Search

BackgroundThe development of electronic health (eHealth) has offered the opportunity for remote care provision. eHealth addresses issues for patients and professionals favoring autonomy and compliance, respectively, while fostering closer links both between patients and health care professionals and among health care professionals themselves. ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to analyze the patterns of use, benefits, and perceived obstacles in eHealth among people living with HIV (PLHIV) and their caring physicians at hospitals. MethodsAn online multicenter observational survey was conducted October 15-19, 2018 in 51 medical units across France by means of self-administered questionnaires to collect sociodemographic and medical data, and perceptions of eHealth. Multiple correspondence analysis followed by mixed unsupervised classification were performed to analyze data of the respondents. ResultsA total of 279 PLHIV and 219 physicians responded to all parts of the questionnaire. Three groups of PLHIV were identified based on multivariate analysis. Group 1 comprised “eHealth believers” (121/279, 43.4%), who were more frequently above 60 years old and more likely to be receiving treatments other than antiretrovirals. Group 2, the “technology skeptics” (86/279, 30.8%), comprised more women with at least one child. Group 3, the “internet adopters” (72/279, 25.8%), were more frequently under 49 years of age, men who have sex with men, and more likely to use mobile apps for obtaining wellness/health information and related subjects. Three groups of physicians also emerged. Group 1 comprised those “strongly confident in eHealth” (95/219, 43.4%), who more frequently used mobile apps for wellness/health information and were more likely to accept prescription assistance software. Group 2 comprised physicians “strongly opposed to eHealth” (80/219, 36.5%), frequently asserting that eHealth challenges confidentiality. Group 3 were “open to eHealth” (44/219, 20.1%), comprising a higher proportion of infectious disease specialists, and were more likely to believe that medical apps are useful for patient education and information. No link was found between the groups of PLHIV and physicians. ConclusionsThe literature on eHealth mainly classifies people as enthusiasts and skeptics; however, we identified a third profile among both PLHIV and physicians, albeit without a direct link between them. For PLHIV, this third group is attentive to eHealth for improving their health condition, and for physicians, this group considers eHealth to offer benefits to patients and their own practice.

BackgroundSubphenotypes were recently reported within clinical acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), with distinct outcomes and therapeutic responses. Experimental models have long been used to mimic features of ARDS pathophysiology, but the presence of distinct subphenotypes among preclinical ARDS remains unknown. This review will investigate whether: 1) subphenotypes can be identified among preclinical ARDS models; 2) such subphenotypes can identify some responsive traits.MethodsWe will include comparative preclinical (in vivo and ex vivo) ARDS studies published between 2009 and 2019 in which pre-specified therapies were assessed (interleukin (IL)-10, IL-2, stem cells, beta-agonists, corticosteroids, fibroblast growth factors, modulators of the receptor for advanced glycation end-products pathway, anticoagulants, and halogenated agents) and outcomes compared to a control condition. The primary outcome will be a composite of the four key features of preclinical ARDS as per the American Thoracic Society consensus conference (histologic evidence of lung injury, altered alveolar-capillary barrier, lung inflammatory response, and physiological dysfunction). Secondary outcomes will include the single components of the primary composite outcome, net alveolar fluid clearance, and death. MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases will be searched electronically and data from eligible studies will be extracted, pooled, and analyzed using random-effects models. Individual study reporting will be assessed according to the Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments guidelines. Meta-regressions will be performed to identify subphenotypes prior to comparing outcomes across subphenotypes and treatment effects.DiscussionThis study will inform on the presence and underlying pathophysiological features of subphenotypes among preclinical models of ARDS and should help to determine whether sufficient evidence exists to perform preclinical trials of subphenotype-targeted therapies, prior to potential clinical translation.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO (ID: CRD42019157236).

