Sample Size Calculation for an Individual Stepped-Wedge Randomized Trial.

In the individual stepped-wedge randomized trial (ISW-RT), subjects are allocated to sequences, each sequence being defined by a control period followed by an experimental period. The total follow-up time is the same for all sequences, but the duration of the control and experimental periods varies among sequences. To our knowledge, there is no validated sample size calculation formula for ISW-RTs unlike stepped-wedge cluster randomized trials (SW-CRTs). The objective of this study was to adapt the formula used for SW-CRTs to the case of individual randomization and to validate this adaptation using a Monte Carlo simulation study. The proposed sample size calculation formula for an ISW-RT design yielded satisfactory empirical power for most scenarios except scenarios with operating characteristic values near the boundary (i.e., smallest possible number of periods, very high or very low autocorrelation coefficient). Overall, the results provide useful insights into the sample size calculation for ISW-RTs.

Indication for a Pneumocystis Prophylaxis Therapy in Patients with Vascular Anomalies Treated with PIK3/AKT/mTOR Pathway Inhibitors: Experts' Opinion and Systematic Review from the Literature.

BACKGROUND: Vascular anomalies (VAs) are increasingly being treated with PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway inhibitors. These drugs have immunosuppressive properties and thus theoretically overexpose patients to opportunistic infections, especially Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia (PJP). PJP prophylaxis use lacks consensus. We aimed to investigate the prevalence of PJP in patients receiving mTOR/PI3K/AKT inhibitors for VAs and determine any indication for pneumocystis prophylaxis in this population. METHODS: The study was conducted in 2 parts: (1) we sent a survey to a panel of international experts of VAs asking about their use of pneumocystis prophylaxis drugs and (2) we performed a systematic review of the literature of all published cases of patients receiving these drugs for VA to estimate the prevalence of PJP in this population. RESULTS: Answers from 68 experts were analyzed: 21 (30.9%) answered they always add PJP prophylaxis when prescribing mTOR inhibitors, 20 (29.4%) case-by-case, and 27 (39.7%) never. For the systematic review, among 3,053 reports screened, 217 were included involving 1,189 patients (1,143 received sirolimus, 38 everolimus, 4 alpelisib, 4 miransertib). Among the 1,189 cases, 2 (0.2%) PJP were reported: one under sirolimus and one under everolimus. Thus, the prevalence of PJP was estimated at 0.88 cases/1,000 patients under sirolimus (95% CI: -0.84 to 2.59) and 26.31 cases/1,000 under everolimus (95% CI: -24.58 to 77.18). Patients with PJP never received prophylaxis drugs. We found no PJP cases under alpelisib and miransertib. PJP prophylaxis was given in 218 (18.3%) cases, more frequently for children (91.3 vs. 77.2% in the non-prophylaxis group, p = 0.012), mostly trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (186 patients, 85.3%). CONCLUSION: Our study shows that even if PJP is a rare event, it may occur in patients with VAs treated with an mTOR inhibitor. Although our results cannot allow for revising guidelines, prophylaxis with TMP-SMX might be appropriate for a subgroup of patients with risk factors for PJP.

Designs used in published therapeutic studies of rare superficial vascular anomalies: a systematic literature search.

BACKGROUND: Rare superficial vascular anomalies represent a wide range of diseases. Their management is difficult given the broad spectrum and the lack of clinical trials assessing treatment efficacy. A randomized clinical trial of vascular anomalies is difficult because of the rarity of the diseases and is enhanced by the population of interest often being children. Therefore, suitable designs are needed. We conducted a methodological systematic literature search to identify designs implemented for investigating the treatment of rare superficial vascular anomalies. METHODS: We conducted a literature search on January 25, 2021, of the PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov and European Union Clinical Trials Register databases. This systematic methodological literature search was registered at the Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO: CRD42021232449). Randomized and non-randomized studies were included if they met the following criteria: were prospective studies of rare superficial vascular anomaly therapies, dealt with humans (adults and children) and were published in English from 2000. We excluded case reports/case series reporting fewer than 10 patients, reviews, retrospective studies, animal studies, studies of systemic or common vascular anomalies and non-therapeutic studies. We did not assess risk of bias in the included studies because our review was a methodological one focused on the design used. The review provided a descriptive analysis of relevant features of eligible research studies. RESULTS: From 2046 articles identified, we included 97 studies (62 reports and 35 ongoing studies): 25 randomized controlled studies, 7 non-randomized comparative studies, 64 prospective cohorts and 1 case series. Among the 32 comparative studies included, 21 used a parallel-group design. The 11 other studies used different designs such as cross-over, randomized placebo phase, delayed-start, within-person, or challenge-dechallenge-rechallenge or used a historical control group or an observational run-in period. CONCLUSIONS: Our systematic literature search highlights the lack of randomized control trials in superficial vascular anomalies due to the rarity of patients and their heterogeneity. New designs are emerging and can overcome the limitations of testing treatments in parallel groups.

