A RANDOMIZED TRIAL OF BILEVEL POSITIVE AIRWAY PRESSURE DEVICE AND HIGH FLOW OXYGEN FOR PERSISTENT DYSPNEA IN

Background: Dyspnea is a common and distressing symptom among patients with advanced cancer. The role of bilevel positive airway pressure (BIPAP) and Vapotherm in the relief of dyspnea have not been well defined. We aimed to determine and to compare the efficacy of BIPAP and VapoTherm for cancer related dyspnea. Methods: In this randomized, open-label, crossover study, we randomly assigned advanced cancer patients with persistent dyspnea >=3/10 to either Vapotherm for 2 hours followed by BiPAP for 2 hours, or BiPAP followed by Vaptherm. A variable washout period was instituted between interventions. The primary end point was change in numeric rating scale before and after each intervention. We planned to enroll 50 patients in total. Results: Among the 803 patients screened over the last 8 months, 62 (26%) were eligible, and 16 (2%) were enrolled so far. Five patients completed the entire study successfully, 4 discontinued the study prematurely due to prolonged relief of dyspnea, and 7 dropped out for various reasons, including inability to tolerate BiPAP (N=3), anxiety (N=2), fatigue (N=1) and pain requiring opioids (N=1). The median baseline numeric rating score for dyspnea was 7/10 (interquartile range (IQR) 5-8), and the median baseline Borg score was 4/10 (3-7). Interim analysis revealed that BiPAP was associated with a median change in numeric rating score of -3 (N=10, IQR -6.3 to -1, p=0.007) and modified Borg score of -1 (N=10, IQR -3 to 0.3, p=0.058), while Vapotherm was associated with a median change in numeric rating score of -2 (N=9, IQR -3 to -1, p=0.011) and modified Borg score of -2.5 (N=8, IQR -5.5 to -0.1, p=0.051). Among the 5 individuals who completed the entire study, 2 preferred Vapotherm, 2 favored BiPAP, and 1 liked both. The respiratory rate decreased and the oxygen saturation improved with both interventions. No significant toxicities were observed. Conclusions: We were successfully able to enroll patients onto this clinic trial. Our preliminary results suggest that BiPAP and Vapotherm are highly efficacious in providing relief for patients with persistent refractory dyspnea. A direct comparison of the two interventions will be done upon study completion. Further research is necessary to confirm our findings.

Development and preliminary validation of the cancer family impact scale for colorectal cancer

This study aimed to develop and validate The Cancer Family Impact Scale (CFIS), an instrument for use in studies investigating relationships among family factors and colorectal cancer (CRC) screening when family history is a risk factor. We used existing data to develop the measure from 1,285 participants (637 families) across the United States who were in the Johns Hopkins Colon Cancer Genetic Testing study. Participants were 94% white with an average age of 50.1 years, and 60% were women. None had a personal CRC history, and eighty percent had 1 FDR with CRC and 20% had more than one FDR with CRC. The study had three aims: (1) to identify the latent factors underlying the CFIS via exploratory factor analysis (EFA); (2) to confirm the findings of the EFA via confirmatory factor analysis (CFA); and (3) to assess the reliability of the scale via Cronbach's alpha. Exploratory analyses were performed on a split half of the sample, and the final model was confirmed on the other half. The EFA suggested the CFIS was an 18-item measure with 5 latent constructs: (1) NEGATIVE: negative effects of cancer on the family; (2) POSITIVE: positive effects of cancer on the family; (3) COMMUNICATE: how families communicate about cancer; (4) FLOW: how information about cancer is conveyed in families; and (5) NORM: how individuals react to family norms about cancer. CFA on the holdout sample showed the CFIS to have a reasonably good fit (Chi-square = 389.977, df = 122, RMSEA= 0.058 (.052-.065), CFI=.902, TLI=.877, GF1=.939). The overall reliability of the scale was α=0.65. The reliability of the subscales was: (1) NEGATIVE α = 0.682; (2) POSITIVE α = 0.686; (3) COMMUNICATE α = 0.723; (4) FLOW α = 0.467; and (5) NORM α = 0.732. ^ We concluded the CFIS to be a good measure with most fit levels over 0.90. The CFIS could be used to compare theoretically driven hypotheses about the pathways through which family factors could influence health behavior among unaffected individuals at risk due to family history, and also aid in the development and evaluation of cancer prevention interventions including a family component. ^

