scholarly journals Recurrent acute pancreatitis prevention by the elimination of alcohol and cigarette smoking (REAPPEAR): protocol of a randomised controlled trial and a cohort study

BMJ Open ◽  
2022 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. e050821
Author(s):  
Klementina Ocskay ◽  
Márk Félix Juhász ◽  
Nelli Farkas ◽  
Noémi Zádori ◽  
Lajos Szakó ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Acute Pancreatitis ◽  
Cohort Study ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Alcohol Consumption ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Motivation To Change ◽  
Biomarker Analysis ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Background/objectivesAcute recurrent pancreatitis (ARP) due to alcohol and/or tobacco abuse is a preventable disease which lowers quality of life and can lead to chronic pancreatitis. The REAPPEAR study aims to investigate whether a combined patient education and cessation programme for smoking and alcohol prevents ARP.Methods and analysisThe REAPPEAR study consists of an international multicentre randomised controlled trial (REAPPEAR-T) testing the efficacy of a cessation programme on alcohol and smoking and a prospective cohort study (REAPPEAR-C) assessing the effects of change in alcohol consumption and smoking (irrespective of intervention). Daily smoker patients hospitalised with alcohol-induced acute pancreatitis (AP) will be enrolled. All patients will receive a standard intervention priorly to encourage alcohol and smoking cessation. Participants will be subjected to laboratory testing, measurement of blood pressure and body mass index and will provide blood, hair and urine samples for later biomarker analysis. Addiction, motivation to change, socioeconomic status and quality of life will be evaluated with questionnaires. In the trial, patients will be randomised either to the cessation programme with 3-monthly visits or to the control group with annual visits. Participants of the cessation programme will receive a brief intervention at every visit with direct feedback on their alcohol consumption based on laboratory results. The primary endpoint will be the composite of 2-year all-cause recurrence rate of AP and/or 2-year all-cause mortality. The cost-effectiveness of the cessation programme will be evaluated. An estimated 182 participants will be enrolled per group to the REAPPEAR-T with further enrolment to the cohort.Ethics and disseminationThe study was approved by the Scientific and Research Ethics Committee of the Hungarian Medical Research Council (40394-10/2020/EÜIG), all local ethical approvals are in place. Results will be disseminated at conferences and in peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration numberNCT04647097

scholarly journals SOMA-trial: surgery or medication for women with an endometrioma? Study protocol for a randomised controlled trial and cohort study

