Disease burden of Barrett's esophagus across the Paris metropolitan area.

INTRODUCTION: The prevalence of Barrett's esophagus (BE) in France is unknown. However, the management of dysplastic BE in expert centers is recommended and reduces the risk of developing invasive adenocarcinoma. Our aim was to determine the burden of BE patients in the Paris Region. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study using the data from electronic medical records from the data warehouse of the 39 Greater Paris public hospitals (Entrepôt de données de santé de l' Assistance Publique- Hôpitaux de Paris) for the year 2018, and used natural language processing to search for occurrences of Barrett's esophagus in endoscopy and pathology reports. RESULTS: we observed a 2.2% prevalence of Barrett's esophagus. Patients with Barrett's esophagus were older, more frequently males, with a hiatal hernia, proton pump inhibitor users, and less frequently infected by H. Pylori. Gastro-esophageal reflux symptoms were not more frequently encountered in Barrett's patients. Eleven percent of patients with Barrett's esophagus had dysplasia or adenocarcinoma. DISCUSSION: Over 200 000 patients with Barrett's esophagus are expected in the Paris Region, of which 11% harbor dysplasia or adenocarcinoma. This data should be taken into account to tailor healthcare offer in France.

A core outcome domain set to assess cutaneous neurofibromas related to neurofibromatosis type 1 in clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Cutaneous neurofibromas (cNF) are considered one of the highest burdens of neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1). To date, no medical treatment can cure cNF or prevent their development. In that context, there is an urgent need to prepare and standardize the methodology of future trials targeting cNF. OBJECTIVES: The objective was to develop a core outcome domain set suitable for all clinical trials targeting NF1-associated cNF. METHODS: The validated approach of this work consisted of a three-phase methodology: (i) generating the domains [systematic literature review (SLR) and qualitative studies]; (ii) agreeing (three-round international e-Delphi consensus process and working groups); and (iii) voting. RESULTS: (i) The SLR and the qualitative studies (three types of focus groups and a French e-survey with 234 participants) resulted in a preliminary list of 31 candidate items and their corresponding definitions. (ii) A total of 229 individuals from 29 countries participated in the first round of the e-Delphi process: 71 patients, relatives or representatives (31.0%), 130 healthcare professionals (HCPs, 56.8%) and 28 researchers, representatives of a drug regulatory authority, industry or pharmaceutical company representatives or journal editors (12.2%). The overall participation rate was 74%. After round 2, five candidate items were excluded. Between rounds 2 and 3, international workshops were held to better understand the disagreements among stakeholders. This phase led to the identification of 19 items as outcome subdomains. (iii) The items were fused to create four outcome domains ('clinical assessment', 'daily life impact', 'patient satisfaction' and 'perception of health') and prioritized. The seven items that did not reach consensus were marked for the research agenda. The final core outcome domain set reached 100% of the votes of the steering committee members. CONCLUSIONS: Although numerous outcomes can be explored in studies related to cNF in NF1, the present study offers four outcome domains that should be reported in all trial studies, agreed on by international patients, relatives and representatives of patients; HCPs; researchers, representatives of drug regulatory authorities or pharmaceutical companies and journal editors. The next step will include the development of a set of core outcome measurement instruments to further standardize how these outcomes should be assessed.

Impact of surgery after endoscopically resected high-risk T1 colorectal cancer: results of an emulated target trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: We aimed to compare the long-term outcomes of patients with high-risk T1 colorectal cancer (CRC) resected endoscopically who received either additional surgery or surveillance. METHODS: We used data from routine care to emulate a target trial aimed at comparing 2 strategies after endoscopic resection of high-risk T1 CRC: surgery with lymph node dissection (treatment group) versus surveillance alone (control group). All patients from 14 tertiary centers who underwent an endoscopic resection for high-risk T1 CRC between March 2012 and August 2019 were included. The primary outcome was a composite outcome of cancer recurrence or death at 48 months. RESULTS: Of 197 patients included in the analysis, 107 were categorized in the treatment group and 90 were categorized in the control group. From baseline to 48 months, 4 of 107 patients (3.7%) died in the treatment group and 6 of 90 patients (6.7%) died in the control group. Four of 107 patients (3.7%) in the treatment group experienced a cancer recurrence and 4 of 90 patients (4.4%) in the control group experienced a cancer recurrence. After balancing the baseline covariates by inverse probability of treatment weighting, we found no significant difference in the rate of death and cancer recurrence between patients in the 2 groups (weighted hazard ratio, .95; 95% confidence interval, .52-1.75). CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that patients with high-risk T1 CRC initially treated with endoscopic resection may not benefit from additional surgery.

