Search

BACKGROUND: Bladder cancer poses a significant public health burden, with high recurrence and progression rates in patients with non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC). Current treatment options include bladder-sparing therapies (BST) and radical cystectomy, both with associated risks and benefits. However, evidence supporting optimal management decisions for patients with recurrent high-grade NMIBC remains limited, leading to uncertainty for patients and clinicians. The CISTO (Comparison of Intravesical Therapy and Surgery as Treatment Options) Study aims to address this critical knowledge gap by comparing outcomes between patients undergoing BST and radical cystectomy. METHODS: The CISTO Study is a pragmatic, prospective observational cohort trial across 36 academic and community urology practices in the US. The study will enroll 572 patients with a diagnosis of recurrent high-grade NMIBC who select management with either BST or radical cystectomy. The primary outcome is health-related quality of life (QOL) at 12 months as measured with the EORTC-QLQ-C30. Secondary outcomes include bladder cancer-specific QOL, progression-free survival, cancer-specific survival, and financial toxicity. The study will also assess patient preferences for treatment outcomes. Statistical analyses will employ targeted maximum likelihood estimation (TMLE) to address treatment selection bias and confounding by indication. DISCUSSION: The CISTO Study is powered to detect clinically important differences in QOL and cancer-specific survival between the two treatment approaches. By including a diverse patient population, the study also aims to assess outcomes across the following patient characteristics: age, gender, race, burden of comorbid health conditions, cancer severity, caregiver status, social determinants of health, and rurality. Treatment outcomes may also vary by patient preferences, health literacy, and baseline QOL. The CISTO Study will fill a crucial evidence gap in the management of recurrent high-grade NMIBC, providing evidence-based guidance for patients and clinicians in choosing between BST and radical cystectomy. The CISTO study will provide an evidence-based approach to identifying the right treatment for the right patient at the right time in the challenging clinical setting of recurrent high-grade NMIBC. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03933826. Registered on May 1, 2019.

ObjectiveTo compare secondary patient reported outcomes of perceptions of treatment success and function for patients treated for appendicitis with appendectomy vs. antibiotics at 30 days.Summary background dataThe Comparison of Outcomes of antibiotic Drugs and Appendectomy trial found antibiotics noninferior to appendectomy based on 30-day health status. To address questions about outcomes among participants with lower socioeconomic status, we explored the relationship of sociodemographic and clinical factors and outcomes.MethodsWe focused on 4 patient reported outcomes at 30 days: high decisional regret, dissatisfaction with treatment, problems performing usual activities, and missing >10 days of work. The randomized (RCT) and observational cohorts were pooled for exploration of baseline factors. The RCT cohort alone was used for comparison of treatments. Logistic regression was used to assess associations.ResultsThe pooled cohort contained 2062 participants; 1552 from the RCT. Overall, regret and dissatisfaction were low whereas problems with usual activities and prolonged missed work occurred more frequently. In the RCT, those assigned to antibiotics had more regret (Odd ratios (OR) 2.97, 95% Confidence intervals (CI) 2.05-4.31) and dissatisfaction (OR 1.98, 95%CI 1.25-3.12), and reported less missed work (OR 0.39, 95%CI 0.27-0.56). Factors associated with function outcomes included sociodemographic and clinical variables for both treatment arms. Fewer factors were associated with dissatisfaction and regret.ConclusionsOverall, participants reported high satisfaction, low regret, and were frequently able to resume usual activities and return to work. When comparing treatments for appendicitis, no single measure defines success or failure for all people. The reported data may inform discussions regarding the most appropriate treatment for individuals.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02800785.

IntroductionSeveral European studies suggest that some patients with appendicitis can be treated safely with antibiotics. A portion of patients eventually undergo appendectomy within a year, with 10%-15% failing to respond in the initial period and a similar additional proportion with suspected recurrent episodes requiring appendectomy. Nearly all patients with appendicitis in the USA are still treated with surgery. A rigorous comparative effectiveness trial in the USA that is sufficiently large and pragmatic to incorporate usual variations in care and measures the patient experience is needed to determine whether antibiotics are as good as appendectomy.ObjectivesThe Comparing Outcomes of Antibiotic Drugs and Appendectomy (CODA) trial for acute appendicitis aims to determine whether the antibiotic treatment strategy is non-inferior to appendectomy.Methods/analysisCODA is a randomised, pragmatic non-inferiority trial that aims to recruit 1552 English-speaking and Spanish-speaking adults with imaging-confirmed appendicitis. Participants are randomised to appendectomy or 10 days of antibiotics (including an option for complete outpatient therapy). A total of 500 patients who decline randomisation but consent to follow-up will be included in a parallel observational cohort. The primary analytic outcome is quality of life (measured by the EuroQol five dimension index) at 4 weeks. Clinical adverse events, rate of eventual appendectomy, decisional regret, return to work/school, work productivity and healthcare utilisation will be compared. Planned exploratory analyses will identify subpopulations that may have a differential risk of eventual appendectomy in the antibiotic treatment arm.Ethics and disseminationThis trial was approved by the University of Washington's Human Subjects Division. Results from this trial will be presented in international conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration numberNCT02800785.

