Addressing Cancer Disparities via Community Network Mobilization and Intersectoral Partnerships: A Social Network Analysis

Community mobilization and collaboration among diverse partners are vital components of the effort to reduce and eliminate cancer disparities in the United States. We studied the development and impact of intersectoral connections among the members of the Massachusetts Community Network for Cancer Education, Research, and Training (MassCONECT). As one of the Community Network Program sites funded by the National Cancer Institute, this infrastructure-building initiative utilized principles of Community-based Participatory Research (CBPR) to unite community coalitions, researchers, policymakers, and other important stakeholders to address cancer disparities in three Massachusetts communities: Boston, Lawrence, and Worcester. We conducted a cross-sectional, sociometric network analysis four years after the network was formed. A total of 38 of 55 members participated in the study (69% response rate). Over four years of collaboration, the number of intersectoral connections reported by members (intersectoral out-degree) increased, as did the extent to which such connections were reported reciprocally (intersectoral reciprocity). We assessed relationships between these markers of intersectoral collaboration and three intermediate outcomes in the effort to reduce and eliminate cancer disparities: delivery of community activities, policy engagement, and grants/publications. We found a positive and statistically significant relationship between intersectoral out-degree and community activities and policy engagement (the relationship was borderline significant for grants/publications). We found a positive and statistically significant relationship between intersectoral reciprocity and community activities and grants/publications (the relationship was borderline significant for policy engagement). The study suggests that intersectoral connections may be important drivers of diverse intermediate outcomes in the effort to reduce and eliminate cancer disparities. The findings support investment in infrastructure-building and intersectoral mobilization in addressing disparities and highlight the benefits of using CBPR approaches for such work

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570

Mortality from gastrointestinal congenital anomalies at 264 hospitals in 74 low-income, middle-income, and high-income countries: a multicentre, international, prospective cohort study

Summary Background Congenital anomalies are the fifth leading cause of mortality in children younger than 5 years globally. Many gastrointestinal congenital anomalies are fatal without timely access to neonatal surgical care, but few studies have been done on these conditions in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). We compared outcomes of the seven most common gastrointestinal congenital anomalies in low-income, middle-income, and high-income countries globally, and identified factors associated with mortality. Methods We did a multicentre, international prospective cohort study of patients younger than 16 years, presenting to hospital for the first time with oesophageal atresia, congenital diaphragmatic hernia, intestinal atresia, gastroschisis, exomphalos, anorectal malformation, and Hirschsprung’s disease. Recruitment was of consecutive patients for a minimum of 1 month between October, 2018, and April, 2019. We collected data on patient demographics, clinical status, interventions, and outcomes using the REDCap platform. Patients were followed up for 30 days after primary intervention, or 30 days after admission if they did not receive an intervention. The primary outcome was all-cause, in-hospital mortality for all conditions combined and each condition individually, stratified by country income status. We did a complete case analysis. Findings We included 3849 patients with 3975 study conditions (560 with oesophageal atresia, 448 with congenital diaphragmatic hernia, 681 with intestinal atresia, 453 with gastroschisis, 325 with exomphalos, 991 with anorectal malformation, and 517 with Hirschsprung’s disease) from 264 hospitals (89 in high-income countries, 166 in middleincome countries, and nine in low-income countries) in 74 countries. Of the 3849 patients, 2231 (58·0%) were male. Median gestational age at birth was 38 weeks (IQR 36–39) and median bodyweight at presentation was 2·8 kg (2·3–3·3). Mortality among all patients was 37 (39·8%) of 93 in low-income countries, 583 (20·4%) of 2860 in middle-income countries, and 50 (5·6%) of 896 in high-income countries (p<0·0001 between all country income groups). Gastroschisis had the greatest difference in mortality between country income strata (nine [90·0%] of ten in lowincome countries, 97 [31·9%] of 304 in middle-income countries, and two [1·4%] of 139 in high-income countries; p≤0·0001 between all country income groups). Factors significantly associated with higher mortality for all patients combined included country income status (low-income vs high-income countries, risk ratio 2·78 [95% CI 1·88–4·11], p<0·0001; middle-income vs high-income countries, 2·11 [1·59–2·79], p<0·0001), sepsis at presentation (1·20 [1·04–1·40], p=0·016), higher American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score at primary intervention (ASA 4–5 vs ASA 1–2, 1·82 [1·40–2·35], p<0·0001; ASA 3 vs ASA 1–2, 1·58, [1·30–1·92], p<0·0001]), surgical safety checklist not used (1·39 [1·02–1·90], p=0·035), and ventilation or parenteral nutrition unavailable when needed (ventilation 1·96, [1·41–2·71], p=0·0001; parenteral nutrition 1·35, [1·05–1·74], p=0·018). Administration of parenteral nutrition (0·61, [0·47–0·79], p=0·0002) and use of a peripherally inserted central catheter (0·65 [0·50–0·86], p=0·0024) or percutaneous central line (0·69 [0·48–1·00], p=0·049) were associated with lower mortality. Interpretation Unacceptable differences in mortality exist for gastrointestinal congenital anomalies between lowincome, middle-income, and high-income countries. Improving access to quality neonatal surgical care in LMICs will be vital to achieve Sustainable Development Goal 3.2 of ending preventable deaths in neonates and children younger than 5 years by 2030

