TRIALS

试验
  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    复发性/难治性(R/R)瓦尔登斯特罗姆巨球蛋白血症(WM)的最佳治疗方法尚未明确定义。尤其是在用化学免疫疗法(CIT)和共价布鲁顿酪氨酸激酶抑制剂(cBTKi)治疗后。PembroWM试验是一个多中心,第二阶段,单臂研究评估安全性,利妥昔单抗联合派姆单抗在接受至少一种先前治疗的R/RWM患者中的耐受性和疗效,所有患者均在CIT后复发,大多数患者也暴露于cBTKi。共纳入17例患者,中位年龄为70岁,3种先前治疗的中位年龄为15种,难治性或不耐受cBTKi。在BTKC481,CXCR4和MYD88L265P野生型畸变中,有很大一部分被鉴定为基因组高风险。24周总有效率为50%(60%CI39.3%-60.7%),中位缓解时间为11.6个月(IQR:6.3-17).中位无进展生存期为13.6个月(95%CI3-19.8),未达到中位总生存期(OS)。治疗耐受性良好,与最小数量的免疫介导的AE通常与检查点抑制剂。PembroWM是评估WM中PD-1轴调制可行性的第一项研究,并已表明与利妥昔单抗组合该组合是安全且可交付的。
    The optimal therapeutic approach for relapsed/refractory (R/R) Waldenström\'s Macroglobulinaemia (WM) has not been clearly defined, especially after treatment with chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) and covalent Bruton\'s tyrosine kinase inhibitors (cBTKi). The PembroWM trial is a multi-centre, phase II, single-arm study assessing the safety, tolerability and efficacy of rituximab with pembrolizumab in R/R WM patients who had received at least one prior line of treatment, with all having relapsed post-CIT and most also exposed to cBTKi. A total of 17 patients were enrolled, with a median age of 70, and median of three prior lines of therapy with 15 either refractory or intolerant of a cBTKi. A significant proportion was identified as genomically high risk with BTKC481, CXCR4 and MYD88 L265P wild-type aberrations. Twenty-four-week overall response rate was 50% (60% CI 39.3%-60.7%), and median duration of response was 11.6 months (IQR: 6.3-17). The median progression-free survival was 13.6 months (95% CI 3-19.8), and the median overall survival (OS) was not reached. Treatment was well tolerated, with minimal numbers of immune-mediated AEs typically seen with checkpoint inhibitors. PembroWM is the first study to evaluate the feasibility of PD-1 axis modulation in WM and has shown that in combination with Rituximab the combination is safe and deliverable.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    背景:2015年,“小咬伤与大咬伤闭合腹部中线切口(STITCH)试验”的结果发表在《柳叶刀》杂志上。这证明了小切口剖腹术闭合术在减少切口疝方面优于大量闭合术;尽管如此,大多数外科医生并没有改变他们的做法。先前的研究表明,在医学中实施基于证据的实践所需的时间平均为17年。这项研究旨在了解外科医生在闭合中线剖腹手术方面已经和没有改变其做法的原因。
    方法:在英格兰西南部的一个机构中与外科顾问和注册师进行了半结构化访谈。采访主题指南是通过对已发表文献的回顾得出的,确定了将证据应用于外科实践的障碍。访谈笔录进行了主题分析,主题是在研究团队内部讨论后确定的,探索对已发表数据和临床实践的看法。
    结果:对普外科和泌尿外科顾问以及培训注册人员进行了9次访谈。确定了三个主题;“信任证据和关键评估”,\“对风险的手术态度\”和\“在实践中采用证据\”,这反映了将证据基础实践引入临床工作的障碍。
    结论:主题的确定突出了干预的可能领域,以减少采用证据的时间,例如来自随机对照试验。临床实践的不断更新使临床医生能够为患者提供最佳的循证护理并改善其结果。
    BACKGROUND: In 2015, the results of the \'Small bites versus large bites for closure of abdominal midline incisions (STITCH) Trial\' were published in The Lancet. This demonstrated the superiority of small bite laparotomy closure over mass closure for the reduction of incisional hernias; despite this most surgeons have not changed their practice. Previous research has shown the time taken for the implementation of evidenced based practise within medicine takes an average of 17 years. This study aims to understand the reasons why surgeons have and have not changed their practice with regards to closure of midline laparotomy.
    METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were completed with surgical consultants and registrars at a single institution in South West England. The interview topic guide was informed by a review of the published literature, which identified barriers to adopting evidence into surgical practice. Interview transcripts underwent thematic analysis with themes identified following discussions within the research team, exploring views on published data and clinical practise.
    RESULTS: Nine interviews with general surgical and urological consultants as well as registrars in training were performed. Three themes were identified; \'Trusting the Evidence & Critical Appraisal\', \'Surgical Attitude to Risk\' and \'Adopting Evidence in Practise\', that reflected barriers to the introduction of evidenced based practise to clinical work.
    CONCLUSIONS: Identification of the themes highlights possible areas for intervention to decrease the adoption time for evidence, for example from randomised controlled trials. The continued updating of clinical practise allows clinicians to provide best evidenced based care for patients and improve their outcomes.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    背景:研究试验的参与者通常会发现严重的抑郁症状,包括自我伤害和自杀意念的想法,在经过验证的自我管理问卷中,如患者健康问卷(PHQ-9)。然而,没有应对此类披露的标准协议,并且可能会错过支持处于危险中的人的机会。我们制定并评估了IBD-BOOST随机对照试验的风险评估方案(ISRCTN7161846109/09/2019)。
    方法:参与者在基线和6个月和12个月随访时完成了PHQ-9。试验数据库自动提醒研究团队对参与者进行风险评估。试验研究人员,受过协议训练,通过电话联系参与者,完成了风险评估,并为参与者提供适当的专业服务。
    结果:在试验中随机分配了780名参与者;41名参与者需要进行风险评估。一名参与者拒绝评估,因此完成了40项风险评估。24名参与者被评估为低风险,16名参与者被评估为中等风险。有12人宣布以前的自杀企图。没有人被评为高风险。试验参与者对被联系表示感谢,除两名外,所有人都希望获得有关专业支持服务的信息。审判风险评估人员报告了进行风险评估的积极经验,并提出了改进建议,这导致了对协议的微小修改。
    结论:我们的评估表明,研究试验团队成功地对报告自我伤害想法的试验参与者进行风险评估方案是可行的。在高级同事的培训和支持下。培训和交付需要资源,但这并不过于繁重。试验参与者似乎认为完成评估是可以接受的。
    BACKGROUND: Participants in research trials often disclose severe depression symptoms, including thoughts of self-harm and suicidal ideation, in validated self-administered questionnaires such as the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9). However, there is no standard protocol for responding to such disclosure, and the opportunity to support people at risk is potentially missed. We developed and evaluated a risk assessment protocol for the IBD-BOOST randomised controlled trial (ISRCTN71618461 09/09/2019).
    METHODS: Participants completed the PHQ-9 at baseline and 6-month and 12-month follow-ups. The trial database automatically alerted the research team to risk assess participants. Trial researchers, trained in the protocol, contacted participants by telephone, completed the risk assessment, and signposted participants to appropriate professional services.
    RESULTS: Seven hundred eighty participants were randomised in the trial; 41 required risk assessment. One participant declined assessment, so 40 risk assessments were completed. Twenty-four participants were assessed as low-risk and 16 participants as medium-risk, with 12 declaring previous suicide attempts. None were rated as high-risk. Trial participants expressed appreciation for being contacted, and all except two wished to receive information about professional support services. Trial risk assessors reported positive experiences of conducting the risk assessment with suggestions for improvement, which resulted in minor modifications to the protocol.
