Defining the content and delivery of an intervention to Change AdhereNce to treatment in BonchiEctasis (CAN-BE): a qualitative approach incorporating the Theoretical Domains Framework, behavioural change techniques and stakeholder expert panels

Background
Low patient adherence to treatment is associated with poorer health outcomes in bronchiectasis. We sought to use the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) (a framework derived from 33 psychological theories) and behavioural change techniques (BCTs) to define the content of an intervention to change patients’ adherence in bronchiectasis (Stage 1 and 2) and stakeholder expert panels to define its delivery (Stage 3).

Methods
We conducted semi-structured interviews with patients with bronchiectasis about barriers and motivators to adherence to treatment and focus groups or interviews with bronchiectasis healthcare professionals (HCPs) about their ability to change patients’ adherence to treatment. We coded these data to the 12 domain TDF to identify relevant domains for patients and HCPs (Stage 1). Three researchers independently mapped relevant domains for patients and HCPs to a list of 35 BCTs to identify two lists (patient and HCP) of potential BCTs for inclusion (Stage 2). We presented these lists to three expert panels (two with patients and one with HCPs/academics from across the UK). We asked panels who the intervention should target, who should deliver it, at what intensity, in what format and setting, and using which outcome measures (Stage 3).

Results
Eight TDF domains were perceived to influence patients’ and HCPs’ behaviours: Knowledge, Skills, Beliefs about capability, Beliefs about consequences, Motivation, Social influences, Behavioural regulation and Nature of behaviours (Stage 1). Twelve BCTs common to patients and HCPs were included in the intervention: Monitoring, Self-monitoring, Feedback, Action planning, Problem solving, Persuasive communication, Goal/target specified:behaviour/outcome, Information regarding behaviour/outcome, Role play, Social support and Cognitive restructuring (Stage 2). Participants thought that an individualised combination of these BCTs should be delivered to all patients, by a member of staff, over several one-to-one and/or group visits in secondary care. Efficacy should be measured using pulmonary exacerbations, hospital admissions and quality of life (Stage 3).

Conclusions
Twelve BCTs form the intervention content. An individualised selection from these 12 BCTs will be delivered to all patients over several face-to-face visits in secondary care. Future research should focus on developing physical materials to aid delivery of the intervention prior to feasibility and pilot testing. If effective, this intervention may improve adherence and health outcomes for those with bronchiectasis in the future.

Treatment of Unexplained Chronic Cough: CHEST Guideline and Expert Panel Report

Background: Unexplained chronic cough (UCC) causes significant quality of life impairment. There is a need to identify effective assessment and treatment approaches for UCC.

Methods: This systematic review of randomized controlled clinical trials asked: What is the efficacy of treatment compared to usual care on cough severity, cough frequency, and cough-related quality of life in patients with unexplained chronic cough (UCC)? Studies of adults and adolescents >12 years with a chronic cough of >8 weeks duration that was unexplained after systematic investigation and treatment were included and assessed for relevance and quality. Based upon the systematic review, guideline suggestions were developed and voted upon using CHEST organization methodology.

Results: 11 RCTs and 5 systematic reviews were included. The 11 RCTs reported data on 570 participants with chronic cough who received a variety of interventions. Study quality was high in 10 RCTs. The studies used a variety of descriptors and assessments to identify unexplained chronic cough. While gabapentin and morphine showed positive effects on cough-related quality of life, only gabapentin was supported as a treatment recommendation. Studies of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) suffered from intervention fidelity bias, and when this was addressed, ICS were not found to be effective for UCC. Esomeprazole was not effective for UCC without features of gastroesophageal acid reflux. Studies addressing non-acid gastroesophageal reflux were not identified. A multimodality speech pathology intervention improved cough severity.

Conclusions: The evidence supporting the diagnosis and management of UCC is limited. UCC requires further study to establish agreed terminology and the optimal methods of investigation using established criteria for intervention fidelity. Speech pathology based cough suppression is suggested as a treatment option for UCC. This guideline presents suggestions for diagnosis and treatment based on the best available evidence and identifies gaps in our knowledge and areas for future research.

Assessment of Intervention Fidelity and Recommendations for Researchers Conducting Studies on the Diagnosis and Treatment of Chronic Cough in the Adult: CHEST Guideline and Expert Panel Report

BACKGROUND: Successful management of chronic cough has varied in the primary research studies in the reported literature. One of the potential reasons relates to a lack of intervention fidelity to the core elements of the diagnostic and/or therapeutic interventions that were meant to be used by the investigators.

METHODS: We conducted a systematic review to summarize the evidence supporting intervention fidelity as an important methodologic consideration in assessing the effectiveness of clinical practice guidelines used for the diagnosis and management of chronic cough. We developed and used a tool to assess for five areas of intervention fidelity. Medline (PubMed), Scopus, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched from January 1998 to May 2014. Guideline recommendations and suggestions for those conducting research using guidelines or protocols to diagnose and manage chronic cough in the adult were developed and voted upon using CHEST Organization methodology.

RESULTS: A total of 23 studies (17 uncontrolled prospective observational, two randomized controlled, and four retrospective observational) met our inclusion criteria. These articles included 3,636 patients. Data could not be pooled for meta-analysis because of heterogeneity. Findings related to the five areas of intervention fidelity included three areas primarily related to the provider and two primarily related to the patients. In the area of study design, 11 of 23 studies appeared to be underpinned by a single guideline/protocol; for training of providers, two of 23 studies reported training, and zero of 23 reported the use of an intervention manual; and for the area of delivery of treatment, when assessing the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease, three of 23 studies appeared consistent with the most recent guideline/protocol referenced by the authors. For receipt of treatment, zero of 23 studies mentioned measuring concordance of patient-interventionist understanding of the treatment recommended, and zero of 23 mentioned measuring enactment of treatment, with three of 23 measuring side effects and two of 23 measuring adherence. The overall average intervention fidelity score for all 23 studies was poor (20.74 out of 48).

CONCLUSIONS: Only low-quality evidence supports that intervention fidelity strategies were used when conducting primary research in diagnosing and managing chronic cough in adults. This supports the contention that some of the variability in the reporting of patients with unexplained or unresolved chronic cough may be due to lack of intervention fidelity. By following the recommendations and suggestions in this article, researchers will likely be better able to incorporate strategies to address intervention fidelity, thereby strengthening the validity and generalizability of their results that provide the basis for the development of trustworthy guidelines.

Responsibility and Well-Being: Resource Integration Under Responsibilization in Expert Services

Responsibilization, or the shift of functions and risks from providers and producers to consumers, has become an increasingly common policy in service systems and marketplaces (e.g., financial, health, governmental). As responsibilization is often considered synonymous with consumer agency and well-being, the authors take a transformative service research perspective and draw on resource integration literature to investigate whether responsibilization is truly associated with well-being. The authors focus on expert services, for which responsibilization concerns are particularly salient, and question whether this expanding policy is in the public interest. In the process, they develop a conceptualization of resource integration under responsibilization that includes three levels of actors (consumer, provider, and service system), the identification of structural tensions to resource integration, and three categories of resource integration practices (access, appropriation, and management) necessary to negotiate responsibilization. The findings have important implications for health care providers, public and institutional policy makers, and other service systems, all of which must pay more active attention to the challenges consumers face in negotiating responsibilization and the resulting well-being outcomes.

Responsibility and Well-being: Resource Integration under Responsibilization in Expert Services

Responsibilization, or the shift in functions and risks from providers and producers to the consumer, has become an increasingly common policy in service systems and marketplaces (e.g., financial, health, governmental). Responsibilization is often presented as synonymous with consumer agency and well-being. We take a transformative service research perspective and utilize the resource integration framework to investigate whether responsibilization is truly associated with well-being. We focus on expert services, where responsibilization concerns are particularly salient, and question whether this expanding policy is in the public interest. In the process, we develop a conceptualization of resource integration under responsibilization that includes three levels of actors (consumer, provider and service system), the identification of structural tensions to resource integration and three categories of resource integration practices (access, appropriation and management) necessary to negotiate responsibilization. Our findings have important implications for health care providers, public policy makers, and other service systems, all of which must pay more active attention to the challenges consumers face in negotiating responsibilization and the resulting well-being outcomes.