A methodological framework allows the identification of personomic markers to consider when designing personalized interventions.

OBJECTIVES: To develop a methodological framework to identify and prioritize personomic markers (e.g., psychosocial situation, beliefs…) to consider for personalizing interventions and to test in smoking cessation interventions. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: (1) We identified potential personomic markers considered in protocols of personalized interventions, in reviews of predictors of smoking cessation, and in interviews with general practitioners. (2) Physicians, and patient smokers or former smokers selected the markers they considered most relevant during online paired comparison experiments. Data were analyzed with Bradley Terry Luce models. RESULTS: Thirty-six personomic markers were identified from research evidence. They were evaluated by 795 physicians (median age: 34, IQR [30-38]; 95% general practitioners) and 793 patients (median age: 54, IQR [42-64], 71.4% former smokers) during 11,963 paired comparisons. Physicians identified patients' motivation for quitting (e.g., Prochaska stages), patients' preferences, and patients' fears and beliefs (e.g., concerns about weight gain) as the most relevant elements to personalize smoking cessation. Patients considered their motivation for quitting, smoking behavior (e.g., smoking at home/at work), and tobacco dependence (e.g., Fagerström Test) as the most relevant elements to consider. CONCLUSION: We provide a methodological framework to prioritize which personomic markers should be considered when developing smoking cessation interventions.

cNF-Skindex in Adults Living with Neurofibromatosis 1: Severity Strata in France and Validation in United States Adults.

Cutaneous neurofibromas (cNF) contribute to the impairment of QOL in individuals with neurofibromatosis 1. The cNF-Skindex, validated in a French population, specifically assesses the cNF-related QOL. In this study, we first defined severity strata using an anchoring approach on the basis of patient's burden. In total, 209 patients answered the anchor question and the cNF-Skindex. We tested the agreement among the three strata, generated by all potential couples of cut-off values of the cNF-Skindex and the three strata defined in the anchor question. The cut-off values 12 and 49 provided the highest Kappa value (κ = 0.685, 95% confidence interval = 0.604-0.765). Second, we validated the score and the strata in a United States population using the answers provided by 220 French and 148 United States adults. In the multivariable linear regression analysis, the country of origin was not a factor associated with the score (P = 0.297). The number of cNF along the different severity strata was similar between the French and the United States populations. In conclusion, stratification constitutes a powerful tool to better interpret the cNF-Skindex in daily practice and in clinical trials. This study validates its use in two populations that together constitute a large cohort of patients willing to participate in clinical research.

Completeness and Mismatch of Patient-Important Outcomes After Trauma.

To assess the completeness of the collection of patient-important outcomes and the mismatch between outcomes measured in research and patients' important issues after trauma. Summary Background Data: To date, severe trauma has mainly been assessed using in-hospital mortality. Yet, with 80 to 90% survivors discharged from hospital, it is critical to assess the collection of patient important long-term outcomes of trauma. Methods: Mixed methods study combining a systematic review of outcomes and their comparison with domains elicited by patients during a qualitative study. We searched Medline, EMBASE and clinicaltrials.gov from January 1, 2014 to September 30, 2019 and extracted all outcomes from reports including severe trauma. We compared these outcomes with 97 domains that matter to trauma survivors identified in a previous qualitative study. We defined as patient-important outcome as the 10 most frequently elicited domains in the qualitative study. We assessed the number of domains captured in each report to illustrate the completeness of the collection of patient-important outcomes. We also assessed the mismatch between outcomes collected and what matters to patients. Findings: Among the 116 reports included in the systematic review, we identified 403 outcomes collected with 154 unique measurements tools. Beside mortality, measurement tools most frequently used were the Glasgow Outcome Scale (31.0%, n=36), questions on patients' return to work (20,7%, n=24) and the EQ-5D (19.0%, n=22). The comparison between the outcomes identified in the systematic review and the domains from the qualitative study found that 10.3% (n=12) reports did not collect any patient-important domains and one collected all 10 patient-important domains. By examining each of the 10 patient-important domains, none was collected in more than 72% of reports and only five were among the ten most frequently measured domains in studies. Conclusion: The completeness of the collection of the long-term patient-important outcomes after trauma can be improved. There was a mismatch between the domains used in the literature and those considered important by patients during a qualitative study.

