A randomized trial of expedited intra-arrest transfer versus more extended on-scene resuscitation for refractory out of hospital cardiac arrest: Rationale and design of the EVIDENCE trial.

BACKGROUND: Refractory Out of Hospital Cardiac Arrest (r-OHCA) is common and the benefit versus harm of intra-arrest transport of patients to hospital is not clear. OBJECTIVE: To assess the rate of survival to hospital discharge in adult patients with r-OHCA, initial rhythm pulseless ventricular tachycardia (VT)/ventricular fibrillation (VF) or Pulseless Electrical Activity (PEA) treated with 1 of 2 locally accepted standards of care:1 expedited transport from scene; or2 ongoing advanced life support (ALS) resuscitation on-scene. HYPOTHESIS: We hypothesize that expedited transport from scene in r-OHCA improves survival with favorable neurological status/outcome. METHODS/DESIGN: Phase III, multi-center, partially blinded, prospective, intention-to-treat, safety and efficacy clinical trial with contemporaneous registry of patient ineligible for the clinical trial. Eligible patients for inclusion are adults with witnessed r-OHCA; estimated age 18 to 70, assumed medical cause with immediate bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR); initial rhythm of VF/pulseless VT, or PEA; no return of spontaneous circulation following 3 shocks and/or 15 minutes of professional on-scene resuscitation; with mechanical CPR available. Two hundred patients will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio to either expedited transport from scene or ongoing ALS at the scene of cardiac arrest. SETTING: Two urban regions in NSW Australia. OUTCOMES: Primary: survival to hospital discharge with cerebral performance category (CPC) 1 or 2. Secondary: safety, survival, prognostic factors, use of ECMO supported CPR and functional assessment at hospital discharge and 4 weeks and 6 months, quality of life, healthcare use and cost-effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: The EVIDENCE trial will determine the potential risks and benefits of an expedited transport from scene of cardiac arrest.

Restoring microvascular circulation with diagnostic ultrasound and contrast agent: rationale and design of the REDUCE trial.

OBJECTIVES: This study aims to evaluate the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of sonothrombolysis delivered pre and post primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) on infarct size assessed by cardiac MRI, in patients presenting with STEMI, when compared against sham procedure. BACKGROUND: More than a half of patients with successful pPCI have significant microvascular obstruction and residual infarction. Sonothrombolysis is a therapeutic use of ultrasound with contrast enhancement that may improve microcirculation and infarct size. The benefits and real time physiological effects of sonothrombolysis in a multicentre setting are unclear. METHODS: The REDUCE (Restoring microvascular circulation with diagnostic ultrasound and contrast agent) trial is a prospective, multicentre, patient and outcome blinded, sham-controlled trial. Patients presenting with STEMI will be randomized to one of 2 treatment arms, to receive either sonothrombolysis treatment or sham echocardiography before and after pPCI. This tailored design is based on preliminary pilot data from our centre, showing that sonothrombolysis can be safely delivered, without prolonging door to balloon time. Our primary endpoint will be infarct size assessed on day 4±2 on Cardiac Magnetic Resonance (CMR). Patients will be followed up for 6 months post pPCI to assess secondary endpoints. Sample size calculations indicate we will need 150 patients recruited in total. CONCLUSIONS: This multicentre trial will test whether sonothrombolysis delivered pre and post primary PCI can improve patient outcomes and is cost-effective, when compared with sham ultrasound delivered with primary PCI. The results from this trial may provide evidence for the utilization of sonothrombolysis as an adjunct therapy to pPCI to improve cardiovascular outcomes in STEMI. ANZ Clinical Trial Registration number: ACTRN 12620000807954.

Methods to Include Environmental Impacts in Health Economic Evaluations and Health Technology Assessments: A Scoping Review.

