Mobile Critical Care Recovery Program for Survivors of Acute Respiratory Failure: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Over 50% of Acute Respiratory Failure (ARF) survivors experience cognitive, physical, and psychological impairments that negatively impact their quality of life (QOL). Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of a post-intensive care unit (ICU) program, the Mobile Critical Care Recovery Program (m-CCRP) consisting of a nurse care coordinator supported by an interdisciplinary team, in improving the QOL of ARF survivors. Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized clinical trial with concealed outcome assessments among ARF survivors was conducted from March 1, 2017, to April 30, 2022, with a 12-month follow-up. Patients were admitted to the ICU services of 4 Indiana hospitals (1 community, 1 county, 2 academic), affiliated with the Indiana University School of Medicine. Intervention: A 12-month nurse-led collaborative care intervention (m-CCRP) supported by an interdisciplinary group of clinicians (2 intensivists, 1 geriatrician, 1 ICU nurse, and 1 neuropsychologist) was compared with a telephone-based control. The intervention comprised longitudinal symptom monitoring coupled with nurse-delivered care protocols targeting cognition, physical function, personal care, mobility, sleep disturbances, pain, depression, anxiety, agitation or aggression, delusions or hallucinations, stress and physical health, legal and financial needs, and medication adherence. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was QOL as measured by the 36-item Medical Outcomes Study Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) physical component summary (PCS) and mental component summary (MCS), with scores on each component ranging from 0-100, and higher scores indicating better health status. Results: In an intention-to-treat analysis among 466 ARF survivors (mean [SD] age, 56.1 [14.4] years; 250 [53.6%] female; 233 assigned to each group), the m-CCRP intervention for 12 months did not significantly improve the QOL compared with the control group (estimated difference in change from baseline between m-CCRP and control group: 1.61 [95% CI, -1.06 to 4.29] for SF-36 PCS; -2.50 [95% CI, -5.29 to 0.30] for SF-36 MCS. Compared with the control group, the rates of hospitalization were higher in the m-CCRP group (117 [50.2%] vs 95 [40.8%]; P = .04), whereas the 12-month mortality rates were not statistically significantly lower (24 [10.3%] vs 38 [16.3%]; P = .05). Conclusions and Relevance: Findings from this randomized clinical trial indicated that a nurse-led 12-month comprehensive interdisciplinary care intervention did not significantly improve the QOL of ARF survivors after ICU hospitalization. These results suggest that further research is needed to identify specific patient groups who could benefit from tailored post-ICU interventions. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03053245.

Folfirinox vs. Gemcitabine + Nab-Paclitaxel as the First-Line Treatment for Pancreatic Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background: The efficacy and safety of Folfirinox (FFX) or gemcitabine + nab-paclitaxel (GnP) to be used as the first-line drugs for pancreatic cancer (PC) is yet to be established. We conducted an analysis of retrospective studies to assess the efficacy and safety of these two regimens by comparing their survival and safety outcomes in patients with PC. Methods: We conducted an extensive review of two electronic databases from inception till February 2023 to include all the relevant studies that compared FFX with GnP published and unpublished work. Retrospective studies were only included. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were pooled using hazard ratios (HRs), while objective response rate (ORR) and safety outcomes were pooled using odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence interval (CI) using the random effects model. Results: A total of 7,030 patients were identified in a total of 21 articles that were shortlisted. Pooled results concluded that neither FFX nor GnP was associated to increase the OS time (HR: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.83 - 1.04; P = 0.0001); however, FFX was more likely associated with increased PFS when compared to GnP (HR: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.81 - 0.97; P < 0.0001). ORR proved to be non-significant between the two regimens (OR: 0.90, 95% CI: 0.64 - 1.27; P = 0.15). Safety outcomes included neutropenia, anemia, thrombocytopenia and diarrhea. GnP was more associated with diarrhea (OR: 1.96, 95% CI: 1.22 - 3.15; P = 0.001), while FFX was seen to cause anemia (OR: 0.70, 95% CI: 0.51 - 0.98; P = 0.10) in PC patients. Neutropenia and thrombocytopenia were in-significant in the two drug regimens (OR: 1.10, 95% CI: 0.92 - 1.31; P = 0.33 and OR: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.60 - 1.13; P = 0.23, respectively). Conclusion: FFX and GnP showed a significant difference in increasing the PFS, while no difference was observed while measuring OS. Safety outcomes showed that FFX and GnP shared similar safety profiles as FFX was associated with hematological outcomes, while GnP was more associated with non-hematological outcomes.