METHODS: Qualitative methods involving two focus group discussions and eight in-depth interviews were used to collect the data. The study was conducted at the following places: Tankisinuwari, Kanchanbari and Pokhariya of Morang district, Nepal during the months of February and March 2010. Purposive sampling method was adopted to recruit twenty mothers based on the inclusion criteria. A semi-structured interview guide was used to conduct the interviews. Written informed consent was obtained from all of the participants before conducting the interviews. The interviews were moderated by the main researcher with the support of an expert observer from Nobel Medical College. The interviews were recorded with the permission of the participants and notes were written by a pre trained note-taker. The recordings were transcribed verbatim. All the transcribed data was categorized and analyzed using thematic content analysis.
RESULTS: Twenty mothers participated in the interviews and most (80%) of them were not educated. About 75% of the mothers had a monthly income of up to 5000 Nepalese rupees (US$ 60.92). Although a majority of mothers believed diarrhea to be due to natural causes, there were also beliefs about supernatural origin of diarrhea. Thin watery diarrhea was considered as the most serious. There was diversity in mothers' beliefs about foods/fluids and diarrhea management approaches. Similarly, several barriers were noted regarding diarrhea prevention and/or management such as financial weakness, lack of awareness, absence of education, distance from healthcare facilities and senior family members at home. The elderly compelled the mothers to visit traditional healers.
CONCLUSIONS: There were varied beliefs among the mothers about the types, causes and severity of diarrhea, classification of foods/fluids and beliefs and barriers about preventing or treating diarrhea.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: FORUM is a randomized, controlled, open-label, international, multicenter, phase III, noninferiority study. Patients ≤ 18 years at diagnosis, 4-21 years at HSCT, in complete remission pre-HSCT, and with an HLA-compatible related or unrelated donor were randomly assigned to myeloablative conditioning with fractionated 12 Gy TBI and etoposide versus fludarabine, thiotepa, and either busulfan or treosulfan. The noninferiority margin was 8%. With 1,000 patients randomly assigned in 5 years, 2-year minimum follow-up, and one-sided alpha of 5%, 80% power was calculated. A futility stopping rule would halt random assignment if chemoconditioning was significantly inferior to TBI (EudraCT: 2012-003032-22; ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01949129).
RESULTS: Between April 2013 and December 2018, 543 patients were screened, 417 were randomly assigned, 212 received TBI, and 201 received chemoconditioning. The stopping rule was applied on March 31, 2019. The median follow-up was 2.1 years. In the intention-to-treat population, 2-year overall survival (OS) was significantly higher following TBI (0.91; 95% CI, 0.86 to 0.95; P < .0001) versus chemoconditioning (0.75; 95% CI, 0.67 to 0.81). Two-year cumulative incidence of relapse and treatment-related mortality were 0.12 (95% CI, 0.08 to 0.17; P < .0001) and 0.02 (95% CI, < 0.01 to 0.05; P = .0269) following TBI and 0.33 (95% CI, 0.25 to 0.40) and 0.09 (95% CI, 0.05 to 0.14) following chemoconditioning, respectively.
CONCLUSION: Improved OS and lower relapse risk were observed following TBI plus etoposide compared with chemoconditioning. We therefore recommend TBI plus etoposide for patients > 4 years old with high-risk ALL undergoing allogeneic HSCT.
METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study of use and dosing of lithium salts for BD patients across 13 Asian sites and evaluated bivariate relationships of lithium treatment with clinical correlates followed by multivariate logistic regression modeling.
RESULTS: In a total of 2139 BD participants (52.3% women) of mean age 42.4 years, lithium salts were prescribed in 27.3% of cases overall, varying among regions from 3.20% to 59.5%. Associated with lithium treatment were male sex, presence of euthymia or mild depression, and a history of seasonal mood change. Other mood stabilizers usually were given with lithium, often at relatively high doses. Lithium use was associated with newly emerging and dose-dependent risk of tremors as well as risk of hypothyroidism. We found no significant differences in rates of clinical remission or of suicidal behavior if treatment included lithium or not.
CONCLUSIONS: Study findings clarify current prevalence, dosing, and clinical correlates of lithium treatment for BD in Asia. This information should support clinical decision-making regarding treatment of BD patients and international comparisons of therapeutic practices.
METHODS: We examined the prevalence and clinical correlates of clozapine treatment for BD in 13 Asian countries and regions (China, Hong Kong SAR, India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Myanmar, Pakistan, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, and Thailand) within an Asian Prescription Patterns Research Consortium. We compared BD patients treated with clozapine or not in initial bivariate comparisons followed by multivariable logistic regression modeling.
RESULTS: Clozapine was given to 2.13% of BD patients overall, at a mean daily dose of 275 (confidence interval, 267-282) chlorpromazine-equivalent mg/day. Patients receiving clozapine were older, more likely males, hospitalized, currently manic, and given greater numbers of mood-stabilizing and antipsychotic drugs in addition to clozapine. Logistic regression revealed that older age, male sex, current mania, and greater number of other antipsychotics remained significantly associated with clozapine treatment. Clozapine use was not associated with depressed mood, remission of illness, suicidal risk, or electroconvulsive treatment within the previous 12 months.
CONCLUSIONS: The identified associations of clozapine use with particular clinical features call for vigilance in personalized clinical monitoring so as to optimize clinical outcomes of BD patients and to limit risks of adverse effects of polytherapy.