    CONCLUSIONS: Our evaluation demonstrated that it was viable for a research trial team to successfully conduct a risk-assessment protocol for trial participants reporting thoughts of self-harm, with training and support from senior colleagues. Resources are required for training and delivery, but it is not unduly onerous. Trial participants appeared to find completing the assessment acceptable.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Letter
    暂无摘要。
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    背景:针对一系列心理健康问题的低强度干预措施为中低收入国家的年轻创伤幸存者提供了一种可扩展的方法。
    目标:这里,我们给出了一个概念验证的结果,随机化,候补名单控制试验评估MemFlex,基于自传记忆的干预,居住在伊朗的遭受创伤的阿富汗青年。MemFlex旨在减少维持和预测不良心理健康的负面和过度笼统的记忆偏见。
    方法:从伊朗卡拉伊市的高中招募了12-18岁(N=40)的年轻人,他们的父母经历了从阿富汗的强迫移民。去年所有人都经历了一次创伤事件。参与者被随机分配接受为期四周的基于组的MemFlex或Waitlist交付。我们的主要认知结果是自传体记忆灵活性,也就是说,根据需要故意检索任何内存类型的能力。主要临床结果是情绪困扰,在波斯语版本的霍普金斯症状清单上测量。
    结果:结果表明,MemFlex参与者在记忆灵活性(d=2.04)和情绪困扰(d=1.23)的前后改善方面表现出较大的效应大小。这些改进明显大于Waitlist(ds<.49),并维持三个月的随访。
    结论:观察到完成MemFlex的积极益处,未来与积极干预的比较似乎是有道理的。
    结论:在这种情况下,对MemFlex的进一步评估可能会提供低成本,和低资源干预,以改善中低收入国家年轻移民获得心理干预的机会。
    BACKGROUND: Low-intensity interventions targeting a range of mental health issues offer a scalable approach for young trauma survivors in low-middle income countries.
    OBJECTIVE: Here, we present results from a proof-of-concept, randomized, waitlist-controlled trial evaluating MemFlex, an autobiographical memory-based intervention, for trauma-exposed Afghan youth residing in Iran. MemFlex seeks to reduce the negative and overgeneral memory biases which maintain and predict poor mental health.
    METHODS: Young people aged 12-18 years (N = 40) with parents who had experienced forced migration from Afghanistan were recruited from high schools in Karaj City in Iran. All had experienced a traumatic event in the last year. Participants were randomized to receive four weeks of a group-based delivery of MemFlex or Waitlist. Our primary cognitive outcome was autobiographical memory flexibility, that is, the ability to deliberately retrieve any memory type on demand. Primary clinical outcome was emotional distress, measured on the Farsi version of the Hopkins Symptom Checklist.
    RESULTS: Results indicated that MemFlex participants demonstrated large effect sizes for pre-to-post improvement in memory flexibility (d = 2.04) and emotional distress (d = 1.23). These improvements were significantly larger than Waitlist (ds < .49), and were maintained at three-month follow-up.
    CONCLUSIONS: Positive benefits were observed for completion of MemFlex, and future comparison against an active intervention appears warranted.
    CONCLUSIONS: Further evaluation of MemFlex in this context may offer a low-cost, and low-resource intervention to improve access to psychological intervention for young migrants in low-middle income countries.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Equivalence Trial
    经股动脉入路主要用于大血管闭塞的卒中患者的机械血栓切除术。按照介入心脏病学指南,已经提出了常规的跨放射状通路作为替代方案,尽管其安全性和有效性仍存在争议。我们的目标是探索径向通路在最终再通方面的非劣效性。
