A Smart Digital Health Platform to Enable Monitoring of Quality of Life and Frailty in Older Patients with Cancer: A Mixed-Methods, Feasibility Study Protocol.

OBJECTIVES: LifeChamps is an EU Horizon 2020 project that aims to create a digital platform to enable monitoring of health-related quality of life and frailty in patients with cancer over the age of 65. Our primary objective is to assess feasibility, usability, acceptability, fidelity, adherence, and safety parameters when implementing LifeChamps in routine cancer care. Secondary objectives involve evaluating preliminary signals of efficacy and cost-effectiveness indicators. DATA SOURCES: This will be a mixed-methods exploratory project, involving four study sites in Greece, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. The quantitative component of LifeChamps (single-group, pre-post feasibility study) will integrate digital technologies, home-based motion sensors, self-administered questionnaires, and the electronic health record to (1) enable multimodal, real-world data collection, (2) provide patients with a coaching mobile app interface, and (3) equip healthcare professionals with an interactive, patient-monitoring dashboard. The qualitative component will determine end-user usability and acceptability via end-of-study surveys and interviews. CONCLUSION: The first patient was enrolled in the study in January 2023. Recruitment will be ongoing until the project finishes before the end of 2023. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE: LifeChamps provides a comprehensive digital health platform to enable continuous monitoring of frailty indicators and health-related quality of life determinants in geriatric cancer care. Real-world data collection will generate "big data" sets to enable development of predictive algorithms to enable patient risk classification, identification of patients in need for a comprehensive geriatric assessment, and subsequently personalized care.

Assessment of Combination Therapies vs Monotherapy for Erectile Dysfunction: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Importance: Combining 2 first-line treatments for erectile dysfunction (ED) or initiating other modalities in addition to a first-line therapy may produce beneficial outcomes. Objective: To assess whether different ED combination therapies were associated with improved outcomes compared with first-line ED monotherapy in various subgroups of patients with ED. Data Sources: Studies were identified through a systematic search in MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and Scopus from inception of these databases to October 10, 2020. Study Selection: Randomized clinical trials or prospective interventional studies of the outcomes of combination therapy vs recommended monotherapy in men with ED were identified. Only comparative human studies, which evaluated the change from baseline of self-reported erectile function using validated questionnaires, that were published in any language were included. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Data extraction and synthesis were performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline. Main Outcomes and Measures: A meta-analysis was conducted that included randomized clinical trials that compared outcomes of combination therapy with phosphodiesterase type 5 (PDE5) inhibitors plus another agent vs PDE5 inhibitor monotherapy. Separate analyses were performed for the mean International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) score change from baseline and the number of adverse events (AEs) by different treatment modalities and subgroups of patients. Results: A total of 44 studies included 3853 men with a mean (SD) age of 55.8 (11.9) years. Combination therapy compared with monotherapy was associated with a mean IIEF score improvement of 1.76 points (95% CI, 1.27-2.24; I2 = 77%; 95% PI, -0.56 to 4.08). Adding daily tadalafil, low-intensity shockwave therapy, vacuum erectile device, folic acid, metformin hydrochloride, or angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors was associated with a significant IIEF score improvement, but each measure was based on only 1 study. Specifically, the weighted mean difference (WMD) in IIEF score was 1.70 (95% CI, 0.79-2.61) for the addition of daily tadalafil, 3.50 (95% CI, 0.22-6.78) for the addition of low-intensity shockwave therapy, 8.40 (95% CI, 4.90-11.90) for the addition of a vacuum erectile device, 3.46 (95% CI, 2.16-4.76) for the addition of folic acid, 4.90 (95% CI, 2.82-6.98) for the addition of metformin hydrochloride and 2.07 (95% CI, 1.37-2.77) for the addition of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors. The addition of α-blockers to PDE5 inhibitors was not associated with improvement in IIEF score (WMD, 0.80; 95% CI, -0.06 to 1.65; I2 = 72%). Compared with monotherapy, combination therapy was associated with improved IIEF score in patients with hypogonadism (WMD, 1.61; 95% CI, 0.99-2.23; I2 = 0%), monotherapy-resistant ED (WMD, 4.38; 95% CI, 2.37-6.40; I2 = 52%), or prostatectomy-induced ED (WMD, 5.47; 95% CI, 3.11-7.83; I2 = 53%). The treatment-related AEs did not differ between combination therapy and monotherapy (odds ratio, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.66-1.85; I2 = 78%). Despite multiple subgroup and sensitivity analyses, the levels of heterogeneity remained high. Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that combination therapy of PDE5 inhibitors and antioxidants was associated with improved ED without increasing the AEs. Treatment with PDE5 inhibitors and daily tadalafil, shockwaves, or a vacuum device was associated with additional improvement, but this result was based on limited data. These findings suggest that combination therapy is safe, associated with improved outcomes, and should be considered as a first-line therapy for refractory, complex, or difficult-to-treat cases of ED.

