Assertive community treatment for high-utilizing alcohol misuse patients: a before-and-after cohort study protocol.

BACKGROUND: The challenge posed by Alcohol-Related Frequent Attenders (ARFAs) in Emergency Departments (EDs) is growing in Singapore, marked by limited engagement with conventional addiction treatment pathways. Recognizing this gap, this study aims to explore the potential benefits of Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) - an innovative, community-centered, harm-reduction strategy-in mitigating the frequency of ED visits, curbing Emergency Medical Services (EMS) calls, and uplifting health outcomes across a quartet of Singaporean healthcare institutions. METHODS: Employing a prospective before-and-after cohort design, this investigation targeted ARFAs aged 21 years and above, fluent in English or Mandarin. Eligibility was determined by a history of at least five ED visits in the preceding year, with no fewer than two due to alcohol-related issues. The study contrasted health outcomes of patients integrated into the ACT care model versus their experiences under the exclusive provision of standard emergency care across Hospitals A, B, C and D. Following participants for half a year post-initial assessment, the evaluation metrics encompassed socio-demographic factors, ED, and EMS engagement frequencies, along with validated health assessment tools, namely Christo Inventory for Substance-misuse Services (CISS) scores, University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Loneliness scores, and Centre for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale Revised (CESD-R-10) scores. DISCUSSION: Confronted with intricate socio-economic and medical challenges, the ARFA cohort often grapples with heightened vulnerabilities in relation to alcohol misuse. Pioneering the exploration of ACT's efficacy with ARFAs in a Singaporean context, our research is anchored in a patient-centered approach, designed to comprehensively address these multifaceted clinical profiles. While challenges, like potential high attrition rates and sporadic data collection, are anticipated, the model's prospective contribution towards enhancing patient well-being and driving healthcare efficiencies in Singapore is substantial. Our findings have the potential to reshape healthcare strategies and policy recommendations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04447079. Initiated on 25 June 2020.

Cutaneous versus non-cutaneous angiosarcoma: clinicopathologic features and treatment outcomes in 60 patients at a single Asian cancer centre.

BACKGROUND: Angiosarcoma (AS) is an uncommon soft tissue sarcoma with dismal prognosis that presents either cutaneously (C-AS) or non-cutaneously (NC-AS). We compared the clinical features and treatment outcomes between these 2 groups. METHODS: A single-centre study evaluating 60 AS patients between 2002 and 2012 was performed. RESULTS: The median age was 70 years. C-AS of the scalp or face comprised 66% of patients. C-AS patients were older than NC-AS (median age 74 vs. 56 years; p < 0.001). Proportionately more C-AS patients presented with non-metastatic disease (86 vs. 50%; p = 0.007). Amongst resected C-AS and NC-AS patients, rates of positive surgical margins (53 vs. 50%; p = 1.00) and adjuvant therapy (25 vs. 43%; p = 0.626) were not significantly different, though proportionately fewer C-AS patients relapsed (36 vs. 78%; p = 0.038). Paclitaxel was the most common agent in first line palliative systemic therapy, achieving an objective response rate of 56%. Median overall survival was 11.2 months, with no significant difference between C-AS and NC-AS (11.3 vs. 9.8 months; p = 0.895). CONCLUSION: Distinct from AS in the West, our series demonstrates a clear preponderance of scalp AS. Disparities in clinical characteristics between C-AS and NC-AS did not translate into survival differences.

COVID-19 in Singapore: Our Experience as a Country, and at Singapore General Hospital's Department of Emergency Medicine.

COVID-19 has changed our lives as we knew it. The world is not naive to infectious disease outbreaks, having experienced pandemics such as the H1N1 outbreak in 2009 with up to 400,000 deaths, and the "Spanish flu" in 1919 with up to 50 million deaths worldwide respectively (https://www.euro.who.int/en/health-topics/communicable-diseases/influenza/pandemic-influenza/past-pandemics). However, this outbreak caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 has taken the world by storm since it was first reported in end 2019. With the numbers of confirmed cases of COVID-19 and death toll rising every day, it raises the question of when will we be fully equipped to handle a pandemic of such a mammoth scale. A multi-pronged approach has to be undertaken by not only healthcare organisations and pharmaceuticals, but also government agencies and legislation in order to overcome the repercussions and mitigate the effects of an infectious disease outbreak. In this article, we share our experience in Singapore and Singapore General Hospital against COVID-19 and our ongoing efforts to keep the virus at bay.

Disease Outbreak Surge Response: How a Singapore Tertiary Hospital Converted a Multi-story Carpark Into a Flu Screening Area to Respond to the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), first documented in December 2019, was declared a public health emergency by the World Health Organization (WHO) on January 30, 2020 (https://www.who.int/westernpacific/emergencies/covid-19). The disease, caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus, has affected more than 9 million people and contributed to at least 490,000 deaths globally as of June 2020, with numbers on the rise (https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries).Increased numbers of patients seeking medical attention during disease outbreaks can overwhelm healthcare facilities, hence requiring an equivalent response from healthcare services. Surge capacity is a concept that has not only been defined as the "ability to respond to a sudden increase in patient care demands" (Hick et al., Disaster Med Public Health Prep. 2008;2:S51-S57) but also to "effectively and rapidly expand capacity" (Watson et al., Milbank Q. 2013;91(1):78-122).This narrative review discusses how Singapore's largest tertiary hospital has encapsulated the elements of surge capability and transformed a peacetime multi-story carpark into a flu screening area in response to the COVID-19 disease outbreak.

The influence of primary site on outcomes in leiomyosarcoma: a review of clinicopathologic differences between uterine and extrauterine disease.

BACKGROUND: Leiomyosarcomas (LMS) comprise 25% of soft tissue sarcomas. Recent reports suggest differences in treatment outcomes between uterine (uLMS) and extrauterine (eLMS) disease that may reflect distinct disease biologies. We sought to identify prognostic factors in LMS and clinicopathologic differences between uLMS and eLMS. METHODS: This is a single-center retrospective study evaluating 97 eligible patients treated for LMS between 2002 and 2010. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 21.2 months. uLMS affected 53% of patients, and was less common beyond age 60 years compared with eLMS (10% vs. 37%, P = 0.002). Seventy-two percent of patients presented with nonmetastatic disease. Of these, 94% underwent curative surgery, among whom more uLMS patients achieved negative surgical margins (90% vs. 45%, P = 0.003). There were no significant differences in adjuvant therapy use and relapse patterns between uLMS and eLMS. Half of metastatic patients received palliative chemotherapy, among whom 76% received anthracycline-based chemotherapy in first line to which response rate was 31%. Median overall survival was 45.2 months, 49.8 months in uLMS, and 40.5 months in eLMS (P = 0.294). Among patients without metastases, median survival was 60.8 months (77.3 vs. 48.1 mo in uLMS and eLMS, respectively, P = 0.194). In metastatic disease, median survival was 20.7 months (22.0 vs. 17.5 mo in uLMS and eLMS, respectively, P = 0.936). Advanced disease stage, bone metastases and lack of metastasectomy prognosticated for inferior survival. CONCLUSIONS: While demonstrating interesting clinicopathologic differences, the evidence for uLMS and eLMS being biologically distinct remains inconclusive. Disease stage is prognostically most important in LMS.