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
E van Barneveld ◽  
V B Veth ◽  
J M Sampat ◽  
A M F Schreurs ◽  
M van Wely ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Cohort Study ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Pain Reduction ◽  
Deep Endometriosis ◽  
Ovarian Endometrioma ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Abstract STUDY QUESTIONS The objective of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of surgical treatment of women suffering from pain due to an ovarian endometrioma when compared to treatment with medication (analgesia and/or hormones). The primary outcome is defined as successful pain reduction (−30% reduction of pain) measured by the numeric rating scale (NRS) after 6 months. Secondary outcomes include successful pain reduction after 12 and 18 months, quality of life, affective symptoms, cost-effectiveness, recurrence rate, need of adjuvant medication after surgery, ovarian reserve, adjuvant surgery and budget impact. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY Evidence suggests that both medication and surgical treatment of an ovarian endometrioma are effective in reducing pain and improving quality of life. However, there are no randomised studies that compare surgery to treatment with medication. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION This study will be performed in a research network of university and teaching hospitals in the Netherlands. A multicentre randomised controlled trial and parallel prospective cohort study in patients with an ovarian endometrioma, with the exclusion of patients with deep endometriosis, will be conducted. After obtaining informed consent, eligible patients will be randomly allocated to either treatment arm (medication or surgery) by using web-based block randomisation stratified per centre. A successful pain reduction is set at a 30% decrease on the NRS at 6 months after randomisation. Based on a power of 80% and an alpha of 5% and using a continuity correction, a sample size of 69 patients in each treatment arm is needed. Accounting for a drop-out rate of 25% (i.e. loss to follow up), we need to include 92 patients in each treatment arm, i.e. 184 in total. Simultaneously, a cohort study will be performed for eligible patients who are not willing to be randomised because of a distinct preference for one of the two treatment arms. We intend to include 100 women in each treatment arm to enable standardization by inverse probability weighting, which means 200 patients in total. The expected inclusion period is 24 months with a follow-up of 18 months. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS Premenopausal women (age ≥ 18 years) with pain (dysmenorrhoea, pelvic pain or dyspareunia) and an ovarian endometrioma (cyst diameter ≥ 3 cm) who visit the outpatient clinic will make up the study population. Patients with signs of deep endometriosis will be excluded. The primary outcome is successful pain reduction, which is defined as a 30% decrease of pain on the NRS at 6 months after randomisation. Secondary outcomes include successful pain reduction after 12 and 18 months, quality of life and affective symptoms, cost-effectiveness (from a healthcare and societal perspective), number of participants needing additional surgery, need of adjuvant medication after surgery, ovarian reserve and recurrence rate of endometriomas. Measurements will be performed at baseline, 6 weeks and 6, 12 and 18 months after randomisation. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) This study is funded by ZonMw, a Dutch organization for Health Research and Development, project number 80-85200-98-91041. The Department of Reproductive Medicine of the Amsterdam UMC location VUmc has received several research and educational grants from Guerbet, Merck KGaA and Ferring not related to the submitted work. B.W.J. Mol is supported by a NHMRC Practitioner Fellowship (GNT1082548) and reports consultancy for ObsEva, Merck KGaA and Guerbet. V. Mijatovic reports grants from Guerbet, grants from Merck and grants from Ferring outside the submitted work. All authors declare that they have no competing interests concerning this publication. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER Dutch Trial Register (NTR 7447, http://www.trialregister.nl). TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE 2 January 2019 DATE OF FIRST PATIENT’S ENROLMENT First inclusion in randomised controlled trial October 4, 2019. First inclusion in cohort May 22, 2019.

scholarly journals Emergency Medicine Palliative Care Access (EMPallA): protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled trial comparing the effectiveness of specialty outpatient versus nurse-led telephonic palliative care of older adults with advanced illness

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. e025692 ◽  
Author(s):  
Corita R Grudzen ◽  
Deborah J Shim ◽  
Abigail M Schmucker ◽  
Jeanne Cho ◽  
Keith S Goldfeld
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Older Adults ◽  
Palliative Care ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Case Management ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Chronic Obstructive ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
End Stage

IntroductionEmergency department (ED)-initiated palliative care has been shown to improve patient-centred outcomes in older adults with serious, life-limiting illnesses. However, the optimal modality for providing such interventions is unknown. This study aims to compare nurse-led telephonic case management to specialty outpatient palliative care for older adults with serious, life-limiting illness on: (1) quality of life in patients; (2) healthcare utilisation; (3) loneliness and symptom burden and (4) caregiver strain, caregiver quality of life and bereavement.Methods and analysisThis is a protocol for a pragmatic, multicentre, parallel, two-arm randomised controlled trial in ED patients comparing two established models of palliative care: nurse-led telephonic case management and specialty, outpatient palliative care. We will enrol 1350 patients aged 50+ years and 675 of their caregivers across nine EDs. Eligible patients: (1) have advanced cancer (metastatic solid tumour) or end-stage organ failure (New York Heart Association class III or IV heart failure, end-stage renal disease with glomerular filtration rate <15 mL/min/m2, or global initiative for chronic obstructive lung disease stage III, IV or oxygen-dependent chronic obstructive pulmonary disease); (2) speak English; (3) are scheduled for ED discharge or observation status; (4) reside locally; (5) have a working telephone and (6) are insured. Patients will be excluded if they: (1) have dementia; (2) have received hospice care or two or more palliative care visits in the last 6 months or (3) reside in a long-term care facility. We will use patient-level block randomisation, stratified by ED site and disease. Effectiveness will be compared by measuring the impact of each intervention on the specified outcomes. The primary outcome will measure change in patient quality of life.Ethics and disseminationInstitutional Review Board approval was obtained at all study sites. Trial results will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.Trial registration numberNCT03325985; Pre-results.

