SUGAR-DIP trial: Oral medication strategy versus insulin for diabetes in pregnancy, study protocol for a multicentre, open-label, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial

Introduction In women with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) requiring pharmacotherapy, insulin was the established first-line treatment. More recently, oral glucose lowering drugs (OGLDs) have gained popularity as a patient-friendly, less expensive and safe alternative. Monotherapy with metformin or glibenclamide (glyburide) is incorporated in several international guidelines. In women who do not reach sufficient glucose control with OGLD monotherapy, usually insulin is added, either with or without continuation of OGLDs. No reliable data from clinical trials, however, are available on the effectiveness of a treatment strategy using all three agents, metformin, glibenclamide and insulin, in a stepwise approach, compared with insulin-only therapy for improving pregnancy outcomes. In this trial, we aim to assess the clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and patient experience of a stepwise combined OGLD treatment protocol, compared with conventional insulin-based therapy for GDM. Methods The SUGAR-DIP trial is an open-label, multicentre randomised controlled non-inferiority trial. Participants are women with GDM who do not reach target glycaemic control with modification of diet, between 16 and 34 weeks of gestation. Participants will be randomised to either treatment with OGLDs, starting with metformin and supplemented as needed with glibenclamide, or randomised to treatment with insulin. In women who do not reach target glycaemic control with combined metformin and glibenclamide, glibenclamide will be substituted with insulin, while continuing metformin. The primary outcome will be the incidence of large-for-gestational-age infants (birth weight >90th percentile). Secondary outcome measures are maternal diabetes-related endpoints, obstetric complications, neonatal complications and cost-effectiveness analysis. Outcomes will be analysed according to the intention-to-treat principle. Ethics and dissemination The study protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Utrecht University Medical Centre. Approval by the boards of management for all participating hospitals will be obtained. Trial results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals

Stress, satisfaction and burnout among Dutch medical specialists

BACKGROUND: Stress and stress-related illnesses are increasing among medical specialists. This threatens the quality of patient care. In this study we investigated (a) levels of job stress and job satisfaction among medical specialists, (b) factors contributing to stress and satisfaction and (c) the effect of stress and satisfaction on burnout. METHODS: A questionnaire was mailed to a random sample of 2400 Dutch medical specialists. Measures included job stress, job satisfaction, burnout, personal characteristics, job characteristics and perceived working conditions. RESULTS: The final response rate was 63%. Of the respondents, 55% acknowledged high levels of stress, and 81% reported high job satisfaction. Personal and job characteristics explained 2%–6% of the variance in job stress and satisfaction. Perceived working conditions were more important, explaining 24% of the variance in job stress and 34% of the variance in job satisfaction. Among perceived working conditions, the interference of work on home life (odds ratio [OR] 1.54, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.35–1.76) and not being able to live up to one's professional standards (OR 1.57, 95% CI 1.37–1.80) were most related to stress. Feeling poorly managed and resourced (OR 2.07, 95% CI 1.76–2.43) diminished job satisfaction. Burnout was explained by both high stress and low satisfaction (41% of variance explained) rather than by stress alone. INTERPRETATION: Our study showed a protective effect of job satisfaction against the negative consequences of work stress as well as the importance of organizational rather than personal factors in managing both stress and satisfaction

The Need for a Prophylactic Gastrojejunostomy for Unresectable Periampullary Cancer: A Prospective Randomized Multicenter Trial With Special Focus on Assessment of Quality of Life

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of a prophylactic gastrojejunostomy on the development of gastric outlet obstruction and quality of life in patients with unresectable periampullary cancer found during explorative laparotomy. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Several studies, including one randomized trial, propagate to perform a prophylactic gastrojejunostomy routinely in patients with periampullary cancer found to be unresectable during laparotomy. Others suggest an increase of postoperative complications. Controversy still exists in general surgical practice if a double bypass should be performed routinely in these patients. METHODS: Between December 1998 and March 2002, patients with a periampullary carcinoma who were found to be unresectable during exploration were randomized to receive a double bypass (hepaticojejunostomy and a retrocolic gastrojejunostomy) or a single bypass (hepaticojejunostomy). Randomization was stratified for center and presence of metastases. Patients with gastrointestinal obstruction and patients treated endoscopically for more than 3 months were excluded. Primary endpoints were development of clinical gastric outlet obstruction and surgical intervention for gastric outlet obstruction. Secondary endpoints were mortality, morbidity, hospital stay, survival, and quality of life, measured prospectively by the EORTC-C30 and Pan26 questionnaires. It was decided to perform an interim analysis after inclusion of 50% of the patients (n = 70). RESULTS: Five of the 70 patients randomized were lost to follow-up. From the remaining 65 patients, 36 patients underwent a double and 29 a single bypass. There were no differences in patient demographics, preoperative symptoms, and surgical findings between the groups. Clinical symptoms of gastric outlet obstruction were found in 2 of the 36 patients (5.5%) with a double bypass, and in 12 of the 29 patients (41.4%) with a single bypass (P = 0.001). In the double bypass group, one patient (2.8%) and in the single bypass group 6 patients (20.7%) required (re-)gastrojejunostomy during follow-up (P = 0.04). The absolute risk reduction for reoperation in the double bypass group was 18%, and the numbers needed to treat was 6. Postoperative morbidity rates, including delayed gastric emptying, were 31% in the double versus 28% in the single bypass group (P = 0.12). Median postoperative length of stay was 11 days (range 4–76 days) in the double versus 9 days (range 6–20 days) in the single bypass group (P = 0.06); median survival was 7.2 months in the double versus 8.4 months in the single bypass group (P = 0.15). No differences were found in the quality of life between both groups. After surgery most quality of life scores deteriorated temporarily and were restored to their baseline score (t = −1) within 4 months. CONCLUSIONS: Prophylactic gastrojejunostomy significantly decreases the incidence of gastric outlet obstruction without increasing complication rates. There were no differences in quality of life between the two groups. Together with the previous randomized trial from the Hopkins group, this study provides sufficient evidence to state that a double bypass consisting of a hepaticojejunostomy and a prophylactic gastrojejunostomy is preferable to a single bypass consisting of only a hepaticojejunostomy in patients undergoing surgical palliation for unresectable periampullary carcinoma. Therefore, the trial was stopped earlier than planned