Hospital policy of tranexamic acid to reduce transfusion in major non-cardiac surgery (TRACTION): protocol for a phase IV randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Tranexamic acid (TXA) is an inexpensive and widely available medication that reduces blood loss and red blood cell (RBC) transfusion in cardiac and orthopaedic surgeries. While the use of TXA in these surgeries is routine, its efficacy and safety in other surgeries, including oncologic surgeries, with comparable rates of transfusion are uncertain. Our primary objective is to evaluate whether a hospital-level policy implementation of routine TXA use in patients undergoing major non-cardiac surgery reduces RBC transfusion without increasing thrombotic risk. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A pragmatic, registry-based, blinded, cluster-crossover randomised controlled trial at 10 Canadian sites, enrolling patients undergoing non-cardiac surgeries at high risk for RBC transfusion. Sites are randomised in 4-week intervals to a hospital policy of intraoperative TXA or matching placebo. TXA is administered as 1 g at skin incision, followed by an additional 1 g prior to skin closure. Coprimary outcomes are (1) effectiveness, evaluated as the proportion of patients transfused RBCs during hospital admission and (2) safety, evaluated as the proportion of patients diagnosed with venous thromboembolism within 90 days. Secondary outcomes include: (1) transfusion: number of RBC units transfused (both at a hospital and patient level); (2) safety: in-hospital diagnoses of myocardial infarction, stroke, deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism; (3) clinical: hospital length of stay, intensive care unit admission, hospital survival, 90-day survival and the number of days alive and out of hospital to day 30; and (4) compliance: the proportion of enrolled patients who receive a minimum of one dose of the study intervention. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Institutional research ethics board approval has been obtained at all sites. At the completion of the trial, a plain language summary of the results will be posted on the trial website and distributed in the lay press. Our trial results will be published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04803747.

Restrictive versus liberal red blood cell transfusion strategies for people with haematological malignancies treated with intensive chemotherapy or radiotherapy, or both, with or without haematopoietic stem cell support.

BACKGROUND: An estimated one-quarter to one-half of people diagnosed with haematological malignancies experience anaemia. There are different strategies for red blood cell (RBC) transfusions to treat anaemia. A restrictive transfusion strategy permits a lower haemoglobin (Hb) level whereas a liberal transfusion strategy aims to maintain a higher Hb. The most effective and safest strategy is unknown. OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy and safety of restrictive versus liberal RBC transfusion strategies for people diagnosed with haematological malignancies treated with intensive chemotherapy or radiotherapy, or both, with or without a haematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT). SEARCH METHODS: We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised studies (NRS) in MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), CINAHL (from 1982), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2023, Issue 2), and eight other databases (including three trial registries) to 21 March 2023. We also searched grey literature and contacted experts in transfusion for additional trials. There were no language, date or publication status restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs and prospective NRS that evaluated restrictive versus liberal RBC transfusion strategies in children or adults with malignant haematological disorders receiving intensive chemotherapy or radiotherapy, or both, with or without HSCT. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently screened references, full-text reports of potentially relevant studies, extracted data from the studies, and assessed the risk of bias. Any disagreement was discussed and resolved with a third review author. Dichotomous outcomes were presented as a risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Narrative syntheses were used for heterogeneous outcome measures. Review Manager Web was used to meta-analyse the data. Main outcomes of interest included: all-cause mortality at 31 to 100 days, quality of life, number of participants with any bleeding, number of participants with clinically significant bleeding, serious infections, length of hospital admission (days) and hospital readmission at 0 to 3 months. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: Nine studies met eligibility; eight RCTs and one NRS. Six hundred and forty-four participants were included from six completed RCTs (n = 560) and one completed NRS (n = 84), with two ongoing RCTs consisting of 294 participants (260 adult and 34 paediatric) pending inclusion. Only one completed RCT included children receiving HSCT (n = 6); the other five RCTs only included adults: 239 with acute leukaemia receiving chemotherapy and 315 receiving HSCT (166 allogeneic and 149 autologous). The transfusion threshold ranged from 70 g/L to 80 g/L for restrictive and from 80 g/L to 120 g/L for liberal strategies. Effects were reported in the summary of findings tables only for the trials that included adults to reduce indirectness due to the limited evidence contributed by the prematurely terminated paediatric trial. Evidence from RCTs Overall, there may be little to no difference in the number of participants who die within 31 to 100 days using a restrictive compared to a liberal transfusion strategy, but the evidence is very uncertain (three studies; 451 participants; RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.27 to 3.70, P=0.99; very low-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference in quality of life at 0 to 3 months using a restrictive compared to a liberal transfusion strategy, but the evidence is very uncertain (three studies; 431 participants; analysis unable to be completed due to heterogeneity; very low-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference in the number of participants who suffer from any bleeding at 0 to 3 months using a restrictive compared to a liberal transfusion strategy (three studies; 448 participants; RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.06, P = 0.22; low-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference in the number of participants who suffer from clinically significant bleeding at 0 to 3 months using a restrictive compared to a liberal transfusion strategy (four studies; 511 participants; RR: 0.94, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.19, P = 0.60; low-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference in the number of participants who experience serious infections at 0 to 3 months using a restrictive compared to a liberal transfusion strategy (three studies, 451 participants; RR: 1.20, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.55, P = 0.17; low-certainty evidence). A restrictive transfusion strategy likely results in little to no difference in the length of hospital admission at 0 to 3 months compared to a liberal strategy (two studies; 388 participants; analysis unable to be completed due to heterogeneity in reporting; moderate-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference between hospital readmission using a restrictive transfusion strategy compared to a liberal transfusion strategy (one study, 299 participants; RR: 0.89, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.50; P = 0.65; low-certainty evidence). Evidence from NRS The evidence is very uncertain whether a restrictive RBC transfusion strategy: reduces the risk of death within 100 days (one study, 84 participants, restrictive 1 death; liberal 1 death; very low-certainty evidence); or decreases the risk of clinically significant bleeding (one study, 84 participants, restrictive 3; liberal 8; very low-certainty evidence). No NRS reported on the other eligible outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Findings from this review were based on seven studies and 644 participants. Definite conclusions are challenging given the relatively few included studies, low number of included participants, heterogeneity of intervention and outcome reporting, and overall certainty of evidence. To increase the certainty of the true effect of a restrictive RBC transfusion strategy on clinical outcomes, there is a need for rigorously designed and executed studies. The evidence is largely based on two populations: adults with acute leukaemia receiving intensive chemotherapy and adults with haematologic malignancy requiring HSCT. Despite the addition of 405 participants from three RCTs to the previous review's results, there is still insufficient evidence to answer this review's primary outcome. If we assume a mortality rate of 3% within 100 days, we would need a total of 1492 participants to have an 80% chance of detecting, at a 5% level of significance, an increase in all-cause mortality from 3% to 6%. Further RCTs are needed overall, particularly in children.

Describing the content of trial recruitment interventions using the TIDieR reporting checklist: a systematic methodology review.

BACKGROUND: Recruiting participants to clinical trials is an ongoing challenge, and relatively little is known about what recruitment strategies lead to better recruitment. Recruitment interventions can be considered complex interventions, often involving multiple components, targeting a variety of groups, and tailoring to different groups. We used the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) reporting checklist (which comprises 12 items recommended for reporting complex interventions) to guide the assessment of how recruitment interventions are described. We aimed to (1) examine to what extent we could identify information about each TIDieR item within recruitment intervention studies, and (2) observe additional detail for each item to describe useful variation among these studies. METHODS: We identified randomized, nested recruitment intervention studies providing recruitment or willingness to participate rates from two sources: a Cochrane review of trials evaluating strategies to improve recruitment to randomized trials, and the Online Resource for Research in Clinical triAls database. First, we assessed to what extent authors reported information about each TIDieR item. Second, we developed descriptive categorical variables for 7 TIDieR items and extracting relevant quotes for the other 5 items. RESULTS: We assessed 122 recruitment intervention studies. We were able to extract information relevant to most TIDieR items (e.g., brief rationale, materials, procedure) with the exception of a few items that were only rarely reported (e.g., tailoring, modifications, planned/actual fidelity). The descriptive variables provided a useful overview of study characteristics, with most studies using various forms of informational interventions (55%) delivered at a single time point (90%), often by a member of the research team (59%) in a clinical care setting (41%). CONCLUSIONS: Our TIDieR-based variables provide a useful description of the core elements of complex trial recruitment interventions. Recruitment intervention studies report core elements of complex interventions variably; some process elements (e.g., mode of delivery, location) are almost always described, while others (e.g., duration, fidelity) are reported infrequently, with little indication of a reason for their absence. Future research should explore whether these TIDieR-based variables can form the basis of an approach to better reporting of elements of successful recruitment interventions.

Economic Evaluations of Chimeric Antigen Receptor T-Cell Therapies for Hematologic and Solid Malignancies: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to systematically review evidence on the cost-effectiveness of chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapies for patients with cancer. METHODS: Electronic databases were searched in October 2022 and updated in September 2023. Systematic reviews, health technology assessments, and economic evaluations that compared costs and effects of CAR-T therapy in patients with cancer were included. Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data, synthesized results, and critically appraised studies using the Philips checklist. Cost data were presented in 2022 US dollars. RESULTS: Our search yielded 1809 records, 47 of which were included. Most of included studies were cost-utility analysis, published between 2018 and 2023, and conducted in the United States. Tisagenlecleucel, axicabtagene ciloleucel, idecabtagene vicleucel, ciltacabtagene autoleucel, lisocabtagene maraleucel, brexucabtagene autoleucel, and relmacabtagene autoleucel were compared with various standard of care chemotherapies. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for CAR-T therapies ranged from $9424 to $4 124 105 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) in adults and from $20 784 to $243 177 per QALY in pediatric patients. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were found to improve over longer time horizons or when an earlier cure point was assumed. Most studies failed to meet the Philips checklist due to a lack of head-to-head comparisons and uncertainty surrounding CAR-T costs and curative effects. CONCLUSIONS: CAR-T therapies were more expensive and generated more QALYs than comparators, but their cost-effectiveness was uncertain and dependent on patient population, cancer type, and model assumptions. This highlights the need for more nuanced economic evaluations and continued research to better understand the value of CAR-T therapies in diverse patient populations.

The Benefits and Risks of Receiving Investigational Solid Tumor Drugs in Randomized Trials : A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Many patients participate in cancer trials to access new therapies. The extent to which new treatments produce clinical benefit for trial participants is unclear. PURPOSE: To estimate the progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) advantage of assignment to experimental groups in randomized trials for 6 solid tumors. DATA SOURCES: ClinicalTrials.gov was searched for trials of investigational drugs with results posted between 2017 and 2021. STUDY SELECTION: Investigational drugs were defined as those not yet having full approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the study indication. Trials were included if they were randomized and tested drugs or biologics. DATA EXTRACTION: Data extraction was completed by 2 independent reviewers. Data were pooled using a random-effects model. DATA SYNTHESIS: The sample included 128 trials comprising 141 comparisons of a new drug and a comparator. These comparisons included 47 050 patients. The pooled hazard ratio for PFS was 0.80 (95% CI, 0.75 to 0.85), indicating statistically significant benefit for patients in experimental groups. This corresponded to a median PFS advantage of 1.25 months (CI, 0.80 to 1.68 months). The pooled hazard ratio for OS was 0.92 (CI, 0.88 to 0.95), corresponding to a survival gain of 1.18 months (CI, 0.72 to 1.71 months). The absolute risk for a serious adverse event for comparator group patients was 29.56% (CI, 26.64% to 32.65%), with an increase in risk of 7.40% (CI, 5.66% to 9.14%) for patients in experimental groups. LIMITATIONS: Trials in this sample were heterogeneous. Comparator group interventions were assumed to reflect standard of care. CONCLUSION: Assignment to experimental groups produces statistically significant survival gains. However, the absolute survival gain is small, and toxicity is statistically significantly greater. The findings of this review provide reassuring evidence that patients are not meaningfully disadvantaged by assignment to comparator groups. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

Quality of life and cost-effectiveness of convalescent plasma compared to standard care for hospitalized COVID-19 patients in the CONCOR-1 trial.

BACKGROUND: The CONvalescent Plasma for Hospitalized Adults With COVID-19 Respiratory Illness (CONCOR-1) trial was a multicenter randomized controlled trial assessing convalescent plasma in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of convalescent plasma and its impact on quality-of-life to provide insight into its potential as an alternative treatment in resource-constrained settings. METHODS: Individual patient data on health outcomes and resource utilization from the CONCOR-1 trial were used to conduct the analysis from the Canadian public payer's perspective with a time horizon of 30 days post-randomization. Baseline and 30-day EQ-5D-5L were measured to calculate quality-adjusted survival. All costs are presented in 2021 Canadian dollars. The base case assessed the EQ-5D-5L scores of hospitalized inpatients reporting at both timepoints, and a utility score of 0 was assigned for patients who died within 30 days. Costs for all patients enrolled were used. The sensitivity analysis utilizes EQ-5D-5L scores from the same population but only uses costs from this population. RESULTS: 940 patients were randomized: 627 received CCP and 313 received standard care. The total costs were $28,716 (standard deviation, $25,380) and $24,258 ($22,939) for the convalescent plasma and standard care arms respectively. EQ-5D-5L scores were 0.61 in both arms (p = .85) at baseline. At 30 days, EQ-5D-5L scores were 0.63 and 0.64 for patients in the convalescent plasma and standard care arms, respectively (p = .46). The incremental cost was $4458 and the incremental quality-adjusted life day was -0.078. DISCUSSION: Convalescent plasma was less effective and more costly than standard care in treating hospitalized COVID-19.

Use of Intravenous Albumin: A Guideline From the International Collaboration for Transfusion Medicine Guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Albumin is used commonly across a wide range of clinical settings to improve hemodynamics, to facilitate fluid removal, and to manage complications of cirrhosis. The International Collaboration for Transfusion Medicine Guidelines developed guidelines for the use of albumin in patients requiring critical care, undergoing cardiovascular surgery, undergoing kidney replacement therapy, or experiencing complications of cirrhosis. METHODS: Cochairs oversaw the guideline development process and the panel included researchers, clinicians, methodologists, and a patient representative. The evidence informing this guideline arises from a systematic review of randomized clinical trials and systematic reviews, in which multiple databases were searched (inception through November 23, 2022). The panel reviewed the data and formulated the guideline recommendations using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology. The guidelines were revised after public consultation. RESULTS: The panel made 14 recommendations on albumin use in adult critical care (three recommendations), pediatric critical care (one recommendation), neonatal critical care (two recommendations), cardiovascular surgery (two recommendations), kidney replacement therapy (one recommendation), and complications of cirrhosis (five recommendations). Of the 14 recommendations, two recommendations had moderate certainty of evidence, five recommendations had low certainty of evidence, and seven recommendations had very low certainty of evidence. Two of the 14 recommendations suggested conditional use of albumin for patients with cirrhosis undergoing large-volume paracentesis or with spontaneous bacterial peritonitis. Twelve of 14 recommendations did not suggest albumin use in a wide variety of clinical situations where albumin commonly is transfused. CONCLUSIONS: Currently, few evidence-based indications support the routine use of albumin in clinical practice to improve patient outcomes. These guidelines provide clinicians with actionable recommendations on the use of albumin.

Evidence for clinician underprescription of and patient non-adherence to guideline-recommended cardiovascular medications among adults with peripheral artery disease: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: International guidelines recommend that adults with peripheral artery disease (PAD) be prescribed antiplatelet, statin and antihypertensive medications. However, it is unclear how often people with PAD are underprescribed these drugs, which characteristics predict clinician underprescription of and patient non-adherence to guideline-recommended cardiovascular medications, and whether underprescription and non-adherence are associated with adverse health and health system outcomes. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will search MEDLINE, EMBASE and Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews from 2006 onwards. Two investigators will independently review abstracts and full-text studies. We will include studies that enrolled adults and reported the incidence and/or prevalence of clinician underprescription of or patient non-adherence to guideline-recommended cardiovascular medications among people with PAD; adjusted risk factors for underprescription of/non-adherence to these medications; and adjusted associations between underprescription/non-adherence to these medications and outcomes. Outcomes will include mortality, major adverse cardiac and limb events (including revascularisation procedures and amputations), other reported morbidities, healthcare resource use and costs. Two investigators will independently extract data and evaluate study risk of bias. We will calculate summary estimates of the incidence and prevalence of clinician underprescription/patient non-adherence across studies. We will also conduct subgroup meta-analyses and meta-regression to determine if estimates vary by country, characteristics of the patients and treating clinicians, population-based versus non-population-based design, and study risks of bias. Finally, we will calculate pooled adjusted risk factors for underprescription/non-adherence and adjusted associations between underprescription/non-adherence and outcomes. We will use Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation to determine estimate certainty. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is not required as we are studying published data. This systematic review will synthesise existing evidence regarding clinician underprescription of and patient non-adherence to guideline-recommended cardiovascular medications in adults with PAD. Results will be used to identify evidence-care gaps and inform where interventions may be required to improve clinician prescribing and patient adherence to prescribed medications. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022362801.

Factors influencing nurses' use of sedation interruptions in a critical care unit: a descriptive qualitative study.

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS: This study examined critical care nurses', physicians', and allied health professionals' perceptions of factors that support, inhibit, or limit the use of sedation interruption (SI) to improve the use of this integral component of care for mechanically ventilated patients. METHOD: We conducted a theory-based, descriptive qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with critical care registered nurses, respiratory therapists, a pharmacist, and a physician in a hospital in Ontario, Canada. The interview guide and analysis were informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework and transcripts were analyzed using content analysis. RESULTS: We identified 9 facilitators and 20 barriers to SI use by nurses. Facilitators included the innovation (importance of protocols) and potential adopters (comfort with the skill). The barriers were the potential adopters' (nurses) knowledge gaps regarding the performance and goal of SI and the practice environment (lack of time, availability of extra staff, and lack of multidisciplinary rounds). CONCLUSION: This study identified facilitators and barriers to SI for mechanically ventilated patients. Implementation efforts must address barriers associated with nurses, the environment, and contextual factors. A team-based approach is essential, as the absence of interprofessional rounds is a significant barrier to the appropriate use or non-use of SI. Future research can focus on the indications, contraindications, and goals of SI, emphasizing a shared appreciation for these factors across disciplines. Nursing capacity to manage a patient waking up from sedation is necessary for point-of-care adherence; future research should focus on the best ways to do so. Implementation study designs should use theory and evidence-based determinants of SI to bridge the evidence-to-practice gap. SPANISH ABSTRACT: http://links.lww.com/IJEBH/A178.

Long-term survival and functional outcomes of critically ill patients with hematologic malignancies: a Canadian multicenter prospective study.

PURPOSE: Patients with hematologic malignancy (HM) commonly develop critical illness. Their long-term survival and functional outcomes have not been well described. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, observational study of HM patients admitted to seven Canadian intensive care units (ICUs) (2018-2020). We followed survivors at 7 days, 6 months and 12 months following ICU discharge. The primary outcome was 12-month survival. We evaluated functional outcomes at 6 and 12 months using the functional independent measure (FIM) and short form (SF)-36 as well as variables associated with 12-month survival. RESULTS: We enrolled 414 patients including 35% women. The median age was 61 (interquartile range, IQR: 52-69), median Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score was 9 (IQR: 6-12), and 22% had moderate-severe frailty (clinical frailty scale [CFS] ≥ 6). 51% had acute leukemia, 38% lymphoma/multiple myeloma, and 40% had received a hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HCT). The most common reasons for ICU admission were acute respiratory failure (50%) and sepsis (40%). Overall, 203 (49%) were alive 7 days post-ICU discharge (ICU survivors). Twelve-month survival of the entire cohort was 21% (43% across ICU survivors). The proportion of survivors with moderate-severe frailty was 42% (at 7 days), 14% (6 months), and 8% (12 months). Median FIM at 7 days was 80 (IQR: 50-109). Physical function, pain, social function, mental health, and emotional well-being were below age- and sex-matched population scores at 6 and 12 months. Frailty, allogeneic HCT, kidney injury, and cardiac complications during ICU were associated with lower 12- month survival. CONCLUSIONS: 49% of all HM patients were alive at 7 days post-ICU discharge, and 21% at 12 months. Survival varied based upon hematologic diagnosis and frailty status. Survivors had important functional disability and impairment in emotional, physical, and general well-being.

Nonclinical factors affecting intraoperative red blood cell transfusion: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: There is significant variability in intraoperative red blood cell (RBC) transfusion practice. We aimed to use the theoretical domains framework (TDF) to categorize nonclinical and behavioural factors driving intraoperative RBC transfusion practice in a systematic review of the literature. SOURCE: We searched electronic databases from inception until August 2021 to identify studies evaluating nonclinical factors affecting intraoperative RBC transfusion. Using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool, we assessed the quality of included studies and identified relevant nonclinical factors, which were coded into TDF domains by two independent reviewers using NVivo (Lumivero, QSR International, Burlington, MA, USA). We identified common themes within domains and sorted domains based on the frequency of reported factors. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Our systematic review identified 18 studies: nine retrospective cohort studies, six cross-sectional surveys, and three before-and-after studies. Factors related to the social influences, behavioural regulation, environmental context/resources, and beliefs about consequences domains of the TDF were the most reported factors. Key factors underlying the observed variability in transfusion practice included the social effects of peers, patients, and institutional culture on decision-making (social influences), and characteristics of the practice environment including case volume, geographic location, and case start time (environmental context/resources). Studies reported variable beliefs about the consequences of both intraoperative transfusion and anemia (beliefs about consequences). Provider- and institutional-level audits, educational sessions, and increased communication between surgeons/anesthesiologists were identified as strategies to optimize intraoperative transfusion decision-making (behavioural regulation). CONCLUSION: Our systematic review has synthesized the literature on nonclinical and behavioural factors impacting intraoperative transfusion decision-making, categorized using the TDF. These findings can inform evidence-based interventions to reduce intraoperative RBC transfusion variability. STUDY REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/pm8zs/?view_only=166299ed28964804b9360c429b1218c1 ; first posted, 3 August 2022).

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: Il existe une variabilité importante dans les pratiques de transfusion peropératoire de culots sanguins. Nous avons cherché à utiliser le cadre des domaines théoriques (TDF, pour theoretical domains framework) pour catégoriser les facteurs non cliniques et comportementaux motivant les pratiques de transfusion peropératoire de culots sanguins dans une revue systématique de la littérature. SOURCES: Nous avons réalisé des recherches dans les bases de données électroniques de leur création jusqu'en août 2021 pour identifier les études évaluant les facteurs non cliniques affectant la transfusion peropératoire de culots sanguins. À l'aide de l'outil d'évaluation des méthodes mixtes, nous avons évalué la qualité des études incluses et identifié les facteurs non cliniques pertinents, qui ont été codés dans les domaines TDF par deux personnes les révisant de manière indépendante utilisant NVivo (Lumivero, QSR International, Burlington, MA, États-Unis). Nous avons identifié des thèmes communs au sein des domaines et trié les domaines en fonction de la fréquence des facteurs signalés. CONSTATATIONS PRINCIPALES: Notre revue systématique a identifié 18 études : neuf études de cohorte rétrospectives, six sondages transversaux et trois études avant-après. Les facteurs liés aux influences sociales, à la régulation comportementale, au contexte et aux ressources environnementaux et les croyances concernant les domaines de conséquences du TDF étaient les facteurs les plus rapportés. Les principaux facteurs sous-jacents à la variabilité observée dans la pratique transfusionnelle comprenaient les effets sociaux des pairs, de la patientèle et de la culture de l'établissement sur la prise de décision (influences sociales) et les caractéristiques de l'environnement de pratique, y compris le volume de cas, l'emplacement géographique et l'heure de début des cas (contexte/ressources environnementaux). Des études ont fait état de croyances variables sur les conséquences de la transfusion peropératoire et de l'anémie (croyances sur les conséquences). Des vérifications au niveau des prestataires et des établissements, des séances de formation et une communication accrue entre les chirurgien·nes et les anesthésiologistes ont été identifiées comme des stratégies pouvant optimiser la prise de décision transfusionnelle peropératoire (régulation comportementale). CONCLUSION: Notre revue systématique a synthétisé la littérature sur les facteurs non cliniques et comportementaux ayant une incidence sur la prise de décision transfusionnelle peropératoire, classés à l'aide du TDF. Ces résultats peuvent éclairer les interventions fondées sur des données probantes pour réduire la variabilité de transfusion peropératoire de culots sanguins. ENREGISTREMENT DE L'éTUDE: Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/pm8zs/?view_only=166299ed28964804b9360c429b1218c1 ; soumis pour la première fois, 3 août 2022).

Population Survival Kinetics Derived from Clinical Trials of Potentially Curable Lung Cancers.

Using digitized data from progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival Kaplan-Meier curves, one can assess population survival kinetics through exponential decay nonlinear regression analyses. To demonstrate their utility, we analyzed PFS curves from published curative-intent trials of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) adjuvant chemotherapy, adjuvant osimertinib in resected EGFR-mutant NSCLC (ADAURA trial), chemoradiotherapy for inoperable NSCLC, and limited small cell lung cancer (SCLC). These analyses permit assessment of log-linear curve shape and estimation of the proportion of patients cured, PFS half-lives for subpopulations destined to eventually relapse, and probability of eventual relapse in patients remaining progression-free at different time points. The proportion of patients potentially cured was 41% for adjuvant controls, 58% with adjuvant chemotherapy, 17% for ADAURA controls, not assessable with adjuvant osimertinib, 15% with chemoradiotherapy, and 12% for SCLC. Median PFS half-life for relapsing subpopulations was 11.9 months for adjuvant controls, 17.4 months with adjuvant chemotherapy, 24.4 months for ADAURA controls, not assessable with osimertinib, 9.3 months with chemoradiotherapy, and 10.7 months for SCLC. For those remaining relapse-free at 2 and 5 years, the cure probability was 74%/96% for adjuvant controls, 77%/93% with adjuvant chemotherapy, 51%/94% with chemoradiation, and 39%/87% with limited SCLC. Relatively easy population kinetic analyses add useful information.

The prevalence of non-contrast CT imaging abnormalities in reversible cerebral vasoconstriction syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Reversible cerebral vasoconstriction syndrome (RCVS) is a syndrome of recurrent thunderclap headaches and reversible vasoconstriction of the cerebral arteries on neuroimaging within 3 months of onset. Initial non-contrast computed tomography (CT) can reveal abnormalities such as ischemic stroke, intracerebral hemorrhage, and subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) can be present in patients with RCVS and may delay diagnosis. AIMS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. We aimed to estimate the prevalence of imaging abnormalities on initial non-contrast CT head in adult patients with RCVS. DATA SOURCES & ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We searched electronic databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Register of Clinical Trials from inception to August 2, 2022. Eligible studies included articles reporting the prevalence of non-contrast CT abnormalities on initial neuroimaging in patients with RCVS, aged 18 and older. Case series, observational studies and clinical trials were included. Data was extracted directly from included papers using a standardized data charting form. RESULTS: The search yielded 722 titles with duplicates removed. Twenty studies that included 379 patients with RCVS met inclusion criteria. We classified non-contrast CT abnormalities as either ischemic stroke, ICH, or SAH. We pooled prevalence data using a random effects model with the inverse-variance weighted method. The most common imaging finding was SAH with a pooled prevalence of 24% (95% CI:17%-33%), followed by ICH at 14% (95% CI:8%-22%), and ischemic stroke at 10% (95% CI:7%-14%). The pooled prevalence of any of these imaging abnormalities on initial non-contrast CT was 31% (95% CI:23%-40%). Risk of bias was moderate to very-high-risk for case-series and low-risk for observational studies. CONCLUSION: Our review demonstrates that one-third of patients with RCVS will have an abnormality on initial non-contrast CT head, including either an ischemic stroke, ICH, or SAH. These findings highlight the diagnostic challenges of RCVS imaging and contribute to our understanding of this disease.

Efficacy and Safety of Umbilical Cord-Derived Mesenchymal Stromal Cell Therapy in Preclinical Models of Sepsis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: In preclinical studies, mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs), including umbilical cord-derived MSCs (UC-MSCs), demonstrate the ability to modulate numerous pathophysiological processes related to sepsis; however, a systematic synthesis of the literature is needed to assess the efficacy of UC-MSCs for treating sepsis. OBJECTIVE: To examine the effects of UC-MSCs on overall mortality (primary outcome) as well as on organ dysfunction, coagulopathy, endothelial permeability, pathogen clearance, and systemic inflammation (secondary outcomes) at prespecified time intervals in preclinical models of sepsis. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted on Embase, Ovid MEDLINE, and Web of Science up to June 20, 2023. Preclinical controlled studies using in vivo sepsis models with systemic UC-MSC administration were included. Meta-analyses were conducted and expressed as odds ratios (OR) and ratios of the weighted means with 95% CI for categorical and continuous data, respectively. Risk of bias was assessed with the SYRCLE tool. RESULTS: Twenty-six studies (34 experiments, n = 1258 animals) were included in this review. Overall mortality was significantly reduced with UC-MSC treatment as compared to controls (OR: 0.26, 95% CI: 0.18-0.36). At various prespecified time intervals, UC-MSCs reduced surrogate measures of organ dysfunction related to the kidney, liver, and lung; reduced coagulopathy and endothelial permeability; and enhanced pathogen clearance from multiple sites. UC-MSCs also modulated systemic inflammatory mediators. No studies were rated as low risk across all SYCLE domains. CONCLUSIONS: These results demonstrate the efficacy of UC-MSC treatment in preclinical sepsis models and highlight their potential as a therapeutic intervention for septic shock.

Prediction Models for Forecasting Risk of Development of Surgical Site Infection after Lower Limb Revascularization Surgery: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Surgical site infections (SSIs) are a common and potentially preventable complication of lower limb revascularization surgery associated with increased healthcare resource utilization and patient morbidity. We conducted a systematic review to evaluate multivariable prediction models designed to forecast risk of SSI development after these procedures. METHODS: After protocol registration (CRD42022331292), we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews (inception to April 4th, 2023) for studies describing multivariable prediction models designed to forecast risk of SSI in adults after lower limb revascularization surgery. Two investigators independently screened abstracts and full-text articles, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. A narrative synthesis was performed to summarize predictors included in the models and their calibration and discrimination, validation status, and clinical applicability. RESULTS: Among the 6,671 citations identified, we included 5 studies (n = 23,063 patients). The included studies described 5 unique multivariable prediction models generated through forward selection, backward selection, or Akaike Information Criterion-based methods. Two models were designed to predict any SSI and 3 Szyilagyi grade II (extending into subcutaneous tissue) SSI. Across the 5 models, 18 adjusted predictors (10 of which were preoperative, 3 intraoperative, and 5 postoperative) significantly predicted any SSI and 14 adjusted predictors significantly predict Szilagyi grade II SSI. Female sex, obesity, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease significantly predicted SSI in more than one model. All models had a "good fit" according to the Hosmer-Lemeshow test (P > 0.05). Model discrimination was quantified using the area under the curve, which ranged from 0.66 to 0.75 across models. Two models were internally validated using non-exhaustive twofold cross-validation and bootstrap resampling. No model was externally validated. Three studies had a high overall risk of bias according to the Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool (PROBAST). CONCLUSIONS: Five multivariable prediction models with moderate discrimination have been developed to forecast risk of SSI development after lower limb revascularization surgery. Given the frequency and consequences of SSI after these procedures, development and external validation of novel prediction models and comparison of these models to the existing models evaluated in this systematic review is warranted.

