Brief DISCERN, six questions for the evaluation of evidence-based content of health-related websites.

OBJECTIVE: To extract and to validate a brief version of the DISCERN which could identify mental health-related websites with good content quality. METHOD: The present study is based on the analysis of data issued from six previous studies which used DISCERN and a standardized tool for the evaluation of content quality (evidence-based health information) of 388 mental health-related websites. After extracting the Brief DISCERN, several psychometric properties (content validity through a Factor analysis, internal consistency by the Cronbach's alpha index, predictive validity through the diagnostic tests, concurrent validity by the strength of association between the Brief DISCERN and the original DISCERN scores) were investigated to ascertain its general applicability. RESULTS: A Brief DISCERN composed of two factors and six items was extracted from the original 16 items version of the DISCERN. Cronbach's alpha coefficients were more than acceptable for the complete questionnaire (alpha=0.74) and for the two distinct domains: treatments information (alpha=0.87) and reliability (alpha=0.83). Sensibility and specificity of the Brief DISCERN cut-off score > or =16 in the detection of good content quality websites were 0.357 and 0.945, respectively. Its predictive positive and negative values were 0.98 and 0.83, respectively. A statistically significant linear correlation was found between the total scores of the Brief DISCERN and those of the original DISCERN (r=0.84 and p<0.0005). CONCLUSION: The Brief DISCERN seems to be a reliable and valid instrument able to discriminate between websites with good and poor content quality. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: The Brief DISCERN is a simple tool which could facilitate the identification of good information on the web by patients and general consumers.

Case management for frequent users of the emergency department: study protocol of a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: We devised a randomised controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of an intervention based on case management care for frequent emergency department users. The aim of the intervention is to reduce such patients' emergency department use, to improve their quality of life, and to reduce costs consequent on frequent use. The intervention consists of a combination of comprehensive case management care and standard emergency care. It uses a clinical case management model that is patient-identified, patient-directed, and developed to provide high intensity services. It provides a continuum of hospital- and community-based patient services, which include clinical assessment, outreach referral, and coordination and communication with other service providers. METHODS/DESIGN: We aim to recruit, during the first year of the study, 250 patients who visit the emergency department of the University Hospital of Lausanne, Switzerland. Eligible patients will have visited the emergency department 5 or more times during the previous 12 months. Randomisation of the participants to the intervention or control groups will be computer generated and concealed. The statistician and each patient will be blinded to the patient's allocation. Participants in the intervention group (N = 125), additionally to standard emergency care, will receive case management from a team, 1 (ambulatory care) to 3 (hospitalization) times during their stay and after 1, 3, and 5 months, at their residence, in the hospital or in the ambulatory care setting. In between the consultations provided, the patients will have the opportunity to contact, at any moment, the case management team. Participants in the control group (N = 125) will receive standard emergency care only. Data will be collected at baseline and 2, 5.5, 9, and 12 months later, including: number of emergency department visits, quality of life (EuroQOL and WHOQOL), health services use, and relevant costs. Data on feelings of discrimination and patient's satisfaction will also be collected at the baseline and 12 months later. DISCUSSION: Our study will help to clarify knowledge gaps regarding the positive outcomes (emergency department visits, quality of life, efficiency, and cost-utility) of an intervention based on case management care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01934322.

Feasibility of radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy after taxane-based induction chemotherapy for nonoperated locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinomas.

