PReVENT - protective ventilation in patients without ARDS at start of ventilation: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background It is uncertain whether lung-protective mechanical ventilation using low tidal volumes should be used in all critically ill patients, irrespective of the presence of the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). A low tidal volume strategy includes use of higher respiratory rates, which could be associated with increased sedation needs, a higher incidence of delirium, and an increased risk of patient-ventilator asynchrony and ICU-acquired weakness. Another alleged side-effect of low tidal volume ventilation is the risk of atelectasis. All of these could offset the beneficial effects of low tidal volume ventilation as found in patients with ARDS. Methods/Design PReVENT is a national multicenter randomized controlled trial in invasively ventilated ICU patients without ARDS with an anticipated duration of ventilation of longer than 24 hours in 5 ICUs in The Netherlands. Consecutive patients are randomly assigned to a low tidal volume strategy using tidal volumes from 4 to 6 ml/kg predicted body weight (PBW) or a high tidal volume ventilation strategy using tidal volumes from 8 to 10 ml/kg PBW. The primary endpoint is the number of ventilator-free days and alive at day 28. Secondary endpoints include ICU and hospital length of stay (LOS), ICU and hospital mortality, the incidence of pulmonary complications, including ARDS, pneumonia, atelectasis, and pneumothorax, the cumulative use and duration of sedatives and neuromuscular blocking agents, incidence of ICU delirium, and the need for decreasing of instrumental dead space. Discussion PReVENT is the first randomized controlled trial comparing a low tidal volume strategy with a high tidal volume strategy, in patients without ARDS at onset of ventilation, that recruits a sufficient number of patients to test the hypothesis that a low tidal volume strategy benefits patients without ARDS with regard to a clinically relevant endpoin

An appeal to the global health community for a tripartite innovation: an ‘‘Essential Diagnostics List,’’ ‘‘Health in All Policies,’’ and ‘‘See-Through 21st Century Science and Ethics"

Diagnostics spanning a wide range of new biotechnologies, including proteomics, metabolomics, and nanotechnology, are emerging as companion tests to innovative medicines. In this Opinion, we present the rationale for promulgating an ‘‘Essential Diagnostics List.’’ Additionally, we explain the ways in which adopting a vision for ‘‘Health in All Policies’’ could link essential diagnostics with robust and timely societal outcomes such as sustainable development, human rights, gender parity, and alleviation of poverty. We do so in three ways. First, we propose the need for a new, ‘‘see through’’ taxonomy for knowledge-based innovation as we transition from the material industries (e.g., textiles, plastic, cement, glass) dominant in the 20th century to the anticipated knowledge industry of the 21st century. If knowledge is the currency of the present century, then it is sensible to adopt an approach that thoroughly examines scientific knowledge, starting with the production aims, methods, quality, distribution, access, and the ends it purports to serve. Second, we explain that this knowledge trajectory focus on innovation is crucial and applicable across all sectors, including public, private, or public–private partnerships, as it underscores the fact that scientific knowledge is a co-product of technology, human values, and social systems. By making the value systems embedded in scientific design and knowledge co-production transparent, we all stand to benefit from sustainable and transparent science. Third, we appeal to the global health community to consider the necessary qualities of good governance for 21st century organizations that will embark on developing essential diagnostics. These have importance not only for science and knowledge based innovation, but also for the ways in which we can build open, healthy, and peaceful civil societies today and for future generations

Shifting breast cancer surveillance from current hospital setting to a community based setting: A cost-effectiveness study

Background: This study explores the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of surveillance after breast cancer treatment provided in a hospital-setting versus surveillance embedded in the community-based National Breast Cancer Screening Program (NBCSP). Methods: Using a decision tree, strategies were compared on effectiveness and costs from a healthcare perspective over a 5-year time horizon. Women aged 50-75 without distant metastases that underwent breast conserving surgery in 2003-2006 were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry (n = 14,093). Key input parameters were mammography sensitivity and specificity, risk of loco regional recurrence (LRR), and direct healthcare costs. Primary outcome measure was the proportion true test results (TTR), expressed as the positive and negative predictive value (PPV, NPV). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) is defined as incremental costs per TTR forgone. Results: For the NBCSP-strategy, 13,534 TTR (8 positive; 13,526 negative), and 12,923 TTR (387 positive; 12,536 negative) were found for low and high risks respectively. For the hospital-based strategy, 26,663 TTR (13 positive; 26,650 negative) and 24,883 TTR (440 positive; 24,443 negative) were found for low and high risks respectively. For low risks, the PPV and NPV for the NBCSP-based strategy were 3.31% and 99.88%, and 2.74% and 99.95% for the hospital strategy respectively. For high risks, the PPV and NPV for the NBCSP-based strategy were 64.10% and 98.87%, and 50.98% and 99.71% for the hospital-based strategy respectively. Total expected costs of the NBCSP-based strategy were lower than for the hospital-based strategy (low risk: €1,271,666 NBCSP vs €2,698,302 hospital; high risk: €6,939,813 NBCSP vs €7,450,150 hospital), rendering ICERs that indicate cost savings of €109 (95%CI €95-€127) (low risk) and €43 (95%CI €39-€56) (high risk) per TTR forgone. Conclusion: Despite expected cost-savings of over 50% in the NBCSP-based strategy, it is nearly 50% lower accurate than the hospital-based strategy, compromising the goal of early detection of LRR to an extent that is unlikely to be acceptable