The acceptability, usability and short-term outcomes of Get Real: A web-based program for psychotic-like experiences (PLEs)

Background Psychotic-like experiences (PLEs) are subclinical delusional ideas and perceptual disturbances that have been associated with a range of adverse mental health outcomes. This study reports a qualitative and quantitative analysis of the acceptability, usability and short term outcomes of Get Real, a web program for PLEs in young people. Methods Participants were twelve respondents to an online survey, who reported at least one PLE in the previous 3 months, and were currently distressed. Ratings of the program were collected after participants trialled it for a month. Individual semi-structured interviews then elicited qualitative feedback, which was analyzed using Consensual Qualitative Research (CQR) methodology. PLEs and distress were reassessed at 3 months post-baseline. Results User ratings supported the program's acceptability, usability and perceived utility. Significant reductions in the number, frequency and severity of PLE-related distress were found at 3 months follow-up. The CQR analysis identified four qualitative domains: initial and current understandings of PLEs, responses to the program, and context of its use. Initial understanding involved emotional reactions, avoidance or minimization, limited coping skills and non-psychotic attributions. After using the program, participants saw PLEs as normal and common, had greater self-awareness and understanding of stress, and reported increased capacity to cope and accept experiences. Positive responses to the program focused on its normalization of PLEs, usefulness of its strategies, self-monitoring of mood, and information putting PLEs into perspective. Some respondents wanted more specific and individualized information, thought the program would be more useful for other audiences, or doubted its effectiveness. The program was mostly used in low-stress situations. Conclusions The current study provided initial support for the acceptability, utility and positive short-term outcomes of Get Real. The program now requires efficacy testing in randomized controlled trials.

Low-frequency electrical stimulation combined with a cooling vest improves recovery of elite kayakers following a simulated 1000-m race in a hot environment

This study compared the effects of a low-frequency electrical stimulation (LFES; Veinoplus® Sport, Ad Rem Technology, Paris, France), a low-frequency electrical stimulation combined with a cooling vest (LFESCR) and an active recovery combined with a cooling vest (ACTCR) as recovery strategies on performance (racing time and pacing strategies), physiologic and perceptual responses between two sprint kayak simulated races, in a hot environment (∼32 wet-bulb-globe temperature). Eight elite male kayakers performed two successive 1000-m kayak time trials (TT1 and TT2), separated by a short-term recovery period, including a 30-min of the respective recovery intervention protocol, in a randomized crossover design. Racing time, power output, and stroke rate were recorded for each time trial. Blood lactate concentration, pH, core, skin and body temperatures were measured before and after both TT1 and TT2 and at mid- and post-recovery intervention. Perceptual ratings of thermal sensation were also collected. LFESCR was associated with a very likely effect in performance restoration compared with ACTCR (99/0/1%) and LFES conditions (98/0/2%). LFESCR induced a significant decrease in body temperature and thermal sensation at post-recovery intervention, which is not observed in ACTCR condition. In conclusion, the combination of LFES and wearing a cooling vest (LFESCR) improves performance restoration between two 1000-m kayak time trials achieved by elite athletes, in the heat.

Comparison of treatment effect sizes associated with surrogate and final patient relevant outcomes in randomised controlled trials: meta-epidemiological study

Objective To quantify and compare the treatment effect and risk of bias of trials reporting biomarkers or intermediate outcomes (surrogate outcomes) versus trials using final patient relevant primary outcomes. Design Meta-epidemiological study. Data sources All randomised clinical trials published in 2005 and 2006 in six high impact medical journals: Annals of Internal Medicine, BMJ, Journal of the American Medical Association, Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine, and PLoS Medicine. Study selection Two independent reviewers selected trials. Data extraction Trial characteristics, risk of bias, and outcomes were recorded according to a predefined form. Two reviewers independently checked data extraction. The ratio of odds ratios was used to quantify the degree of difference in treatment effects between the trials using surrogate outcomes and those using patient relevant outcomes, also adjusted for trial characteristics. A ratio of odds ratios >1.0 implies that trials with surrogate outcomes report larger intervention effects than trials with patient relevant outcomes. Results 84 trials using surrogate outcomes and 101 using patient relevant outcomes were considered for analyses. Study characteristics of trials using surrogate outcomes and those using patient relevant outcomes were well balanced, except for median sample size (371 v 741) and single centre status (23% v 9%). Their risk of bias did not differ. Primary analysis showed trials reporting surrogate endpoints to have larger treatment effects (odds ratio 0.51, 95% confidence interval 0.42 to 0.60) than trials reporting patient relevant outcomes (0.76, 0.70 to 0.82), with an unadjusted ratio of odds ratios of 1.47 (1.07 to 2.01) and adjusted ratio of odds ratios of 1.46 (1.05 to 2.04). This result was consistent across sensitivity and secondary analyses. Conclusions Trials reporting surrogate primary outcomes are more likely to report larger treatment effects than trials reporting final patient relevant primary outcomes. This finding was not explained by differences in the risk of bias or characteristics of the two groups of trials.

