Improving a regional chemotherapy service by learning from deaths occurring within 30 days of treatment with systemic anti-cancer therapy.

Background: Outwith clinical trials, patient outcomes specifically related to SACT (systemic anti-cancer therapy) are not well reported despite a significant proportion of patients receiving active treatment at the end of life. The NCEPOD reviewing deaths within 30 days of SACT found SACT caused or hastened death in 27% of cases.

Method: Across the Northern Ireland cancer network, 95 patients who died within 30 days of SACT for solid tumours were discussed at the Morbidity and Mortality monthly meeting during 2013. Using a structured template, each case was independently reviewed, with particular focus on whether SACT caused or hastened death.

Results: Lung, GI and breast cancers were the most common sites. Performance status was recorded in 92% at time of final SACT cycle (ECOG PS 0-2 89%).

In 57% the cause of death was progressive disease. Other causes included thromboembolism (13%) and infection (5% neutropenic sepsis, 6% non-neutropenic sepsis). In 26% with death from progressive disease, the patient was first cycle of first line treatment for metastatic disease. In the majority discussion regarding treatment aims and risks was documented. Only one patient was receiving SACT with curative intent, who died from appropriately managed neutropenic sepsis.

A definitive decision regarding SACT's role in death was made in 60%: in 49% SACT was deemed non-contributory and in 11% SACT was deemed the cause of death. In 40% SACT did not play a major role, but a definitive negative association could not be made.

Conclusion: Development of a robust review process of 30-day mortality after SACT established a benchmark for SACT delivery for future comparisons and identified areas for SACT service organisation improvement. Moreover it encourages individual practice reflection and highlights the importance of balancing patients' needs and concerns with realistic outcomes and risks, particularly in heavily pre-treated patients or those of poor performance status.

Global Systemic Risk and International Regulatory Coordination: Squaring Sovereignty and Financial Stability

In recent years much attention has been given to systemic risk and maintaining financial stability. Much of the focus, rightly, has been on market failures and the role of regulation in addressing them. This article looks at the role of domestic policies and government actions as sources of global instability. The global financial system is built upon global markets controlled by national financial and macroeconomic policies. In this context, regulatory asymmetries, diverging policy preferences, and government failures add a further dimension to global systemic risk not present at the national level.
Systemic risk is a result of the interplay between two independent variables: an underlying trigger event, in this analysis a domestic policy measure, and a transmission channel. The solution to systemic risk requires tackling one of these variables. In a domestic setting, the centralization of regulatory power into one single authority makes it easier to balance the delicate equilibrium between enhancing efficiency and reducing instability. However, in a global financial system in which national financial policies serve to maximize economic welfare, regulators will be confronted with difficult policy and legal tradeoffs.
We investigate the role that financial regulation plays in addressing domestic policy failures and in controlling the danger of global financial interdependence. To do so we analyse global financial interconnectedness, and explain its role in transmitting instability; we investigate the political economy dynamics at the origin of regulatory asymmetries and government failures; and we discuss the limits of regulation.

Comorbidity in severe asthma requiring systemic corticosteroid therapy: cross-sectional data from the Optimum Patient Care Research Database and the British Thoracic Difficult Asthma Registry

Objective: To determine the prevalence of systemic corticosteroid-induced morbidity in severe asthma.
Design: Cross-sectional observational study.Setting The primary care Optimum Patient Care Research Database and the British Thoracic Society Difficult Asthma Registry.
Participants: Optimum Patient Care Research Database (7195 subjects in three age- and gender-matched groups)—severe asthma (Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) treatment step 5 with four or more prescriptions/year of oral corticosteroids, n=808), mild/moderate asthma (GINA treatment step 2/3, n=3975) and non-asthma controls (n=2412). 770 subjects with severe asthma from the British Thoracic Society Difficult Asthma Registry (442 receiving daily oral corticosteroids to maintain disease control).
Main outcome measures: Prevalence rates of morbidities associated with systemic steroid exposure were evaluated and reported separately for each group.
Results: 748/808 (93%) subjects with severe asthma had one or more condition linked to systemic corticosteroid exposure (mild/moderate asthma 3109/3975 (78%), non-asthma controls 1548/2412 (64%); p<0.001 for severe asthma versus non-asthma controls). Compared with mild/moderate asthma, morbidity rates for severe asthma were significantly higher for conditions associated with systemic steroid exposure (type II diabetes 10% vs 7%, OR=1.46 (95% CI 1.11 to 1.91), p<0.01; osteoporosis 16% vs 4%, OR=5.23, (95% CI 3.97 to 6.89), p<0.001; dyspeptic disorders (including gastric/duodenal ulceration) 65% vs 34%, OR=3.99, (95% CI 3.37 to 4.72), p<0.001; cataracts 9% vs 5%, OR=1.89, (95% CI 1.39 to 2.56), p<0.001). In the British Thoracic Society Difficult Asthma Registry similar prevalence rates were found, although, additionally, high rates of osteopenia (35%) and obstructive sleep apnoea (11%) were identified.

Conclusions: Oral corticosteroid-related adverse events are common in severe asthma. New treatments which reduce exposure to oral corticosteroids may reduce the prevalence of these conditions and this should be considered in cost-effectiveness analyses of these new treatments.

Fluid strategies and outcomes in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome, systemic inflammatory response syndrome and sepsis: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background
Fluid administration to critically ill patients remains the subject of considerable controversy. While intravenous fluid given for resuscitation may be life-saving, a positive fluid balance over time is associated with worse outcomes in critical illness. The aim of this systematic review is to summarise the existing evidence regarding the relationship between fluid administration or balance and clinically important patient outcomes in critical illness.

Methods
We will search Medline, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from 1980 to the present and key conference proceedings from 2009 to the present. We will include studies of critically ill adults and children with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), sepsis and systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS). We will include randomised controlled trials comparing two or more fluid regimens of different volumes of fluid and observational studies reporting the relationship between volume of fluid administered or fluid balance and outcomes including mortality, lengths of intensive care unit and hospital stay and organ dysfunction. Two independent reviewers will assess articles for eligibility, data extraction and quality appraisal. We will conduct a narrative and/or meta-analysis as appropriate.

Discussion
While fluid management has been extensively studied and discussed in the critical care literature, no systematic review has attempted to summarise the evidence for post-resuscitation fluid strategies in critical illness. Results of the proposed systematic review will inform practice and the design of future clinical trials.

Systematic review registration
PROSPERO CRD42013005608. (http://​www.​crd.​york.​ac.​uk/​PROSPERO/​)