RESUMEN

PURPOSE: To determine the incidence of VTE and clinical outcomes in a cohort of cancer patients and COVID-19 infection, and to establish possible predictive factors of VTE. METHODS/PATIENTS: A single-center retrospective cohort study was performed to determine the incidence of VTE and mortality in 118 cancer patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection from March to August 2020. We calculated individual Khorana Risk and CATS-MICA scores in order to evaluate their utility to identify risk of VTE or death. Continuous variables were compared using Wilcoxon or Student's T test, and categorical variables were compared using the Chi-Square or Fisher's exact text among patients with and without VTE. A Log-Rank test was performed to detect mortality differences between the groups. RESULTS: A total of 118 patients were included. VTE global incidence was 4.2% (n = 5), and mortality 25.4% (n = 30). Obesity (p = 0.05), recent chemotherapy (p = 0.049) and use of steroids (p = 0.006) were related to higher risk of VTE in the univariate analysis, although they were not confirmed in the multivariate analysis as independent risk factors. Statistically significant differences in all-cause, COVID-19-related and cancer-related mortality according to the Khorana risk score (KRS) were observed. CATS-MICA score (CMS) also showed statistically significant differences in mortality between low- and high-risk patients. Prediction of risk of VTE development with these scores showed a tendency towards significance. CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort, VTE incidence was similar to previously reported in the general population with SARS-CoV-2 infection. KRS was associated with overall and specific-cause mortality, and might be a useful prognostic tool in this setting.

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: The Zoster Eye Disease Study (ZEDS) is a multicenter randomized clinical trial (RCT) funded by the National Eye Institute aiming to determine the efficacy of suppressive valacyclovir treatment in herpes zoster ophthalmicus (HZO) that enrolled fewer participants than planned (527/780, 67.6%). Understanding reasons for nonparticipation of likely eligible prescreened patients provides insights into patient populations that are not represented by ZEDS and barriers in clinical trials. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, HZO adults likely eligible for ZEDS with a history of a typical rash and a medical record within the past year of an episode of epithelial or stromal keratitis or iritis were prescreened at activated Participating Clinical Centers from 2017 to 2022 using a standard prescreening log. De-identified data including demographic information, reasons for exclusion because of ineligibility, and patient refusal were retrospectively entered into REDCap and analyzed. RESULTS: Prescreening logs with reasons for nonconsent (1244/1706, 72.9%) were included in the data set. Patients were excluded from the study (915/1244, 73.6%) because they did not meet all inclusion criteria (619/915, 67.7%) or met an exclusion criterion (296/915, 32.3%). Among the 12 exclusion criteria for the ZEDS study, immunocompromise (76/296, 25.7%) and renal insufficiency (50/296, 16.9%) were most frequently reported. Patient refusal to participate (327/1,244, 26.3%) was common. CONCLUSION: The most common reasons for ineligibility were immunocompromise and renal insufficiency. There may be benefits to long-term antiviral use in these populations not captured in ZEDS. A quarter (26.3%) of prescreened patients refused participation, showing the substantial impact of patient preferences on trial participation.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: There are no proven strategies to prevent atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM). We compared standard blood pressure (BP) lowering vs. intensive BP lowering in reducing incidence of AF or P-wave indices (PWI-ECG markers of left atrial abnormality that are considered intermediate phenotypes of AF) in patients with T2DM. METHODS: We analyzed data from the ACCORD BP trial-a randomized controlled nonblinded trial (2001-2009) which randomized patients with T2DM and systolic BP (SBP) 130-180mm Hg on ≤3 antihypertensive medications aged 40-79 years with cardiovascular disease (CVD) or aged 55-79 years with subclinical CVD or ≥2 CVD risk factors to standard BP lowering (SBP <140mm Hg) vs. intensive BP lowering (SBP <120mm Hg). The primary outcome was a composite of incident AF and PWI. RESULTS: Data from 3,087 participants (mean age, 62.2 years; women, 48.2%; non-White, 39.2%) were analyzed. During a mean follow-up of 4.4 years, the primary outcome occurred in 1,063 participants (incidence rate, 84.5 per 1,000 person-years in the standard-therapy group vs. 73.9 per 1,000 person-years in the intensive-therapy group). The adjusted hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals) of intensive-therapy group for the primary outcome and for incident PWI alone were 0.87 (0.77-0.98), P = 0.02 and 0.87 (0.76-0.98), P = 0.02, respectively. The effect of intensive therapy on the incidence of AF alone did not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with T2DM, intensive BP lowering reduces the incidence of the composite outcome of AF and PWI, suggesting a potential benefit from stringent BP control in patients with T2DM. clinical trials registration Trial Number NCT00000620.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Underspecified user needs and frequent lack of a gold standard reference are typical barriers to technology evaluation. To address this problem, this paper presents a two-phase evaluation framework involving usability experts (phase 1) and end-users (phase 2). In phase 1, a cross-system functionality alignment between expert-derived user needs and system functions was performed to inform the choice of "the best available" comparison system to enable a cognitive walkthrough in phase 1 and a comparative effectiveness evaluation in phase 2. During phase 2, five quantitative and qualitative evaluation methods are mixed to assess usability: time-motion analysis, software log, questionnaires - System Usability Scale and the Unified Theory of Acceptance of Use of Technology, think-aloud protocols, and unstructured interviews. Each method contributes data for a unique measure (e.g., time motion analysis contributes task-completion-time; software log contributes action transition frequency). The measures are triangulated to yield complementary insights regarding user-perceived ease-of-use, functionality integration, anxiety during use, and workflow impact. To illustrate its use, we applied this framework in a formative evaluation of a software called Integrated Model for Patient Care and Clinical Trials (IMPACT). We conclude that this mixed-methods evaluation framework enables an integrated assessment of user needs satisfaction and user-perceived usefulness and usability of a novel design. This evaluation framework effectively bridges the gap between co-evolving user needs and technology designs during iterative prototyping and is particularly useful when it is difficult for users to articulate their needs for technology support due to the lack of a baseline.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