Complete cytogenetic response and major molecular response as surrogate outcomes for overall survival in first-line treatment of chronic myelogenous leukemia: A case study for technology appraisal on the basis of surrogate outcomes evidence

Objectives In 2012, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence assessed dasatinib, nilotinib, and standard-dose imatinib as first-line treatment of chronic phase chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML). Licensing of these alternative treatments was based on randomized controlled trials assessing complete cytogenetic response (CCyR) and major molecular response (MMR) at 12 months as primary end points. We use this case study to illustrate the validation of CCyR and MMR as surrogate outcomes for overall survival in CML and how this evidence was used to inform National Institute for Health and Care Excellence’s recommendation on the public funding of these first-line treatments for CML. Methods We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis to quantify the association between CCyR and MMR at 12 months and overall survival in patients with chronic phase CML. We estimated life expectancy by extrapolating long-term survival from the weighted overall survival stratified according to the achievement of CCyR and MMR. Results Five studies provided data on the observational association between CCyR or MMR and overall survival. Based on the pooled association between CCyR and MMR and overall survival, our modeling showed comparable predicted mean duration of survival (21–23 years) following first-line treatment with imatinib, dasatinib, or nilotinib. Conclusions This case study illustrates the consideration of surrogate outcome evidence in health technology assessment. Although it is often recommended that the acceptance of surrogate outcomes be based on randomized controlled trial data demonstrating an association between the treatment effect on both the surrogate outcome and the final outcome, this case study shows that policymakers may be willing to accept a lower level of evidence (i.e., observational association).

The effectiveness of SMS reminders on appointment attendance: A meta-analysis

Objective To identify the efficacy of short message service (SMS) reminders in health care appointment attendance. Materials and Methods A systematic review was undertaken to identify studies published between 2005 and 2015 that compared the attendance rates of patients receiving SMS reminders compared to patients not receiving a reminder. Each article was examined for information regarding the study design, sample size, population demographics and intervention methods. A meta-analysis was used to calculate a pooled estimate odds ratio. Results Twenty-eight (28) studies were included in the review, including 13 (46%) randomized controlled trials. The pooled odds ratio of the randomized control trials was 1.62 (1.35 – 1.94). Half of the studies reviewed sent the reminder within 48 hour prior to the appointment time, yet no significant subgroups differences with respect to participant age, SMS timing, rate or type, setting or specialty was detectable. Discussion All studies, except one with a small sample size, demonstrated a positive OR, indicating SMS reminders were an effective means of improving appointment attendance. There was no significant difference in OR when controlling for when the SMS was sent, the frequency of the reminders or the content of the reminder. Conclusion SMS appointment reminders are an effective and operative method in improving appointment attendance in a health care setting and this effectiveness has improved over the past five years. Further research is required to identify the optimal SMS reminder timing and frequency, specifically in relation to the length of time since the appointment.

The effectiveness of the teach-back method on adherence and self-management in health education for people with chronic disease: A systematic review