    这项研究是由研究者发起的,单中心,评估者致盲,非劣效性随机临床试验。接受机械血栓切除术的中风患者,股动脉通畅,桡动脉直径≥2.5mm,被随机分配(1:1)到经桡动脉(60例)或经股骨入路(60例)。主要的二元结果是成功的再通(脑缺血评分的扩展治疗,2b-3)由盲态评估者分配。我们确定了-13.2%的非劣效性,考虑到预期再通率可接受的减少15%。
    从2021年9月至2023年7月,120例患者被随机分配,116例(58例经桡动脉入路和58例经股骨入路)在初始血管造影上证实颅内闭塞被纳入意向治疗分析。51例(87.9%)经股动脉入路患者和56/58例(96.6%)经桡动脉入路患者成功再通(调整后的1侧风险差异[RD],-5.0%[95%CI,-6.61%至+13.1%])显示经桡骨通路的非劣效性。从血管套房到达到第一次通过的中位时间(股骨,30[四分位数间距,25-37]分钟与径向:41[四分位数间距,33-62]分钟;P<0.001)和从血管套间到达再通(股骨:42(IQR,28-74)与径向:59.5(IQR,44-81)分钟;P<0.050)在经radial入组中更长。两组均出现1例严重的通路并发症,通路转换率无差异:经桡动脉7例(12.1%)与经股动脉5例(8.6%)(P=0.751)。
    在接受机械血栓切除术的患者中,经桡动脉入路在最终再通方面不劣于经股动脉入路.手术延迟可能有利于经股动脉入路作为默认的一线入路。
    URL:https://www。clinicaltrials.gov;唯一标识符:NCT05225636。
    UNASSIGNED: Transfemoral access is predominantly used for mechanical thrombectomy in patients with stroke with a large vessel occlusion. Following the interventional cardiology guidelines, routine transradial access has been proposed as an alternative, although its safety and efficacy remain controversial. We aim to explore the noninferiority of radial access in terms of final recanalization.
    UNASSIGNED: The study was an investigator-initiated, single-center, evaluator-blinded, noninferiority randomized clinical trial. Patients with stroke undergoing mechanical thrombectomy, with a patent femoral artery and a radial artery diameter ≥2.5 mm, were randomly assigned (1:1) to either transradial (60 patients) or transfemoral access (60 patients). The primary binary outcome was the successful recanalization (expanded Treatment in Cerebral Ischemia score, 2b-3) assigned by blinded evaluators. We established a noninferiority margin of -13.2%, considering an acceptable reduction of 15% in the expected recanalization rates.
    UNASSIGNED: From September 2021 to July 2023, 120 patients were randomly assigned and 116 (58 transradial access and 58 transfemoral access) with confirmed intracranial occlusion on the initial angiogram were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. Successful recanalization was achieved in 51 (87.9%) patients assigned to transfemoral access and in 56/58 (96.6%) patients assigned to transradial (adjusted 1 side risk difference [RD], -5.0% [95% CI, -6.61% to +13.1%]) showing noninferiority of transradial access. Median time from angiosuite arrival to first pass (femoral, 30 [interquartile range, 25-37] minutes versus radial: 41 [interquartile range, 33-62] minutes; P<0.001) and from angiosuite arrival to recanalization (femoral: 42 (IQR, 28-74) versus radial: 59.5 (IQR, 44-81) minutes; P<0.050) were longer in the transradial access group. Both groups presented 1 severe access complication and there was no difference in the rate of access conversion: transradial 7 (12.1%) versus transfemoral 5 (8.6%) (P=0.751).
    UNASSIGNED: Among patients who underwent mechanical thrombectomy, transradial access was noninferior to transfemoral access in terms of final recanalization. Procedural delays may favor transfemoral access as the default first-line approach.
