Assessment with children who need augmentative and alternative communication (AAC): Clinical decisions of AAC specialists.

Purpose The purpose of this study was to explore how speech-language pathologists (SLPs) who are augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) specialists approach the assessment process for 2 case studies, 1 child with cerebral palsy and 1 with autism spectrum disorder. The aim of the study was to answer the following questions: (a) How do clinicians with expertise approach the AAC assessment process for children with developmental disabilities? (b) Can any initial hypothesis be drawn about how SLPs approach the assessment of children with motor versus social interactive deficits? Method This study used a phenomenological qualitative design. The researchers conducted 2 in-depth, semistructured interviews with 8 SLPs who specialized in AAC and self-identified as primarily working with children. Results Four major themes emerged from the data: area of assessment, method of assessment, evaluation preparation, and parent education. Each major theme contained multiple subthemes and categories within those subthemes. Conclusions Participants discussed similar areas of assessment for both cases, indicating that some aspects of AAC assessment are universal. However, the specific aspects of what they were assessing and how they went about assessing them differed between the 2 cases. The results of the current study provide an outline of an assessment protocol for children with complex communication needs

Assessment with children who need augmentative and alternative communication (AAC): Clinical decisions of AAC specialists.

Purpose The purpose of this study was to explore how speech-language pathologists (SLPs) who are augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) specialists approach the assessment process for 2 case studies, 1 child with cerebral palsy and 1 with autism spectrum disorder. The aim of the study was to answer the following questions: (a) How do clinicians with expertise approach the AAC assessment process for children with developmental disabilities? (b) Can any initial hypothesis be drawn about how SLPs approach the assessment of children with motor versus social interactive deficits? Method This study used a phenomenological qualitative design. The researchers conducted 2 in-depth, semistructured interviews with 8 SLPs who specialized in AAC and self-identified as primarily working with children. Results Four major themes emerged from the data: area of assessment, method of assessment, evaluation preparation, and parent education. Each major theme contained multiple subthemes and categories within those subthemes. Conclusions Participants discussed similar areas of assessment for both cases, indicating that some aspects of AAC assessment are universal. However, the specific aspects of what they were assessing and how they went about assessing them differed between the 2 cases. The results of the current study provide an outline of an assessment protocol for children with complex communication needs

Management of Worsening Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction:<i>JACC </i>Focus Seminar 3/3

Despite worsening heart failure (HF) being extremely common, expensive, and associated with substantial risk of death, there remain no dedicated clinical practice guidelines for the specific management of these patients. The lack of a management guideline is despite a rapidly evolving evidence-base, as a number of recent clinical trials have demonstrated multiple therapies to be safe and efficacious in this high-risk population. Herein, we propose a framework for treating worsening HF with reduced ejection fraction with the sense of urgency it deserves. This includes treating congestion; managing precipitants; and establishing a foundation of rapid-sequence, simultaneous, and/or in-hospital initiation of quadruple medical therapy for HF with reduced ejection fraction, with the top priority being at least low doses of all 4 medications. Moreover, to maximally reduce residual clinical risk, we further propose consideration of upfront simultaneous use of vericiguat (ie, quintuple medical therapy) and administration of intravenous iron for those who are iron deficient.</p

International validation of the EORTC QLQ-PRT20 module for assessment of quality of life symptoms relating to radiation proctitis: A phase IV study

Background: Although patients experience radiation proctitis post radiotherapy no internationally tested instruments exist to measure these symptoms. This Phase IV study tested the scale structure, reliability and validity and cross-cultural applicability of the EORTC proctitis module (QLQ-PRT23) in patients who were receiving pelvic radiotherapy. Methods: Patients (n = 358) from six countries completed the EORTC QLQ-C30, QLQ-PRT23 and EORTC Quality of Life Group debriefing questions. Clinicians completed the EORTC Radiation Therapy Oncology Group scale. Questionnaires were completed at four time-points. The module’s scale structure was examined and validated using standard psychometric analysis techniques. Results: Three items were dropped from the module (QLQ-PRT23→QLQ-PRT20). Factor analysis identified five factors in the module: bowel control; bloating and gas; emotional function/lifestyle; pain; and leakage. Inter-item correlations were within r = 0.3–0.7. Test-Retest reliability was high. All multi-item scales discriminated between patients showing symptoms and those without symptomology. The module discriminated symptoms from the clinician completed scoring and for age, gender and comorbidities. Conclusion: The EORTC QLQ-PRT20 is designed to be used in addition to the EORTC QLQ-C30 to measure quality of life in patients who receive pelvic radiotherapy. The EORTC QLQ-PRT20 is quick to complete, acceptable to patients, has good content validity and high reliability. Trial registration: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) ACTRN1260900097222

