Randomised, placebo-controlled trial of dexamethasone for quality of life in pulmonary sarcoidosis

Background: Many patients with pulmonary sarcoidosis experience reduced quality of life. Although oral corticosteroids are the most common agents used in sarcoidosis, very little is known on the effects on quality of life. Methods: In this double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, newly diagnosed patients without an indication for high dose immunosuppressive therapy were randomised to once-daily dexamethasone 1 mg (6.5 mg prednisone equivalent) or placebo for 6 months. The primary study parameter was the subscale physical functioning of the 36-item Short Form health survey (SF-36). Secondary parameters included five other patient reported outcome measures, disease activity markers and plasma cytokine profiles. Results: A total of 16 patients was randomised to dexamethasone (n = 7) and placebo (n = 9). During follow-up no significant difference for physical functioning was measured (p = 0.18). Dexamethasone treated patients showed a decrease in fatigue score (Checklist Individual Strength) from 106 (baseline) to 88 (3 months; p = 0.03); 86 (6 months; p = 0.05); 79 (9 months; p = 0.04); 90 (12 months; p = 0.03). Placebo treated patients showed no change: 96 (baseline) to 105 (3 months; p = 0.16); 91 (6 months; p = 0.48); 92 (9 months; p = 0.61); 95 (12 months; p = 0.90). During treatment with dexamethasone significant improvements in the SF-36 subscales vitality and pain, and a significant reduction in serum angiotensin-converting enzyme, soluble interleukin 2 receptor levels and serum cytokines and chemokines were measured. Conclusions: Low-dose dexamethasone results in a reduction of the inflammatory profile and has the potential to improve quality of life parameters and fatigue

Adoption of antithrombotic stewardship and utilization of clinical decision support systems —A questionnaire-based survey in Dutch hospitals

Antithrombotics require careful monitoring to prevent adverse events. Safe use can be promoted through so-called antithrombotic stewardship. Clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) can be used to monitor safe use of antithrombotics, supporting antithrombotic stewardship efforts. Yet, previous research shows that despite these interventions, antithrombotics continue to cause harm. Insufficient adoption of antithrombotic stewardship and suboptimal use of CDSSs may provide and explanation. However, it is currently unknown to what extent hospitals adopted antithrombotic stewardship and utilize CDSSs to support safe use of antithrombotics. A semi-structured questionnaire-based survey was disseminated to 12 hospital pharmacists from different hospital types and regions in the Netherlands. The primary outcome was the degree of antithrombotic stewardship adoption, expressed as the number of tasks adopted per hospital and the degree of adoption per task. Secondary outcomes included characteristics of CDSS alerts used to monitor safe use of antithrombotics. All 12 hospital pharmacists completed the survey and report to have adopted antithrombotic stewardship in their hospital to a certain degree. The median adoption of tasks was two of five tasks (range 1–3). The tasks with the highest uptake were: drafting and maintenance of protocols (100%) and professional’s education (58%), while care transition optimization (25%), medication reviews (8%) and patient counseling (8%) had the lowest uptake. All hospitals used a CDSS to monitor safe use of antithrombotics, mainly via basic alerts and less frequently via advanced alerts. The most frequently employed alerts were: identification of patients using a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) or a vitamin K antagonist (VKA) with one or more other antithrombotics (n = 6) and patients using a VKA to evaluate correct use (n = 6), both reflecting basic CDSS. All participating hospitals adopted antithrombotic stewardship, but the adopted tasks vary. CDSS alerts used are mainly basic in their logic.</p

Development and Evaluation of a Real-World Outcomes-Based Tool to Support Informed Clinical Decision Making in the Palliative Treatment of Patients With Metastatic NSCLC

PURPOSE: To develop and evaluate a tool for patients with stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer and their thoracic oncologists (TOs) that provides insight into real-world effectiveness of systemic treatments to support informed clinical decision making in the palliative setting. METHODS: A participatory design approach was used to acquire insights from patients and TOs into preferences regarding the content and design of the web-based tool. Implementation was investigated by means of an adoption and usage rate. The appreciation of the tool was evaluated through a telephone survey with patients and a questionnaire for TOs. RESULTS: From clinical data of 2,989 patients with stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer diagnosed in one of the Santeon hospitals, an interface was developed to show treatments plus both real-world outcomes and clinical trial results after selecting patient characteristics (patients like me). This prototype of the tool was finalized after discussion in a focus group with four TOs and semi-structured interviews with six patients. The tool was implemented and used by TOs in three of six Santeon hospitals (50% adoption rate). The tool was used in 48 patients (29% usage rate), of which 17 participated in the telephone survey. Ten TOs responded to the questionnaire. The responses varied from positive reactions on the clear overview of treatment outcomes to statements that the tool rarely changed treatment decisions. Overall, the majority of patients and TOs scored the tool as of added value (71% and 83%, respectively). CONCLUSION: Our real-world data tool in metastatic lung cancer was appreciated in clinical practice by both patients and TOs. However, the efficacy of the implementation can be improved

