ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Many patients participate in cancer trials to access new therapies. The extent to which new treatments produce clinical benefit for trial participants is unclear. PURPOSE: To estimate the progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) advantage of assignment to experimental groups in randomized trials for 6 solid tumors. DATA SOURCES: ClinicalTrials.gov was searched for trials of investigational drugs with results posted between 2017 and 2021. STUDY SELECTION: Investigational drugs were defined as those not yet having full approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the study indication. Trials were included if they were randomized and tested drugs or biologics. DATA EXTRACTION: Data extraction was completed by 2 independent reviewers. Data were pooled using a random-effects model. DATA SYNTHESIS: The sample included 128 trials comprising 141 comparisons of a new drug and a comparator. These comparisons included 47 050 patients. The pooled hazard ratio for PFS was 0.80 (95% CI, 0.75 to 0.85), indicating statistically significant benefit for patients in experimental groups. This corresponded to a median PFS advantage of 1.25 months (CI, 0.80 to 1.68 months). The pooled hazard ratio for OS was 0.92 (CI, 0.88 to 0.95), corresponding to a survival gain of 1.18 months (CI, 0.72 to 1.71 months). The absolute risk for a serious adverse event for comparator group patients was 29.56% (CI, 26.64% to 32.65%), with an increase in risk of 7.40% (CI, 5.66% to 9.14%) for patients in experimental groups. LIMITATIONS: Trials in this sample were heterogeneous. Comparator group interventions were assumed to reflect standard of care. CONCLUSION: Assignment to experimental groups produces statistically significant survival gains. However, the absolute survival gain is small, and toxicity is statistically significantly greater. The findings of this review provide reassuring evidence that patients are not meaningfully disadvantaged by assignment to comparator groups. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Canadian Institutes of Health Research.
ABSTRACT
There is a global shortage of nurses that affects healthcare delivery, which will be exacerbated with the increasing demand for healthcare professionals by the aging population. The growing shortage requires an ethical exploration on the issue of nurse migration. In this article, we discuss how migration respects the autonomy of nurses, increases cultural diversity, and leads to improved patient satisfaction and health outcomes. We also discuss the potential for negative impacts on public health infrastructures, lack of respect for cultural diversity, and ethical concerns related to autonomy and justice, including coercion and discrimination. This analysis is written from a rights-based ethics approach by referring to rights held by nurses and patient populations. Nurse migration highlights conflicts between nurses and between nurses and healthcare systems. Increased awareness of ethical challenges surrounding nurse migration must be addressed to enhance the well-being of nurses and patient populations.
Subject(s)
Ethics, Nursing , Human Rights , Aged , Coercion , Cultural Diversity , Humans , Morals , Social JusticeABSTRACT
BACKGROUND & AIMS: In preterm infants, natural variation of breast milk composition makes it difficult to achieve recommended macronutrient intakes with standard fortification. Evidence suggests that nutritional deficiency induces poor postnatal growth. This study investigates impacts of target fortification on preterm growth and metabolism by adjusting breast milk macronutrients. METHODS: This study was conducted as a single-centre, double-blind, randomized controlled trial for infants <30 gestational weeks. The control group received standard fortification and the intervention group received standard plus target fortification adding modular protein, lipids, and carbohydrates. Breast milk content was measured 3x/week using a validated near-infrared bedside spectrometer (NIRS). Modulars were added to achieve recommended values. To assess total nutrient intake, all 2810 native breast milk samples were analyzed - protein and fat using bedside-NIRS, lactose using tandem mass spectrometry (UPLC-MS/MS). Body composition was measured using air displacement plethysmography. Primary outcome was weight gain during the first 21 days of intervention. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics, morbidities, and total fluid intake were not different between groups (intervention n = 52, control n = 51). The intervention group infants had higher macronutrient intakes, weight gain (21.2 ± 2.5 vs 19.3 ± 2.4 g/kg/d, mean difference: 1.9 g/kg/d, 95% CI: 0.9 - 2.9), and body weight. Infants in the intervention group from mothers with below-average breast milk protein content showed greatest impact on weight at 36 weeks (2580 ± 280 g vs 2210 ± 300 g), length, head circumference, fat, and fat-free mass. Also, feeding intolerance was less frequent, blood urea was higher, and triglycerides were lower. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides evidence that target fortification of breast milk with low macronutrient content enhances the quality of nutrition and growth and is feasible in clinical routine.