A path analysis of an after-school health and exercise program for elementary school children in El Paso, Texas

As schools are pressured to perform on academics and standardized examinations, schools are reluctant to dedicate increased time to physical activity. After-school exercise and health programs may provide an opportunity to engage in more physical activity without taking time away from coursework during the day. The current study is a secondary data analysis of data from a randomized trial of a 10-week after-school program (six schools, n = 903) that implemented an exercise component based on the CATCH physical activity component and health modules based on the culturally-tailored Bienestar health education program. Outcome variables included BMI and aerobic capacity, health knowledge and healthy food intentions as assessed through path analysis techniques. Both the baseline model (χ2 (df = 8) = 16.90, p = .031; RMSEA = .035 (90% CI of .010–.058), NNFI = 0.983 and the CFI = 0.995) and the model incorporating intervention participation proved to be a good fit to the data (χ2 (df = 10) = 11.59, p = .314. RMSEA = .013 (90% CI of .010–.039); NNFI = 0.996 and CFI = 0.999). Experimental group participation was not predictive of changes in health knowledge, intentions to eat healthy foods or changes in Body Mass Index, but it was associated with increased aerobic capacity, β = .067, p < .05. School characteristics including SES and Language proficiency proved to be significantly associated with changes in knowledge and physical indicators. Further effects of school level variables on intervention outcomes are recommended so that tailored interventions can be developed aimed at the specific characteristics of each participating school. ^

Estimates of hospital and physician costs of epilepsy in the United States for 1995 comparing the provider -based survey method and a patient -based medical charts and billing method

This investigation compares two different methodologies for calculating the national cost of epilepsy: provider-based survey method (PBSM) and the patient-based medical charts and billing method (PBMC&BM). The PBSM uses the National Hospital Discharge Survey (NHDS), the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS) and the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS) as the sources of utilization. The PBMC&BM uses patient data, charts and billings, to determine utilization rates for specific components of hospital, physician and drug prescriptions. ^ The 1995 hospital and physician cost of epilepsy is estimated to be $722 million using the PBSM and $1,058 million using the PBMC&BM. The difference of $336 million results from $136 million difference in utilization and $200 million difference in unit cost. ^ Utilization. The utilization difference of $136 million is composed of an inpatient variation of $129 million, $100 million hospital and $29 million physician, and an ambulatory variation of $7 million. The $100 million hospital variance is attributed to inclusion of febrile seizures in the PBSM, $−79 million, and the exclusion of admissions attributed to epilepsy, $179 million. The former suggests that the diagnostic codes used in the NHDS may not properly match the current definition of epilepsy as used in the PBMC&BM. The latter suggests NHDS errors in the attribution of an admission to the principal diagnosis. ^ The $29 million variance in inpatient physician utilization is the result of different per-day-of-care physician visit rates, 1.3 for the PBMC&BM versus 1.0 for the PBSM. The absence of visit frequency measures in the NHDS affects the internal validity of the PBSM estimate and requires the investigator to make conservative assumptions. ^ The remaining ambulatory resource utilization variance is $7 million. Of this amount, $22 million is the result of an underestimate of ancillaries in the NHAMCS and NAMCS extrapolations using the patient visit weight. ^ Unit cost. The resource cost variation is $200 million, inpatient is $22 million and ambulatory is $178 million. The inpatient variation of $22 million is composed of $19 million in hospital per day rates, due to a higher cost per day in the PBMC&BM, and $3 million in physician visit rates, due to a higher cost per visit in the PBMC&BM. ^ The ambulatory cost variance is $178 million, composed of higher per-physician-visit costs of $97 million and higher per-ancillary costs of $81 million. Both are attributed to the PBMC&BM's precise identification of resource utilization that permits accurate valuation. ^ Conclusion. Both methods have specific limitations. The PBSM strengths are its sample designs that lead to nationally representative estimates and permit statistical point and confidence interval estimation for the nation for certain variables under investigation. However, the findings of this investigation suggest the internal validity of the estimates derived is questionable and important additional information required to precisely estimate the cost of an illness is absent. ^ The PBMC&BM is a superior method in identifying resources utilized in the physician encounter with the patient permitting more accurate valuation. However, the PBMC&BM does not have the statistical reliability of the PBSM; it relies on synthesized national prevalence estimates to extrapolate a national cost estimate. While precision is important, the ability to generalize to the nation may be limited due to the small number of patients that are followed. ^