A preclinical systematic review and meta-analysis assessing the effect of biological sex in lipopolysaccharide-induced acute lung injury.

It is unclear what effect biological sex has on outcomes of acute lung injury (ALI). Clinical studies are confounded by their observational design. We addressed this knowledge gap with a preclinical systematic review of ALI animal studies. We searched MEDLINE and Embase for studies of intratracheal/intranasal/aerosolized lipopolysaccharide administration (the most common ALI model) that reported sex-stratified data. Screening and data extraction were conducted in duplicate. Our primary outcome was histological tissue injury and secondary outcomes included alveolar-capillary barrier alterations and inflammatory markers. We used a random-effects inverse variance meta-analysis, expressing data as standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Risk of bias was assessed using the Systematic Review Centre for Laboratory Animal Experimentation (SYRCLE) tool. We identified six studies involving 132 animals across 11 independent experiments. A total of 41 outcomes were extracted, with the direction of effect suggesting greater severity in males than females in 26/41 outcomes (63%). One study reported on lung histology and found that male mice exhibited greater injury than females (SMD: 1.61, 95% CI: 0.53-2.69). Meta-analysis demonstrated significantly elevated albumin levels (SMD: 2.17, 95% CI: 0.63-3.70) and total cell counts (SMD: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.27-1.33) in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid from male mice compared with female mice. Most studies had an "unclear risk of bias." Our findings suggest sex-related differences in ALI severity. However, these conclusions are drawn from a small number of animals and studies. Further research is required to address the fundamental issue of biological sex differences in LPS-induced ALI.

Intraoperative pharmacologic opioid minimisation strategies and patient-centred outcomes after surgery: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative patient-centred outcome measures are essential to capture the patient's experience after surgery. Although a large number of pharmacologic opioid minimisation strategies (i.e. opioid alternatives) are used for patients undergoing surgery, it remains unclear which strategies are most promising in terms of patient-centred outcome improvements. This scoping review had two main objectives: (1) to map and describe evidence from clinical trials assessing the patient-centred effectiveness of pharmacologic intraoperative opioid minimisation strategies in adult surgical patients, and (2) to identify promising pharmacologic opioid minimisation strategies. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, Web of Science, and CINAHL databases from inception to February 2023. We included trials investigating the use of opioid minimisation strategies in adult surgical patients and reporting at least one patient-centred outcome. Study screening and data extraction were conducted independently by at least two reviewers. RESULTS: Of 24,842 citations screened for eligibility, 2803 trials assessed the effectiveness of intraoperative opioid minimisation strategies. Of these, 457 trials (67,060 participants) met eligibility criteria, reporting at least one patient-centred outcome. In the 107 trials that included a patient-centred primary outcome, patient wellbeing was the most frequently used domain (55 trials). Based on aggregate findings, dexmedetomidine, systemic lidocaine, and COX-2 inhibitors were promising strategies, while paracetamol, ketamine, and gabapentinoids were less promising. Almost half of the trials (253 trials) did not report a protocol or registration number. CONCLUSIONS: Researchers should prioritise and include patient-centred outcomes in the assessment of opioid minimisation strategy effectiveness. We identified three potentially promising pharmacologic intraoperative opioid minimisation strategies that should be further assessed through systematic reviews and multicentre trials. Findings from our scoping review may be influenced by selective outcome reporting bias. STUDY REGISTRATION: OSF - https://osf.io/7kea3.

Effectiveness of dexmedetomidine during surgery under general anaesthesia on patient-centred outcomes: a systematic review and Bayesian meta-analysis protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Dexmedetomidine is a promising pharmaceutical strategy to minimise opioid use during surgery. Despite its growing use, it is uncertain whether dexmedetomidine can improve patient-centred outcomes such as quality of recovery and pain. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis following the recommendations of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews. We will search MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, Web of Science and CINAHL approximately in October 2023. We will include randomised controlled trials evaluating the impact of systemic intraoperative dexmedetomidine on patient-centred outcomes. Patient-centred outcome definition will be based on the consensus definition established by the Standardised Endpoints in Perioperative Medicine initiative (StEP-COMPAC). Our primary outcome will be the quality of recovery after surgery. Our secondary outcomes will be patient well-being, function, health-related quality of life, life impact, multidimensional assessment of postoperative acute pain, chronic pain, persistent postoperative opioid use, opioid-related adverse events, hospital length of stay and adverse events. Two reviewers will independently screen and identify trials and extract data. We will evaluate the risk of bias of trials using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool (RoB 2.0). We will synthesise data using a random effects Bayesian model framework, estimating the probability of achieving a benefit and its clinical significance. We will assess statistical heterogeneity with the tau-squared and explore sources of heterogeneity with meta-regression. We have involved patient partners, clinicians, methodologists, and key partner organisations in the development of this protocol, and we plan to continue this collaboration throughout all phases of this systematic review. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Our systematic review does not require research ethics approval. It will help inform current clinical practice guidelines and guide development of future randomised controlled trials. The results will be disseminated in open-access peer-reviewed journals, presented at conferences and shared among collaborators and networks. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023439896.