Prognostic role of the LCS6 KRAS variant in locally advanced rectal cancer: results of the EXPERT-C trial.

Background: Lethal-7 (let-7) is a tumour suppressor miRNA which acts by down-regulating several oncogenes including KRAS. A single-nucleotide polymorphism (rs61764370, T > G base substitution) in the let-7 complementary site 6 (LCS-6) of KRAS mRNA has been shown to predict prognosis in early-stage colorectal cancer (CRC) and benefit from anti-epidermal growth factor receptor monoclonal antibodies in metastatic CRC. Patients and methods: We analysed rs61764370 in EXPERT-C, a randomised phase II trial of neoadjuvant CAPOX followed by chemoradiotherapy, surgery and adjuvant CAPOX plus or minus cetuximab in locally advanced rectal cancer. DNA was isolated from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tumour tissue and genotyped using a PCR-based commercially available assay. Kaplan–Meier method and Cox regression analysis were used to calculate survival estimates and compare treatment arms. Results: A total of 155/164 (94.5%) patients were successfully analysed, of whom 123 (79.4%) and 32 (20.6%) had the LCS-6 TT and LCS-6 TG genotype, respectively. Carriers of the G allele were found to have a statistically significantly higher rate of complete response (CR) after neoadjuvant therapy (28.1% versus 10.6%; P = 0.020) and a trend for better 5-year progression-free survival (PFS) [77.4% versus 64.5%: hazard ratio (HR) 0.56; P = 0.152] and overall survival (OS) rates (80.3% versus 71.9%: HR 0.59; P = 0.234). Both CR and survival outcomes were independent of the use of cetuximab. The negative prognostic effect associated with KRAS mutation appeared to be stronger in patients with the LCS-6 TT genotype (HR PFS 1.70, P = 0.078; HR OS 1.79, P = 0.082) compared with those with the LCS-6 TG genotype (HR PFS 1.33, P = 0.713; HR OS 1.01, P = 0.995). Conclusion: This analysis suggests that rs61764370 may be a biomarker of response to neoadjuvant treatment and an indicator of favourable outcome in locally advanced rectal cancer possibly by mitigating the poor prognosis of KRAS mutation. In this setting, however, this polymorphism does not appear to predict cetuximab benefit.

TP53 mutational status and cetuximab benefit in rectal cancer: 5-year results of the EXPERT-C trial.

In this updated analysis of the EXPERT-C trial we show that, in magnetic resonance imaging-defined, high-risk, locally advanced rectal cancer, adding cetuximab to a treatment strategy with neoadjuvant CAPOX followed by chemoradiotherapy, surgery, and adjuvant CAPOX is not associated with a statistically significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in both KRAS/BRAF wild-type and unselected patients. In a retrospective biomarker analysis, TP53 was not prognostic but emerged as an independent predictive biomarker for cetuximab benefit. After a median follow-up of 65.0 months, TP53 wild-type patients (n = 69) who received cetuximab had a statistically significant better PFS (89.3% vs 65.0% at 5 years; hazard ratio [HR] = 0.23; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.07 to 0.78; two-sided P = .02 by Cox regression) and OS (92.7% vs 67.5% at 5 years; HR = 0.16; 95% CI = 0.04 to 0.70; two-sided P = .02 by Cox regression) than TP53 wild-type patients who were treated in the control arm. An interaction between TP53 status and cetuximab effect was found (P <.05) and remained statistically significant after adjusting for statistically significant prognostic factors and KRAS.

