Search

RATIONALE: People with cystic fibrosis (CF) experience acute worsening of respiratory symptoms and lung function known as pulmonary exacerbations. Treatment with intravenous antimicrobials is common; however, there is scant evidence to support a standard treatment duration. OBJECTIVES: To test differing durations of intravenous antimicrobials for CF exacerbations. METHODS: STOP2 (Standardized Treatment of Pulmonary Exacerbations 2) was a multicenter, randomized, controlled clinical trial in exacerbations among adults with CF. After 7–10 days of treatment, participants exhibiting predefined lung function and symptom improvements were randomized to 10 or 14 days’ total antimicrobial duration; all others were randomized to 14 or 21 days’ duration. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary outcome was percent predicted FEV(1) (ppFEV(1)) change from treatment initiation to 2 weeks after cessation. Among early responders, noninferiority of 10 days to 14 days was tested; superiority of 21 days compared with 14 days was compared for the others. Symptoms, weight, and adverse events were secondary. Among 982 randomized people, 277 met improvement criteria and were randomized to 10 or 14 days of treatment; the remaining 705 received 21 or 14 days of treatment. Mean ppFEV(1) change was 12.8 and 13.4 for 10 and 14 days, respectively, a ‒0.65 difference (95% CI [‒3.3 to 2.0]), excluding the predefined noninferiority margin. The 21- and 14-day arms experienced 3.3 and 3.4 mean ppFEV(1) changes, a difference of ‒0.10 (‒1.3 to 1.1). Secondary endpoints and sensitivity analyses were supportive. CONCLUSIONS: Among adults with CF with early treatment improvement during exacerbation, ppFEV(1) after 10 days of intravenous antimicrobials is not inferior to 14 days. For those with less improvement after one week, 21 days is not superior to 14 days. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02781610).

Rates of breast cancer (BC) and colorectal cancer (CRC) screening are particularly low among poor and minority patients. Multifaceted interventions have been shown to improve cancer-screening rates, yet the relative impact of the specific components of these interventions has not been assessed. Identifying the specific components necessary to improve cancer-screening rates is critical to tailor interventions in resource limited environments. To assess the relative impact of various components of the reminder, recall, and outreach (RRO) model on BC and CRC screening rates within a safety net practice. Pragmatic randomized trial. Men and women aged 50–74 years past due for CRC screen and women aged 40–74 years past due for BC screening. We randomized 1,008 patients to one of four groups: (1) reminder letter; (2) letter and automated telephone message (Letter + Autodial); (3) letter, automated telephone message, and point of service prompt (Letter + Autodial + Prompt); or (4) letter and personal telephone call (Letter + Personal Call). Documentation of mammography or colorectal cancer screening at 52 weeks following randomization. Compared to a reminder letter alone, Letter + Personal Call was more effective at improving screening rates for BC (17.8 % vs. 27.5 %; AOR 2.2, 95 % CI 1.2–4.0) and CRC screening (12.2 % vs. 21.5 %; AOR 2.0, 95 % CI 1.1–3.9). Compared to letter alone, a Letter + Autodial + Prompt was also more effective at improving rates of BC screening (17.8 % vs. 28.2 %; AOR 2.1, 95 % CI 1.1–3.7) and CRC screening (12.2 % vs. 19.6 %; AOR 1.9, 95 % CI 1.0–3.7). Letter + Autodial was not more effective than a letter alone at improving screening rates. The addition of a personal telephone call or a patient-specific provider prompt were both more effective at improving mammogram and CRC screening rates compared to a reminder letter alone. The use of automated telephone calls, however, did not provide any incremental benefit to a reminder letter alone.