Search

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the impact of modern glucose-monitoring strategies on glycemic and patient-related outcomes in individuals with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and recent myocardial infarction (MI) and assess cost effectiveness. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: LIBERATES was a multicenter two-arm randomized trial comparing self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) with intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (isCGM), also known as flash CGM, in individuals with T2D and recent MI, treated with insulin and/or a sulphonylurea before hospital admission. The primary outcome measure was time in range (TIR) (glucose 3.9–10 mmol/L/day) on days 76–90 post-randomization. Secondary and exploratory outcomes included time in hypoglycemia, hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), clinical outcome, quality of life (QOL), and cost effectiveness. RESULTS: Of 141 participants randomly assigned (median age 63 years; interquartile range 53, 70), 73% of whom were men, isCGM was associated with increased TIR by 17 min/day (95% credible interval −105 to +153 min/day), with 59% probability of benefit. Users of isCGM showed lower hypoglycemic exposure (<3.9 mmol/L) at days 76–90 (−80 min/day; 95% CI −118, −43), also evident at days 16–30 (−28 min/day; 95% CI −92, 2). Compared with baseline, HbA1c showed similar reductions of 7 mmol/mol at 3 months in both study arms. Combined glycemic emergencies and mortality occurred in four isCGM and seven SMBG study participants. QOL measures marginally favored isCGM, and the intervention proved to be cost effective. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with SMBG, isCGM in T2D individuals with MI marginally increases TIR and significantly reduces hypoglycemic exposure while equally improving HbA1c, explaining its cost effectiveness. Studies are required to understand whether these glycemic differences translate into longer-term clinical benefit. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Sexual history does not accurately identify those with extragenital Neisseria gonorrhoeae (NG) and Chlamydia trachomatis (CT), so universal extragenital sampling is recommended. Nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) are expensive. If urogenital, plus rectal and pharyngeal, samples are analyzed, the diagnostic cost is trebled. Pooling samples into 1 NAAT container would cost the same as urogenital samples alone. We compared clinician triple samples analyzed individually with self-taken pooled samples for diagnostic accuracy, and cost, in men who have sex with men (MSM) and females. Methods This was a prospective, convenience sample in United Kingdom sexual health clinic. Randomized order of clinician and self-samples from pharynx, rectum, plus first-catch urine (FCU) in MSM and vulvovaginal swabs (VVS) in females, for NG and CT detection. Results Of 1793 participants (1284 females, 509 MSM), 116 had NG detected (75 urogenital, 83 rectum, 72 pharynx); 276 had CT detected (217 urogenital, 249 rectum, 63 pharynx). There was no difference in sensitivities between clinician triple samples and self-pooled specimens for NG (99.1% and 98.3%), but clinician samples analyzed individually identified 3% more chlamydia infections than pooled (99.3% and 96.0%; P  = .027). However, pooled specimens identified more infections than VVS/FCU alone. Pooled specimens missed 2 NG and 11 CT infections, whereas VVS/FCU missed 41 NG and 58 CT infections. Self-taken pooled specimens were the most cost-effective. Conclusions FCU/VVS testing alone missed many infections. Self-taken pooled samples were as sensitive as clinician triple samples for identifying NG, but clinician samples analyzed individually identified 3% more CT infections than pooled. The extragenital sampling was achievable at no additional diagnostic cost to the FCU/VVS. Clinical Trials Registration NCT02371109. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Urogenital testing misses extragenital Neisseria gonorrhoeae (NG) and Chlamydia trachomatis (CT). Extragenital self-sampling is frequently undertaken despite no robust randomized, controlled trial evidence of efficacy. We compared clinician-taken rectal and pharyngeal samples with self-taken samples for diagnostic accuracy and cost in men who have sex with men (MSM) and in females. Methods This was a prospective convenience sample from a UK sexual health clinic. We randomized the order of clinician- and self-taken samples from the pharynx and rectum, plus first catch urine (MSM) and vulvovaginal swabs (females), for NG/CT detection. Results Of 1793 participants (1284 females, 509 MSM), 116 had NG detected (75 urogenital, 83 rectum, 72 pharynx); 9.4% infected females and 67.3% MSM were urogenital-negative. A total of 276 had CT detected (217 urogenital, 249 rectum, 63 pharynx); 13.1% infected females and 