Processus et enjeux de la gestion des anomalies. Application au suivi environnemental des zones à atmosphère contrôlée

Les vaccins doivent répondre à des exigences qualité très strictes et leur production est très encadrée par les réglementations. De nombreux moyens de maîtrise de l’environnement sont mis en œuvre pour répondre à ces exigences. Des contrôles adaptés à la criticité des opérations de production sont réalisés pour vérifier la maîtrise de l’environnement et des procédés. Des prélèvements microbiologiques sont réalisés sur les tenues des collaborateurs et sur l’environnement (air ambiant et surfaces) afin de contrôler si des microorganismes sont présents et éventuellement, de les identifier. Le nombre de microorganismes obtenu est comparé aux seuils de référence imposés par les réglementations. Cependant, malgré les exigences strictes auxquelles répondent les industries du médicament, il est possible d’obtenir des résultats en dehors des seuils. C’est-à-dire, qu’un nombre de germes supérieur aux exigences est retrouvé. Parfois, certains germes dits « indésirables » peuvent être présents. Ces situations peuvent mener à la déclaration d’une anomalie (ou déviation) et toute anomalie doit être traitée. Le processus de traitement des anomalies comporte, au maximum, sept grandes étapes qui sont : • La déclaration de l’anomalie, • Le recueil des faits, • La qualification, • L’enquête cause, • La mise en place d’actions correctives et préventives, • L’analyse de l’impact qualité, • La clôture. Ces différentes missions sont remplies par différents services qui travaillent en collaboration pour mener jusqu’à la clôture de l’anomalie

Perioperatieve verwikkelingen bij rokers en invloed hierop door rookstopinterventie

Nicotineabusus blijft wereldwijd de voornaamste oorzaak van vermijdbare mortaliteit. Klinische studies betreffende quasi alle domeinen van de heelkunde tonen een verhoogde postoperatieve morbiditeit bij actieve rokers, onafhankelijk van comorbiditeiten zoals chronisch obstructief longlijden. In tal van studies werd aangetoond dat een rookstop in de preoperatieve periode leidt tot een afname van deze postoperatieve verwikkelingen, in het bijzonder pulmonale verwikkelingen en een problematische wondheling. Elke huisarts, chirurg, anesthesist en paramedicus moet in een preoperatieve context een rookstop aanmoedigen. Hoewel de voordelen groter zijn indien de periode van de rookstop langer is, is er geen evidentie om een rookstop in de acute fase te ontmoedigen. Idealiter start een intensieve rookstopinterventie minstens vier weken voorafgaandelijk aan de ingreep met een wekelijks contact en ondersteunende nicotinesubstitutie. Een electieve ingreep is tevens een uitgelezen kans om een rookstop te initiëren en de perioperatieve morbiditeit te verminderen

Early and comprehensive care bundle in the elderly for acute heart failure in the emergency department: study protocol of the ELISABETH stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial

International audienceBackground: Acute heart failure (AHF) is one of the most common diagnoses for elderly patients in the emergency department (ED), with an admission rate above 80% and 1-month mortality around 10%. The European guidelines for the management of AHF are based on moderate levels of evidence, due to the lack of randomized controlled trials and the scarce evidence of any clinical added value of a specific treatment to improve outcomes. Recent reports suggest that the very early administration of full recommended therapy may decrease mortality. However, several studies have highlighted that elderly patients often received suboptimal treatment. Our hypothesis is that an early care bundle that comprises early and comprehensive management of symptoms, along with prompt detection and treatment of precipitating factors should improve AHF outcome in elderly patients.Methods/design: ELISABETH is a stepped-wedge, cluster randomized controlled, clinical trial in 15 emergency departments in France recruiting all patients aged 75 years and older with a diagnosis of AHF. The tested intervention is a care bundle with a checklist that mandates detection and early treatment of AHF precipitating factors, early and intensive treatment of congestion with intravenously administered nitrate boluses, and application of other recommended treatment (low-dose diuretics, non-invasive ventilation when indicated, and preventive low-molecular-weight heparin). Each center is randomized to the order in which they will switch from a "control period" to an "intervention period." All centers begin the trials with the control period for 2 weeks, then after each 2-week step a new center will enter the intervention period. At the end of the trial, all clusters will receive the intervention regimen. The primary outcome is the number of days alive and out of the hospital at 30 days.Discussion: If our hypothesis is confirmed, this trial will strengthen the level of evidence of AHF guidelines and stress the importance of the associated early and comprehensive treatment of precipitating factors. This trial could be the first to report a reduction in short-term morbidity and mortality in elderly AHF patients.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT03683212. Prospectively registered on 25 September 2018