To assess the use of radiotherapy (RT) or concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CRT) following taxane-based induction chemotherapy (T-ICT) in locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (LAHNSCC) and to evaluate the tolerability of CRT after T-ICT. From 01/2006 to 08/2012, 173 LAHNSCC patients treated as a curative intent by T-ICT, followed by definitive RT/CRT were included in this analysis. There was an 86% objective response (OR) after ICT among 154 evaluable patients. Forty-four patients received less than three cycles (25%) and 20 received only one cycle of T-ICT. The 3-year actuarial overall survival (OS) was 49% and there was no OS difference according to the type of ICT (regimen or number of cycle) or the addition of concurrent CT (cisplatin, carboplatin, or cetuximab) to RT. In multivariate analysis (MVA), clinically involved lymph node (cN+), age more than 60 years, the absence of OR after ICT, and performance status of at least 1 predicted for a decreased OS, with hazard ratios (HR) of 2.8, 2.2, 2.1, and 2, respectively. The 3-year actuarial locoregional control (LRC) and distant control (DC) rates were 52 and 73%, respectively. In MVA, the absence of OR after ICT (HR: 3.2), cN+ (HR: 3), and age more than 60 years (HR: 1.7) were prognostic for a lower LRC whereas cN+ (HR: 4.2) and carboplatin-based T-ICT (HR: 2.9) were prognostic for a lower DC. The number of cycles (≤ 2) received during ICT was borderline significant for DC in the MVA (P=0.08). Among patients receiving less than or equal to three cycles of ICT, higher outcomes were observed in patients who received cisplatin-based T-ICT (vs. carboplatin-based T-ICT) or subsequent CRT (vs. RT). T-ICT in our experience, followed by RT or CRT, raises several questions on the role and type of induction, and the efficacy of CRT over RT. The role of RT or CRT following induction, although feasible in these advanced patients, awaits answers from randomized trials.

Rituximab, bendamustine, and lenalidomide in patients with aggressive B cell lymphoma not eligible for high-dose chemotherapy or anthracycline-based therapy: phase I results of the SAKK 38/08 trial.

This phase I trial was designed to develop a new effective and well-tolerated regimen for patients with aggressive B cell lymphoma not eligible for front-line anthracycline-based chemotherapy or aggressive second-line treatment strategies. The combination of rituximab (375 mg/m(2) on day 1), bendamustine (70 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 2), and lenalidomide was tested with a dose escalation of lenalidomide at three dose levels (10, 15, or 20 mg/day) using a 3 + 3 design. Courses were repeated every 4 weeks. The recommended dose was defined as one level below the dose level identifying ≥2/6 patients with a dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) during the first cycle. Thirteen patients were eligible for analysis. Median age was 77 years. WHO performance status was 0 or 1 in 12 patients. The Charlson Comorbidity Index showed relevant comorbidities in all patients. Two DLTs occurred at the second dose level (15 mg/day) within the first cycle: one patient had prolonged grade 3 neutropenia, and one patient experienced grade 4 cardiac adverse event (myocardial infarction). Additional grade 3 and 4 toxicities were as follows: neutropenia (31 %), thrombocytopenia (23 %), cardiac toxicity (31 %), fatigue (15 %), and rash (15 %). The dose of lenalidomide of 10 mg/day was recommended for a subsequent phase II in combination with rituximab 375 mg/m(2) on day 1 and bendamustine 70 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 2.

Computer-generated reminders delivered on paper to healthcare professionals; effects on professional practice and health care outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice does not always reflect best practice and evidence, partly because of unconscious acts of omission, information overload, or inaccessible information. Reminders may help clinicians overcome these problems by prompting the doctor to recall information that they already know or would be expected to know and by providing information or guidance in a more accessible and relevant format, at a particularly appropriate time. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of reminders automatically generated through a computerized system and delivered on paper to healthcare professionals on processes of care (related to healthcare professionals' practice) and outcomes of care (related to patients' health condition). SEARCH METHODS: For this update the EPOC Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the following databases between June 11-19, 2012: The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and Cochrane Library (Economics, Methods, and Health Technology Assessment sections), Issue 6, 2012; MEDLINE, OVID (1946- ), Daily Update, and In-process; EMBASE, Ovid (1947- ); CINAHL, EbscoHost (1980- ); EPOC Specialised Register, Reference Manager, and INSPEC, Engineering Village. The authors reviewed reference lists of related reviews and studies.  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included individual or cluster-randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized controlled trials (NRCTs) that evaluated the impact of computer-generated reminders delivered on paper to healthcare professionals on processes and/or outcomes of care. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Review authors working in pairs independently screened studies for eligibility and abstracted data. We contacted authors to obtain important missing information for studies that were published within the last 10 years. For each study, we extracted the primary outcome when it was defined or calculated the median effect size across all reported outcomes. We then calculated the median absolute improvement and interquartile range (IQR) in process adherence across included studies using the primary outcome or median outcome as representative outcome. MAIN RESULTS: In the 32 included studies, computer-generated reminders delivered on paper to healthcare professionals achieved moderate improvement in professional practices, with a median improvement of processes of care of 7.0% (IQR: 3.9% to 16.4%). Implementing reminders alone improved care by 11.2% (IQR 6.5% to 19.6%) compared with usual care, while implementing reminders in addition to another intervention improved care by 4.0% only (IQR 3.0% to 6.0%) compared with the other intervention. The quality of evidence for these comparisons was rated as moderate according to the GRADE approach. Two reminder features were associated with larger effect sizes: providing space on the reminder for provider to enter a response (median 13.7% versus 4.3% for no response, P value = 0.01) and providing an explanation of the content or advice on the reminder (median 12.0% versus 4.2% for no explanation, P value = 0.02). Median improvement in processes of care also differed according to the behaviour the reminder targeted: for instance, reminders to vaccinate improved processes of care by 13.1% (IQR 12.2% to 20.7%) compared with other targeted behaviours. In the only study that had sufficient power to detect a clinically significant effect on outcomes of care, reminders were not associated with significant improvements. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is moderate quality evidence that computer-generated reminders delivered on paper to healthcare professionals achieve moderate improvement in process of care. Two characteristics emerged as significant predictors of improvement: providing space on the reminder for a response from the clinician and providing an explanation of the reminder's content or advice. The heterogeneity of the reminder interventions included in this review also suggests that reminders can improve care in various settings under various conditions.

