METHODS: This international, investigator-initiated, pragmatic, registry-based, single-blinded, randomised trial was undertaken in 85 intensive care units (ICUs) across 16 countries. We enrolled nutritionally high-risk adults (≥18 years) undergoing mechanical ventilation to compare prescribing high-dose protein (≥2·2 g/kg per day) with usual dose protein (≤1·2 g/kg per day) started within 96 h of ICU admission and continued for up to 28 days or death or transition to oral feeding. Participants were randomly allocated (1:1) to high-dose protein or usual dose protein, stratified by site. As site personnel were involved in both prescribing and delivering protein dose, it was not possible to blind clinicians, but patients were not made aware of the treatment assignment. The primary efficacy outcome was time-to-discharge-alive from hospital up to 60 days after ICU admission and the secondary outcome was 60-day morality. Patients were analysed in the group to which they were randomly assigned regardless of study compliance, although patients who dropped out of the study before receiving the study intervention were excluded. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03160547.
FINDINGS: Between Jan 17, 2018, and Dec 3, 2021, 1329 patients were randomised and 1301 (97·9%) were included in the analysis (645 in the high-dose protein group and 656 in usual dose group). By 60 days after randomisation, the cumulative incidence of alive hospital discharge was 46·1% (95 CI 42·0%-50·1%) in the high-dose compared with 50·2% (46·0%-54·3%) in the usual dose protein group (hazard ratio 0·91, 95% CI 0·77-1·07; p=0·27). The 60-day mortality rate was 34·6% (222 of 642) in the high dose protein group compared with 32·1% (208 of 648) in the usual dose protein group (relative risk 1·08, 95% CI 0·92-1·26). There appeared to be a subgroup effect with higher protein provision being particularly harmful in patients with acute kidney injury and higher organ failure scores at baseline.
INTERPRETATION: Delivery of higher doses of protein to mechanically ventilated critically ill patients did not improve the time-to-discharge-alive from hospital and might have worsened outcomes for patients with acute kidney injury and high organ failure scores.
FUNDING: None.
METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted using a prevalence-based approach from a societal perspective in Malaysia with a 1 year period from 2013. We used micro-costing technique with bottom-up method and included direct medical cost, direct non-medical cost, and indirect cost. The main data source was medical chart review which was conducted in Hospital Kuala Lumpur (HKL). The medical charts were identified electronically by matching the unique patient's identification number registered under the National Mental Health Schizophrenia Registry and the list of patients in HKL in 2013. Other data sources were government documents, literatures, and local websites. To ensure robustness of result, probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted.
RESULTS: The total estimated number of treated SCZ cases in Malaysia in 2015 was 15,104 with the total economic burden of USD 100 million (M) which was equivalent to 0.04% of the national gross domestic product. On average, the mean cost per patient was USD 6,594. Of the total economic burden of SCZ, 72% was attributed to indirect cost, costing at USD 72M, followed by direct medical cost (26%), costing at USD 26M, and direct non-medical cost (2%), costing at USD 1.7M.
CONCLUSION: This study highlights the magnitude of economic burden of SCZ and informs the policy-makers that there is an inadequate support for SCZ patients. More resources should be allocated to improve the condition of SCZ patients and to reduce the economic burden.
SUBJECT AND METHODS: The registry was developed and implemented using the general key steps from a resource titled "Registries for Evaluating Patient Outcomes: A User's Guide" as a guide for best practice, experience from a previously established pediatric diabetes registry in Kuwait and several other COVID-19 registries developed globally. During the pilot phase, a convenience sample of 120 children was included, of whom 66 (55%) were male.
RESULTS: Experience and expertise from other COVID-19 registries; guidance provided by the World Health Organization; and effective collaboration and cooperation between the stakeholders, study group, and data enterers during these challenging times were critical for the development and implementation of the registry. Our results were similar to international reports which showed that most children presented with mild disease (69.2%), majority (70.2%) had normal chest X-ray, and the most common symptom at presentation was fever (77%).
CONCLUSION: We anticipate the development of PCR-Q8 to be a stepping-stone for more in-depth investigation of SARS-CoV-2 infection in children in Kuwait and for the establishment of other registries.
METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The NeST Registry is designed as a product registry that would provide information on the use and safety of NeuroAiD in clinical practice. An online NeST Registry was set up to allow easy entry and retrieval of essential information including demographics, medical conditions, clinical assessments of neurological, functional and cognitive state, compliance, concomitant medications, and side effects, if any, among patients on NeuroAiD. Patients who are taking or have been prescribed NeuroAiD may be included. Participation is voluntary. Data collected are similar to information obtained during standard care and are prospectively entered by the participating physicians at baseline (before initialisation of NeuroAiD) and during subsequent visits. The primary outcome assessed is safety (ie, non-serious and serious adverse event), while compliance and neurological status over time are secondary outcomes. The in-person follow-up assessments are timed with clinical appointments. Anonymised data will be extracted and collectively analysed. Initial target sample size for the registry is 2000. Analysis will be performed after every 500 participants entered with completed follow-up information.
ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Doctors who prescribe NeuroAiD will be introduced to the registry by local partners. The central coordinator of the registry will discuss the protocol and requirements for implementation with doctors who show interest. Currently, the registry has been approved by the Ethics Committees of Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (Malaysia) and National Brain Center (Indonesia). In addition, for other countries, Ethics Committee approval will be obtained in accordance with local requirements.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02536079.
INTRODUCTION: Percutaneous edge-to-edge repair of severe MR using the MitraClip device is approved for use in the USA for high risk DMR while European guidelines include its use in FMR patients as well.
METHODS: The MitraClip in the Asia-Pacific Registry (MARS) is a multicenter retrospective registry, involving eight sites in five Asia-Pacific countries. Clinical and echocardiographic characteristics, procedural outcomes and 1-month outcomes [death and major adverse events (MAE)] were compared between FMR and DMR patients treated with the MitraClip.
RESULTS: A total of 163 patients were included from 2011 to 2014. The acute procedural success rates for FMR (95.5%, n = 84) and DMR (92%, n = 69) were similar (P = 0.515). 45% of FMR had ≥2 clips inserted compared to 60% of those with DMR (P = 0.064).The 30-day mortality rate for FMR and DMR was similar at 4.5% and 6.7% respectively (P = 0.555). The 30-day MAE rate was 9.2% for FMR and 14.7% for DMR (P = 0.281). Both FMR and DMR patients had significant improvements in the severity of MR and NYHA class after 30 days. There was a significantly greater reduction in left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (P = 0.002) and end systolic diameter (P = 0.017) in DMR than in FMR.
CONCLUSIONS: The MitraClip therapy is a safe and efficacious treatment option for both FMR and DMR. Although, there is a significantly greater reduction in LV volumes in DMR, patients in both groups report clinical benefit with improvement in functional class. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
METHODS: Data was collected from the web-based MOH CSR. All consecutive cataract surgery patients from 1st June 2008 to 31st December 2014 were identified. Exclusion criteria were traumatic cataract or previous ocular surgery. Demographic data, ocular co-morbidities, intraoperative details and postoperative visual acuity (VA) at final ophthalmological follow-up were noted. All eyes were taken for analysis. Subjects with POE were compared against subjects with no POE for risk factor assessment using multiple logistic regressions.
RESULTS: A total of 163 503 subjects were screened. The incidence of POE was 0.08% (131/163 503). Demographic POE risk factors included male gender (OR: 2.121, 95%CI: 1.464-3.015) and renal disease (OR: 2.867, 95%CI: 1.503-5.467). POE risk increased with secondary causes of cataract (OR: 3.562, 95%CI: 1.740-7.288), uveitis (OR: 11.663, 95%CI: 4.292-31.693) and diabetic retinopathy (OR: 1.720, 95%CI: 1.078-2.744). Intraoperative factors reducing POE were shorter surgical time (OR: 2.114, 95%CI: 1.473-3.032), topical or intracameral anaesthesia (OR: 1.823, 95%CI: 1.278-2.602), posterior chamber intraocular lens (PCIOL; OR: 4.992, 95%CI: 2.689-9.266) and foldable IOL (OR: 2.276, 95%CI: 1.498-3.457). POE risk increased with posterior capsule rupture (OR: 3.773, 95%CI: 1.915-7.432) and vitreous loss (OR: 3.907, 95%CI: 1.720-8.873). Postoperative VA of 6/12 or better was achieved in 15.27% (20/131) subjects with POE.
CONCLUSION: This study concurs with other studies regarding POE risk factors. Further strengthening of MOH CSR data collection process will enable deeper analysis and optimization of POE treatment.