Important Issues to Severe Trauma Survivors: A Qualitative Study.

OBJECTIVE: Identify issues that are important to severe trauma survivors up to 3 years after the trauma. BACKGROUND: Severe trauma is the first cause of disability-adjusted life years worldwide, yet most attention has focused on acute care and the impact on long-term health is poorly evaluated. METHOD: We conducted a large-scale qualitative study based on semi-structured phone interviews. Qualitative research methods involve the systematic collection, organization, and interpretation of conversations or textual data with patients to explore the meaning of a phenomenon experienced by individuals themselves. We randomly selected severe trauma survivors (abbreviated injury score ≥3 in at least 1 body region) who were receiving care in 6 urban academic level-I trauma centers in France between March 2015 and March 2018. We conducted double independent thematic analysis. Issues reported by patients were grouped into overarching domains by a panel of 5 experts in trauma care. Point of data saturation was estimated with a mathematical model. RESULTS: We included 340 participants from 3 months to 3 years after the trauma [median age: 41 years (Q1-Q3 24-54), median injury severity score: 17 (Q1-Q3 11-22)]. We identified 97 common issues that we grouped into 5 overarching domains: body and neurological issues (29 issues elicited by 277 participants), biographical disruption (23 issues, 210 participants), psychological and personality issues (21 issues, 147 participants), burden of treatment (14 issues, 145 participants), and altered relationships (10 issues, 87 participants). Time elapsed because the trauma, injury location, or in-hospital trauma severity did not affect the distribution of these domains across participants' answers. CONCLUSIONS: This qualitative study explored trauma survivors' experiences of the long-term effect of their injury and allowed for identifying a set of issues that they consider important, including dimensions that seem overlooked in trauma research. Our findings confirm that trauma is a chronic medical condition that demands new approaches to post-discharge and long-term care.

Identification of Patient Perceptions That Can Affect the Uptake of Interventions Using Biometric Monitoring Devices: Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials.

BACKGROUND: Biometric monitoring devices (BMDs) are wearable or environmental trackers and devices with embedded sensors that can remotely collect high-frequency objective data on patients' physiological, biological, behavioral, and environmental contexts (for example, fitness trackers with accelerometer). The real-world effectiveness of interventions using biometric monitoring devices depends on patients' perceptions of these interventions. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to systematically review whether and how recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating interventions using BMDs assessed patients' perceptions toward the intervention. METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed (MEDLINE) from January 1, 2017, to December 31, 2018, for RCTs evaluating interventions using BMDs. Two independent investigators extracted the following information: (1) whether the RCT collected information on patient perceptions toward the intervention using BMDs and (2) if so, what precisely was collected, based on items from questionnaires used and/or themes and subthemes identified from qualitative assessments. The two investigators then synthesized their findings in a schema of patient perceptions of interventions using BMDs. RESULTS: A total of 58 RCTs including 10,071 participants were included in the review (the median number of randomized participants was 60, IQR 37-133). BMDs used in interventions were accelerometers/pedometers (n=35, 60%), electrochemical biosensors (eg, continuous glucose monitoring; n=18, 31%), or ecological momentary assessment devices (eg, carbon monoxide monitors for smoking cessation; n=5, 9%). Overall, 26 (45%) trials collected information on patient perceptions toward the intervention using BMDs and allowed the identification of 76 unique aspects of patient perceptions that could affect the uptake of these interventions (eg, relevance of the information provided, alarm burden, privacy and data handling, impact on health outcomes, independence, interference with daily life). Patient perceptions were unevenly collected in trials. For example, only 5% (n=3) of trials assessed how patients felt about privacy and data handling aspects of the intervention using BMDs. CONCLUSIONS: Our review showed that less than half of RCTs evaluating interventions using BMDs assessed patients' perceptions toward interventions using BMDs. Trials that did assess perceptions often only assessed a fraction of them. This limits the extrapolation of the results of these RCTs to the real world. We thus provide a comprehensive schema of aspects of patient perceptions that may affect the uptake of interventions using BMDs and which should be considered in future trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42018115522; https://tinyurl.com/y5h8fjgx.