OBJECTIVES: The environmental impacts of healthcare are important factors that should be considered during health technology assessments. This study aims to summarize the evidence that exists about methods to include environmental impacts in health economic evaluations and health technology assessments. METHODS: We identified records for screening using an existing scoping review and a systematic search of academic databases and gray literature up to September 2023. We screened the identified records for eligibility and extracted data using a narrative synthesis approach. The review was conducted following the JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews checklist. RESULTS: We identified 2898 records and assessed the full text of 114, of which 54 were included in this review. Ten methods were identified to include environmental impacts in health economic evaluations and health technology assessments. Methods included converting environmental impacts to dollars or disability-adjusted life years and including them in a cost-effectiveness, cost-utility, or cost-benefit analysis, calculating an incremental carbon footprint effectiveness ratio or incremental carbon footprint cost ratio, incorporating impacts as one criteria of a multi-criteria decision analysis, and freely considering impacts during health technology assessment deliberation processes. CONCLUSIONS: Methods to include environmental impacts in health economic evaluations and health technology assessments exist but have not been tested for widespread use by health technology assessment agencies. Further research and implementation work is needed to determine which method can best aid decision makers to choose low environmental impact healthcare interventions.

Estimating a Minimal Important Difference for the EQ-5D-5L Utility Index in Dialysis Patients.

OBJECTIVES: The EQ-5D-5L is a commonly used health-related quality of life instrument for evaluating interventions in patients receiving dialysis; however, the minimal important difference (MID) that constitutes a meaningful treatment effect for this population has not been established. This study aims to estimate the MID for the EQ-5D-5L utility index in dialysis patients. METHODS: 6-monthly EQ-5D-5L measurements were collected from adult dialysis patients between April 2017 and November 2020 at a renal network in Sydney, Australia. EQ-VAS and Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale Renal symptom burden scores were collected simultaneously and used as anchors. MID estimates for the EQ-5D-5L utility index were derived using anchor-based and distribution-based methods. RESULTS: A total of 352 patients with ≥1 EQ-5D-5L observation were included, constituting 1127 observations. Mean EQ-5D-5L utility index at baseline was 0.719 (SD ± 0.267), and mean EQ-5D-5L utility decreased over time by -0.017 per year (95% CI -0.029 to -0.006, P = .004). Using cross-sectional anchor-based methods, MID estimates ranged from 0.073 to 0.107. Using longitudinal anchor-based methods, MID for improvement and deterioration ranged from 0.046 to 0.079 and -0.111 to -0.048, respectively. Using receiver operating characteristic curves, MID for improvement and deterioration ranged from 0.037 to 0.122 and -0.074 to -0.063, respectively. MID estimates from distribution-based methods were consistent with anchor-based estimates. CONCLUSIONS: Anchor-based and distribution-based approaches provided EQ-5D-5L utility index MID estimates ranging from 0.034 to 0.134. These estimates can inform the target difference or "effect size" for clinical trial design among dialysis populations.

The use of linked administrative data in Australian randomised controlled trials: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: The demand for simplified data collection within trials to increase efficiency and reduce costs has led to broader interest in repurposing routinely collected administrative data for use in clinical trials research. The aim of this scoping review is to describe how and why administrative data have been used in Australian randomised controlled trial conduct and analyses, specifically the advantages and limitations of their use as well as barriers and enablers to accessing administrative data for use alongside randomised controlled trials. METHODS: Databases were searched to November 2022. Randomised controlled trials were included if they accessed one or more Australian administrative data sets, where some or all trial participants were enrolled in Australia, and where the article was published between January 2000 and November 2022. Titles and abstracts were independently screened by two reviewers, and the full texts of selected studies were assessed against the eligibility criteria by two independent reviewers. Data were extracted from included articles by two reviewers using a data extraction tool. RESULTS: Forty-one articles from 36 randomised controlled trials were included. Trial characteristics, including the sample size, disease area, population, and intervention, were varied; however, randomised controlled trials most commonly linked to government reimbursed claims data sets, hospital admissions data sets and birth/death registries, and the most common reason for linkage was to ascertain disease outcomes or survival status, and to track health service use. The majority of randomised controlled trials were able to achieve linkage in over 90% of trial participants; however, consent and participant withdrawals were common limitations to participant linkage. Reported advantages were the reliability and accuracy of the data, the ease of long term follow-up, and the use of established data linkage units. Common reported limitations were locating participants who had moved outside the jurisdictional area, missing data where consent was not provided, and unavailability of certain healthcare data. CONCLUSIONS: As linked administrative data are not intended for research purposes, detailed knowledge of the data sets is required by researchers, and the time delay in receiving the data is viewed as a barrier to its use. The lack of access to primary care data sets is viewed as a barrier to administrative data use; however, work to expand the number of healthcare data sets that can be linked has made it easier for researchers to access and use these data, which may have implications on how randomised controlled trials will be run in future.

Cost-effectiveness of Accepting Kidneys From Deceased Donors With Common Cancers-A Modeling Study.

BACKGROUND: The disparity between the demand for and supply of kidney transplants has resulted in prolonged waiting times for patients with kidney failure. A potential approach to address this shortage is to consider kidneys from donors with a history of common cancers, such as breast, prostate, and colorectal cancers. METHODS: We used a patient-level Markov model to evaluate the outcomes of accepting kidneys from deceased donors with a perceived history of breast, prostate, or colorectal cancer characterized by minimal to intermediate transmission risk. Data from the Australian transplant registry were used in this analysis. The study compared the costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) from the perspective of the Australian healthcare system between the proposed practice of accepting these donors and the conservative practice of declining them. The model simulated outcomes for 1500 individuals waitlisted for a deceased donor kidney transplant for a 25-y horizon. RESULTS: Under the proposed practice, when an additional 15 donors with minimal to intermediate cancer transmission risk were accepted, QALY gains ranged from 7.32 to 20.12. This translates to an approximate increase of 7 to 20 additional years of perfect health. The shift in practice also led to substantial cost savings, ranging between $1.06 and $2.3 million. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed practice of accepting kidneys from deceased donors with a history of common cancers with minimal to intermediate transmission risk offers a promising solution to bridge the gap between demand and supply. This approach likely results in QALY gains for recipients and significant cost savings for the health system.

Identifying Barriers and Facilitators for Increasing Uptake of Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) Inhibitors in British Columbia, Canada, using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research.

Background: Care gaps remain in modern health care despite the availability of robust, evidence-based medications. Although sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors have demonstrated profound benefits in improving both cardiovascular and kidney outcomes in patients, the uptake of these medications remain suboptimal, and the causes have not been systematically explored. Objective: The purpose of this study was to use the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to describe the barriers and facilitators faced by clinicians in British Columbia, Canada, when prescribing an SGLT2 inhibitor. To achieve this, we conducted semistructured interviews using the CFIR with practicing family physicians, nephrologists, endocrinologists, and cardiologists in British Columbia. Design: Semistructured interviews. Setting: British Columbia, Canada. Participants: Actively practicing family physicians, nephrologists, endocrinologists, and cardiologists in British Columbia. Methods: Twenty-one clinicians were interviewed using questions derived from the CFIR. The audio recordings were transcribed verbatim, and each transcription was individually analyzed in duplicate using thematic analysis. The analysis focused on identifying barriers and facilitators to using SGLT2 inhibitors in clinical practice and coded using the CFIR constructs. Once the transcriptions were coded, overarching themes were created. Results: Five overarching themes were identified to the barriers and facilitators to using SGLT2 inhibitors: current perceptions and beliefs, clinician factors, patient factors, medication factors, and health care system factors. The current perceptions and beliefs were that SGLT2 inhibitors are efficacious and have distinct advantages over other agents but are underutilized in British Columbia. Clinician factors included varying levels of knowledge of and comfort in prescribing SGLT2 inhibitors, and patient factors included intolerable adverse events and additional pill burden, but many were enthusiastic about potential benefits. Multiple SGLT2 inhibitor related adverse events like mycotic infections and euglycemic diabetic ketoacidosis and the difficulty in obtaining reimbursement for these medications were also identified as a barrier to prescribing these medications. Facilitators for the use of SGLT2 inhibitors included consensus among colleagues, influential leaders, and peers in support of their use, and endorsement by national guidelines. Limitations: The experience from the clinicians regarding costs and the reimbursement process is limited to British Columbia as each province has its own procedures. There may be responder bias as clinicians were approached through purposive sampling. Conclusion: This study highlights different themes to the barriers and facilitators of using SGLT2 inhibitors in British Columbia. The identification of these barriers provides a specific target for improvement, and the facilitators can be leveraged for the increased use of SGLT2 inhibitors. Efforts to address and optimize these barriers and facilitators in a systematic approach may lead to an increase in the use of these efficacious medications.