International and Multi-institutional Assessment of Factors Associated With Performance and Quality of Lymph Node Dissection During Radical Nephrectomy.

OBJECTIVE: To determine factors associated with performance and quality of lymph node dissection during radical nephrectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using an International Data Registry, we performed multilevel logistic regression to determine the association of surgical approach (open surgery vs minimally invasive surgery), institutional experience (low, moderate, and high tertiles), and institutional preference (minimally invasive surgery, balanced, and open surgery tertiles) with the performance of lymph node dissection in subgroups by clinical stage and nodal status. RESULTS: Among 1,742 patients undergoing radical nephrectomy, 312 (18%) underwent lymph node dissection, which was associated with stage (28% for ≥cT2 vs 9.3% for cT1), and nodal status (68% for ≥cN1 vs 13% for cN0). Open surgery was significantly associated with performing lymph node dissection in all subgroups. Institutional experience and institutional preference had no association with performing lymph node dissection in the ≥cN1 group. The number of nodes removed was greater for open surgery (mean 5.9) vs minimally invasive surgery (mean 3.4); this held true even when stratified by stage and nodal status. CONCLUSION: In this large dataset, open surgical radical nephrectomy is associated with more frequent performance and higher quality of lymph node dissection, which may owe to selection bias but also could reflect technical concerns. In the patient population in whom lymph node dissection is recommended (≥cN1), this is not explained by institutional experience or preference. Lymph node dissection may be under-utilized for ≥cN1 disease and over-utilized for cN0 disease, at least according to practice guidelines.

Actual medical management of lower urinary tract symptoms related to benign prostatic hyperplasia: temporal trends of prescription and hospitalization rates over 5 years in a large population of Italian men.

PURPOSE: The purpose of the study is to estimate the trends in drug prescriptions and the hospitalization rates for lower urinary tract symptoms/benign prostatic hyperplasia (LUTS/BPH) in real-life clinical practice, using information deriving from administrative databases of the Italian health care system. METHODS: Prescription data on approximately 1,500,000 men over 40 were examined, and prescribed boxes of alpha-blockers (ABs) and/or 5 alpha reductase inhibitors (5ARI) were calculated for 5 consecutive years, from 2004 to 2008. Annual use prevalence and incidence rates for each drug class and for the combination therapy (CT) were calculated according to age for the entire study period. Hospitalization rates for reasons related to LUTS/BPH were also evaluated for the same time period. RESULTS: The overall distribution of drugs for LUTS/BPH, in terms of number of boxes prescribed, increased by 43 %. This increase was accounted for by both classes of drugs although it was greater for 5ARI than for AB (+49 vs +41 %). The prevalence of CT showed a substantial increase to almost 25 % in patients aged ≥75. Hospitalization rate for BPH/LUTS-related reasons decreased during the study period (8 and 3 % per year for non-surgical and surgical reasons, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of the use of drugs prescribed for LUTS/BPH has steadily increased. An increase in terms of prescribed boxes was observed for both classes of drugs, even though the increase was greater for 5ARIs. The reduction in the hospitalization rates needs additional researches.