Early and comprehensive care bundle in the elderly for acute heart failure in the emergency department: study protocol of the ELISABETH stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial

Background Acute heart failure (AHF) is one of the most common diagnoses for elderly patients in the emergency department (ED), with an admission rate above 80% and 1-month mortality around 10%. The European guidelines for the management of AHF are based on moderate levels of evidence, due to the lack of randomized controlled trials and the scarce evidence of any clinical added value of a specific treatment to improve outcomes. Recent reports suggest that the very early administration of full recommended therapy may decrease mortality. However, several studies have highlighted that elderly patients often received suboptimal treatment. Our hypothesis is that an early care bundle that comprises early and comprehensive management of symptoms, along with prompt detection and treatment of precipitating factors should improve AHF outcome in elderly patients. Methods/design ELISABETH is a stepped-wedge, cluster randomized controlled, clinical trial in 15 emergency departments in France recruiting all patients aged 75 years and older with a diagnosis of AHF. The tested intervention is a care bundle with a checklist that mandates detection and early treatment of AHF precipitating factors, early and intensive treatment of congestion with intravenously administered nitrate boluses, and application of other recommended treatment (low-dose diuretics, non-invasive ventilation when indicated, and preventive low-molecular-weight heparin). Each center is randomized to the order in which they will switch from a “control period” to an “intervention period.” All centers begin the trials with the control period for 2 weeks, then after each 2-week step a new center will enter the intervention period. At the end of the trial, all clusters will receive the intervention regimen. The primary outcome is the number of days alive and out of the hospital at 30 days. Discussion If our hypothesis is confirmed, this trial will strengthen the level of evidence of AHF guidelines and stress the importance of the associated early and comprehensive treatment of precipitating factors. This trial could be the first to report a reduction in short-term morbidity and mortality in elderly AHF patients. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT03683212. Prospectively registered on 25 September 2018

Early and comprehensive care bundle in the elderly for acute heart failure in the emergency department: study protocol of the ELISABETH stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial

International audienceBackground: Acute heart failure (AHF) is one of the most common diagnoses for elderly patients in the emergency department (ED), with an admission rate above 80% and 1-month mortality around 10%. The European guidelines for the management of AHF are based on moderate levels of evidence, due to the lack of randomized controlled trials and the scarce evidence of any clinical added value of a specific treatment to improve outcomes. Recent reports suggest that the very early administration of full recommended therapy may decrease mortality. However, several studies have highlighted that elderly patients often received suboptimal treatment. Our hypothesis is that an early care bundle that comprises early and comprehensive management of symptoms, along with prompt detection and treatment of precipitating factors should improve AHF outcome in elderly patients.Methods/design: ELISABETH is a stepped-wedge, cluster randomized controlled, clinical trial in 15 emergency departments in France recruiting all patients aged 75 years and older with a diagnosis of AHF. The tested intervention is a care bundle with a checklist that mandates detection and early treatment of AHF precipitating factors, early and intensive treatment of congestion with intravenously administered nitrate boluses, and application of other recommended treatment (low-dose diuretics, non-invasive ventilation when indicated, and preventive low-molecular-weight heparin). Each center is randomized to the order in which they will switch from a "control period" to an "intervention period." All centers begin the trials with the control period for 2 weeks, then after each 2-week step a new center will enter the intervention period. At the end of the trial, all clusters will receive the intervention regimen. The primary outcome is the number of days alive and out of the hospital at 30 days.Discussion: If our hypothesis is confirmed, this trial will strengthen the level of evidence of AHF guidelines and stress the importance of the associated early and comprehensive treatment of precipitating factors. This trial could be the first to report a reduction in short-term morbidity and mortality in elderly AHF patients.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT03683212. Prospectively registered on 25 September 2018

Description of macrophages in idiopathic inflammatory myopathies usingin-situ RNAseq

International audienc