Socioeconomics status and quality of care in a population-based sample of swiss diabetic patients

Introduction: Low socioeconomic status (SES) is associated with higher prevalence of diabetes and worse outcomes; it has also been shown to be associated with worse quality of care. We aimed to explore the relationship between SES and quality of care in the Swiss context. Methods: We used data from a population-based survey including 519 adult diabetic patients living in the canton of Vaud. Self-reported data on patients' and diabetes characteristics, indicators of process and outcomes of care and quality of life were collected. Dependent variables included 6 processes of care (PoC) received during the last 12 months (HbA1C, lipid, microalbuminuria, fundoscopy, feet examination and influenza vaccination) and selected clinical outcomes (blood pressure, LDL, HbA1C, diabetes-specific (ADDQoL) and generic quality of life (SF-12)). Regression analyses were performed to assess the relationship between education and income, respectively, and quality of care as measured by PoC and clinical outcomes. Adjustment was made for age, gender and comorbidities. Results: Mean age was 64.5 years, 40% were women; 19%, 56% and 25% of the patients reported primary (I), secondary (II) and tertiary (III) education. Fundoscopy was the only PoC significantly associated with education, with III education patients more likely to get the exam than those with primary education (adjOR 1.8, 95% CI 1.0-3.3). Use of composite indicators of PoC showed that compared to patients with primary education, patients with III education were more likely to receive ≥5/6 PoC (adjOR 1.9, 95% CI 1.1-3.4), and that those with II or III education were more likely to receive 4/4 PoC (adjOR 1.9, 95% CI 1.0-3.3; adjOR 2.1, 95% CI 1.1-4.1, respectively). Quality of life was the only clinical outcome significantly associated with education, with II and III education patients reporting better quality of life compared to primary education patients, as measured by the ADDQoL (β 0.6, 95% CI 0.3-1.0, β 0.6, 95% CI 0.2-1.0, respectively) and the physical component score of the SF-12 (β 2.5, 95% CI 0.2-4.8, β 3.6, 95% CI 0.9-6.4, respectively). No associations were found between income and quality of care. Conclusion: Social inequalities have been demonstrated in Switzerland for global health indicators. Our results suggest that similar associations are found when considering quality of care measures in individuals with diabetes, but only for a few indicators.

Development and validation of a symptom-based activity index for adults with eosinophilic esophagitis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Standardized instruments are needed to assess the activity of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) and to provide end points for clinical trials and observational studies. We aimed to develop and validate a patient-reported outcome (PRO) instrument and score, based on items that could account for variations in patient assessments of disease severity. We also evaluated relationships between patient assessment of disease severity and EoE-associated endoscopic, histologic, and laboratory findings. METHODS: We collected information from 186 patients with EoE in Switzerland and the United States (69.4% male; median age, 43 y) via surveys (n = 135), focus groups (n = 27), and semistructured interviews (n = 24). Items were generated for the instruments to assess biologic activity based on physician input. Linear regression was used to quantify the extent to which variations in patient-reported disease characteristics could account for variations in patient assessment of EoE severity. The PRO instrument was used prospectively in 153 adult patients with EoE (72.5% male; median age, 38 y), and validated in an independent group of 120 patients with EoE (60.8% male; median age, 40.5 y). RESULTS: Seven PRO factors that are used to assess characteristics of dysphagia, behavioral adaptations to living with dysphagia, and pain while swallowing accounted for 67% of the variation in patient assessment of disease severity. Based on statistical consideration and patient input, a 7-day recall period was selected. Highly active EoE, based on endoscopic and histologic findings, was associated with an increase in patient-assessed disease severity. In the validation study, the mean difference between patient assessment of EoE severity (range, 0-10) and PRO score (range, 0-8.52) was 0.15. CONCLUSIONS: We developed and validated an EoE scoring system based on 7 PRO items that assess symptoms over a 7-day recall period. Clinicaltrials.gov number: NCT00939263.