COVID-19-related perceptions, context and attitudes of adults with chronic conditions: Results from a cross-sectional survey nested in the ComPaRe e-cohort.

BACKGROUND: To avoid a surge of demand on the healthcare system due to the COVID-19 pandemic, we must reduce transmission to individuals with chronic conditions who are at risk of severe illness with COVID-19. We aimed at understanding the perceptions, context and attitudes of individuals with chronic conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic to clarify their potential risk of infection. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was nested in ComPaRe, an e-cohort of adults with chronic conditions, in France. It assessed participants' perception of their risk of severe illness with COVID-19; their context (i.e., work, household, contacts with external people); and their attitudes in situations involving frequent or occasional contacts with symptomatic or asymptomatic people. Data were collected from March 23 to April 2, 2020, during the lockdown in France. Analyses were weighted to represent the demographic characteristics of French patients with chronic conditions. The subgroup of participants at high risk according to the recommendations of the French High Council for Public Health was examined. RESULTS: Among the 7169 recruited participants, 63% patients felt at risk because of severe illness. About one quarter (23.7%) were at risk of infection because they worked outside home, had a household member working outside home or had regular visits from external contacts. Less than 20% participants refused contact with symptomatic people and <20% used masks when in contact with asymptomatic people. Among patients considered at high risk according to the recommendations of the French High Council for Public Health, 20% did not feel at risk, which led to incautious attitudes. CONCLUSION: Individuals with chronic conditions have distorted perceptions of their risk of severe illness with COVID-19. In addition, they are exposed to COVID-19 due to their context or attitudes.

A Methodologic Systematic Review of Mobile Health Behavior Change Randomized Trials.

CONTEXT: Mobile health helps providers offer accessible, affordable, tailored behavior change interventions. However, research assessing mobile health interventions may feature methodologic shortcomings and poor reporting. This review aims to summarize the characteristics, methods, and intervention reporting of RCTs evaluating mobile health behavior change interventions. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: This was a methodologic systematic review of RCTs assessing mobile health behavior change interventions published in PubMed from January 1, 2014 to January 1, 2018, in journals with the upper half of Impact Factors (Clarivate Analytics). Three reviewers independently extracted sample characteristics. Primary outcomes were classified as patient-important or not using definitions from the literature. Any non-patient-important outcomes were then reclassified by a panel of 3 patients. Intervention reporting was assessed by the mobile health Evidence Reporting and Assessment checklist. Data were analyzed in December 2018. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Most of the 231 included RCTs assessed text messaging (51%) or smartphone app (28%) interventions aiming to change nutrition and physical activity (36%) or treatment adherence (25%). Only 8% of RCTs had a patient-important primary outcome, follow-up of ≥6 months, and intent-to-treat analysis. Most primary outcomes were behavioral measures (60%). Follow-up was <3 months in 29% of RCTs. Regarding reporting, 12 of the 16 checklist items were reported in less than half of RCTs (e.g., usability/content testing, 32%; data security, 13%). CONCLUSIONS: Reports of RCTs assessing mobile health behavior change interventions lack information that would be useful for providers, including reporting of long-term intervention impact on patient-important primary outcomes and information needed for intervention replicability.

Patients' views of wearable devices and AI in healthcare: findings from the ComPaRe e-cohort.