Aims: The aim of this work was to measure the impact of P2P (i.e. peer‐to‐peer), a peer‐led smoking prevention intervention, on daily smoking prevalence of adolescents over 2 school years. Design: A cluster‐randomized controlled trial was performed over a 16‐month follow‐up (trial status: closed to follow‐up). P2P was implemented 1–3 and 13–15 months after baseline. Assessments took place at baseline and 4, 10 and 16 months after baseline. The research team, assessors and adolescents were blinded to the study‐arm assignment only at baseline. Setting: Fifteen vocational high schools in France were randomized into two clusters, using a 1:1 allocation ratio per French department (n intervention = 7, n control = 8). Participants: Participants comprised a sample of 2010 students in year 11 (i.e. 15–16 years) in vocational high schools. A total of 437 students could not be assessed at baseline (absent or left school), yielding a total sample of 1573 students (n intervention = 749, n control = 824). Intervention and comparator: The P2P programme trained voluntary students to become peer educators and design smoking prevention actions for their schoolmates in the intervention group (n = 945 students), compared with a passive control group (n = 1065 students). Measurements The primary outcome was change from baseline in the prevalence of self‐reported daily smoking (i.e. at least one cigarette per day) at 16 months. Findings The 'time × group' interaction indicated that, compared with the control group, the intervention group had statistically significantly fewer daily smokers after 16 months [odds ratio (OR) = 0.33, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.20, 0.53]. Similarly, compared with the control group, the intervention group had statistically significantly fewer daily smokers after 4 months (OR = 0.50, 95% CI = 0.30, 0.82) and 10 months (OR = 0.60, 95% CI = 0.37, 0.98). No adverse events of P2P2 were reported. Conclusions: A cluster‐randomized trial found evidence that the peer‐led P2P (peer‐to‐peer) smoking prevention intervention reduced the uptake of daily smoking among high school students in France over 16 months. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context: In France, gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (GEM-NAB) is heterogeneously used in metastatic pancreatic cancer due to disparities in its financial accessibility in the institutions. Objectives: GEM-NAB conduct a French multi-institutional cost-effectiveness analysis of GEM-NAB versus gemcitabine alone (GEM) as second-line treatment in pancreatic cancer patients. Design: All the unresected metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) consecutive patients who received GEM-NAB (institution 1) or GEM alone (institutions 2 and 3) as second-line treatment after failure of a 5-fluorouracil based systemic chemotherapy regimen were screened. Methods: This study was conducted from the French national healthcare insurance perspective. The primary endpoint was the overall survival (OS) expressed in months, calculated from the date of the first second-line chemotherapy administration to death. Only direct (medical and non-medical) costs have been considered for this analysis. Data were collected retrospectively in one university hospital and two general hospitals. Results: The OS was significantly improved in patients receiving GEM-NAB (hazard ratio: 0.54, 95% confidence interval: 0.38–0.77, p = 0.001), with a median OS of 6.2 months (versus 4.1 months in patients receiving GEM alone). Taking into account the cost of GEM-NAB which was afforded by each institution, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was €1,449,231 by year of life (€40,256 per patient). In both groups, most of the costs were attributable to readmissions and outpatient chemotherapy administration. Conclusion: The issues of the article is based on the trade-off between the benefit in terms of OS of patients treated with GEM-NAB, which is minor (a gain of 2 months of survival, with an accumulated rate of grade ⩾ 3 non-hematological adverse effects) and the additional institutional cost (€25k per year of life for each patient treated). The debate is complex and refers to an ethical component, which is the cost of human life when no other therapeutic alternative is offered to the patient. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