Early dyadic patterns of mother-infant interactions and outcomes of prematurity at 18 months.

OBJECTIVE: With the increased survival of very preterm infants, there is a growing concern for their developmental and socioemotional outcomes. The quality of the early mother-infant relationship has been noted as 1 of the factors that may exacerbate or soften the potentially adverse impact of preterm birth, particularly concerning the infant's later competencies and development. The first purpose of the study was to identify at 6 months of corrected age whether there were specific dyadic mother-infant patterns of interaction in preterm as compared with term mother-infant dyads. The second purpose was to examine the potential impact of these dyadic patterns on the infant's behavioral and developmental outcomes at 18 months of corrected age. METHODS: During a 12-month period (January-December 1998), all preterm infants who were <34 weeks of gestational age and hospitalized at the NICU of the Lausanne University Hospital were considered for inclusion in this longitudinal prospective follow-up study. Control healthy term infants were recruited during the same period from the maternity ward of our hospital. Mother-infant dyads with preterm infants (n = 47) and term infants (n = 25) were assessed at 6 months of corrected age during a mother-infant play interaction and coded according to the Care Index. This instrument evaluates the mother's interactional behavior according to 3 scales (sensitivity, control, and unresponsiveness) and the child's interactional behavior according to 4 scales (cooperation, compliance, difficult, and passivity). At 18 months, behavioral outcomes of the children were assessed on the basis of a semistructured interview of the mother, the Symptom Check List. The Symptom Check List explores 4 groups of behavioral symptoms: sleeping problems, eating problems, psychosomatic symptoms, and behavioral and emotional disorders. At the same age, developmental outcomes were evaluated using the Griffiths Developmental Scales. Five areas were evaluated: locomotor, personal-social, hearing and speech, eye-hand coordination, and performance. RESULTS: Among the possible dyadic patterns of interaction, 2 patterns emerge recurrently in mother-infant preterm dyads: a "cooperative pattern" with a sensitive mother and a cooperative-responsive infant (28%) and a "controlling pattern" with a controlling mother and a compulsive-compliant infant (28%). The remaining 44% form a heterogeneous group that gathers all of the other preterm dyads and is composed of 1 sensitive mother-passive infant; 10 controlling mothers with a cooperative, difficult, or passive infant; and 10 unresponsive mothers with a cooperative, difficult, or passive infant. Among the term control subjects, 68% of the dyads are categorized as cooperative pattern dyads, 12% as controlling pattern dyads, and the 20% remaining as heterogeneous dyads. At 18 months, preterm infants of cooperative pattern dyads have similar outcomes as the term control infants. Preterm infants of controlling pattern dyads have significantly fewer positive outcomes as compared with preterm infants of cooperative pattern dyads, as well as compared with term control infants. They display significantly more behavioral symptoms than term infants, including more eating problems than term infants as well as infants from cooperative preterm dyads. Infants of the controlling preterm dyads do not differ significantly for the total development quotient but have worse personal-social development than term infants and worse hearing-speech development than infants from cooperative preterm dyads. The preterm infants of the heterogeneous group have outcomes that can be considered as intermediate with no significant differences compared with preterm infants from the cooperative pattern or the controlling pattern dyads. CONCLUSION: Among mother-preterm infant dyads, we identified 2 specific patterns of interaction that could play either a protective (cooperative pattern) or a risk-precipitating (controlling pattern) role on developmental and behavioral outcome, independent of perinatal risk factors and of the family's socioeconomic background. The controlling pattern is much more prevalent among preterm than term dyads and is related to a less favorable infant outcome. However, the cooperative pattern still represents almost 30% of the preterm dyads, with infants' outcome comparable to the ones of term infants. These results point out the impact of the quality of mother-infant relationship on the infant's outcome. The most important clinical implication should be to support a healthy parent-infant relationship already in the NICU but also in the first months of the infant's life. Early individualized family-based interventions during neonatal hospitalization and transition to home have been shown to reduce maternal stress and depression and increase maternal self-esteem and to improve positive early parent-preterm infant interactions.