- BACKGROUND Chronic diseases are increasing worldwide and have become a significant burden to those affected by those diseases. Disease-specific education programs have demonstrated improved outcomes, although people do forget information quickly or memorize it incorrectly. The teach-back method was introduced in an attempt to reinforce education to patients. To date, the evidence regarding the effectiveness of health education employing the teach-back method in improved care has not yet been reviewed systematically. - OBJECTIVES This systematic review examined the evidence on using the teach-back method in health education programs for improving adherence and self-management of people with chronic disease. - INCLUSION CRITERIA Types of participants: Adults aged 18 years and over with one or more than one chronic disease. Types of intervention: All types of interventions which included the teach-back method in an education program for people with chronic diseases. The comparator was chronic disease education programs that did not involve the teach-back method. Types of studies: Randomized and non-randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, before-after studies and case-control studies. Types of outcomes: The outcomes of interest were adherence, self-management, disease-specific knowledge, readmission, knowledge retention, self-efficacy and quality of life. - SEARCH STRATEGY Searches were conducted in CINAHL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, Web of Science, ProQuest Nursing and Allied Health Source, and Google Scholar databases. Search terms were combined by AND or OR in search strings. Reference lists of included articles were also searched for further potential references. - METHODOLOGICAL QUALITY Two reviewers conducted quality appraisal of papers using the Joanna Briggs Institute Meta-Analysis of Statistics Assessment and Review Instrument. - DATA EXTRACTION Data were extracted using the Joanna Briggs Institute Meta-Analysis of Statistics Assessment and Review Instrument data extraction instruments. - DATA SYNTHESIS There was significant heterogeneity in selected studies, hence a meta-analysis was not possible and the results were presented in narrative form. - RESULTS Of the 21 articles retrieved in full, 12 on the use of the teach-back method met the inclusion criteria and were selected for analysis. Four studies confirmed improved disease-specific knowledge in intervention participants. One study showed a statistically significant improvement in adherence to medication and diet among type 2 diabetics patients in the intervention group compared to the control group (p < 0.001). Two studies found statistically significant improvements in self-efficacy (p = 0.0026 and p < 0.001) in the intervention groups. One study examined quality of life in heart failure patients but the results did not improve from the intervention (p = 0.59). Five studies found a reduction in readmission rates and hospitalization but these were not always statistically significant. Two studies showed improvement in daily weighing among heart failure participants, and in adherence to diet, exercise and foot care among those with type 2 diabetes. - CONCLUSION Overall, the teach-back method showed positive effects in a wide range of health care outcomes although these were not always statistically significant. Studies in this systematic review revealed improved outcomes in disease-specific knowledge, adherence, self-efficacy and the inhaler technique. There was a positive but inconsistent trend also seen in improved self-care and reduction of hospital readmission rates. There was limited evidence on improvement in quality of life or disease related knowledge retention.

A shift in priority in diabetic foot care and research: 75% of foot ulcers are preventable

Diabetic foot ulceration poses a heavy burden on the patient and the healthcare system, but prevention thereof receives little attention. For every euro spent on ulcer prevention, ten are spent on ulcer healing, and for every randomized controlled trial conducted on prevention, ten are conducted on healing. In this article, we argue that a shift in priorities is needed. For the prevention of a first foot ulcer, we need more insight into the effect of interventions and practices already applied globally in many settings. This requires systematic recording of interventions and outcomes, and well-designed randomized controlled trials that include analysis of cost-effectiveness. After healing of a foot ulcer, the risk of recurrence is high. For the prevention of a recurrent foot ulcer, home monitoring of foot temperature, pressure-relieving therapeutic footwear, and certain surgical interventions prove to be effective. The median effect size found in a total of 23 studies on these interventions is large, over 60%, and further increases when patients are adherent to treatment. These interventions should be investigated for efficacy as a state-of-the-art integrated foot care approach, where attempts are made to assure treatment adherence. Effect sizes of 75-80% may be expected. If such state-of-the-art integrated foot care is implemented, the majority of problems with foot ulcer recurrence in diabetes can be resolved. It is therefore time to act and to set a new target in diabetic foot care. This target is to reduce foot ulcer incidence with at least 75%.

The use of metabolomics to monitor simultaneous changes in metabolic variables following supramaximal low volume high intensity exercise

High Intensity Exercise (HIE) stimulates greater physiological remodeling when compared to workload matched low-moderate intensity exercise. This study utilized an untargeted metabolomics approach to examine the metabolic perturbations that occur following two workload matched supramaximal low volume HIE trials. In a randomized order, 7 untrained males completed two exercise protocols separated by one week; 1) HIE150%: 30 x 20s cycling at 150% VO2peak, 40s passive rest; 2) HIE300%: 30 x 10s cycling at 300% VO2peak, 50 s passive rest. Total exercise duration was 30 minutes for both trials. Blood samples were taken at rest, during and immediately following exercise and at 60 minutes post exercise. Gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) analysis of plasma identified 43 known metabolites of which 3 demonstrated significant fold changes (HIE300% compared to the HIE150% value) during exercise, 14 post exercise and 23 at the end of the recovery period. Significant changes in plasma metabolites relating to lipid metabolism [fatty acids: dodecanoate (p=0.042), hexadecanoate (p=0.001), octadecanoate (p=0.001)], total cholesterol (p=0.001), and glycolysis [lactate (p=0.018)] were observed following exercise and during the recovery period. The HIE300% protocol elicited greater metabolic changes relating to lipid metabolism and glycolysis when compared to HIE150% protocol. These changes were more pronounced throughout the recovery period rather than during the exercise bout itself. Data from the current study demonstrate the use of metabolomics to monitor intensity-dependent changes in multiple metabolic pathways following exercise. The small sample size indicates a need for further studies in a larger sample cohort to validate these findings.

