Association between knowledge and attitudes towards advance directives in emergency services.

BACKGROUND: Implementing the routine consultation of patient advance directives in hospital emergency departments and emergency medical services has become essential, given that advance directives constitute the frame of reference for care personalisation and respect for patients' values and preferences related to healthcare. The aim of this study was to assess the levels and relationship of knowledge and attitudes of nursing and medical professionals towards advance directives in hospital emergency departments and emergency medical services, and to determine the correlated and predictor variables of favourable attitudes towards advance directives. METHODS: Observational, descriptive, and cross-sectional study. The study was conducted in the emergency department of a second-level hospital and in the emergency medical service. Data collection was performed from January 2019 to February 2020. The STROBE guidelines were followed for the preparation of the study. RESULTS: A total of 173 healthcare professionals responded to the questionnaire. Among them, 91.3% considered that they were not sufficiently informed about advance directives, and 74% acknowledged not having incorporated them into their usual practice. Multinomial analysis indicated a statistically significant relationship between the variable emergency medical service and having more favourable attitudes towards consulting the advance directives in their practical application (OR 2.49 [95% CI 1.06-5.88]; p = 0.037) and compliance in complex scenarios (OR 3.65 [95% CI 1.58 - 8.41]; p = 0.002). Working the afternoon and night shift was a predictor variable for obtaining a higher score with respect to attitudes in complex scenarios. CONCLUSION: There is an association between the level of knowledge that nursing and medical professionals have about advance directives and the scores obtained on the attitude scales at the time of practical implementation and in complex scenarios. This shows that the more knowledge professionals have, the more likely they are to consult patients' advance directives and to respect their wishes and preferences for care and/or treatment.

Managing ethical aspects of advance directives in emergency care services.

BACKGROUND: In Hospital Emergency Department and Emergency Medical Services professionals experience situations in which they face difficulties or barriers to know patient's advance directives and implement them. OBJECTIVES: To analyse the barriers, facilitators, and ethical conflicts perceived by health professionals derived from the management of advance directives in emergency services. RESEARCH DESIGN, PARTICIPANTS, AND CONTEXT: This is a qualitative phenomenological study conducted with purposive sampling including a population of nursing and medical professionals linked to Hospital Emergency Department and Emergency Medical Services. Three focus groups were formed, totalling 24 participants. We performed an inductive-type thematic discourse analysis. ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS: This study was approved by ethical committees of Ethical Commitee of Clínic Hospital (Barcelona) and Comittee of Emergency Medical Services (Barcelona). The participants received information about the purpose of the study. Patients' anonymity and willingness to participate in the study were guaranteed. FINDINGS: There were four types of barriers that hindered the proper management of patients' advance directives in Hospital Emergency Department and Emergency Medical Services: personal and professional, family members, organisational and structural, and those derived from the health system. These barriers caused ethical conflicts and hindered professionals' decision-making. DISCUSSION: These results are in line with those of previous studies and indicate that factors such as gender, professional category, and years of experience, in addition to professionals' beliefs and the opinions of colleagues and family members, can also influence the professionals' final decisions. CONCLUSION: The different strategies described in this study can contribute to the development of health policies and action protocols to help reduce both the barriers that hinder the correct management and implementation of advance directives and the ethical conflicts generated.

Lenalidomide plus dexamethasone versus observation in patients with high-risk smouldering multiple myeloma (QuiRedex): long-term follow-up of a randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: The standard of care for smouldering multiple myeloma is observation. We did the QuiRedex study to compare early treatment with lenalidomide plus dexamethasone with observation in patients with high-risk smouldering multiple myeloma. Here we report the long-term follow-up results of the trial. METHODS: We did this open-label, randomised, controlled phase 3 study at 19 centres in Spain and three centres in Portugal. Patients aged 18 years or older with high-risk smouldering multiple myeloma were randomly assigned (1:1), via a computerised random number generator, to receive either early treatment with lenalidomide plus dexamethasone or observation, with dynamic balancing to maintain treatment balance within the two groups. Randomisation was stratified by time from diagnosis of smouldering multiple myeloma to study enrolment (≤6 months vs >6 months). Patients in the treatment group received nine 4-week induction cycles (lenalidomide 25 mg per day on days 1-21, plus dexamethasone 20 mg per day on days-1-4 and days 12-15), followed by maintenance therapy (lenalidomide 10 mg per day on days 1-21 of each 28-day cycle) up to 2 years. Group allocation was not masked from study investigators or patients. The primary endpoint was time from randomisation to progression to symptomatic myeloma. The primary analysis was based on the per-protocol population, restricted to patients who fulfilled the protocol in terms of eligibility. Safety assessments were based on the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00480363. FINDINGS: Between Nov 8, 2007, and June 9, 2010, 125 patients were enrolled and underwent randomisation. 119 patients comprised the per-protocol population and were randomly assigned to receive either lenalidomide plus dexamethasone (n=57) or observation (n=62). The cutoff date for this update was June 30, 2015. Median follow-up for surviving patients was 75 months (IQR 67-85). Lenalidomide plus dexamethasone continued to provide a benefit on time to progression compared with observation (median time to progression not reached [95% CI 47 months-not reached] vs 23 months [16-31]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·24 [95% CI 0·14-0·41]; p<0·0001). Progression to multiple myeloma occurred in 53 (86%) of 62 patients in the observation group compared with 22 (39%) of 57 patients in the treatment group. At data cutoff, ten (18%) patients had died in the treatment group and 22 (36%) patients had died in the observation group; median overall survival from the time of study entry had not been reached in either group (95% CI 65 months-not reached vs 53 months-not reached; HR 0·43 [95% CI 0·21-0·92], p=0·024). Survival in patients who had received subsequent treatments at the time of progression to active disease did not differ between groups (HR 1·34 [95% CI 0·54-3·30]; p=0·50). The most frequently reported grade 3 adverse events in patients given lenalidomide plus dexamethasone were infection (four [6%]), asthenia (four [6%]), neutropenia (three [5%]), and skin rash (two [3%]); these events all occurred during induction therapy. No grade 4 adverse events occurred, but one (2%) patient in the lenalidomide plus dexamethasone group died from a respiratory infection during induction therapy The frequency of second primary malignancies was higher in patients in the treatment group than in those in the observation group (six [10%] of 62 patients vs one [2%] of 63 patients), but the cumulative risk of development did not differ significantly between the groups (p=0·070). INTERPRETATION: This study is, to our knowledge, the first randomised trial in which early treatment has been assessed in selected patients with high-risk smouldering multiple myeloma. Positive results from ongoing trials would support the use of early treatment for patients with high-risk disease in the near future. FUNDING: Pethema (Spanish Program for the Treatment of Hematologic Diseases).

