A placebo-controlled trial of Korean red ginseng extract for preventing Influenza-like illness in healthy adults

<p>Abstracts</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Standardized Korean red ginseng extract has become the best-selling influenza-like illness (ILI) remedy in Korea, yet much controversy regarding the efficacy of the Korean red ginseng (KRG) in reducing ILI incidence remains. The aim of the study is to assess the efficacy of the KRG extract on the ILI incidence in healthy adults.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>We will conduct a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study at the onset of the influenza seasons. A total of 100 subjects 30-70 years of age will be recruited from the general populations. The subjects will be instructed to take 9 capsules per day of either the KRG extract or a placebo for a period of 3 months. The primary outcome measure is to assess the frequency of ILI onset in participated subjects. Secondary variable measures will be included severity and duration of ILI symptoms. The ILI symptoms will be scored by subjects using a 4-point scale.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>This study is a randomized placebo controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy of the KRG extract compared to placebo and will be provided valuable new information about the clinical and physiological effects of the KRG extract on reduction of ILI incidence including flu and upper respiratory tract infections. The study has been pragmatically designed to ensure that the study findings can be implemented into clinical practice if KRG extract can be shown to be an effective reduction strategy in ILI incidence.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p><a href="http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01478009">NCT01478009</a>.</p

Psychometric properties of instruments to measure the quality of end-of-life care and dying for long-term care residents with dementia

Purpose: Quality of care for long-term care (LTC) residents with dementia at the end-of-life is often evaluated using standardized instruments that were not developed for or thoroughly tested in this population. Given the importance of using appropriate instruments to evaluate the quality of care (QOC) and quality of dying (QOD) in LTC, we compared the validity and reliability of ten available instruments commonly used for these purposes. Methods: We performed prospective observations and retrospective interviews and surveys of family (n = 70) and professionals (n = 103) of LTC decedents with dementia in the Netherlands. Results: Instruments within the constructs QOC and QOD were highly correlated, and showed moderate to high correlation with overall assessments of QOC and QOD. Prospective and retrospective ratings using the same instruments differed little. Concordance between family and professional scores was low. Cronbach's alpha was mostly adequate. The EOLD-CAD showed good fit with pre-assumed factor structures. The EOLD-SWC and FPCS appear most valid and reliable for measuring QOC, and the EOLD-CAD and MSSE for measuring QOD. The POS performed worst in this population. Conclusions: Our comparative study of psychometric properties of instruments allows for informed selection of QOC and QOD measures for LTC residents with dementia. © The Author(s) 2011

Different strategies for mechanical VENTilation during CardioPulmonary Bypass (CPBVENT 2014): Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background: There is no consensus on which lung-protective strategies should be used in cardiac surgery patients. Sparse and small randomized clinical and animal trials suggest that maintaining mechanical ventilation during cardiopulmonary bypass is protective on the lungs. Unfortunately, such evidence is weak as it comes from surrogate and minor clinical endpoints mainly limited to elective coronary surgery. According to the available data in the academic literature, an unquestionable standardized strategy of lung protection during cardiopulmonary bypass cannot be recommended. The purpose of the CPBVENT study is to investigate the effectiveness of different strategies of mechanical ventilation during cardiopulmonary bypass on postoperative pulmonary function and complications. Methods/design: The CPBVENT study is a single-blind, multicenter, randomized controlled trial. We are going to enroll 870 patients undergoing elective cardiac surgery with planned use of cardiopulmonary bypass. Patients will be randomized into three groups: (1) no mechanical ventilation during cardiopulmonary bypass, (2) continuous positive airway pressure of 5 cmH2O during cardiopulmonary bypass, (3) respiratory rate of 5 acts/min with a tidal volume of 2-3 ml/Kg of ideal body weight and positive end-expiratory pressure of 3-5 cmH2O during cardiopulmonary bypass. The primary endpoint will be the incidence of a PaO2/FiO2ratio <200 until the time of discharge from the intensive care unit. The secondary endpoints will be the incidence of postoperative pulmonary complications and 30-day mortality. Patients will be followed-up for 12 months after the date of randomization. Discussion: The CPBVENT trial will establish whether, and how, different ventilator strategies during cardiopulmonary bypass will have an impact on postoperative pulmonary complications and outcomes of patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT02090205. Registered on 8 March 2014

Survival After Neoadjuvant and Adjuvant Treatments Compared to Surgery Alone for Resectable Esophageal Carcinoma: A Network Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE: This network meta-analysis compared overall survival after neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy (CT), radiotherapy (RT), or combinations of both (chemoradiotherapy, CRT) or surgery alone to identify the most effective approach. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: The optimal treatment for resectable esophageal cancer is unknown. METHODS: A search for randomized controlled trials reporting on neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapies was conducted. Using a network meta-analysis, treatments were ranked based on their effectiveness for improving survival. RESULTS: In 33 eligible randomized controlled trials, 6072 patients were randomized to receive either surgery alone (N = 2459) or neoadjuvant CT (N = 1332), RT (N = 58), and CRT (N = 1196) followed by surgery or surgery followed by adjuvant CT (N = 542), RT (N = 383), and CRT (N = 102). Twenty-one comparisons were generated. Neoadjuvant CRT followed by surgery compared with surgery alone was the only treatment to significantly improve survival [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.77, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.68-0.87]. When trials were grouped considering neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapies and surgery alone, neoadjuvant therapies combined with surgery compared with surgery alone showed a survival advantage (HR = 0.83, 95% CI 0.76-0.90), whereas surgery along with adjuvant therapies showed no significant survival advantage (HR = 0.87, 95% CI 0.67-1.14). A subgroup analysis of neoadjuvant therapies showed a superior effectiveness of neoadjuvant CRT and surgery compared with surgery alone (HR = 0.77, 95% CI 0.68-0.87). CONCLUSIONS: This network meta-analysis showed neoadjuvant CRT followed by surgery to be the most effective strategy in improving survival of resectable esophageal cancer. Resources should be focused on developing the most effective neoadjuvant CRT regimens for both adenocarcinomas and squamous cell carcinomas of the esophagus