgroups. In the Europe/North America subgroup, observed outcomes were worse than predicted; in Asia, observed outcomes were better than predicted. Recalibration improved model accuracy and enabled the development of a region-specific version for Europe/North America (mEGOS-Eu/NA). Similar to the original mEGOS, severe limb weakness and higher age were the predominant predictors of poor outcome in the IGOS cohort.
DISCUSSION: mEGOS is a validated tool to predict the inability to walk unaided at 4 and 26 weeks in patients with GBS, also in countries outside the Netherlands. We developed a region-specific version of mEGOS for patients from Europe/North America.
CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This study provides Class II evidence that the mEGOS accurately predicts the inability to walk unaided at 4 and 26 weeks in patients with GBS.
TRIAL REGISTRATION INFORMATION: NCT01582763.
METHODS: This study will be a pilot, interventional, randomized, 2-armed, parallel, singled-masked, controlled trial. A total of 40 diabetes mellitus patients with peripheral neuropathy will be recruited and assigned randomly into 2 groups (moxibustion group and waiting group) at a 1:1 ratio. This trial consists of an 8-week intervention period and a 4-week follow-up period. During the intervention period, the moxibustion group will take 3 moxibustion sessions per week, whereas no intervention will be done on the waiting group to act as the control group. The outcome will be assessed by an outcome assessor who is unaware of the group assignment. The primary outcome will be pain assessment measured with algometry, Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs pain scale, visual analogue scale, and neuropathy pain scale. The secondary outcome will be an evaluation of functional performance capacity with 6 minutes walking test, evaluation of the Foot and Ankle Ability Measure, and serum HbA1c and albumin levels.
DISCUSSION: We hope that this trial will provide valuable insights on the efficacy of moxibustion in the management of diabetic peripheral neuropathy.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Registry No.: NCT04894461 (URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04894461?term=NCT04894461&draw=2&rank=1) Registered on May 20, 2021.
METHODS: We searched PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library for relevant articles published from inception to 28th February 2021. All authors were involved in the screening and selection of studies. Original studies investigating the therapeutic, humanistic, safety, and economic impact of clinical pharmacists in Pakistani patients (hospitalised or outpatients) were selected. Two reviewers independently assessed the risk of bias in studies, and discrepancies were resolved through mutual consensus. All of the included studies were descriptively synthesised, and PRISMA reporting guidelines were followed.
RESULTS: The literature search found 751 articles from which nine studies were included; seven were randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and two were observational studies. Three RCTs included were having a low risk of bias (ROB), two RCTs were having an unclear ROB, while two RCTs were having a high ROB. The nature of clinical pharmacist interventions included one or more components such as disease-related education, lifestyle changes, medication adherence counselling, medication therapy management, and discussions with physicians about prescription modification if necessary. Clinical pharmacist interventions reduce medication-related errors, improve therapeutic outcomes such as blood pressure, glycemic control, lipid control, CD4 T lymphocytes, and renal functions, and improve humanistic outcomes such as patient knowledge, adherence, and health-related quality of life. However, no study reported the economic outcomes of interventions.
CONCLUSIONS: The findings of the studies included in this systematic review suggest that clinical pharmacists play important roles in improving patients' health outcomes in Pakistan; however, it should be noted that the majority of the studies have a high risk of bias, and more research with appropriate study designs is needed.
METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This mixed-method project has two phases. In phase 1, we will identify a list of patient-reported and clinical outcomes through qualitative research and systematic reviews. In phase 2, we will categorise the identified outcomes using the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials taxonomy of core domains and the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. We will develop questionnaires from the list of outcomes identified from each domain for the two-round online Delphi exercise, aiming to reach a consensus on the COS. The Delphi process will include patients, carers, researchers and healthcare participants. We will hold an online consensus meeting involving representatives of all key stakeholders to establish the final COS.
ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been reviewed and approved by the Ethics Committee for Research Involving Human Subjects, Universiti Putra Malaysia and the Research Ethics Committee, National University of Malaysia. This proposed COS in TD will improve the value of data, facilitate high-quality evidence synthesis and evidence-based decision-making. Furthermore, we will present the results to participants, in peer-reviewed academic journals and conferences.
REGISTRATION DETAILS: Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) Initiative database registration: http://www.comet-initiative.org/studies/details/1371.
METHODS: In this cross-sectional study among 570 YMSM aged 18 to 25 years old, latent class analysis (LCA) conducted to identify classes with similar patterns of sexualized substance use, across which measures of inconsistent condom use, recent STI diagnoses, past suicide ideation and depression severity were compared.
RESULTS: LCA revealed three classes of YMSM based on types of substances ever used in sexualized contexts, which we labelled as 'substance-naive', 'substance-novice', and 'chemsex'. Substance-naive participants (n = 404) had only ever used alcohol, while substance-novice participants (n = 143) were primarily amyl nitrite users with a small proportion who reported using chemsex-related drugs. Chemsex participants (n = 23) comprised individuals who had mostly used such drugs. Those in the chemsex group were more likely to report recent unprotected anal sex with casual partners (aPR = 3.28, 95%CI [1.85, 5.79]), depression severity (aβ = 3.69, 95%CI [0.87, 6.51]) and a history of suicide ideation (aPR = 1.64, 95%CI [1.33, 2.03]).
CONCLUSIONS: Findings of this study highlight how the use of varying substances in sexualized contexts may be classified and characterized by different sexual and mental health outcomes. Health promotion efforts should be differentiated accordingly to address the risks associated with sexualized substance use among YMSM.