EMDR for symptoms of depression, stress and burnout in health care workers exposed to COVID-19 (HARD): A study protocol for a trial within a cohort study.

Background: Stressful events during a pandemic are a major cause of serious health problems, such as burnout, depression and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) among health care workers (HCWs). During three years, HCWs, on the frontline to fight the COVID-19 pandemic, have been at an increased risk of high levels of stress, anxiety, depression, burnout and PTSD. Regarding potential psychological interventions, Eye Movement Desensitization & Reprocessing (EMDR) is a structured, strongly recommended therapy based on its well-known efficacy in reducing PTSD symptoms and anxiety.Objectives: This study, designed as a trial within a cohort (TwiC), aims to 1) estimate the prevalence of depression, burnout and PTSD in a sample of HCWs after experiencing the COVID-19 emergency (cohort part) and 2) assess the efficacy and acceptability of 'EMDR + usual care' for HCWs from the cohort who report significant psychological symptoms (trial part).Methods: The study, designed as a TwiC, consists of a prospective cohort study (n = 3000) with an embedded, pragmatic, randomized open-label superiority trial with two groups (n = 900). Participants included in the trial part are HCWs recruited for the cohort with significant symptoms on at least one psychological dimension (depression, burnout, PTSD) at baseline, 3 months or 6 months, determined by using the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), Professional Quality of Life (ProQOL) scale, and PTSD Checklist for the DSM-5 (PCL-5). The intervention consists of 12 separate EMDR sessions with a certified therapist. The control group receives usual care. The trial has three primary outcomes: changes in depression, burnout and PTSD scores from randomization to 6 months. All participants are followed up for 12 months.Conclusions: This study provides empirical evidence about the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and the mental health burden it places on HCWs and assesses the effectiveness of EMDR as a psychological intervention.Trial registration NCT04570202.

Health care workers are at increased risk of stress, anxiety, depression, burnout and PTSD following the COVID-19 pandemic.In this study, the effectiveness of EMDR in reducing depression, burnout and PTSD in health care workers exposed to COVID-19 is investigated.In this study, an original 'trial within a cohort' (TwiC) design that consists of a cohort study with an embedded pragmatic randomized trial is used.The study is fully web-based, including online screening, consent and assessments.

Design and Methodological Issues of Within-Person (Split-Body) Randomized Controlled Trials Evaluating a Topical Treatment: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Topical drugs are often used as first-line treatment for dermatological conditions. A within-person design may then be well adapted: it consists of randomizing lesions/body sites rather than patients, which are then concomitantly treated by the different drugs compared, reducing inter-group variability and therefore requiring fewer patients than the classical parallel-group trial. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this review was to provide a methodological overview of within-person randomized trials (WP-RCTs) in dermatology. METHODS: We searched for eligible trials published between 2017 and 2021 in MEDLINE, Embase, and Central in dermatology journals and the 6 highest-impact-factor general medical journals. Two authors selected publications and extracted data independently. RESULTS: From 1,034 articles identified, we included 54 WP-RCTs, mainly for acne vulgaris, psoriasis, actinic keratosis, and atopic dermatitis. In most of the trials, patients had only 2 lesions/body sites. In none of the trials, did we detect a potential carry-across effect (known to be the major methodological problem in WP-RCTs). Twelve studies reported a care provider applying the treatment, and in 26 studies, the patients themselves applied the treatment. Finally, we also highlight statistical issues for the statistical analysis: overall, 14 (26.9%) studies used a test for independent observations, thus ignoring the between-lesion correlation. CONCLUSION: Our systematic review highlights that despite the publication of the CONSORT checklist extension for WP-RCTs in 2017, this design is rarely used, and when it is, there are methodological and reporting concerns.

Persistence of Neutralizing Antibodies and Clinical Protection up to 12†Months After Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Infection in the Elderly.

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has severely affected the elderly, who are expected to display decreased immune responses due to immunosenescence. Methods: This study retrospectively assesses neutralizing antibody (NAb) production up to 12 months after infection in long-term care patients. We used Roche Diagnostics immunoassay to quantify anti-spike (S) antibodies and a competitive immunoassay from YHLO as a surrogate test for NAb. Results: We included 91 patients (mean age, 86 years). There was no significant variation in anti-S titers over time. There was a significant decrease of NAb titers between month 3 and month 6 but no further significant change up to month 12. Overall, 75 of 91 (82%) and 52 of 91 (57%) patients had, at least once, anti-S titers >75 U/mL and NAb titers >50 AU/mL, respectively, corresponding to a significant neutralizing activity in vitro. All 68 patients studied at M12 had detectable anti-S antibodies and 60 (88%) had detectable NAb; 60 of 68 (88%) and 29 of 68 (42.6%) still had anti-S titers >75 U/mL and NAb titers >50 AU/mL. Higher NAb titers were correlated with severe infection, higher levels of C-reactive protein, and lower lymphocyte counts. No patient developed reinfection. Conclusions: Elderly people can display robust and persistent humoral response after severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection, with NAb lasting up to 12 months.

Compared benefits of educational programs dedicated to diabetic patients with or without community pharmacist involvement.

BACKGROUND: International guidelines on diabetes control strongly encourage the setting-up of therapeutic educational programs (TEP). However, more than half of the patients fail to control their diabetes a few months post-TEP because of a lack of regular follow-up by medical professionals. The DIAB-CH is a TEP associated with the follow-up of diabetic patients by the community pharmacist. AIM: To compare the glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and body mass index (BMI) in diabetic patients of Control (neither TEP-H nor community pharmacist intervention), TEP-H (TEP in hospital only) and DIAB-CH (TEP-H plus community pharmacist follow-up) groups. METHODS: A comparative cohort study design was applied. Patients included in the TEP-H from July 2017 to December 2017 were enrolled in the DIAB-CH group. The TEP-H session was conducted by a multidisciplinary team composed of two diabetologists, two dieticians and seven nurses. The HbA1c level and the BMI (when over 30 kg/m2 at M0) of patients in Control (n = 20), TEP-H (n = 20) and DIAB-CH (n = 20) groups were collected at M0, M0 + 6 and M0 + 12 months. First, HbA1c and BMI were compared between M0, M6 and M12 in the three groups with the Friedman test, followed by the Benjamini-Hochberg post-test. Secondly, the HbA1c and BMI of the three groups were compared at M0, M6 and M12 using the Kruskal-Wallis test. FINDINGS: While no difference in HbA1c was measured between M0, M6 and M12 in the Control group, Hb1Ac was significantly reduced in both TEP-H and DIAB-CH groups between M0 and M6 (P = 0.0072 and P = 0.0034, respectively), and between M0 and M12 only in the DIAB-CH group (P = 0.0027). In addition, a significant decrease in the difference between the measured HbA1c and the target assigned by diabetologists was observed between M0 and M6 in both TEP-H and DIAB-CH groups (P = 0.0072 and P = 0.0044, respectively) but only for the patients of the DIAB-CH group between M0 and M12 (P = 0.0044). No significant difference (P > 0.05) in BMI between the groups was observed. CONCLUSION: The long-lasting benefit on glycemic control of multidisciplinary group sessions associated with community pharmacist-led educational interventions on self-care for diabetic patients was demonstrated in the present study. There is thus evidence pointing to the effectiveness of a community/hospital care collaboration of professionals on diabetes control in primary care.