The impact of immediate breast reconstruction on the time to delivery of adjuvant therapy: the iBRA-2 study

Background: Immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) is routinely offered to improve quality-of-life for women requiring mastectomy, but there are concerns that more complex surgery may delay adjuvant oncological treatments and compromise long-term outcomes. High-quality evidence is lacking. The iBRA-2 study aimed to investigate the impact of IBR on time to adjuvant therapy. Methods: Consecutive women undergoing mastectomy ± IBR for breast cancer July–December, 2016 were included. Patient demographics, operative, oncological and complication data were collected. Time from last definitive cancer surgery to first adjuvant treatment for patients undergoing mastectomy ± IBR were compared and risk factors associated with delays explored. Results: A total of 2540 patients were recruited from 76 centres; 1008 (39.7%) underwent IBR (implant-only [n = 675, 26.6%]; pedicled flaps [n = 105,4.1%] and free-flaps [n = 228, 8.9%]). Complications requiring re-admission or re-operation were significantly more common in patients undergoing IBR than those receiving mastectomy. Adjuvant chemotherapy or radiotherapy was required by 1235 (48.6%) patients. No clinically significant differences were seen in time to adjuvant therapy between patient groups but major complications irrespective of surgery received were significantly associated with treatment delays. Conclusions: IBR does not result in clinically significant delays to adjuvant therapy, but post-operative complications are associated with treatment delays. Strategies to minimise complications, including careful patient selection, are required to improve outcomes for patients

Breast cancer management pathways during the COVID-19 pandemic: outcomes from the UK ‘Alert Level 4’ phase of the B-MaP-C study

Abstract: Background: The B-MaP-C study aimed to determine alterations to breast cancer (BC) management during the peak transmission period of the UK COVID-19 pandemic and the potential impact of these treatment decisions. Methods: This was a national cohort study of patients with early BC undergoing multidisciplinary team (MDT)-guided treatment recommendations during the pandemic, designated ‘standard’ or ‘COVID-altered’, in the preoperative, operative and post-operative setting. Findings: Of 3776 patients (from 64 UK units) in the study, 2246 (59%) had ‘COVID-altered’ management. ‘Bridging’ endocrine therapy was used (n = 951) where theatre capacity was reduced. There was increasing access to COVID-19 low-risk theatres during the study period (59%). In line with national guidance, immediate breast reconstruction was avoided (n = 299). Where adjuvant chemotherapy was omitted (n = 81), the median benefit was only 3% (IQR 2–9%) using ‘NHS Predict’. There was the rapid adoption of new evidence-based hypofractionated radiotherapy (n = 781, from 46 units). Only 14 patients (1%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 during their treatment journey. Conclusions: The majority of ‘COVID-altered’ management decisions were largely in line with pre-COVID evidence-based guidelines, implying that breast cancer survival outcomes are unlikely to be negatively impacted by the pandemic. However, in this study, the potential impact of delays to BC presentation or diagnosis remains unknown

Omecamtiv mecarbil in chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, GALACTIC‐HF: baseline characteristics and comparison with contemporary clinical trials

Aims: The safety and efficacy of the novel selective cardiac myosin activator, omecamtiv mecarbil, in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is tested in the Global Approach to Lowering Adverse Cardiac outcomes Through Improving Contractility in Heart Failure (GALACTIC‐HF) trial. Here we describe the baseline characteristics of participants in GALACTIC‐HF and how these compare with other contemporary trials. Methods and Results: Adults with established HFrEF, New York Heart Association functional class (NYHA) ≥ II, EF ≤35%, elevated natriuretic peptides and either current hospitalization for HF or history of hospitalization/ emergency department visit for HF within a year were randomized to either placebo or omecamtiv mecarbil (pharmacokinetic‐guided dosing: 25, 37.5 or 50 mg bid). 8256 patients [male (79%), non‐white (22%), mean age 65 years] were enrolled with a mean EF 27%, ischemic etiology in 54%, NYHA II 53% and III/IV 47%, and median NT‐proBNP 1971 pg/mL. HF therapies at baseline were among the most effectively employed in contemporary HF trials. GALACTIC‐HF randomized patients representative of recent HF registries and trials with substantial numbers of patients also having characteristics understudied in previous trials including more from North America (n = 1386), enrolled as inpatients (n = 2084), systolic blood pressure &lt; 100 mmHg (n = 1127), estimated glomerular filtration rate &lt; 30 mL/min/1.73 m2 (n = 528), and treated with sacubitril‐valsartan at baseline (n = 1594). Conclusions: GALACTIC‐HF enrolled a well‐treated, high‐risk population from both inpatient and outpatient settings, which will provide a definitive evaluation of the efficacy and safety of this novel therapy, as well as informing its potential future implementation