Protocol for co-producing a framework and integrated resource platform for engaging patients in laboratory-based research.

BACKGROUND: Patient engagement in research is the meaningful and collaborative interaction between patients and researchers throughout the research process. Patient engagement can help to ensure patient-oriented values and perspectives are incorporated into the development, conduct, and dissemination of research. While patient engagement is increasingly prevalent in clinical research, it remains relatively unrealized in preclinical laboratory research. This may reflect the nature of preclinical research, in which routine interactions or engagement with patients may be less common. Our team of patient partners and researchers has previously identified few published examples of patient engagement in preclinical laboratory research, as well as a paucity of guidance on this topic. Here we propose the development of a process framework to facilitate patient engagement in preclinical laboratory research. METHODS: Our team, inclusive of researchers and patient partners, will develop a comprehensive, empirically-derived, and stakeholder-informed process framework for 'patient engagement in preclinical laboratory research.' First, our team will create a 'deliberative knowledge space' to conduct semi-structured discussions that will inform a draft framework for preclinical patient engagement. Over the course of several sessions, we will identify actions, activities, barriers, and enablers (e.g. considerations and motivations for patient engagement in preclinical laboratory research, define roles of key players). The resulting draft process framework will be further populated with examples and refined through an international consensus-building Delphi survey with patients, researchers, and other collaborator organizations. We will then conduct pilot field tests to evaluate the framework with preclinical laboratory research groups paired with patient partners. These results will be used to create a refined framework enriched with real-world examples and considerations. All resources developed will be made available through an online repository. DISCUSSION: Our proposed process framework will provide guidance, best practices, and standardized procedures to promote patient engagement in preclinical laboratory research. Supporting and facilitating patient engagement in this setting presents an exciting new opportunity to help realize the important impact that patients can make.

Engaging patients as partners or collaborators in clinical research is becoming more common, but it is still new in preclinical research. Preclinical researchers work in laboratories on cell and animal experiments. They traditionally don't have frequent interactions with patients compared to their clinical research colleagues. Integrating patient engagement in preclinical laboratory research may help ensure that patient perspectives and values are considered. To help preclinical laboratory research align with patient-centred priorities we propose the development of a practical framework. This framework will facilitate patient engagement in preclinical laboratory research. To achieve this, we will first hold in-depth discussions with patient partners, researchers, and other collaborators to understand views on patient engagement in preclinical laboratory research. Together, we will identify key considerations to draft a framework, including motivations for patient engagement in preclinical laboratory research, and defining the roles of those who need to be involved. We will refine the framework through an international survey where we will collect feedback from researchers, patient partners, and other collaborators to make further improvements. The framework will then be tested and refined by preclinical laboratory teams inclusive of patient partners. The finalized framework and other resources to facilitate patient engagement in preclinical laboratory research will be hosted in a 'one-stop-shop' of online resources. Ultimately, this framework will enable partnerships between patients and researchers and provide a roadmap for patient engagement in preclinical laboratory research. This presents an exciting new opportunity for patients and researchers to collaborate and potentially improve translation of laboratory-based research.

Accuracy of point-of-care testing devices for haemoglobin in the operating room: meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Point-of-care tests (POCT) for haemoglobin are increasingly used to guide intraoperative transfusion. However, their accuracy compared to central laboratory tests is unknown. The objective was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of method comparison studies assessing the accuracy of POCT versus central laboratory haemoglobin tests in patients undergoing surgery. METHODS: Electronic databases were searched from inception to April 2020 (updated August 2023). Any methodological approach comparing haemoglobin measurements between POCT and central laboratory in patients undergoing surgery under anaesthesia in the operating room were included. Data abstraction was guided by PRISMA and risk of bias was assessed by QUADAS-2. Data were extracted independently and in duplicate by two reviewers. Outcomes included mean differences between POCT and central laboratory haemoglobin with associated standard deviations and 95% limits of agreement (LOA). RESULTS: Of 3057 citations, 34 studies were included (n = 2427, 6857 paired measurements). Several devices were compared (pulse co-oximetry, n = 25; HemoCue, n = 10; iSTAT, n = 6; blood gas analysers, n = 10; haematology analyser, n = 2). Median sample size was 41 patients, and 11 studies were funded by device manufacturers. Fifteen of 34 studies had low risk of bias. Pooled mean differences (95% LOA) were: pulse co-oximeters 2.3 g/l (-25.2-29.8), HemoCue -0.3 g/l (-11.1-10.5), iSTAT -0.3 g/l (-8.4-7.8) and blood gas analysers -2.6 g/l (-17.8-12.7). CONCLUSION: All POCT examining intraoperative haemoglobin measurement yielded pooled mean difference LOAs larger than the allowable limit difference of ±4 g/dl. Intraoperative haemoglobin measured by POCT should not be considered interchangeable with central laboratory values and caution is necessary when using these tests to guide intraoperative transfusion.