METHODS: In this randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 3 trial, done in 209 sites in 29 countries, we randomly assigned patients 2:1 with untreated locally recurrent inoperable or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer using a block method (block size of six) and an interactive voice-response system with integrated web-response to pembrolizumab (200 mg) every 3 weeks plus chemotherapy (nab-paclitaxel; paclitaxel; or gemcitabine plus carboplatin) or placebo plus chemotherapy. Randomisation was stratified by type of on-study chemotherapy (taxane or gemcitabine-carboplatin), PD-L1 expression at baseline (combined positive score [CPS] ≥1 or <1), and previous treatment with the same class of chemotherapy in the neoadjuvant or adjuvant setting (yes or no). Eligibility criteria included age at least 18 years, centrally confirmed triple-negative breast cancer; at least one measurable lesion; provision of a newly obtained tumour sample for determination of triple-negative breast cancer status and PD-L1 status by immunohistochemistry at a central laboratory; an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score 0 or 1; and adequate organ function. The sponsor, investigators, other study site staff (except for the unmasked pharmacist), and patients were masked to pembrolizumab versus saline placebo administration. In addition, the sponsor, the investigators, other study site staff, and patients were masked to patient-level tumour PD-L1 biomarker results. Dual primary efficacy endpoints were progression-free survival and overall survival assessed in the PD-L1 CPS of 10 or more, CPS of 1 or more, and intention-to-treat populations. The definitive assessment of progression-free survival was done at this interim analysis; follow-up to assess overall survival is continuing. For progression-free survival, a hierarchical testing strategy was used, such that testing was done first in patients with CPS of 10 or more (prespecified statistical criterion was α=0·00411 at this interim analysis), then in patients with CPS of 1 or more (α=0·00111 at this interim analysis, with partial alpha from progression-free survival in patients with CPS of 10 or more passed over), and finally in the intention-to-treat population (α=0·00111 at this interim analysis). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02819518, and is ongoing.
FINDINGS: Between Jan 9, 2017, and June 12, 2018, of 1372 patients screened, 847 were randomly assigned to treatment, with 566 patients in the pembrolizumab-chemotherapy group and 281 patients in the placebo-chemotherapy group. At the second interim analysis (data cutoff, Dec 11, 2019), median follow-up was 25·9 months (IQR 22·8-29·9) in the pembrolizumab-chemotherapy group and 26·3 months (22·7-29·7) in the placebo-chemotherapy group. Among patients with CPS of 10 or more, median progression-free survival was 9·7 months with pembrolizumab-chemotherapy and 5·6 months with placebo-chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR] for progression or death, 0·65, 95% CI 0·49-0·86; one-sided p=0·0012 [primary objective met]). Median progression-free survival was 7·6 and 5·6 months (HR, 0·74, 0·61-0·90; one-sided p=0·0014 [not significant]) among patients with CPS of 1 or more and 7·5 and 5·6 months (HR, 0·82, 0·69-0·97 [not tested]) among the intention-to-treat population. The pembrolizumab treatment effect increased with PD-L1 enrichment. Grade 3-5 treatment-related adverse event rates were 68% in the pembrolizumab-chemotherapy group and 67% in the placebo-chemotherapy group, including death in <1% in the pembrolizumab-chemotherapy group and 0% in the placebo-chemotherapy group.
INTERPRETATION: Pembrolizumab-chemotherapy showed a significant and clinically meaningful improvement in progression-free survival versus placebo-chemotherapy among patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer with CPS of 10 or more. These findings suggest a role for the addition of pembrolizumab to standard chemotherapy for the first-line treatment of metastatic triple-negative breast cancer.
FUNDING: Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp, a subsidiary of Merck & Co, Inc.
METHODS: This prospective observational study comprised 34 newly diagnosed unilateral vocal fold paralysis patients undergoing surgical interventions: injection laryngoplasty or medialisation thyroplasty. Voice assessments, including maximum vocal intensity and other acoustic parameters, were performed at baseline and at one and three months post-intervention. Maximum vocal intensity was also repeated within two weeks before any surgical interventions were performed. The results were compared between different time points and between the two intervention groups.
RESULTS: Maximum vocal intensity showed high internal consistency. Statistically significant improvements were seen in maximum vocal intensity, Voice Handicap Index-10 and other acoustic analyses at one and three months post-intervention. A significant moderate negative correlation was demonstrated between maximum vocal intensity and Voice Handicap Index-10, shimmer and jitter. There were no significant differences in voice outcomes between injection laryngoplasty and medialisation thyroplasty patients at any time point.
CONCLUSION: Maximum vocal intensity can be applied as a treatment outcome measure in unilateral vocal fold paralysis patients; it can demonstrate the effectiveness of treatment and moderately correlates with self-reported outcome measures.
METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to double-blind treatment for 6 weeks with lurasidone, 20-60 mg/day (n = 184) or 80-120 mg/day (n = 169), or placebo (n = 172). The primary end-point was change from baseline to Week 6 on the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS).
RESULTS: Lurasidone treatment significantly reduced mean MADRS total scores from baseline to Week 6 for the 20-60-mg/day group (-13.6; adjusted P = 0.007; effect size = 0.33), but not for the 80-120-mg/day group (-12.6; adjusted P = 0.057; effect size = 0.22) compared with placebo (-10.6). Treatment with lurasidone 20-60 mg/day also improved MADRS response rates, functional impairment, and anxiety symptoms. The most common adverse events associated with lurasidone were akathisia and nausea. Lurasidone treatments were associated with minimal changes in weight, lipids, and measures of glycemic control.
CONCLUSION: Monotherapy with once daily doses of lurasidone 20-60 mg, but not 80-120 mg, significantly reduced depressive symptoms and improved functioning in patients with bipolar I depression. Results overall were consistent with previous studies, suggesting that lurasidone 20-60 mg/day is effective and safe in diverse ethnic populations, including Japanese.