Design of the Anti-tuberculosis Drugs induced Adverse Reactions in China National Tuberculosis Prevention and Control Scheme Study (ADACS)

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>More than 1 million tuberculosis (TB) patients are receiving the standard anti-TB treatment provided by China National Tuberculosis Prevention and Control Scheme (CNTS) in China every year. Adverse reactions (ADRs) induced by anti-TB drugs could both do harm to patients and lead to anti-TB treatment failure. The ADACS aimed to explore ADRs' incidences, prognoses, economical and public health impacts for TB patients and TB control, and build a DNA bank of TB patients.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>Multiple study designs were adopted. Firstly, a prospective cohort with 4488 sputum smears positive pulmonary tuberculosis patients was established. Patients were followed up for 6-9 months in 52 counties of four regions. Those suspected ADRs should be checked and confirmed by Chinese State Food and Drug Administration (SFDA). Secondly, if the suspected ADR was anti-TB drug induced liver injury (ATLI), a nested case-control study would be performed which comprised choosing a matched control and doing a plus questionnaire inquiry. Thirdly, health economical data of ADRs would be collected to analyze financial burdens brought by ADRs and cost-effectiveness of ADRs' treatments. Fourthly, a drop of intravenous blood for each patient was taken and saved in FTA card for DNA banking and genotyping. Finally, the demographic, clinical, environmental, administrative and genetic data would be merged for the comprehensive analysis.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>ADACS will give an overview of anti-TB drugs induced ADRs' incidences, risk factors, treatments, prognoses, and clinical, economical and public health impacts for TB patients applying CNTS regimen in China, and provide suggestions for individualized health care and TB control policy.</p

Clinical practice: Coeliac disease

Coeliac disease (CD) is an immune-mediated systemic condition elicited by gluten and related prolamines in genetically predisposed individuals and characterised by gluten-induced symptoms and signs, specific antibodies, a specific human leukocyte antigen (HLA) type and enteropathy. The risk of coeliac disease is increased in first-degree relatives, certain syndromes including Down syndrome and autoimmune disorders. It is thought to occur in 1 in 100–200 individuals, but still only one in four cases is diagnosed. Small-bowel biopsy is no longer deemed necessary in a subgroup of patients, i.e. when all of the following are present: typical symptoms or signs, high titres of and transglutaminase antibodies, endomysial antibodies, and HLA-type DQ2 or DQ8. In all other cases, small-bowel biopsy remains mandatory for a correct diagnosis. Therapy consists of a strictly gluten-free diet. This should result in complete disappearance of symptoms and of serological markers. Adequate follow-up is considered essential. Conclusion: Although small-bowel biopsy may be omitted in a minority of patients, small-bowel biopsy is essential for a correct diagnosis of CD in all other cases. Diagnostic work-up should be completed before treatment with gluten-free diet instituted

Do physician outcome judgments and judgment biases contribute to inappropriate use of treatments? Study protocol

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>There are many examples of physicians using treatments inappropriately, despite clear evidence about the circumstances under which the benefits of such treatments outweigh their harms. When such over- or under- use of treatments occurs for common diseases, the burden to the healthcare system and risks to patients can be substantial. We propose that a major contributor to inappropriate treatment may be how clinicians judge the likelihood of important treatment outcomes, and how these judgments influence their treatment decisions. The current study will examine the role of judged outcome probabilities and other cognitive factors in the context of two clinical treatment decisions: 1) prescription of antibiotics for sore throat, where we hypothesize overestimation of benefit and underestimation of harm leads to over-prescription of antibiotics; and 2) initiation of anticoagulation for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), where we hypothesize that underestimation of benefit and overestimation of harm leads to under-prescription of warfarin.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>For each of the two conditions, we will administer surveys of two types (Type 1 and Type 2) to different samples of Canadian physicians. The primary goal of the Type 1 survey is to assess physicians' perceived outcome probabilities (both good and bad outcomes) for the target treatment. Type 1 surveys will assess judged outcome probabilities in the context of a representative patient, and include questions about how physicians currently treat such cases, the recollection of rare or vivid outcomes, as well as practice and demographic details. The primary goal of the Type 2 surveys is to measure the specific factors that drive individual clinical judgments and treatment decisions, using a 'clinical judgment analysis' or 'lens modeling' approach. This survey will manipulate eight clinical variables across a series of sixteen realistic case vignettes. Based on the survey responses, we will be able to identify which variables have the greatest effect on physician judgments, and whether judgments are affected by inappropriate cues or incorrect weighting of appropriate cues. We will send antibiotics surveys to family physicians (300 per survey), and warfarin surveys to both family physicians and internal medicine specialists (300 per group per survey), for a total of 1,800 physicians. Each Type 1 survey will be two to four pages in length and take about fifteen minutes to complete, while each Type 2 survey will be eight to ten pages in length and take about thirty minutes to complete.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>This work will provide insight into the extent to which clinicians' judgments about the likelihood of important treatment outcomes explain inappropriate treatment decisions. This work will also provide information necessary for the development of an individualized feedback tool designed to improve treatment decisions. The techniques developed here have the potential to be applicable to a wide range of clinical areas where inappropriate utilization stems from biased judgments.</p

Short- and long-term effects of clinical audits on compliance with procedures in CT scanning

Purpose: To test the hypothesis that quality clinical audits improve compliance with the procedures in computed tomography (CT) scanning. Materials and methods: This retrospective study was conducted in two hospitals, based on 6950 examinations and four procedures, focusing on the acquisition length in lumbar spine CT, the default tube current applied in abdominal un-enhanced CT, the tube potential selection for portal phase abdominal CT and the use of a specific “paediatric brain CT” procedure. The first clinical audit reported compliance with these procedures. After presenting the results to the stakeholders, a second audit was conducted to measure the impact of this information on compliance and was repeated the next year. Comparisons of proportions were performed using the Chi-square Pearson test. Results: Depending on the procedure, the compliance rate ranged from 27 to 88 % during the first audit. After presentation of the audit results to the stakeholders, the compliance rate ranged from 68 to 93 % and was significantly improved for all procedures (P ranging from <0.001 to 0.031) in both hospitals and remained unchanged during the third audit (P ranging from 0.114 to 0.999). Conclusion: Quality improvement through repeated compliance audits with CT procedures durably improves this compliance. Key Points: • Compliance with CT procedures is operator-dependent and not perfect. • Compliance differs between procedures and hospitals, even within a unified department. • Compliance is improved through audits followed by communication to the stakeholders. • This improvement is sustainable over a one-year period.SCOPUS: ar.jinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishe