Stable hemoglobin concentration with fecal immunochemical test at high temperatures in a Caribbean colorectal cancer screening program

Background and aims: High temperatures may reduce fecal immunochemical test (FIT) positivity and colorectal cancer (CRC) detection sensitivity. We investigated the effect of temperature on hemoglobin concentration [Hb], in the FOB Gold®. Additionally, we examined FIT pick-up, storage, return times and specimen collection. Materials and Methods: In vitro experiments with buffer containing FIT devices, inoculated with Hb-spiked stool. For 7 days, 144 samples were stored in groups of 36 at 4 °C, 22 °C, 30 °C, and 50 °C. Additionally, 54 samples were stored in groups of 18 at 34 °C, 42 °C and 50 °C for 20 h. Paired t-tests and repeated measure ANOVA assessed [Hb] change. Sixty-five screening participants completed a FIT-handling questionnaire. Results: After 7 days, mean [Hb] was stable at 30 °C (0.8 µg Hb/g;95 %CI: −1.5 to 3.1;p = 0.50). For 50 °C, mean [Hb] decreased within 2 days (−21.3 µg Hb/g;95 %CI: −30.2 to −12.5;p &lt; 0.001) and after 20 h (−63.0 µg Hb/g;95 %CI: −88.7 to −37.3;p &lt; 0.001), respectively. All other temperature categories showed significant mean [Hb] increase. Same-day FIT return was reported by 80 %. Eighty-seven percent experienced specimen collection as easy and 33 % kept the FIT refrigerated after collection. Conclusions: The FOB Gold® is suitable for CRC screening in tropical climates. Although most respondents indicated same-day sample return, we recommend avoiding FIT storage above 30 °C for longer than7 days.</p

Stable hemoglobin concentration with fecal immunochemical test at high temperatures in a Caribbean colorectal cancer screening program

Background and aims: High temperatures may reduce fecal immunochemical test (FIT) positivity and colorectal cancer (CRC) detection sensitivity. We investigated the effect of temperature on hemoglobin concentration [Hb], in the FOB Gold®. Additionally, we examined FIT pick-up, storage, return times and specimen collection. Materials and Methods: In vitro experiments with buffer containing FIT devices, inoculated with Hb-spiked stool. For 7 days, 144 samples were stored in groups of 36 at 4 °C, 22 °C, 30 °C, and 50 °C. Additionally, 54 samples were stored in groups of 18 at 34 °C, 42 °C and 50 °C for 20 h. Paired t-tests and repeated measure ANOVA assessed [Hb] change. Sixty-five screening participants completed a FIT-handling questionnaire. Results: After 7 days, mean [Hb] was stable at 30 °C (0.8 µg Hb/g;95 %CI: −1.5 to 3.1;p = 0.50). For 50 °C, mean [Hb] decreased within 2 days (−21.3 µg Hb/g;95 %CI: −30.2 to −12.5;p &lt; 0.001) and after 20 h (−63.0 µg Hb/g;95 %CI: −88.7 to −37.3;p &lt; 0.001), respectively. All other temperature categories showed significant mean [Hb] increase. Same-day FIT return was reported by 80 %. Eighty-seven percent experienced specimen collection as easy and 33 % kept the FIT refrigerated after collection. Conclusions: The FOB Gold® is suitable for CRC screening in tropical climates. Although most respondents indicated same-day sample return, we recommend avoiding FIT storage above 30 °C for longer than7 days.</p

Implementation of a pharmacist-led transitional pharmaceutical care programme:Process evaluation of Medication Actions to Reduce hospital admissions through a collaboration between Community and Hospital pharmacists (MARCH)

What is known and objective: The recently conducted Medication Actions to Reduce hospital admissions through a collaboration between Community and Hospital pharmacists (MARCH) transitional care programme, which aimed to test the effectiveness of a transitional care programme on the occurrence of ADEs post-discharge, did not show a significant effect. To clarify whether this non-significant effect was due to poor implementation or due to ineffectiveness of the intervention as such, a process evaluation was conducted. The aim of the study was to gain more insight into the implementation fidelity of MARCH. Methods: A mixed methods design and the modified Conceptual Framework for Implementation Fidelity was used. For evaluation, the implementation fidelity and moderating factors of four key MARCH intervention components (teach-back, the pharmaceutical discharge letter, the post-discharge home-visit and the transitional medication review) were assessed. Quantitative data were collected during and after the intervention. Qualitative data were collected using semi-structured interviews with MARCH healthcare professionals (community pharmacists, clinical pharmacists, pharmacy assistants and pharmaceutical consultants) and analysed using thematic analysis. Results and Discussion: Not all key intervention components were implemented as intended. Teach-back was not always performed. Moreover, 63% of the pharmaceutical discharge letters, 35% of the post-discharge home-visits and 44% of the transitional medication reviews were not conducted within their planned time frames. Training sessions, structured manuals and protocols with detailed descriptions facilitated implementation. Intervention complexity, time constraints and the multidisciplinary coordination were identified as barriers for the implementation. What is new and Conclusion: Overall, the implementation fidelity was considered to be moderate. Not all key intervention components were carried out as planned. Therefore, the non-significant results of the MARCH programme on ADEs may at least partly be explained by poor implementation of the programme. To successfully implement transitional care programmes, healthcare professionals require full integration of these programmes in the standard work-flow including IT improvements as well as compensation for the time investment

SYMptom monitoring with Patient-Reported Outcomes using a web application among patients with Lung cancer in the Netherlands (SYMPRO-Lung):Study protocol for a stepped-wedge randomised controlled trial

Introduction Lung cancer and its treatment cause a wide range of symptoms impacting the patients’ health-related quality of life (HRQoL). The use of patient-reported outcomes (PRO) to monitor symptoms during and after cancer treatment has been shown not only to improve symptom management but also to improve HRQoL and overall survival (OS). Collectively, these results favour implementation of PRO-symptom monitoring in daily clinical care. However, these promising outcomes have been obtained under trial conditions in which patients were selected based on stringent inclusion criteria, and in countries with a dissimilar healthcare system than in the Netherlands. The primary aim of the SYMptom monitoring with Patient-Reported Outcomes using a web application among patients with Lung cancer in the Netherlands (SYMPRO-Lung) study is to evaluate the effect of PRO-symptom monitoring during and after lung cancer treatment on HRQoL in daily clinical practice. Secondary objectives include assessing the effect of PRO-symptom monitoring on progression-free survival, OS, the incidence and grade of PRO symptoms, medication adherence, implementation fidelity and cost-effectiveness. Methods and analysis The SYMPRO-Lung study is a prospective, multicentre trial with a stepped wedge cluster randomised design. Study participants (n=292 intervention, n=292 controls) include patients with lung cancer (stages I–IV) starting treatment with surgery, systemic treatment, targeted treatment and/or radiotherapy. Every participating centre will consecutively switch from the control period to the intervention period, in which patients report their symptoms weekly via an online tool. In the intervention group, we evaluate two alert approaches: the active and reactive approach. If the symptoms exceed a predefined threshold, an alert is sent to the healthcare provider (active approach) or to the patient (reactive approach). Both the control and intervention group complete HRQoL questionnaires at 4 time points: at baseline, 15 weeks, 6 months and 1-year post treatment). Differences in HRQoL between the groups will be compared using linear mixed modelling analyses, accounting for within-centre clustering, potential time effects and confounding. Ethics and dissemination The study protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board and the Medical Ethics Committee of the Amsterdam UMC (under number NL 68440.029.18) and the institutional review boards of the participating study sites. The dissemination of the results will be conducted through publication in peer-reviewed journals and through scientific conferences. Trial registration number Trial register identifier: Netherlands Trial register Trial NL7897. Date of registration: 24 July 2019. https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/7897

Effectiveness of a Patient-Tailored, Pharmacist-Led Intervention Program to Enhance Adherence to Antihypertensive Medication: The CATI Study

Introduction: Non-adherence to medication is a complex health care problem. In spite of substantial efforts, up till now little progress has been made to effectively tackle the problem with adherence-enhancing interventions. The aim of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of a patient-tailored, pharmacist-led and theory-driven intervention program aimed to enhance self-reported adherence to antihypertensive medication.Materials and Methods: A parallel-group randomized controlled trial in 20 community pharmacies with nine months follow-up was conducted. Patients (45–75 years) using antihypertensive medication and considered non-adherent based on both pharmacy dispensing data and a self-report questionnaire were eligible to participate. The intervention program consisted of two consultations with the pharmacist to identify participants’ barriers to adhere to medication and to counsel participants in overcoming these barriers. The primary outcome was self-reported medication adherence. Secondary outcomes were beliefs about medicines, illness perceptions, quality of life and blood pressure. Mixed-model and generalized estimating equation (GEE) analyses were used to assess overall effects of the intervention program and effects per time point.Results: 170 patients were included. No significant differences between intervention and control groups were found in self-reported adherence, quality of life, illness perceptions, beliefs about medicines (concern scale), and blood pressure. After nine months, intervention participants had significantly stronger beliefs about the necessity of using their medicines as compared to control participants (mean difference 1.25 [95% CI: 0.27 to 2.24], p = 0.012).Discussion: We do not recommend to implement the intervention program in the current form for this study population. Future studies should focus on how to select eligible patient groups with appropriate measures in order to effectively target adherence-enhancing interventions.Trial Register: NTR5017 http://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/rctview.asp?TC=5017

Quality of life after patient-initiated vs physician-initiated response to symptom monitoring:the SYMPRO-Lung trial

BackgroundPrevious studies using patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) to monitor symptoms during and after (lung) cancer treatment used alerts that were sent to the health-care provider, although an approach in which patients receive alerts could be more clinically feasible. The primary aim of this study was to compare the effect of weekly PROM symptom monitoring via a reactive approach (patient receives alert) or active approach (health-care provider receives alert) with care as usual on health-related quality of life (HRQOL) at 15 weeks after start of treatment in lung cancer patients.MethodsThe SYMPRO–Lung trial is a multicenter randomized controlled trial using a stepped wedge design. Stage I-IV lung cancer patients in the reactive and active groups reported PROM symptoms weekly, which were linked to a common alerting algorithm. HRQOL was measured by the EORTC QLQ-C30 at baseline and after 15 weeks. Linear regression analyses and effect size estimates were used to assess mean QOL–C30 change scores between groups, accounting for confounding.ResultsA total of 515 patients were included (160 active group, 89 reactive group, 266 control group). No differences in HRQOL were observed between the reactive and active group (summary score: unstandardized beta [B] = 0.51, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -3.22 to 4.24, Cohen d effect size [ES] = 0.06; physical functioning: B = 0.25, 95% CI = -5.15 to 4.64, ES = 0.02). The combined intervention groups had statistically and clinically significantly better mean change scores on the summary score (B = 4.85, 95% CI = 1.96 to 7.73, ES = 0.57) and physical functioning (B = 7.00, 95% CI = 2.90 to 11.09, ES = 0.71) compared with the control group.ConclusionsWeekly PRO symptom monitoring statistically and clinically significantly improves HRQOL in lung cancer patients. The logistically less intensive, reactive approach may be a better fit for implementation

Can differences in medical drug compliance between European countries be explained by social factors: analyses based on data from the European Social Survey, round 2

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Non-compliance with medication is a major health problem. Cultural differences may explain different compliance patterns. The size of the compliance burden and the impact of socio-demographic and socio-economic status within and across countries in Europe have, however, never been analysed in one survey. The aim of this study was to analyse 1) medical drug compliance in different European countries with respect to socio-demographic and socio-economic factors, and to examine 2) whether cross-national differences could be explained by these factors.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A multi-country interview survey <it>European Social Survey, Round 2 </it>was conducted in 2004/05 comprising questions about compliance with last prescribed drug. Non-compliance was classified as primary and secondary, depending whether the drug was purchased or not. Statistical weighting allowed for adjustment for national differences in sample mechanisms. A multiple imputation strategy was used to compensate for missing values. The analytical approach included multivariate and multilevel analyses.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The survey comprised 45,678 participants. Response rate was 62.5% (range 43.6–79.1%). Reported compliance was generally high (82%) but the pattern of non-compliance showed large variation between countries. Some 3.2% did not purchase the most recently prescribed medicine, and 13.6% did not take the medicine as prescribed. Multiple regression analyses showed that each variable had very different and in some cases opposite impact on compliance within countries. The multilevel analysis showed that the variation between countries did not change significantly when adjusted for increasing numbers of covariates.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Reported compliance was generally high but showed wide variation between countries. Cross-national differences could, however, not be explained by the socio-demographic and socio-economic variables measured.</p

A three-country comparison of psychotropic medication prevalence in youth

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The study aims to compare cross-national prevalence of psychotropic medication use in youth.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A population-based analysis of psychotropic medication use based on administrative claims data for the year 2000 was undertaken for insured enrollees from 3 countries in relation to age group (0–4, 5–9, 10–14, and 15–19), gender, drug subclass pattern and concomitant use. The data include insured youth aged 0–19 in the year 2000 from the Netherlands (n = 110,944), Germany (n = 356,520) and the United States (n = 127,157).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The annual prevalence of any psychotropic medication in youth was significantly greater in the US (6.7%) than in the Netherlands (2.9%) and in Germany (2.0%). Antidepressant and stimulant prevalence were 3 or more times greater in the US than in the Netherlands and Germany, while antipsychotic prevalence was 1.5–2.2 times greater. The atypical antipsychotic subclass represented only 5% of antipsychotic use in Germany, but 48% in the Netherlands and 66% in the US. The less commonly used drugs e.g. alpha agonists, lithium and antiparkinsonian agents generally followed the ranking of US>Dutch>German youth with very rare (less than 0.05%) use in Dutch and German youth. Though rarely used, anxiolytics were twice as common in Dutch as in US and German youth. Prescription hypnotics were half as common as anxiolytics in Dutch and US youth and were very uncommon in German youth. Concomitant drug use applied to 19.2% of US youth which was more than double the Dutch use and three times that of German youth.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Prominent differences in psychotropic medication treatment patterns exist between youth in the US and Western Europe and within Western Europe. Differences in policies regarding direct to consumer drug advertising, government regulatory restrictions, reimbursement policies, diagnostic classification systems, and cultural beliefs regarding the role of medication for emotional and behavioral treatment are likely to account for these differences.</p