    UNASSIGNED: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT05225636.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    食管切除术是一项复杂而复杂的手术。尽管中央集权,围手术期策略的变化反映了缺乏关于最佳程序的证据。食道切除术后使用鼻胃(NG)管通常会给患者带来明显的不适。我们假设术后立即移除NG管并不劣于目前的常规。所有北欧上消化道肿瘤中心均应邀参加了这项开放标签的务实随机对照试验(RCT)。纳入标准包括切除局部晚期食管癌并进行胃管重建。进行了审前调查,这是达成动力学试验的共识过程的基础,RCT将患者分为不使用NG管(干预)或术后5天使用NG管(对照),以吻合口漏为主要终点。次要终点包括肺部并发症,整体并发症,逗留时间,健康相关的生活质量。计划的样本量为450名患者(动力学试验:https://www。isrctn.com/ISRCTN39935085).共有1700万居民的13个北欧中心已进入审判,瑞典获得了道德批准,挪威,芬兰,和丹麦。所有中心常规使用NG管,除一个中心外,所有中心都使用整体或混合微创手术方法。纳入始于2022年1月,第一次年度安全委员会评估认为试验是安全的,建议继续进行。我们已经启动了第一个关于食管切除术后胃导管重建后使用NG管的多中心实用随机对照临床试验。
    Esophagectomy is a complex and complication laden procedure. Despite centralization, variations in perioparative strategies reflect a paucity of evidence regarding optimal routines. The use of nasogastric (NG) tubes post esophagectomy is typically associated with significant discomfort for the patients. We hypothesize that immediate postoperative removal of the NG tube is non-inferior to current routines. All Nordic Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer centers were invited to participate in this open-label pragmatic randomized controlled trial (RCT). Inclusion criteria include resection for locally advanced esophageal cancer with gastric tube reconstruction. A pretrial survey was undertaken and was the foundation for a consensus process resulting in the Kinetic trial, an RCT allocating patients to either no use of a NG tube (intervention) or 5 days of postoperative NG tube use (control) with anastomotic leakage as primary endpoint. Secondary endpoints include pulmonary complications, overall complications, length of stay, health related quality of life. A sample size of 450 patients is planned (Kinetic trial: https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN39935085). Thirteen Nordic centers with a combined catchment area of 17 million inhabitants have entered the trial and ethical approval was granted in Sweden, Norway, Finland, and Denmark. All centers routinely use NG tube and all but one center use total or hybrid minimally invasive-surgical approach. Inclusion began in January 2022 and the first annual safety board assessment has deemed the trial safe and recommended continuation. We have launched the first adequately powered multi-center pragmatic controlled randomized clinical trial regarding NG tube use after esophagectomy with gastric conduit reconstruction.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Randomized Controlled Trial
    背景:经股动脉入路主要用于大血管闭塞的中风患者的机械血栓切除术。按照介入心脏病学指南,已经提出了常规的跨放射状通路作为替代方案,尽管其安全性和有效性仍存在争议。我们的目标是探索径向通路在最终再通方面的非劣效性。方法:这项研究是由研究者发起的,单中心,评估者盲法随机临床试验。接受机械血栓切除术的中风患者,股动脉通畅,桡动脉直径≥2.5mm,被随机分配(1:1)到经桡动脉(60例)或经股骨入路(60例)。主要的二元结果是由盲评估者分配的成功再通(eTICI2b-3)。我们确定的非劣质率为-13.2%,考虑到预期再通率可接受的减少15%。结果:从2021年9月到2023年7月,随机分配了120例患者,其中116例(58例经桡动脉入路,意向治疗分析中包括了58例股动脉入路),并在最初的血管造影中确认了颅内闭塞。51例(87.9%)经股动脉入路患者和56/58例(96.6%)经桡动脉入路患者成功再通(调整后一侧风险差异-5.0%(95%CI,-6.61%至+13.1%)。从血管套间到达到第一次通过的中位时间(股骨:30(IQR25-37)分钟与放射状:41(IQR33-62)分钟,p<0.001)以及从血管套间到达再通(股骨:42(IQR28-74)与放射状:59.5(IQR44-81)分钟,p<0.050)在经radial入组中更长。两组均出现1例严重的通路并发症,通路转换率无差异:经桡动脉7例(12.1%)与经股动脉5例(8.6%)(p=0.751)。结论:在接受机械取栓的患者中,经桡动脉入路在最终再通方面不劣于经股动脉入路.手术延迟可能有利于经股动脉入路作为默认的第一线入路。
    UNASSIGNED: Transfemoral access is predominantly used for mechanical thrombectomy in patients with stroke with a large vessel occlusion. Following the interventional cardiology guidelines, routine transradial access has been proposed as an alternative, although its safety and efficacy remain controversial. We aim to explore the noninferiority of radial access in terms of final recanalization.