Contexte: Des lacunes subsistent dans les soins de santé modernes, malgré l'existence de médicaments éprouvés et fondés sur des données probantes. Les inhibiteurs du cotransporteur de sodium-glucose de type 2 (SGLT2) ont démontré d'importants effets dans l'amélioration des résultats cardiovasculaires et rénaux des patients, mais l'utilization de ces médicaments demeure sous-optimale et les raisons qui expliquent cette situation n'ont pas été systématiquement explorées. Objectif: Utiliser le Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) pour décrire les obstacles et les éléments facilitateurs rencontrés par les cliniciens de la Colombie-Britannique (Canada) lorsqu'ils prescrivent un inhibiteur du SGLT2. Pour ce faire, nous avons mené des entretiens semi-structurés au moyen du CFIR auprès de médecins de famille, de néphrologues, de cardiologues et d'endocrinologues exerçant en Colombie-Britannique. Conception: Entretiens semi-structurés. Cadre: Colombie-Britannique (Canada). Participants: Médecins de famille, cardiologues, endocrinologues et néphrologues exerçant en Colombie-Britannique. Méthodologie: Les questions dérivées du CFIR ont été posées à vingt-et-un cliniciens. Les enregistrements audio ont été transcrits verbatim et chaque transcription a été analysée individuellement en double en utilisant l'analyze thématique. L'analyze s'est concentrée sur l'identification des obstacles et des facilitateurs à l'utilization des inhibiteurs du SGLT2 dans la pratique clinique et sur le codage selon les concepts du CFIR. Une fois les transcriptions codées, des thèmes généraux ont été créés. Résultats: Cinq thèmes généraux ont été identifiés pour les obstacles et les facilitateurs à l'utilization des inhibiteurs du SGLT2: les perceptions et les croyances actuelles, les facteurs liés aux cliniciens, les facteurs liés aux patients, les facteurs liés aux médicaments et les facteurs liés au système de santé. Les perceptions et croyances actuelles étaient que les inhibiteurs du SGLT2 sont efficaces, qu'ils présentent des avantages distincts des autres agents, mais qu'ils sont sous-utilisés en Colombie-Britannique. Les facteurs liés aux cliniciens incluaient des niveaux variables de connaissance et de confort vis-à-vis la prescription d'inhibiteurs du SGLT2. Les facteurs liés aux patients incluaient les événements indésirables intolérables et la charge médicamenteuse supplémentaire, mais plusieurs répondants voyaient positivement les bienfaits potentiels. Les nombreux événements indésirables liés aux inhibiteurs du SGLT2, notamment les infections mycosiques et l'acidocétose diabétique euglycémique, et la difficulté à obtenir le remboursement de ces médicaments ont également été cités comme raisons limitant la prescription de ces médicaments. Le consensus parmi les collègues, les leaders influents et les pairs en faveur des inhibiteurs du SGLT2 et l'inclusion de ces médicaments dans les lignes directrices nationales figuraient parmi les facilitateurs. Limites: Les expériences rapportées par les cliniciens en ce qui concerne les coûts et le processus de remboursement se limitent à la Colombie-Britannique, car chaque province a ses propres procédures. L'étude comporte un possible biais de réponse puisque les cliniciens ont été approchés par échantillonnage dirigé. Conclusion: Cette étude met en évidence différents thèmes concernant les obstacles et les facilitateurs à l'utilization des inhibiteurs du SGLT2 en Colombie-Britannique. L'identification de ces obstacles fournit une cible précise pour l'amélioration, alors que les facilitateurs peuvent être mis à profit pour accroître l'utilization des inhibiteurs de SGLT2. Les efforts déployés pour aborder et optimiser ces obstacles et ces facilitateurs dans le cadre d'une approche systématique pourraient mener à une augmentation de l'utilization de ces médicaments efficaces.

Transforming nursing assessment in acute hospitals: A cluster randomised controlled trial of an evidence-based nursing core assessment (the ENCORE trial).

