Synthesis of Existent Oncology Curricula for Primary Care Providers: A Scoping Review With a Global Equity Lens.

PURPOSE: Global increases in cancer, coupled with a shortage of cancer specialists, has led to an increasing role for primary care providers (PCP) in cancer care. This review aimed to examine all extant cancer curricula for PCPs and to analyze the motivations for curriculum development. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from inception to October 13, 2021, with no language restrictions. The initial search yielded 11,162 articles and 10,902 articles underwent title and abstract review. After full-text review, 139 articles were included. Numeric and thematic analyses were conducted and education programs were evaluated using Bloom's taxonomy. RESULTS: Most curricula were developed in high-income countries (HICs), with 58% in the United States. Cancer-specific curricula focused on HIC priority cancers, such as skin/melanoma, and did not represent the global cancer burden. Most (80%) curricula were developed for staff physicians and 73% focused on cancer screening. More than half (57%) of programs were delivered in person, with a shift toward online delivery over time. Less than half (46%) of programs were codeveloped with PCPs and 34% did not involve PCPs in the program design and development. Curricula were primarily developed to improve cancer knowledge, and 72 studies assessed multiple outcome measures. No studies included the top two levels of Bloom's taxonomy of learning (evaluating; creating). CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, this is the first review to assess the current state of cancer curricula for PCPs with a global focus. This review shows that extant curricula are primarily developed in HICs, do not represent the global cancer burden, and focus on cancer screening. This review lays a foundation to advance the cocreation of curricula that are aligned to the global cancer burden.

Plasma Renin Measurements are Unrelated to Mineralocorticoid Replacement Dose in Patients With Primary Adrenal Insufficiency.

CONTEXT: No consensus exists for optimization of mineralocorticoid therapy in patients with primary adrenal insufficiency. OBJECTIVE: To explore the relationship between mineralocorticoid (MC) replacement dose, plasma renin concentration (PRC), and clinically important variables to determine which are most helpful in guiding MC dose titration in primary adrenal insufficiency. DESIGN: Observational, retrospective, longitudinal analysis. PATIENTS: A total of 280 patients (with 984 clinical visits and plasma renin measurements) with primary adrenal insufficiency were recruited from local databases and the international congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH) registry (www.i-cah.org). Thirty-seven patients were excluded from the final analysis due to incomplete assessment. Data from 204 patients with salt-wasting CAH (149 adults and 55 children) and 39 adult patients with Addison disease (AD) were analysed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: PRC, electrolytes, blood pressure (BP), and anthropometric parameters were used to predict their utility in optimizing MC replacement dose. RESULTS: PRC was low, normal, or high in 19%, 36%, and 44% of patients, respectively, with wide variability in MC dose and PRC. Univariate analysis demonstrated a direct positive relationship between MC dose and PRC in adults and children. There was no relationship between MC dose and BP in adults, while BP increased with increasing MC dose in children. Using multiple regression modeling, sodium was the only measurement that predicted PRC in adults. Longitudinally, the change in MC dose was able to predict potassium, but not BP or PRC. CONCLUSIONS: The relationship between MC dose and PRC is complex and this may reflect variability in sampling with respect to posture, timing of last MC dose, adherence, and concomitant medications. Our data suggest that MC titration should not primarily be based only on PRC normalization, but also on clinical parameters such as BP and electrolyte concentration.