scholarly journals Evaluating the provision of Further Enabling Care at Home (FECH+) for informal caregivers of older adults discharged home from hospital: protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled trial

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (6) ◽  
pp. e046600
Author(s):  
Anne-Marie Hill ◽  
Rachael Moorin ◽  
Susan Slatyer ◽  
Christina Bryant ◽  
Keith Hill ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Older Adults ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Informal Caregivers ◽  
Care Recipient ◽  
Care At Home ◽  
Randomised Controlled

IntroductionThere are personal and societal benefits from caregiving; however, caregiving can jeopardise caregivers’ health. The Further Enabling Care at Home (FECH+) programme provides structured nurse support, through telephone outreach, to informal caregivers of older adults following discharge from acute hospital care to home. The trial aims to evaluate the efficacy of the FECH+ programme on caregivers’ health-related quality of life (HRQOL) after care recipients’ hospital discharge.Methods and analysisA multisite, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial with blinded baseline and outcome assessment and intention-to-treat analysis, adhering to Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials guidelines will be conducted. Participants (N=925 dyads) comprising informal home caregiver (18 years or older) and care recipient (70 years or older) will be recruited when the care recipient is discharged from hospital. Caregivers of patients discharged from wards in three hospitals in Australia (one in Western Australia and two in Queensland) are eligible for inclusion. Participants will be randomly assigned to one of the two groups. The intervention group receive the FECH+ programme, which provides structured support and problem-solving for the caregiver after the care recipient’s discharge, in addition to usual care. The control group receives usual care. The programme is delivered by a registered nurse and comprises six 30–45 min telephone support sessions over 6 months. The primary outcome is caregivers’ HRQOL measured using the Assessment of Quality of Life—eight dimensions. Secondary outcomes include caregiver preparedness, strain and distress and use of healthcare services. Changes in HRQOL between groups will be compared using a mixed regression model that accounts for the correlation between repeated measurements.Ethics and disseminationParticipants will provide written informed consent. Ethics approvals have been obtained from Sir Charles Gairdner and Osborne Park Health Care Group, Curtin University, Griffith University, Gold Coast Health Service and government health data linkage services. Findings will be disseminated through presentations, peer-reviewed journals and conferences.Trial registration numberACTRN12620000060943.

scholarly journals E-health ecosystem with integrated and stepped psychosocial services for breast cancer survivors: study protocol of a multicentre randomised controlled trial

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. e041548
Author(s):  
Cristian Ochoa-Arnedo ◽  
Joan Carles Medina ◽  
Aida Flix-Valle ◽  
Dimitra Anastasiadou
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Emotional Distress ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Psychosocial Care ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Psychosocial Services ◽  
Randomised Controlled

IntroductionPsychosocial interventions for patients with breast cancer (BC) have demonstrated their effectiveness at reducing emotional distress and improving quality of life. The current digitisation of screening, monitoring and psychosocial treatment presents the opportunity for a revolution that could improve the quality of care and reduce its economic burden. The objectives of this study are, first, to assess the effectiveness of an e-health platform with integrated and stepped psychosocial services compared with usual psychosocial care, and second, to examine its cost–utility.Methods and analysisThis study is a multicentre randomised controlled trial with two parallel groups: E-health intervention with integrated and stepped psychosocial services vs usual psychosocial care. An estimated sample of 338 patients with BC in the acute survival phase will be recruited from three university hospitals in Catalonia (Spain) and will be randomly assigned to one of two groups. All participants will be evaluated at the beginning of the study (T1: recruitment), 3 months from T1 (T2), 6 months from T1 (T3) and 12 months from T1 (T4). Primary outcome measures will include number of clinical cases detected, waiting time from detection to psychosocial intervention and proportion of cases successfully treated in the different steps of the intervention, as well as outcomes related to emotional distress, quality of life, post-traumatic stress and growth, treatment adherence and therapeutic alliance. Secondary outcomes will include the acceptability of the platform, patients’ satisfaction and usability. For the cost–utility analysis, we will assess quality-adjusted life years and costs related to healthcare utilisation, medication use and adherence, work absenteeism and infrastructure-related and transport-related costs.Ethics and disseminationThis study was approved by the Ethics committee of the Institut Català d’Oncologia network in Hospitalet, Spain. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals, reports to the funding body, conferences among the scientific community, workshops with patients and media press releases.Trial registration numberOnline Psychosocial Cancer Screening, Monitoring and Stepped Treatment in Cancer Survivors (ICOnnectat-B),NCT04372459.