    UNASSIGNED: The study was an investigator-initiated, single-center, evaluator-blinded, noninferiority randomized clinical trial. Patients with stroke undergoing mechanical thrombectomy, with a patent femoral artery and a radial artery diameter ≥2.5 mm, were randomly assigned (1:1) to either transradial (60 patients) or transfemoral access (60 patients). The primary binary outcome was the successful recanalization (expanded Treatment in Cerebral Ischemia score, 2b-3) assigned by blinded evaluators. We established a noninferiority margin of -13.2%, considering an acceptable reduction of 15% in the expected recanalization rates.
    UNASSIGNED: From September 2021 to July 2023, 120 patients were randomly assigned and 116 (58 transradial access and 58 transfemoral access) with confirmed intracranial occlusion on the initial angiogram were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. Successful recanalization was achieved in 51 (87.9%) patients assigned to transfemoral access and in 56/58 (96.6%) patients assigned to transradial (adjusted 1 side risk difference [RD], -5.0% [95% CI, -6.61% to +13.1%]) showing noninferiority of transradial access. Median time from angiosuite arrival to first pass (femoral, 30 [interquartile range, 25-37] minutes versus radial: 41 [interquartile range, 33-62] minutes; P<0.001) and from angiosuite arrival to recanalization (femoral: 42 (IQR, 28-74) versus radial: 59.5 (IQR, 44-81) minutes; P<0.050) were longer in the transradial access group. Both groups presented 1 severe access complication and there was no difference in the rate of access conversion: transradial 7 (12.1%) versus transfemoral 5 (8.6%) (P=0.751).
    UNASSIGNED: Among patients who underwent mechanical thrombectomy, transradial access was noninferior to transfemoral access in terms of final recanalization. Procedural delays may favor transfemoral access as the default first-line approach.
    UNASSIGNED: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT05225636.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    根据随机临床试验(RCT)评估直接口服抗凝药(DOAC)治疗癌症相关血栓形成(CAT)患者的结果,一些国际指南已经提出DOAC作为低分子量肝素的替代品。然而,不符合此类试验条件的CAT患者比例目前未知.我们的主要目的是评估临床实践中急性CAT患者的比例,这些患者不符合CARAVAGGIO或HOKUSAI-VTERCT的条件。次要目的是根据资格描述患者的结果。在多中心中,观察性研究,对2017年1月至2019年12月期间因急性CAT事件连续入院的所有患者进行回顾性分析.根据是否存在CARAVAGGIO或HOKUSAI-VTERCT的非纳入标准对患者进行分类。分析6个月随访期间的无事件生存率作为次要终点。在302名患者中(女性:53%,平均年龄:67.9±13.2)分析,138例(46%)HOKUSAI-VTE癌症和161例(53%)CARAVAGGIO符合一个或多个非纳入标准。主要标准为上肢和非牙体部位血栓形成(n=63,18.5%),贫血/血小板减少症(n=43,14.2%),脑肿瘤(n=33,10.9%),ECOGPS>2(n=28,9.3%),严重肾功能衰竭(n=16,5.3%)。6个月时,两组无事件生存率无统计学差异.几乎一半的CAT患者无法参加现代DOACRCT。DOACs在这一部分患者中的安全性和有效性评估值得进一步研究。
    Based on the results of randomized clinical trials (RCT) assessing direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) for the treatment of patients with cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT), DOACs have been proposed as alternative to low molecular weight heparin by several international guidelines. However, the proportion of CAT patients who would have not been eligible for such trials is currently unknown. Our primary aim was to assess the proportion of patients seen in clinical practice for acute CAT who would not have been eligible for CARAVAGGIO or HOKUSAI-VTE RCT. Secondary aim was to describe patients outcomes according to eligibility. In a multicenter, observational study, all patients consecutively admitted from January 2017 to December 2019 for an acute CAT event were retrospectively analyzed. Patients were classified according to the presence or absence of non-inclusion criteria for CARAVAGGIO or HOKUSAI-VTE RCT. Event free survival during a 6-month follow-up were analyzed