Assessing accuracy of ChatGPT in response to questions from day to day pharmaceutical care in hospitals

Background: The advent of Large Language Models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT introduces opportunities within the medical field. Nonetheless, use of LLM poses a risk when healthcare practitioners and patients present clinical questions to these programs without a comprehensive understanding of its suitability for clinical contexts. Objective: The objective of this study was to assess ChatGPT's ability to generate appropriate responses to clinical questions that hospital pharmacists could encounter during routine patient care. Methods: Thirty questions from 10 different domains within clinical pharmacy were collected during routine care. Questions were presented to ChatGPT in a standardized format, including patients' age, sex, drug name, dose, and indication. Subsequently, relevant information regarding specific cases were provided, and the prompt was concluded with the query “what would a hospital pharmacist do?”. The impact on accuracy was assessed for each domain by modifying personification to “what would you do?”, presenting the question in Dutch, and regenerating the primary question. All responses were independently evaluated by two senior hospital pharmacists, focusing on the availability of an advice, accuracy and concordance. Results: In 77% of questions, ChatGPT provided an advice in response to the question. For these responses, accuracy and concordance were determined. Accuracy was correct and complete for 26% of responses, correct but incomplete for 22% of responses, partially correct and partially incorrect for 30% of responses and completely incorrect for 22% of responses. The reproducibility was poor, with merely 10% of responses remaining consistent upon regeneration of the primary question. Conclusions: While concordance of responses was excellent, the accuracy and reproducibility were poor. With the described method, ChatGPT should not be used to address questions encountered by hospital pharmacists during their shifts. However, it is important to acknowledge the limitations of our methodology, including potential biases, which may have influenced the findings

Development of the First Patient-centred Set of Outcomes for Muscle-invasive and Metastatic Bladder Cancer: A Multicentre Initiative

Background: To improve and compare outcomes in healthcare, it is necessary to standardise outcome measurements. There are no widely accepted standardised outcome measures reflecting quality of care for bladder cancer (BCa) patients. Objective: The aim of this study was to create a standardised set of outcomes for patients with muscle-invasive or metastatic BCa, using the value-based healthcare principles. Design, setting, and participants: A multidisciplinary working group of 25 healthcare professionals and patient representatives was assembled, to develop the set. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: We used an online RAND-modified Delphi process to prioritise, discuss, and reach consensus regarding the outcomes, case-mix variables, and treatment factors. Results and limitations: Recognising the heterogeneity of patients with BCa, the working group defined the scope as patients with muscle-invasive and metastatic BCa. A total of 24 outcomes, including ten patient-reported outcomes, were included in the standard set of outcomes, covering survival, complication rates, recurrence of disease, readmissions after treatment, and quality of life (QoL). Fourteen case-mix variables were included. The EQ-5D and European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer quality of life (EORTC-QLQ) questionnaires were recommended to measure QoL. Conclusions: We developed the first standardised set of patient-centred outcomes for muscle-invasive and metastatic BCa. The sue of this set enables institutions to monitor, compare, and improve the quality of BCa care, on an international level. Patient summary: Our group of healthcare professionals and patient representatives recommended a standardised set of patient-centred outcomes to be followed during the treatment of patients with muscle-invasive or metastatic bladder cancer, in order to monitor, compare, and improve the quality of care

Exploring the impact of patient-specific clinical features on osimertinib effectiveness in a real-world cohort of patients with EGFR mutated non-small cell lung cancer