Purpose: Native Americans and Latinos have higher COVID‐19 infection and mortality rates and may have limited access to diagnostic testing. Home‐based testing may improve access to care in rural and underserved populations. This study tests the effect of community health worker (CHW) support on accessibility, feasibility, and completion of COVID‐19 home testing among Native American and Latino adults living on the Flathead Reservation in Montana and in Yakima Valley, Washington. Methods: A two‐arm, multisite, pragmatic randomized controlled trial was conducted using block randomization stratified by site and participant age. Active arm participants received CHW assistance with online COVID‐19 test kit registration and virtual swabbing support. The passive arm participants received standard‐of‐care support from the kit vendor. Logistic regression modeled the association between study arm and test completion (primary outcome) and between study arm and test completion with return of valid test results (secondary outcome). Responses to posttest surveys and interviews were summarized using deductive thematic analysis. Findings: Overall, 63% of participants (n = 268) completed COVID‐19 tests, and 50% completed tests yielding a valid result. Active arm participants had higher odds of test completion (odds ratio: 1.66, 95% confidence interval [1.01, 2.75]). Differences were most pronounced among adults ≥60 years. Participants cited ease of use and not having to leave home as positive aspects, and transportation and mailing issues as negative aspects of home‐based testing. Conclusions: CHW support led to higher COVID‐19 test completion rates, particularly among older adults. Significant testing barriers included language, educational level, rurality, and test kit issues. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

AbstractBackgroundBack pain is one of the most important causes of functional limitation, disability, and utilization of health care resources for adults of all ages, but especially among older adults. Despite the high prevalence of back pain in this population, important questions remain unanswered regarding the comparative effectiveness of commonly used diagnostic tests and treatments in the elderly. The overall goal of the Back pain Outcomes using Longitudinal Data (BOLD) project is to establish a rich, sustainable registry to describe the natural history and evaluate prospectively the effectiveness, safety, and cost-effectiveness of interventions for patients 65 and older with back pain.Methods/designBOLD is enrolling 5,000 patients ≥ 65 years old who present to a primary care physician with a new episode of back pain. We are recruiting study participants from three integrated health systems (Kaiser-Permanente Northern California, Henry Ford Health System in Detroit and Harvard Vanguard Medical Associates/ Harvard Pilgrim Health Care in Boston). Registry patients complete validated, standardized measures of pain, back pain-related disability, and health-related quality of life at enrollment and 3, 6 and 12 months later. We also have available for analysis the clinical and administrative data in the participating health systems’ electronic medical records. Using registry data, we will conduct an observational cohort study of early imaging compared to no early imaging among patients with new episodes of back pain. The aims are to: 1) identify predictors of early imaging and; 2) compare pain, functional outcomes, diagnostic testing and treatment utilization of patients who receive early imaging versus patients who do not receive early imaging. In terms of predictors, we will examine patient factors as well as physician factors.DiscussionBy establishing the BOLD registry, we are creating a resource that contains patient-reported outcome measures as well as electronic medical record data for elderly patients with back pain. The richness of our data will allow better matching for comparative effectiveness studies than is currently possible with existing datasets. BOLD will enrich the existing knowledge base regarding back pain in the elderly to help clinicians and patients make informed, evidence-based decisions regarding their care.

The goal of this study is to understand the design needs and preferences of patients and care partners for a needleless vascular connection device called the Ambulatory Kidney to Improve Vitality (AKTIV) Connection. One of the greatest barriers to patients' self-management of home-based hemodialysis treatments is connecting the dialysis device to their own blood supply. We gathered detailed data on patients' and care partners' design needs and preferences with the goal of mitigating this barrier to usage with the AKTIV Connection. In particular, we interviewed 16 hemodialysis patients and 7 care partners using a mixed-method approach of rating and semi-structured questions. Participants indicated they would prefer carrying the AKTIV Connection on or around the waist or in a belt bag. Inductive content analysis showed that the participants considered the ideal AKTIV Connection to connect to a patient's bloodstream in the chest area, be rectangularly shaped with rounded corners, and have upper size and weight limits in reference to a modern-day smartphone. We also identified 10 categories of ideal features of the AKTIV Connection and 12 categories of concerns related to connecting the AKTIV Connection to a patient's bloodstream. The findings from this study will help guide the design and development of the AKTIV Connection so that it meets patients' and care partners' needs and preferences, ultimately helping improve the quality of life of patients with end-stage renal disease. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]