Diabetic patients who report receiving processes of diabetic care do not express a better quality of life

Background: Chronic disease management initiatives emphasize patient-centered care, and quality of life (QoL) is increasingly considered a representative outcome in that context. In this study we evaluated the association between receipt of processes of diabetic care and QoL. Methods: This cross-sectional population-based study (2011) used self-reported data from non-institutionalized, adult diabetics, recruited from randomly selected community pharmacies in Vaud. Outcomes included the physical and mental composites of the SF-36 (PCS, MCS) and the disease-specific Audit of Diabetes-Dependent QoL (ADDQoL). Main exposure variables were receipt of six diabetes processes-of care in the past 12 months. We also evaluated whether the association between care received and QoL was congruent with the chronic care model, when assessed by the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC). We used linear regressions to examine the association between process measures and the three composites of health-related QoL. Analyses were adjusted for age, gender, socioeconomic status, living companion, BMI, alcohol, smoking, physical activity, co-morbidities and diabetes mellitus (DM) characteristics (type, insulin use, complications, duration). Results: Mean age of the 519 diabetic patients was 64.4 years (SD 11.3), 60% were male and 73% had a living companion; 87% reported type 2 DM, half of respondents required insulin treatment, 48% had at least one DM complication, and 48% had DM over 10 years. Crude overall mean QoL scores were PCS: 43.4 (SD 10.5), MCS: 47.0 (SD 11.2) and ADDQoL: -1.56 (SD 1.6). In bivariate analyses, patients who received the influenza vaccine versus those who did not, had lower ADDQoL and PCS scores; there were no other indicator differences. In adjusted models including all processes, receipt of influenza vaccine was associated with lower ADDQoL (β= - 0.41, p=.01); there were no other associations between process indicators and QoL composites. There was no process association even when these were reported as combined measures of processes of care. PACIC score was associated only with the MCS (β= 1.57, p=.004). Conclusions: Process indicators for diabetes care did not show an association with QoL. This may represent an effect lag time between time of process received and quality of life; or that treatment may be related with inconvenience and patient worry. Further research is needed to explore these unexpected findings.

Science, practice and patient needs: the work of the Plinius Maior Society.

The Plinius Maior Society is a European multinational, multidisciplinary group of clinicians and researchers in the alcoholism field, which strives for a comprehensive care concept in the management of alcoholism and alcohol-related problems. The Society, using evidence-based medicine, has developed a set of protocols, in the forms of guidelines, flow-charts, leaflets and booklets, for use as tools in research on and treatment of alcohol dependence, with a view to standardize clinical research procedures and to bridge the gap between the alcoholism researcher, practitioner and patient. These protocols or tools have been subjected to a review process during their preparation, and further comments on their validity will be integrated in their updates. Seven protocols have so far been developed, two of which, 'Guidelines on Evaluation of Treatment of Alcohol Dependence' and 'Detection and Management of Patients with Psychiatric and Alcohol Use Disorders', are aimed at the clinical researcher and specialists, whereas three others [in the form of decision trees (flow-charts)] are aimed at the general practitioner and other primary health care providers. These are entitled 'Alcohol Risk Assessment and Intervention in Primary Care', 'Withdrawal from Alcohol at Home' and 'Brief Intervention in Patients with Alcohol-Related Problems'. The remaining two tools are booklets aimed at the patient, one to support initiatives for detection of drinking problems and primary intervention, namely 'Do you have this Problem? Discuss it with your Doctor!', and the other to assist the patient in relapse prevention after the early stages of treatment, namely 'On the Way to Recovery'. The protocols for the general practitioners and patients have so far been produced in seven European languages, and, as with the Guidelines, feedback from target users will be collected and incorporated in future updates. The Society continually seeks to consider areas of clinical importance for its work and, as it enters the new millennium, it hopes to address and make a significant contribution to the most pressing problem in the management of alcohol dependence, namely relapse.