as secondary endpoints. Among the 302 patients (women: 53 %, mean age: 67.9 ± 13.2) analyzed, 138 (46 %) for HOKUSAI-VTE cancer and 161 (53 %) for CARAVAGGIO met one or more non-inclusion criteria. Main criteria were upper limb and unsual site thrombosis (n = 63, 18.5 %), anemia/thrombopenia (n = 43, 14.2 %), brain tumors (n = 33, 10.9 %), ECOG PS >2 (n = 28, 9.3 %), severe renal failure (n = 16, 5.3 %). At 6 months, the event-free survival rate was not statistically different between the two groups. Almost half of CAT patients would have not been able to participate to a modern DOAC RCT. Evaluation of DOACs safety and efficacy in this subset of patients deserves further research.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Randomized Controlled Trial
    背景:建立LOwRISkDCIS(LORIS)研究,以比较常规手术治疗与主动监测女性导管原位癌(DCIS)。众所周知,用监视部门招募试验是具有挑战性的,所以最大化患者招募的策略,针对患者和招募中心,已实施。
    方法:年龄≥46岁、经组织学证实诊断为非高级别DCIS的女性有资格1:1随机分入手术或主动监测。在随机化之前,邀请所有符合条件的妇女完成:(1)临床试验问卷(CTQ)检查参与或反对参与的原因,(2)访谈,深入探索关于研究信息表和电影的意见。同意随机化的妇女完成了评估健康状况的有效问卷,身心健康,和焦虑水平。医院现场工作人员被邀请参加交流讲习班和复习现场初始访问,以支持招聘。他们对LORIS招聘的看法是通过调查和访谈收集的。
    结果:80%(181/227)的合格女性同意随机分组。超过40%的参与者在基线时焦虑水平很高。在CTQ上,接受随机化的最常见最重要的原因是利他主义和认为试验提供了最好的治疗方法,而对随机化和他人影响的担忧是下降的最常见最重要的原因。大多数女性发现研究信息提供了清晰和有用的信息。现场工作人员的交流研讨会提高了知识和信心,但只有大约一半的人表示,如果符合条件,他们自己会加入LORIS。工作人员发现的最常见的招募障碍是合格患者数量少和患者偏好。
    结论:尽管针对患者和研究中心工作人员的策略,对LORIS的招募仍具有挑战性。确保招募人员支持研究可以改善未来类似试验的招募。
    背景:ISRCTN27544579,预期于2014年5月22日注册。
    BACKGROUND: The LOw RISk DCIS (LORIS) study was set up to compare conventional surgical treatment with active monitoring in women with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). Recruitment to trials with a surveillance arm is known to be challenging, so strategies to maximise patient recruitment, aimed at both patients and recruiting centres, were implemented.
    METHODS: Women aged ≥ 46 years with a histologically confirmed diagnosis of non-high-grade DCIS were eligible for 1:1 randomisation to either surgery or active monitoring. Prior to randomisation, all eligible women were invited to complete: (1) the Clinical Trials Questionnaire (CTQ) examining reasons for or against participation, and (2) interviews exploring in depth opinions about the study information sheets and film. Women agreeing to randomisation completed validated questionnaires assessing health status, physical and mental health, and anxiety levels. Hospital site staff were invited to communication workshops and refresher site initiation visits to support recruitment. Their perspectives on LORIS recruitment were collected via surveys and interviews.
    RESULTS: Eighty percent (181/227) of eligible women agreed to be randomised. Over 40% of participants had high anxiety levels at baseline. On the CTQ, the most frequent most important reasons for accepting randomisation were altruism and belief that the trial offered the best treatment, whilst worries about randomisation and the influences of others were the most frequent most important reasons for declining. Most women found the study information provided clear and useful. Communication workshops for site staff improved knowledge and confidence but only about half said they themselves would join LORIS if eligible. The most common recruitment barriers identified by staff were low numbers of eligible patients and patient preference.
    CONCLUSIONS: Recruitment to LORIS was challenging despite strategies aimed at both patients and site staff. Ensuring that recruiting staff support the study could improve recruitment in similar future trials.
    BACKGROUND: ISRCTN27544579, prospectively registered on 22 May 2014.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

公众号