We describe a clinical research visit scheduling system that can potentially coordinate clinical research visits with patient care visits and increase efficiency at clinical sites where clinical and research activities occur simultaneously. Participatory Design methods were applied to support requirements engineering and to create this software called Integrated Model for Patient Care and Clinical Trials (IMPACT). Using a multi-user constraint satisfaction and resource optimization algorithm, IMPACT automatically synthesizes temporal availability of various research resources and recommends the optimal dates and times for pending research visits. We conducted scenario-based evaluations with 10 clinical research coordinators (CRCs) from diverse clinical research settings to assess the usefulness, feasibility, and user acceptance of IMPACT. We obtained qualitative feedback using semi-structured interviews with the CRCs. Most CRCs acknowledged the usefulness of IMPACT features. Support for collaboration within research teams and interoperability with electronic health records and clinical trial management systems were highly requested features. Overall, IMPACT received satisfactory user acceptance and proves to be potentially useful for a variety of clinical research settings. Our future work includes comparing the effectiveness of IMPACT with that of existing scheduling solutions on the market and conducting field tests to formally assess user adoption.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Hispanics in the United States represent diverse racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic groups, and manifest heterogeneous cardiovascular risks including diabetes. It is not known if there are residual differences in the control of diabetes among Hispanic groups given uniform access to diabetes care. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate glucose control differences among Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, and Dominicans receiving substantial diabetes care and support in the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) trial. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of data from a randomized trial comparing two treatment strategies: intensive, targeting glycated hemoglobin below 6.0 %, and standard, targeting glycated hemoglobin between 7.0 % and 7.9 %. PARTICIPANTS: Seven hundred and sixteen Hispanic and 6066 non-Hispanic white participants were recruited from 77 clinical sites across the United States and Canada. There were 243 Mexicans, 199 Puerto Ricans, and 150 Dominicans; and 135 of these Hispanic groups were born in the United States. MAIN MEASURE: Glycated hemoglobin RESULTS: Compared to Puerto Ricans, Mexicans were more likely (HR=1.38, CI:0.90-2.10) and Dominicans as likely (HR=1.01, CI:0.66-1.54) to achieve glycated hemoglobin goal in the intensive arm. Participants born in the United States achieved glycated hemoglobin goal at a higher rate than those born elsewhere (HR=1.57, CI:0.99-2.51 in the intensive arm, HR=1.51, CI:0.95-2.43 in the standard arm). These differences were not statistically significant. In the intensive arm, Puerto Ricans (OR=0.47, CI:0.31-0.71), and Dominicans (OR=0.41, CI:0.26-0.66) were less likely than non-Hispanic whites to achieve glycated hemoglobin goal, whereas the difference between non-Hispanic whites and Mexicans was not statistically significant, (OR=0.66, CI:0.43-1.02). CONCLUSIONS: Hispanic groups, given access to comprehensive diabetes care, differed from each other non-significantly and had a variable divergence from non-Hispanic whites in achieving intensive glycated hemoglobin goal. These differences, if confirmed, could be due to such factors as variable acculturation and functional health literacy levels that were not measured in the ACCORD trial, but should be further explored in future studies.

Asunto(s)