EDUCORE project: a clinical trial, randomised by clusters, to assess the effect of a visual learning method on blood pressure control in the primary healthcare setting

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>High blood pressure (HBP) is a major risk factor for cardiovascular disease (CVD). European hypertension and cardiology societies as well as expert committees on CVD prevention recommend stratifying cardiovascular risk using the SCORE method, the modification of lifestyles to prevent CVD, and achieving good control over risk factors. The EDUCORE (Education and Coronary Risk Evaluation) project aims to determine whether the use of a cardiovascular risk visual learning method - the EDUCORE method - is more effective than normal clinical practice in improving the control of blood pressure within one year in patients with poorly controlled hypertension but no background of CVD;</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>This work describes a protocol for a clinical trial, randomised by clusters and involving 22 primary healthcare clinics, to test the effectiveness of the EDUCORE method. The number of patients required was 736, all between 40 and 65 years of age (n = 368 in the EDUCORE and control groups), all of whom had been diagnosed with HBP at least one year ago, and all of whom had poorly controlled hypertension (systolic blood pressure ≥ 140 mmHg and/or diastolic ≥ 90 mmHg). All personnel taking part were explained the trial and trained in its methodology. The EDUCORE method contemplates the visualisation of low risk SCORE scores using images embodying different stages of a high risk action, plus the receipt of a pamphlet explaining how to better maintain cardiac health. The main outcome variable was the control of blood pressure; secondary outcome variables included the SCORE score, therapeutic compliance, quality of life, and total cholesterol level. All outcome variables were measured at the beginning of the experimental period and again at 6 and 12 months. Information on sex, age, educational level, physical activity, body mass index, consumption of medications, change of treatment and blood analysis results was also recorded;</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>The EDUCORE method could provide a simple, inexpensive means of improving blood pressure control, and perhaps other health problems, in the primary healthcare setting;</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>The trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01155973 [<url>http://ClinicalTrials.gov</url>].</p

Patient preferences and treatment safety for uncomplicated vulvovaginal candidiasis in primary health care

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Vaginitis is a common complaint in primary care. In uncomplicated candidal vaginitis, there are no differences in effectiveness between oral or vaginal treatment. Some studies describe that the preferred treatment is the oral one, but a Cochrane's review points out inconsistencies associated with the report of the preferred way that limit the use of such data. Risk factors associated with recurrent vulvovaginal candidiasis still remain controversial.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>This work describes a protocol of a multicentric prospective observational study with one year follow up, to describe the women's reasons and preferences to choose the way of administration (oral vs topical) in the treatment of not complicated candidal vaginitis. The number of women required is 765, they are chosen by consecutive sampling. All of whom are aged 16 and over with vaginal discharge and/or vaginal pruritus, diagnosed with not complicated vulvovaginitis in Primary Care in Madrid.</p> <p>The main outcome variable is the preferences of the patients in treatment choice; secondary outcome variables are time to symptoms relief and adverse reactions and the frequency of recurrent vulvovaginitis and the risk factors. In the statistical analysis, for the main objective will be descriptive for each of the variables, bivariant analysis and multivariate analysis (logistic regression).. The dependent variable being the type of treatment chosen (oral or topical) and the independent, the variables that after bivariant analysis, have been associated to the treatment preference.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>Clinical decisions, recommendations, and practice guidelines must not only attend to the best available evidence, but also to the values and preferences of the informed patient.</p

Second asymptomatic carotid surgery trial (ACST-2): a randomised comparison of carotid artery stenting versus carotid endarterectomy

Background: Among asymptomatic patients with severe carotid artery stenosis but no recent stroke or transient cerebral ischaemia, either carotid artery stenting (CAS) or carotid endarterectomy (CEA) can restore patency and reduce long-term stroke risks. However, from recent national registry data, each option causes about 1% procedural risk of disabling stroke or death. Comparison of their long-term protective effects requires large-scale randomised evidence. Methods: ACST-2 is an international multicentre randomised trial of CAS versus CEA among asymptomatic patients with severe stenosis thought to require intervention, interpreted with all other relevant trials. Patients were eligible if they had severe unilateral or bilateral carotid artery stenosis and both doctor and patient agreed that a carotid procedure should be undertaken, but they were substantially uncertain which one to choose. Patients were randomly allocated to CAS or CEA and followed up at 1 month and then annually, for a mean 5 years. Procedural events were those within 30 days of the intervention. Intention-to-treat analyses are provided. Analyses including procedural hazards use tabular methods. Analyses and meta-analyses of non-procedural strokes use Kaplan-Meier and log-rank methods. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN21144362. Findings: Between Jan 15, 2008, and Dec 31, 2020, 3625 patients in 130 centres were randomly allocated, 1811 to CAS and 1814 to CEA, with good compliance, good medical therapy and a mean 5 years of follow-up. Overall, 1% had disabling stroke or death procedurally (15 allocated to CAS and 18 to CEA) and 2% had non-disabling procedural stroke (48 allocated to CAS and 29 to CEA). Kaplan-Meier estimates of 5-year non-procedural stroke were 2·5% in each group for fatal or disabling stroke, and 5·3% with CAS versus 4·5% with CEA for any stroke (rate ratio [RR] 1·16, 95% CI 0·86–1·57; p=0·33). Combining RRs for any non-procedural stroke in all CAS versus CEA trials, the RR was similar in symptomatic and asymptomatic patients (overall RR 1·11, 95% CI 0·91–1·32; p=0·21). Interpretation: Serious complications are similarly uncommon after competent CAS and CEA, and the long-term effects of these two carotid artery procedures on fatal or disabling stroke are comparable. Funding: UK Medical Research Council and Health Technology Assessment Programme

Traumatic stress symptoms among Spanish healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic: a prospective study

Abstract Aim To investigate the occurrence of traumatic stress symptoms (TSS) among healthcare workers active during the COVID-19 pandemic and to obtain insight as to which pandemic-related stressful experiences are associated with onset and persistence of traumatic stress. Methods This is a multicenter prospective cohort study. Spanish healthcare workers (N = 4,809) participated at an initial assessment (i.e., just after the first wave of the Spain COVID-19 pandemic) and at a 4-month follow-up assessment using web-based surveys. Logistic regression investigated associations of 19 pandemic-related stressful experiences across four domains (infection-related, work-related, health-related and financial) with TSS prevalence, incidence and persistence, including simulations of population attributable risk proportions (PARP). Results Thirty-day TSS prevalence at T1 was 22.1%. Four-month incidence and persistence were 11.6% and 54.2%, respectively. Auxiliary nurses had highest rates of TSS prevalence (35.1%) and incidence (16.1%). All 19 pandemic-related stressful experiences under study were associated with TSS prevalence or incidence, especially experiences from the domains of health-related (PARP range 88.4–95.6%) and work-related stressful experiences (PARP range 76.8–86.5%). Nine stressful experiences were also associated with TSS persistence, of which having patient(s) in care who died from COVID-19 had the strongest association. This association remained significant after adjusting for co-occurring depression and anxiety. Conclusions TSSs among Spanish healthcare workers active during the COVID-19 pandemic are common and associated with various pandemic-related stressful experiences. Future research should investigate if these stressful experiences represent truly traumatic experiences and carry risk for the development of post-traumatic stress disorder