STUDY QUESTION Is large for gestational age (LGA) observed in babies born after frozen embryo transfer (FET) associated with either the freezing technique or the endometrial preparation protocol? SUMMARY ANSWER Artificial cycles are associated with a higher risk of LGA, with no difference in rate between the two freezing techniques (vitrification versus slow freezing) or embryo stage (cleaved embryo versus blastocyst). WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY Several studies have compared neonatal outcomes after fresh embryo transfer (ET) and FET and shown that FET is associated with improved neonatal outcomes, including reduced risks of preterm birth, low birthweight, and small for gestational age (SGA), when compared with fresh ET. However, these studies also revealed an increased risk of LGA after FET. The underlying pathophysiology of this increased risk remains unclear; parental infertility, laboratory procedures (including embryo culture conditions and freezing-thawing processes), and endometrial preparation treatments might be involved. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION A multicentre epidemiological data study was performed through a retrospective analysis of the standardized individual clinical records of the French national register of IVF from 2014 to 2018, including single deliveries resulting from fresh ET or FET that were prospectively collected in fertility centres. Complementary data were collected from the participating fertility centres and included the vitrification media and devices, and the endometrial preparation protocols. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS Data were collected from 35 French ART centres, leading to the inclusion of a total of 72 789 fresh ET, 10 602 slow-freezing FET, and 39 062 vitrification FET. Main clinical outcomes were presented according to origin of the transferred embryos (fresh, slow frozen, or vitrified embryos) and endometrial preparations for FET (ovulatory or artificial cycles), comparing five different groups (fresh, slow freezing-ovulatory cycle, slow freezing-artificial cycle, vitrification-ovulatory cycle, and vitrification-artificial cycle). Foetal growth disorders were defined in live-born singletons according to gestational age and sex-specific weight percentile distribution: SGA and LGA if <10th and ≥90th percentiles, respectively. Analyses were performed using linear mixed models with the ART centres as random effect. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE Transfers led to, respectively, 19 006, 1798, and 9195 deliveries corresponding to delivery rates per transfer of 26.1%, 17.0%, and 23.5% after fresh ET, slow-freezing FET, and vitrification FET, respectively. FET cycles were performed in either ovulatory cycles (n = 21 704) or artificial cycles (n = 34 237), leading to 5910 and 10 322 pregnancies, respectively, and corresponding to pregnancy rates per transfer of 31.6% and 33.3%. A significantly higher rate of spontaneous miscarriage was observed in artificial cycles when compared with ovulatory cycles (33.3% versus 21.4%, P  < 0.001, in slow freezing groups and 31.6% versus 21.8%, P  < 0.001 in vitrification groups). Consequently, a lower delivery rate per transfer was observed in artificial cycles compared with ovulatory cycles both in slow freezing and vitrification groups (15.5% versus 18.9%, P  < 0.001 and 22.8% versus 24.9%, P  < 0.001, respectively). Among a total of 26 585 live-born singletons, 16 413 babies were born from fresh ET, 1644 from slow-freezing FET, and 8528 from vitrification FET. Birthweight was significantly higher in the FET groups than in the fresh ET group, with no difference between the two freezing techniques. Likewise, LGA rates were higher and SGA rates were lower in the FET groups compared with the fresh ET group whatever the method used for embryo freezing. In a multivariable analysis, the risk of LGA following FET was significantly increased in artificial compared with ovulatory cycles. In contrast, the risk of LGA was not associated with either the freezing procedure (vitrification versus slow freezing) or the embryo stage (cleaved embryo versus blastocyst) at freezing. Regarding the vitrification method, the risk of LGA was not associated with either the vitrification medium used or the embryo stage. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION No data were available on maternal context, such as parity, BMI, infertility cause, or maternal comorbidities, in the French national database. In particular, we cannot exclude that the increased risk of LGA observed following FET with artificial cycles may, at least partially, be associated with a confounding effect of some maternal factors. No information about embryo culture and incubation conditions was available. Most of the vitrification techniques were performed using the same device and with two main vitrification media, limiting the validity of a comparison of risk for LGA according to the device or vitrification media used. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS Our results seem reassuring, since no potential foetal growth disorders following embryo vitrification in comparison with slow freezing were observed. Even if other factors are involved, the endometrial preparation treatment seems to have the greatest impact on LGA risk following FET. FET during ovulatory cycles could minimize the risk for foetal growth disorders. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) This work has received funding from the French Biomedicine Agency (Grant number: 19AMP002). None of the authors has any conflict of interest to declare. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER N/A. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]