RAS mutations and cetuximab in locally advanced rectal cancer: results of the EXPERT-C trial.

Background: RAS mutations predict resistance to anti-epidermal growthfactor receptor (EGFR) monoclonal antibodies in metastatic colorectal cancer. We analysed RAS mutations in 30 non-metastatic rectal cancer patients treated with or without cetuximab within the 31 EXPERT-C trial.

Methods: Ninety of 149 patients with tumours available for analysis were KRAS/BRAF wild-type, and randomly assigned to capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (CAPOX) followed by chemoradiotherapy, surgery and adjuvant CAPOX or the same regimen plus cetuximab (CAPOX-C). Of these, four had a mutation of NRAS exon 3, and 84 were retrospectively analysed for additional KRAS (exon 4) and NRAS (exons 2/4) mutations by using bi-directional Sanger sequencing. The effect of cetuximab on study end-points in the RAS wild-type population was analysed.

Results: Eleven (13%) of 84 patients initially classified as KRAS/BRAF wild-type were found to have a mutation in KRAS exon 4 (11%) or NRAS exons 2/4 (2%). Overall, 78/149 (52%) assessable patients were RAS wild-type (CAPOX, n = 40; CAPOX-C, n = 38). In this population, after a median follow-up of 63.8 months, in line with the initial analysis, the addition of cetuximab was associated with numerically higher, but not statistically significant, rates of complete response (15.8% versus 7.5%, p = 0.31), 5-year progression-free survival (75.5% versus 67.5%, hazard ratio (HR) 0.61, p = 0.25) and 5-year overall survival (83.8% versus 70%, HR 0.54, p = 0.20).

Conclusions: RAS mutations beyond KRAS exon 2 and 3 were identified in 17% of locally advanced rectal cancer patients. Given the small sample size, no definitive conclusions on the effect of additional RAS mutations on cetuximab treatment in this setting can be drawn and further investigation of RAS in larger studies is warranted.

HER2 in high-risk rectal cancer patients treated in EXPERT-C, a randomized phase II trial of neoadjuvant capecitabine and oxaliplatin (CAPOX) and chemoradiotherapy (CRT) with or without cetuximab.

BACKGROUND: HER2 is an established therapeutic target in breast and gastric cancers. The role of HER2 in rectal cancer is unclear, as conflicting data on the prevalence of HER2 expression in this disease have been reported. We evaluated the prevalence of HER2 and its impact on the outcome of high-risk rectal cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant CAPOX and CRT±cetuximab in the EXPERT-C trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients with available tumour tissue for HER2 analysis were included. HER2 expression was determined by immunohistochemistry (IHC) in pre-treatment biopsies and/or surgical specimens (score 0-3+). Immunostaining was scored according to the consensus panel recommendations on HER2 scoring for gastric cancer. Tumours with equivocal IHC result (2+) were tested for HER2 amplification by D-ISH. Tumours with IHC 3+ or D-ISH ratio ≥2.0 were classified as HER2+. The impact of HER2 on primary and secondary end points of the study was analysed. RESULTS: Of 164 eligible study patients, 104 (63%) biopsy and 114 (69%) surgical specimens were available for analysis. Only 3 of 104 (2.9%) and 3 of 114 (2.6%) were HER2+, respectively. In 77 patients with paired specimens, concordance for HER2 status was found in 74 (96%). Overall, 141 patients were assessable for HER2 and 6 out of 141 (4.3%) had HER2 overexpression and/or amplification. The median follow-up was 58.6 months. HER2 was not associated with a difference in the outcome for any of the study end points, including in the subset of 90 KRAS/BRAF wild-type patients treated±cetuximab. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the low prevalence of expression as recorded in the EXPERT-C trial, HER2 does not appear to represent a useful therapeutic target in high-risk rectal cancer. However, the role of HER2 as a potential predictive biomarker of resistance to anti-EGFR-based treatments and a therapeutic target in anti-EGFR refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC) warrants further investigation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Register: 99828560.