Ultrathin strut biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent versus durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent for percutaneous coronary revascularisation (BIOSCIENCE): a randomised, single-blind, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Refinements in stent design affecting strut thickness, surface polymer, and drug release have improved clinical outcomes of drug-eluting stents. We aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of a novel, ultrathin strut cobalt-chromium stent releasing sirolimus from a biodegradable polymer with a thin strut durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent. METHODS: We did a randomised, single-blind, non-inferiority trial with minimum exclusion criteria at nine hospitals in Switzerland. We randomly assigned (1:1) patients aged 18 years or older with chronic stable coronary artery disease or acute coronary syndromes undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention to treatment with biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents or durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents. Randomisation was via a central web-based system and stratified by centre and presence of ST segment elevation myocardial infarction. Patients and outcome assessors were masked to treatment allocation, but treating physicians were not. The primary endpoint, target lesion failure, was a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and clinically-indicated target lesion revascularisation at 12 months. A margin of 3·5% was defined for non-inferiority of the biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent compared with the durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent. Analysis was by intention to treat. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01443104. FINDINGS: Between Feb 24, 2012, and May 22, 2013, we randomly assigned 2119 patients with 3139 lesions to treatment with sirolimus-eluting stents (1063 patients, 1594 lesions) or everolimus-eluting stents (1056 patients, 1545 lesions). 407 (19%) patients presented with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Target lesion failure with biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents (69 cases; 6·5%) was non-inferior to durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents (70 cases; 6·6%) at 12 months (absolute risk difference -0·14%, upper limit of one-sided 95% CI 1·97%, p for non-inferiority <0·0004). No significant differences were noted in rates of definite stent thrombosis (9 [0·9%] vs 4 [0·4%], rate ratio [RR] 2·26, 95% CI 0·70-7·33, p=0·16). In pre-specified stratified analyses of the primary endpoint, biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents were associated with improved outcome compared with durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents in the subgroup of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (7 [3·3%] vs 17 [8·7%], RR 0·38, 95% CI 0·16-0·91, p=0·024, p for interaction=0·014). INTERPRETATION: In a patient population with minimum exclusion criteria and high adherence to dual antiplatelet therapy, biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents were non-inferior to durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents for the combined safety and efficacy outcome target lesion failure at 12 months. The noted benefit in the subgroup of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction needs further study. FUNDING: Clinical Trials Unit, University of Bern, and Biotronik, Bülach, Switzerland.

Blood pressure and LDL-cholesterol targets for prevention of recurrent strokes and cognitive decline in the hypertensive patient: design of the European Society of Hypertension-Chinese Hypertension League Stroke in Hypertension Optimal Treatment randomized trial.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The SBP values to be achieved by antihypertensive therapy in order to maximize reduction of cardiovascular outcomes are unknown; neither is it clear whether in patients with a previous cardiovascular event, the optimal values are lower than in the low-to-moderate risk hypertensive patients, or a more cautious blood pressure (BP) reduction should be obtained. Because of the uncertainty whether 'the lower the better' or the 'J-curve' hypothesis is correct, the European Society of Hypertension and the Chinese Hypertension League have promoted a randomized trial comparing antihypertensive treatment strategies aiming at three different SBP targets in hypertensive patients with a recent stroke or transient ischaemic attack. As the optimal level of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) level is also unknown in these patients, LDL-C-lowering has been included in the design. PROTOCOL DESIGN: The European Society of Hypertension-Chinese Hypertension League Stroke in Hypertension Optimal Treatment trial is a prospective multinational, randomized trial with a 3 × 2 factorial design comparing: three different SBP targets (1, <145-135; 2, <135-125; 3, <125 mmHg); two different LDL-C targets (target A, 2.8-1.8; target B, <1.8 mmol/l). The trial is to be conducted on 7500 patients aged at least 65 years (2500 in Europe, 5000 in China) with hypertension and a stroke or transient ischaemic attack 1-6 months before randomization. Antihypertensive and statin treatments will be initiated or modified using suitable registered agents chosen by the investigators, in order to maintain patients within the randomized SBP and LDL-C windows. All patients will be followed up every 3 months for BP and every 6 months for LDL-C. Ambulatory BP will be measured yearly. OUTCOMES: Primary outcome is time to stroke (fatal and non-fatal). Important secondary outcomes are: time to first major cardiovascular event; cognitive decline (Montreal Cognitive Assessment) and dementia. All major outcomes will be adjudicated by committees blind to randomized allocation. A Data and Safety Monitoring Board has open access to data and can recommend trial interruption for safety. SAMPLE SIZE CALCULATION: It has been calculated that 925 patients would reach the primary outcome after a mean 4-year follow-up, and this should provide at least 80% power to detect a 25% stroke difference between SBP targets and a 20% difference between LDL-C targets.

Chirurgie viscérate chez le patient greffé ou en attente d'une transplantation [Visceral surgery in organ transplant recipients or in patients awaiting transplantation]

Patients receiving immunosuppression are at higher risk for gastrointestinal complications: mortality is high if they are not diagnosed and treated rapidly. Systematic screening for cholelithiasis or diverticular disease, and prophylactic surgery, are not recommended systematically anymore. Patients awaiting a transplant with abdominal symptoms should be investigated without delay and surgery, if indicated and whenever possible based on the anaesthetic evaluation, should be performed. In the transplant population, a high degree of suspicion must be raised in case of any abdominal symptom. Radiological investigations and surgery without delay are often the only ways to preserve the function of the graft and optimize the patient's survival.

Assessing the impact of DRGs on patient care and professional practice in Switzerland (IDoC) : a potential model for monitoring and evaluating healthcare reform.

QUESTIONS UNDER STUDY: The starting point of the interdisciplinary project "Assessing the impact of diagnosis related groups (DRGs) on patient care and professional practice" (IDoC) was the lack of a systematic ethical assessment for the introduction of cost containment measures in healthcare. Our aim was to contribute to the methodological and empirical basis of such an assessment. METHODS: Five sub-groups conducted separate but related research within the fields of biomedical ethics, law, nursing sciences and health services, applying a number of complementary methodological approaches. The individual research projects were framed within an overall ethical matrix. Workshops and bilateral meetings were held to identify and elaborate joint research themes. RESULTS: Four common, ethically relevant themes emerged in the results of the studies across sub-groups: (1.) the quality and safety of patient care, (2.) the state of professional practice of physicians and nurses, (3.) changes in incentives structure, (4.) vulnerable groups and access to healthcare services. Furthermore, much-needed data for future comparative research has been collected and some early insights into the potential impact of DRGs are outlined. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the joint results we developed preliminary recommendations related to conceptual analysis, methodological refinement, monitoring and implementation.

Patient, primary care physician and specialist expectations of primary care physician involvement in cancer care.

BACKGROUND: In Canada, many health authorities recommend that primary care physicians (PCP) stay involved throughout their patients' cancer journey to increase continuity of care. Few studies have focused on patient and physician expectations regarding PCP involvement in cancer care. OBJECTIVE: To compare lung cancer patient, PCP and specialist expectations regarding PCP involvement in coordination of care, emotional support, information transmission and symptom relief at the different phases of cancer. DESIGN: Canadian survey of lung cancer patients, PCPs and cancer specialists PARTICIPANTS: A total of 395 patients completed questionnaires on their expectations regarding their PCP participation in several aspects of care, at different phases of their cancer. Also, 45 specialists and 232 community-based PCP involved in these patients' care responded to a mail survey on the same aspects of cancer care. RESULTS: Most specialists did not expect participation of the PCP in coordination of care in the diagnosis and treatment phases (65% and 78% respectively), in contrast with patients (83% and 85%) and PCPs (80% and 59%) (p < 0.0001). At these same phases, the best agreement among the 3 groups was around PCP role in emotional support: 84% and more of all groups had this expectation. PCP participation in symptom relief was another shared expectation, but more unanimously at the treatment phase (p = 0.85). In the advanced phase, most specialists expect a major role of PCP in all aspects of care (from 81% to 97%). Patients and PCP agree with them mainly for emotional support and information transmission. CONCLUSION: Lung cancer patient, PCP and specialist expectations regarding PCP role differ with the phase of cancer and the specific aspect of cancer care. There is a need to reach a better agreement among them and to better define PCP role, in order to achieve more collaborative and integrated cancer care.