71.8% MSM were urogenital-negative. Sexual history did not identify those with rectal infections. There was no difference in diagnostic accuracy between clinician- and self-taken samples from the rectum or pharynx. Clinicians took swabs more quickly than participants, so costs were lower. However, in asymptomatic people, nonqualified clinicians would oversee self-swabbing making these costs lower. Conclusions There was no difference in the diagnostic accuracy of clinician-taken compared with self-taken extragenital samples. Sexual history did not identify those with rectal infections, so individuals should have extragenital clinician- or self-taken samples. Clinician-taken swabs cost less than self-taken swabs; however, in asymptomatic people or those who perform home testing, the costs would be lower than for clinician-taken swabs. Clinical Trials Registration NCT02371109. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Retraction plays a vital role in optimizing the field of vision in minimal-access surgery. As such, a number of devices have been marketed to aid the surgeon in laparoscopic retraction. This systematic review explores the advantages and disadvantages of the different instruments in order to aid surgeons and their institutions in selecting the appropriate device. Primary outcome measures include operation time, length of stay, use of staff, patient morbidity, ease of use, conversion rates to open surgery, and cost.Methods: Systematic literature searches were performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, Current Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov. The search strategy focused on studies testing a retraction device. The selection process was based on a predefined set of inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data were then extracted and analyzed.Results: Out of 1360 papers initially retrieved, 12 articles were selected for data extraction and analysis. A total of 10 instruments or techniques were tested. Devices included the Nathanson's liver retractor, liver suspension tape, the V-List technique, a silicone disk with or without a snake retractor, the Endoloop, the Endograb, a magnetic retractor, the VaroLift, a laparoscope holder, and a retraction sponge. None of the instruments reported were associated with increased morbidity. No studies found increased rates of conversion to open surgery. All articles reported that the tested instruments might spare the use of an assistant during the procedure. It was not possible to determine the impact on length of stay or operation time.Conclusions: Each analyzed device facilitates retraction, providing a good field of view while allowing reduced staff numbers and minimal patient morbidity. Due to economic and environmental advantages, reusable devices may be preferable to disposable instruments, although the choice must be primarily based on clinical judgement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

AimMethodsDiscussionClinical Trials RegistrationRecovery after surgery for colorectal cancer is a complex process, involving numerous physiological, emotional, social and economic challenges. Good information is a key factor for enabling patients to recover well, but there is a paucity of evidence to guide how this should be done. A new information intervention (Recover Together) comprising a booklet, an online video and an inpatient goal board has been developed. This study explores its feasibility, as well as the feasibility of key study methods, during its first use in the United Kingdom National Health Service (NHS).This is a mixed methods, multi‐centre, feasibility study of a complex intervention. A total of 105 participants undergoing oncological colorectal surgery will be recruited across three to four study sites in the UK. Participants will receive each component of the Recover Together intervention at defined timepoints before and during hospital admission. A series of patient‐centred outcome instruments will be administered in hospital and during follow‐up at 30 days and 6 months. Outcomes of feasibility will comprise the time taken to establish the intervention at participating sites, assessments of intervention fidelity and acceptability, as well as return rates of key clinical outcome instruments. The mixed methods design will comprise interviews and focus groups with patients and health professionals, non‐participant observation in ward areas and clinics, user‐specific video analytics and daily photographs of the goal boards.The findings of this study will provide a feasibility assessment of the Recover Together intervention when used for the first time in NHS practice. If shown to be feasible, this will guide the development of a future definitive study to explore the clinical and cost effectiveness of the Recover Together intervention to improve recovery after surgery.ISRCTN62430915. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]