BACKGROUND: Patient safety is threatened when early signs of clinical deterioration are missed or not acted upon. This research began as a clinical-academic partnership established around a shared concern of nursing physical assessment practices on general wards and delayed recognition of clinical deterioration. The outcome was the development of a complex intervention facilitated at the ward level for proactive nursing surveillance. METHODS: The evidence-based nursing core assessment (ENCORE) trial was a pragmatic cluster-randomised controlled trial. We hypothesised that ward intervention would reduce the incidence of patient rescue events (medical emergency team activations) and serious adverse events. We randomised 29 general wards in a 1:2 allocation, across 5 Australian hospitals to intervention (n = 10) and usual care wards (n = 19). Skilled facilitation over 12 months enabled practitioner-led, ward-level practice change for proactive nursing surveillance. The primary outcome was the rate of medical emergency team activations and secondary outcomes were unplanned intensive care unit admissions, on-ward resuscitations, and unexpected deaths. Outcomes were prospectively collected for 6 months following the initial 6 months of implementation. Analysis was at the patient level using generalised linear mixed models to account for clustering by ward. RESULTS: We analysed 29,385 patient admissions to intervention (n = 11,792) and control (n = 17,593) wards. Adjusted models for overall effects suggested the intervention increased the rate of medical emergency team activations (adjusted incidence rate ratio 1.314; 95 % confidence interval 0.975, 1.773), although the confidence interval was compatible with a marginal decrease to a substantial increase in rate. Confidence intervals for secondary outcomes included a range of plausible effects from benefit to harm. However, considerable heterogeneity was observed in intervention effects by patient comorbidity. Among patients with few comorbid conditions in the intervention arm there was a lower medical emergency team activation rate and decreased odds of unexpected death. Among patients with multimorbidity in the intervention arm there were higher rates of medical emergency team activation and intensive care unit admissions. CONCLUSION: Trial outcomes have refined our assumptions about the impact of the ENCORE intervention. The intervention appears to have protective effects for patients with low complexity where frontline teams can respond locally. It also appears to have redistributed medical emergency team activations and unplanned intensive care unit admissions, mobilising higher rates of rescue for patients with multimorbidity. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12618001903279 (Date of registration: 22/11/2018; First participant recruited: 01/02/2019).

Oral Cannabis Extract for Secondary Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: Final Results of a Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Phase II/III Trial.

PURPOSE: The aim of this randomized, placebo-controlled, two-stage, phase II/III trial was to determine the efficacy of an oral cannabis extract in adults with refractory nausea and/or vomiting during moderately or highly emetogenic, intravenous chemotherapy despite guideline-consistent antiemetic prophylaxis. Here, we report results of the prespecified combined analysis including the initial phase II and subsequent phase III components. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Study treatment consisted of oral capsules containing either tetrahydrocannabinol 2.5 mg plus cannabidiol 2.5 mg capsules (THC:CBD) or matching placebo, taken three times a day from days -1 to 5, in addition to guideline-consistent antiemetics. The primary measure of effect was the difference in the proportions of participants with no vomiting or retching and no use of rescue medications (a complete response) during hours 0-120 after the first cycle of chemotherapy on study (cycle A). RESULTS: We recruited 147 evaluable of a planned 250 participants from 2016 to 2022. Background antiemetic prophylaxis included a corticosteroid and 5-hydroxytryptamine antagonist in 97%, a neurokinin-1 antagonist in 80%, and olanzapine in 10%. THC:CBD compared with placebo improved the complete response rate from 8% to 24% (absolute difference 16%, 95% CI, 4 to 28, P = .01), with similar effects for absence of significant nausea, use of rescue medications, daily vomits, and the nausea scale on the Functional Living Index-Emesis quality-of-life questionnaire. More frequent bothersome adverse events of special interest included sedation (18% v 7%), dizziness (10% v 0%), and transient anxiety (4% v 1%). There were no serious adverse events attributed to THC:CBD. CONCLUSION: THC:CBD is an effective adjunct for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting despite standard antiemetic prophylaxis, but was associated with additional adverse events. Drug availability, cultural attitudes, legal status, and preferences may affect implementation. Future analyses will evaluate the cost-effectiveness of THC:CBD.