Systematic review of interventions to improve the provision of information for adults with primary brain tumours and their caregivers

Background: Adults with primary brain tumors and their caregivers have significant information needs. This review assessed the effect of interventions to improve information provision for adult primary brain tumor patients and/or their caregivers. Methods: We included randomized or nonrandomized trials testing educational interventions that had outcomes of information provision, knowledge, understanding, recall, or satisfaction with the intervention, for adults diagnosed with primary brain tumors and/or their family or caregivers. PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Reviews databases were searched for studies published between 1980 and June 2014. Results: Two randomized controlled, one non-randomized controlled, and 10 single group pre-post trials enrolled more than 411 participants. Five group, four practice/process change and four individual interventions assessed satisfaction (12 studies), knowledge (four studies) or information provision (2 studies). Nine studies reported high rates of satisfaction. Three studies showed statistically significant improvements over time in knowledge and two showed greater information was provided to intervention than control group participants, although statistical testing was not performed. Discussion: The trials assessed intermediate outcomes such as satisfaction, and only 4/13 reported on knowledge improvements. Few trials had a randomized controlled design and risk of bias was either evident or could not be assessed in most domains.

First-Line afatinib versus chemotherapy in patients with non–small cell lung cancer and common epidermal growth factor receptor gene mutations and brain metastases

Introduction Metastatic spread to the brain is common in patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), but these patients are generally excluded from prospective clinical trials. The studies, phase III study of afatinib or cisplatin plus pemetrexed in patients with metastatic lung adenocarcinoma with EGFR mutations (LUX-Lung 3) and a randomized, open-label, phase III study of BIBW 2992 versus chemotherapy as first-line treatment for patients with stage IIIB or IV adenocarcinoma of the lung harbouring an EGFR activating mutation (LUX-Lung 6) investigated first-line afatinib versus platinum-based chemotherapy in epidermal growth factor receptor gene (EGFR) mutation-positive patients with NSCLC and included patients with brain metastases; prespecified subgroup analyses are assessed in this article. Methods For both LUX-Lung 3 and LUX-Lung 6, prespecified subgroup analyses of progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival, and objective response rate were undertaken in patients with asymptomatic brain metastases at baseline (n = 35 and n = 46, respectively). Post hoc analyses of clinical outcomes was undertaken in the combined data set (n = 81). Results In both studies, there was a trend toward improved PFS with afatinib versus chemotherapy in patients with brain metastases (LUX-Lung 3: 11.1 versus 5.4 months, hazard ratio [HR] = 0.54, p = 0.1378; LUX-Lung 6: 8.2 versus 4.7 months, HR = 0.47, p = 0.1060). The magnitude of PFS improvement with afatinib was similar to that observed in patients without brain metastases. In combined analysis, PFS was significantly improved with afatinib versus with chemotherapy in patients with brain metastases (8.2 versus 5.4 months; HR, 0.50; p = 0.0297). Afatinib significantly improved the objective response rate versus chemotherapy in patients with brain metastases. Safety findings were consistent with previous reports. Conclusions These findings lend support to the clinical activity of afatinib in EGFR mutation–positive patients with NSCLC and asymptomatic brain metastases.

Afatinib versus cisplatin-based chemotherapy for EGFR mutation-positive lung adenocarcinoma (LUX-Lung 3 and LUX-Lung 6): analysis of overall survival data from two randomised, phase 3 trials