Osimertinib is prescribed to patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and a sensitizing EGFR mutation. Limited data exists on the impact of patient characteristics or osimertinib exposure on effectiveness outcomes. This was a Dutch, multicenter cohort study. Eligible patients were ≥18 years, with metastatic EGFRm+ NSCLC, receiving osimertinib. Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS) and safety. Kaplan-Meier analyses and multivariate Cox proportional hazard models were performed. In total, 294 patients were included. Primary EGFR-mutations were mainly exon 19 deletions (54%) and p.L858R point mutations (30%). Osimertinib was given in first-line (40%), second-line (46%) or beyond (14%), with median PFS 14.4 (95% CI: 9.4-19.3), 13.9 (95% CI: 11.3-16.1) and 8.7 months (95% CI: 4.6-12.7), respectively. Patients with low BMI (&lt;20.0 kg/m2) had significantly shorter PFS/OS compared to all other subgroups. Patients with a high plasma trough concentration in steady state (Cmin,SS; &gt;271 ng/mL) had shorter PFS compared to a low Cmin,SS (&lt;163 ng/mL; aHR 2.29; 95% CI: 1.13-4.63). A significant longer PFS was seen in females (aHR = 0.61, 95% CI: 0.45-0.82) and patients with the exon 19 deletion (aHR = 0.58, 95% CI: 0.36-0.92). A trend towards longer PFS was seen for TP53 wild-type patients, while age did not impact PFS. Patients with a primary EGFR exon 19 deletion had longer PFS, while a low BMI, male sex and a high Cmin,SS were indicative for shorter PFS and/or OS. Age was not associated with effectiveness outcomes of osimertinib.</p

Exploring the impact of patient-specific clinical features on osimertinib effectiveness in a real-world cohort of patients with EGFR mutated non-small cell lung cancer

Osimertinib is prescribed to patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and a sensitizing EGFR mutation. Limited data exists on the impact of patient characteristics or osimertinib exposure on effectiveness outcomes. This was a Dutch, multicenter cohort study. Eligible patients were ≥18 years, with metastatic EGFRm+ NSCLC, receiving osimertinib. Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS) and safety. Kaplan-Meier analyses and multivariate Cox proportional hazard models were performed. In total, 294 patients were included. Primary EGFR-mutations were mainly exon 19 deletions (54%) and p.L858R point mutations (30%). Osimertinib was given in first-line (40%), second-line (46%) or beyond (14%), with median PFS 14.4 (95% CI: 9.4-19.3), 13.9 (95% CI: 11.3-16.1) and 8.7 months (95% CI: 4.6-12.7), respectively. Patients with low BMI (271 ng/mL) had shorter PFS compared to a low Cmin,SS (<163 ng/mL; aHR 2.29; 95% CI: 1.13-4.63). A significant longer PFS was seen in females (aHR = 0.61, 95% CI: 0.45-0.82) and patients with the exon 19 deletion (aHR = 0.58, 95% CI: 0.36-0.92). A trend towards longer PFS was seen for TP53 wild-type patients, while age did not impact PFS. Patients with a primary EGFR exon 19 deletion had longer PFS, while a low BMI, male sex and a high Cmin,SS were indicative for shorter PFS and/or OS. Age was not associated with effectiveness outcomes of osimertinib

Quantitative and qualitative assessment of real world data comparative effectiveness research of systemic therapies in lung oncology: A systematic review

Introduction The growing interest in comparative effectiveness research (CER) based on data from routine clinical practice also extends towards lung oncology. Although CER studies using real world data (RWD) have the potential to assist clinical decision-making, concerns about the quality and validity of studies with observational data subsist. The primary objective of the present study is to assess the current status of observational CER in the field of lung oncology, both quantitatively as qualitatively. Methods We performed a systematic electronic literature database search in MEDLINE and EMBASE (up to 1 July 2015). The quality of all selected studies was assessed according to the Good ReseArch for Comparative Effectiveness (GRACE) checklist. Results The first selection included 657 publications. After screening the corresponding abstracts and full-text papers, 38 studies remained. A total of 36 studies included patients with advanced NSCLC. The comparison of the effectiveness of gefitinib versus erlotinib was the main objective in 22% of the studies. The median number of patients per study was 202 (range 21–10064). The number of publications increased over the years whereas the quality score remained stable over the years with several common shortcomings (checklist items M5, D1, D4, D6). Discussion The growing interest in clinical oncology CER studies using RWD is reflected in an increasing number of publications in the recent years. The studies have several common methodological shortcomings possibly limiting their applicability in clinical decision-making. To fulfil the promise of RWD CER in lung oncology effort should be continued to overcome these shortcomings