Lenalidomide plus dexamethasone for high-risk smoldering multiple myeloma.

BACKGROUND: For patients with smoldering multiple myeloma, the standard of care is observation until symptoms develop. However, this approach does not identify high-risk patients who may benefit from early intervention. METHODS: In this randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned 119 patients with high-risk smoldering myeloma to treatment or observation. Patients in the treatment group received an induction regimen (lenalidomide at a dose of 25 mg per day on days 1 to 21, plus dexamethasone at a dose of 20 mg per day on days 1 to 4 and days 12 to 15, at 4-week intervals for nine cycles), followed by a maintenance regimen (lenalidomide at a dose of 10 mg per day on days 1 to 21 of each 28-day cycle for 2 years). The primary end point was time to progression to symptomatic disease. Secondary end points were response rate, overall survival, and safety. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 40 months, the median time to progression was significantly longer in the treatment group than in the observation group (median not reached vs. 21 months; hazard ratio for progression, 0.18; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.09 to 0.32; P<0.001). The 3-year survival rate was also higher in the treatment group (94% vs. 80%; hazard ratio for death, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.10 to 0.91; P=0.03). A partial response or better was achieved in 79% of patients in the treatment group after the induction phase and in 90% during the maintenance phase. Toxic effects were mainly grade 2 or lower. CONCLUSIONS: Early treatment for patients with high-risk smoldering myeloma delays progression to active disease and increases overall survival. (Funded by Celgene; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00480363.).

Anti-CCR7 monoclonal antibodies as a novel tool for the treatment of chronic lymphocyte leukemia.

To date, chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) remains incurable with current treatments, which include the monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) rituximab and alemtuzumab. The efficacy of rituximab is modest when used as single agent, and alemtuzumab induces severe immunosuppression. To develop more potent and specific therapies, we propose the CC chemokine receptor 7 (CCR7) as an attractive target molecule to treat CLL, as it not only fulfills the requirements of a high-surface expression and a good level of tissue specificity, but it also plays a crucial role in mediating the migration of the tumor cells to lymph nodes (LNs) and thus, in the development of clinical lymphadenopathy. In the current work, murine anti-human CCR7 mAb mediated a potent, complement-dependent cytotoxicity (CDC) against CLL cells while sparing normal T lymphocytes from the same patients. The sensitivity to CDC was related to the antigenic density of CCR7. Moreover, these mAb blocked the in vitro migration of CLL cells in response to CC chemokine ligand 19 (CCL19), one of the physiological ligands of CCR7. Conversely, CLL cells were poorly lysed through antibody-dependent, cell-mediated cytotoxicity (ADCC), probably as a result of the murine origin and the isotype of the anti-CCR7 mAb used. Molecular engineering techniques will allow us to obtain chimeric or humanized anti-CCR7 mAb to reach the best clinical response for this common and yet incurable leukemia.

Chemokine receptors that mediate B cell homing to secondary lymphoid tissues are highly expressed in B cell chronic lymphocytic leukemia and non-Hodgkin lymphomas with widespread nodular dissemination.

B cell neoplasms present heterogeneous patterns of lymphoid organ involvement, which may be a result of the differential expression of chemokine receptors. We found that chemokine receptor (CCR)7, CXC chemokine receptor (CXCR)4, or CXCR5, the main chemokine receptors that mediate B cell entry into secondary lymphoid tissues and their homing to T cell and B cell zones therein, were highly expressed in B malignancies with widespread involvement of lymph nodes. Conversely, those pathologies with little or no nodular dissemination showed no expression to very low levels of CCR7 and CXCR5 and low to moderate levels of CXCR4. These findings provide evidence for the role of CCR7, CXCR4, and CXCR5 in determining the pattern of lymphoid organ involvement of B tumors. Functional studies were performed on B malignancies expressing different levels of CCR7, CXCR5, and CXCR4. Multiple myeloma (MM) cells did not express CCR7 nor CXCR5 and did not migrate in response to their ligands; a moderate expression of CXCR4 on MM cells was accompanied by a migratory response to its ligand, CXCL12. By contrast, cells from B cell chronic lymphocytic leukemia (B-CLL) expressed the highest levels of these chemokine receptors and efficiently migrated in response to all ligands of CCR7, CXCR4, and CXCR5. In addition, the migration index of B-CLL cells in response to both of the CCR7 ligands correlated with the presence of clinical lymphadenopathy, thus indicating that the high expression of functional chemokine receptors justifies the widespread character of B-CLL, representing a clinical target for the control of tumor cell dissemination.