Background We aimed to assess the effect of afatinib on overall survival of patients with EGFR mutation-positive lung adenocarcinoma through an analysis of data from two open-label, randomised, phase 3 trials. Methods Previously untreated patients with EGFR mutation-positive stage IIIB or IV lung adenocarcinoma were enrolled in LUX-Lung 3 (n=345) and LUX-Lung 6 (n=364). These patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive afatinib or chemotherapy (pemetrexed-cisplatin [LUX-Lung 3] or gemcitabine-cisplatin [LUX-Lung 6]), stratified by EGFR mutation (exon 19 deletion [del19], Leu858Arg, or other) and ethnic origin (LUX-Lung 3 only). We planned analyses of mature overall survival data in the intention-to-treat population after 209 (LUX-Lung 3) and 237 (LUX-Lung 6) deaths. These ongoing studies are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, numbers NCT00949650 and NCT01121393. Findings Median follow-up in LUX-Lung 3 was 41 months (IQR 35–44); 213 (62%) of 345 patients had died. Median follow-up in LUX-Lung 6 was 33 months (IQR 31–37); 246 (68%) of 364 patients had died. In LUX-Lung 3, median overall survival was 28·2 months (95% CI 24·6–33·6) in the afatinib group and 28·2 months (20·7–33·2) in the pemetrexed-cisplatin group (HR 0·88, 95% CI 0·66–1·17, p=0·39). In LUX-Lung 6, median overall survival was 23·1 months (95% CI 20·4–27·3) in the afatinib group and 23·5 months (18·0–25·6) in the gemcitabine-cisplatin group (HR 0·93, 95% CI 0·72–1·22, p=0·61). However, in preplanned analyses, overall survival was significantly longer for patients with del19-positive tumours in the afatinib group than in the chemotherapy group in both trials: in LUX-Lung 3, median overall survival was 33·3 months (95% CI 26·8–41·5) in the afatinib group versus 21·1 months (16·3–30·7) in the chemotherapy group (HR 0·54, 95% CI 0·36–0·79, p=0·0015); in LUX-Lung 6, it was 31·4 months (95% CI 24·2–35·3) versus 18·4 months (14·6–25·6), respectively (HR 0·64, 95% CI 0·44–0·94, p=0·023). By contrast, there were no significant differences by treatment group for patients with EGFR Leu858Arg-positive tumours in either trial: in LUX-Lung 3, median overall survival was 27·6 months (19·8–41·7) in the afatinib group versus 40·3 months (24·3–not estimable) in the chemotherapy group (HR 1·30, 95% CI 0·80–2·11, p=0·29); in LUX-Lung 6, it was 19·6 months (95% CI 17·0–22·1) versus 24·3 months (19·0–27·0), respectively (HR 1·22, 95% CI 0·81–1·83, p=0·34). In both trials, the most common afatinib-related grade 3–4 adverse events were rash or acne (37 [16%] of 229 patients in LUX-Lung 3 and 35 [15%] of 239 patients in LUX-Lung 6), diarrhoea (33 [14%] and 13 [5%]), paronychia (26 [11%] in LUX-Lung 3 only), and stomatitis or mucositis (13 [5%] in LUX-Lung 6 only). In LUX-Lung 3, neutropenia (20 [18%] of 111 patients), fatigue (14 [13%]) and leucopenia (nine [8%]) were the most common chemotherapy-related grade 3–4 adverse events, while in LUX-Lung 6, the most common chemotherapy-related grade 3–4 adverse events were neutropenia (30 [27%] of 113 patients), vomiting (22 [19%]), and leucopenia (17 [15%]). Interpretation Although afatinib did not improve overall survival in the whole population of either trial, overall survival was improved with the drug for patients with del19 EGFR mutations. The absence of an effect in patients with Leu858Arg EGFR mutations suggests that EGFR del19-positive disease might be distinct from Leu858Arg-positive disease and that these subgroups should be analysed separately in future trials.

Investigating the effect of Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) on postoperative pain intensity in adolescents undergoing surgery: A randomized controlled trial

Aim To investigate the efficacy of Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing for postoperative pain management in adolescents. Background Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing is an inexpensive, non-pharmacological intervention that has successfully been used to treat chronic pain. It holds promise in the treatment of acute, postsurgical pain based on its purported effects on the brain and nervous system. Design A randomized controlled trial was used. Methods Fifty-six adolescent surgical patients aged between 12-18 years were allocated to gender-balanced Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (treatment) or non-Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (control) groups. Pain was measured using the Wong-Baker FACES® Pain Rating Scale (WBFS) before and after the intervention (or non-intervention for the control group). Findings A Wilcoxon signed-rank test demonstrated that the Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing group experienced a significant reduction in pain intensity after treatment intervention, whereas the control group did not. Additionally, a Mann–Whitney U-test showed that, while there was no significant difference between the two groups at time 1, there was a significant difference in pain intensity between the two groups at time 2, with the Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing group experiencing lower levels of pain. Conclusion These results suggest that Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing may be an effective treatment modality for postoperative pain.