The clinical effectiveness of sertraline in primary care and the role of depression severity and duration (PANDA): a pragmatic, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Depression is usually managed in primary care, but most antidepressant trials are of patients from secondary care mental health services, with eligibility criteria based on diagnosis and severity of depressive symptoms. Antidepressants are now used in a much wider group of people than in previous regulatory trials. We investigated the clinical effectiveness of sertraline in patients in primary care with depressive symptoms ranging from mild to severe and tested the role of severity and duration in treatment response. METHODS: The PANDA study was a pragmatic, multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomised trial of patients from 179 primary care surgeries in four UK cities (Bristol, Liverpool, London, and York). We included patients aged 18 to 74 years who had depressive symptoms of any severity or duration in the past 2 years, where there was clinical uncertainty about the benefit of an antidepressant. This strategy was designed to improve the generalisability of our sample to current use of antidepressants within primary care. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) with a remote computer-generated code to sertraline or placebo, and were stratified by severity, duration, and site with random block length. Patients received one capsule (sertraline 50 mg or placebo orally) daily for one week then two capsules daily for up to 11 weeks, consistent with evidence on optimal dosages for efficacy and acceptability. The primary outcome was depressive symptoms 6 weeks after randomisation, measured by Patient Health Questionnaire, 9-item version (PHQ-9) scores. Secondary outcomes at 2, 6 and 12 weeks were depressive symptoms and remission (PHQ-9 and Beck Depression Inventory-II), generalised anxiety symptoms (Generalised Anxiety Disorder Assessment 7-item version), mental and physical health-related quality of life (12-item Short-Form Health Survey), and self-reported improvement. All analyses compared groups as randomised (intention-to-treat). The study is registered with EudraCT, 2013-003440-22 (protocol number 13/0413; version 6.1) and ISRCTN, ISRCTN84544741, and is closed to new participants. FINDINGS: Between Jan 1, 2015, and Aug 31, 2017, we recruited and randomly assigned 655 patients-326 (50%) to sertraline and 329 (50%) to placebo. Two patients in the sertraline group did not complete a substantial proportion of the baseline assessment and were excluded, leaving 653 patients in total. Due to attrition, primary outcome analyses were of 550 patients (266 in the sertraline group and 284 in the placebo group; 85% follow-up that did not differ by treatment allocation). We found no evidence that sertraline led to a clinically meaningful reduction in depressive symptoms at 6 weeks. The mean 6-week PHQ-9 score was 7·98 (SD 5·63) in the sertraline group and 8·76 (5·86) in the placebo group (adjusted proportional difference 0·95, 95% CI 0·85-1·07; p=0·41). However, for secondary outcomes, we found evidence that sertraline led to reduced anxiety symptoms, better mental (but not physical) health-related quality of life, and self-reported improvements in mental health. We observed weak evidence that depressive symptoms were reduced by sertraline at 12 weeks. We recorded seven adverse events-four for sertraline and three for placebo, and adverse events did not differ by treatment allocation. Three adverse events were classified as serious-two in the sertraline group and one in the placebo group. One serious adverse event in the sertraline group was classified as possibly related to study medication. INTERPRETATION: Sertraline is unlikely to reduce depressive symptoms within 6 weeks in primary care but we observed improvements in anxiety, quality of life, and self-rated mental health, which are likely to be clinically important. Our findings support the prescription of SSRI antidepressants in a wider group of participants than previously thought, including those with mild to moderate symptoms who do not meet diagnostic criteria for depression or generalised anxiety disorder. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research.

A randomised controlled trial assessing the severity and duration of depressive symptoms associated with a clinically significant response to sertraline versus placebo, in people presenting to primary care with depression (PANDA trial): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Depressive symptoms are usually managed within primary care and antidepressant medication constitutes the first-line treatment. It remains unclear at present which people are more likely to benefit from antidepressant medication. This paper describes the protocol for a randomised controlled trial (PANDA) to investigate the severity and duration of depressive symptoms that are associated with a clinically significant response to sertraline compared to placebo, in people presenting to primary care with depression. METHODS/DESIGN: PANDA is a randomised, double blind, placebo controlled trial in which participants are individually randomised to sertraline or placebo. Eligible participants are those who are between the ages of 18 to 74; have presented to primary care with depression or low mood during the past 2 years; have not received antidepressant or anti-anxiety medication in the 8 weeks prior to enrolment in the trial and there is clinical equipoise about the benefits of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) medication. Participants who consent to participate in the trial are randomised to receive either sertraline or matching placebo, starting at 50 mg daily for 1 week, increasing to 100 mg daily for up to 11 weeks (with the option of increasing to 150 mg if required). Participants, general practitioners (GPs) and the research team will be blind to treatment allocation. The primary outcome will be depressive symptoms measured by the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) at 6 weeks post randomisation, measured as a continuous outcome. Secondary outcomes include depressive symptoms measured with the PHQ-9 at 2 and 12 weeks as a continuous outcome and at 2, 6 and 12 weeks as a binary outcome; follow-up scores on depressive symptoms measured with the Beck Depression Inventory-II, anxiety symptoms measured by the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 and quality of life measured with the Euroqol-5D-5L and Short Form-12; emotional processing task scores measured at baseline, 2 and 6 weeks; and costs associated with healthcare use, time off work and personal costs. DISCUSSION: The PANDA trial uses a simple self-administered measure to establish the severity and duration of depressive symptoms associated with a clinically significant response to sertraline. The evidence from the trial will inform primary care prescribing practice by identifying which patients are more likely to benefit from antidepressants. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Controlled Trials ISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN84544741 . Registered on 20 March 2014. EudraCT Number: 2013-003440-22; Protocol Number: 13/0413 (version 6.1).