scholarly journals Effectiveness of custom-made foot orthoses in patients with systemic lupus erythaematosus: protocol for a randomised controlled trial

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. e042627
Author(s):  
María Reina-Bueno ◽  
María del Carmen Vázquez-Bautista ◽  
Inmaculada C Palomo-Toucedo ◽  
Gabriel Domínguez-Maldonado ◽  
José Manuel Castillo-López ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
Foot Orthoses ◽  
Systemic Lupus ◽  
Custom Made ◽  
Randomised Controlled

IntroductionSystemic lupus erythaematosus (SLE) is a chronic autoimmune disease of heterogeneous involvement. The disease may affect feet with a high prevalence of symptoms such as, for example, pain, forefoot and rearfoot deformities, and biomechanics dysfunctions. Custom-made foot orthoses (CMFO) have been previously reported to be effective in patients with other rheumatic diseases. However, as far as the authors know, there exist no studies about their effectiveness in SLE. This study aims at determining the effect of CMFO versus placebo flat cushioning insoles on pain, foot functionality, fatigue and quality of life in patients with SLE.Methods and analysisA randomised controlled trial would compare the effects of (1) CMFO and group B, which received a placebo, flat cushioning insoles, for 3 months. The main outcome measures are foot pain, foot functionality and foot-related disability. The secondary outcome measures are fatigue and quality of life.Ethics and disseminationThe study has been approved by the Portal de Ética de la Investigación Biomédica de Andalucía ethical committee 1494-N-19. The results will be disseminated regardless of the magnitude or direction of effect.Trial registartion numberClinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT04098055.

scholarly journals Improving the quality of life of patients with breast cancer-related lymphoedema by lymphaticovenous anastomosis (LVA): study protocol of a multicentre randomised controlled trial

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. e035337 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joost Wolfs ◽  
Jop Beugels ◽  
Merel Kimman ◽  
Andrzej A Piatkowski de Grzymala ◽  
Esther Heuts ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Lymph Node ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Conservative Treatment ◽  
Cancer Treatment ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Breast Cancer Treatment ◽  
Randomised Controlled

IntroductionEarly breast cancer detection and advancements in treatment options have resulted in an increase of breast cancer survivors. An increasing number of women are living with the long-term effects of breast cancer treatment, making the quality of survivorship an increasingly important goal. Breast cancer-related lymphoedema (BCRL) is one of the most underestimated complications of breast cancer treatment with a reported incidence of 20%. A microsurgical technique called lymphaticovenous anastomosis (LVA) might be a promising treatment modality for patients with BCRL. The main objective is to assess whether LVA is more effective than the current standard therapy (conservative treatment) in terms of improvement in quality of life and weather it is cost-effective.Methods and analysisA multicentre, randomised controlled trial, carried out in two academic and two community hospitals in the Netherlands. The study population includes 120 women over the age of 18 who have undergone treatment for breast cancer including axillary treatment (sentinel lymph node biopsy or axillary lymph node dissection) and/or axillary radiotherapy, presenting with an early stage lymphoedema of the arm, viable lymphatic vessels and received at least 3 months conservative treatment. Sixty participants will undergo the LVA operation and the other sixty will continue their regular conservative treatment, both with a follow-up of 24 months. The primary outcome is the health-related quality of life. Secondary outcomes are societal costs, quality adjusted life years, cost-effectiveness ratio, discontinuation rate of conservative treatment and excess limb volume.Ethics and disseminationThe study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Maastricht University Medical Center (METC) on 19 December 2018 (NL67059.068.18). The results of this study will be disseminated in presentations at academic conferences, publications in peer-reviewed journals and other news media.Trial registration numberNCT02790021; Pre-results.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document