Wearable biometric monitoring devices (BMDs) and artificial intelligence (AI) enable the remote measurement and analysis of patient data in real time. These technologies have generated a lot of "hype," but their real-world effectiveness will depend on patients' uptake. Our objective was to describe patients' perceptions of the use of BMDs and AI in healthcare. We recruited adult patients with chronic conditions in France from the "Community of Patients for Research" (ComPaRe). Participants (1) answered quantitative and open-ended questions about the potential benefits and dangers of using of these new technologies and (2) participated in a case-vignette experiment to assess their readiness for using BMDs and AI in healthcare. Vignettes covered the use of AI to screen for skin cancer, remote monitoring of chronic conditions to predict exacerbations, smart clothes to guide physical therapy, and AI chatbots to answer emergency calls. A total of 1183 patients (51% response rate) were enrolled between May and June 2018. Overall, 20% considered that the benefits of technology (e.g., improving the reactivity in care and reducing the burden of treatment) greatly outweighed the dangers. Only 3% of participants felt that negative aspects (inadequate replacement of human intelligence, risks of hacking and misuse of private patient data) greatly outweighed potential benefits. We found that 35% of patients would refuse to integrate at least one existing or soon-to-be available intervention using BMDs and AI-based tools in their care. Accounting for patients' perspectives will help make the most of technology without impairing the human aspects of care, generating a burden or intruding on patients' lives.

[Use of strong opioids in chronic non-cancer pain in adults. Evidence-based recommendations from the French Society for the Study and Treatment of Pain]. / Utilisation des opioïdes forts dans la douleur chronique non cancéreuse chez l'adulte. Recommandations françaises de bonne pratique clinique par consensus formalisé (SFETD).

OBJECTIVES: An urgent need is to improve the efficacy and safety of use of strong opioids in chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) through responsible prescription rules supported by scientific evidence. METHODS: Clinical questions addressing the indication, the benefice, the risk and the precautions were formulated. A task force composed of physicians from several medical specialties involved in managing CNCP was charged to elaborate evidence-based recommendations. A systematic literature search was performed using CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE databases. The approach of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation was applied to evaluate outcomes. RESULTS: We selected 21 meta-analyses and 31 cohort studies for analysis. Fifteen recommendations are provided. Strong opioids are not recommended in fibromyalgia and primary headaches. Strong opioids have been shown to be moderately effective against CNCP due to osteoarthritis of the lower limbs, and for back pain and neuropathic pain. Their introduction is advised only after the failure of first-line treatments, combined with patient care, provided that the patient is made aware of the advantages and risks. It is not advisable to continue strong opioids treatment for longer than three months if no improvement in pain, function or quality of life is observed. It is also recommended not to prescribe doses exceeding 150mg/day morphine equivalent. Misuse risk factors should be investigated before prescription and misuse should be assessed at each renewal. Priority should be given to extended-release forms. It is recommended not to use transmucosal rapid-release forms of fentanyl for the management of CNCP. CONCLUSION: These recommendations are intended for all doctors needing to prescribe strong opioids in CNCP.

Impact of a printed decision aid on patients' intention to undergo prostate cancer screening: a multicentre, pragmatic randomised controlled trial in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Despite recommendations against systematic screening for prostate cancer, 70% of patients still request prostate-specific antigen testing. AIM: To assess the impact of a decision aid on patients' intention to undergo prostate cancer screening. DESIGN AND SETTING: Randomised controlled trial with two-arm parallel groups in 86 general practices in urban and rural areas in France. METHOD: Males aged 50-75 years were randomised to receive either the decision aid (intervention group) or usual care (control group). The primary outcome was the proportion of patients' intending to undergo prostate cancer screening, assessed immediately after reading the decision aid. The reasons underlying their choice were elicited and the proportion of patients citing each reason to undergo, or not undergo, prostate cancer screening were compared between the two arms. RESULTS: A total of 1170 patients were randomised (588 in the intervention arm) from November 2012 to February 2013. The proportion of patients who intended to be tested for prostate cancer in the intervention arm (123 patients [20.9%]) was significantly reduced compared with the control arm (57 patients [9.8%]) (difference 11.1%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 7.0 to 15.2, P<0.0001). In the intervention group, a lower proportion of individuals expressed that cancer screening would protect them from the disease, compared with the control group (P<0.0001), while a greater proportion of individuals stated that prostate cancer screening would not benefit their health (P<0.0001) and may involve procedures with harmful side effects (P = 0.0005). CONCLUSION: The decision aid improved participants' informed decision making and reduced their intent to undergo prostate cancer screening.