Dementia care initiative in primary practice – study protocol of a cluster randomized trial on dementia management in a general practice setting

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Current guidelines for dementia care recommend the combination of drug therapy with non-pharmaceutical measures like counselling and social support. However, the scientific evidence concerning non-pharmaceutical interventions for dementia patients and their informal caregivers remains inconclusive. Targets of modern comprehensive dementia care are to enable patients to live at home as long and as independent as possible and to reduce the burden of caregivers. The objective of the study is to compare a complex intervention including caregiver support groups and counselling against usual care in terms of time to nursing home placement. In this paper the study protocol is described.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>The IDA (Initiative Demenzversorgung in der Allgemeinmedizin) project is designed as a three armed cluster-randomized trial where dementia patients and their informal caregivers are recruited by general practitioners. Patients in the study region of Middle Franconia, Germany, are included if they have mild or moderate dementia, are at least 65 years old, and are members of the German AOK (Allgemeine Ortskrankenkasse) sickness fund. In the control group patients receive regular treatment, whereas in the two intervention groups general practitioners participate in a training course in evidence based dementia treatment, recommend support groups and offer counseling to the family caregivers either beginning at baseline or after the 1-year follow-up. The study recruitment and follow-up took place from July 2005 to January 2009. 303 general practitioners were randomized of which 129 recruited a total of 390 patients. Time to nursing home admission within the two year intervention and follow-up period is the primary endpoint. Secondary endpoints are cognitive status, activities of daily living, burden of care giving as well as healthcare costs. For an economic analysis from the societal perspective, data are collected from caregivers as well as by the use of routine data from statutory health insurance and long-term care insurance.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>From a public health perspective, the IDA trial is expected to lead to evidence based results on the community effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical support measures for dementia patients and their caregivers in the primary care sector. For health policy makers it is necessary to make their decisions about financing new services based on strong knowledge about the acceptance of measures in the population and their cost-effectiveness.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>ISRCTN68329593</p

Physician Experiences and Understanding of Genomic Sequencing in Oncology

The amount of information produced by genomic sequencing is vast, technically complicated, and can be difficult to interpret. Appropriately tailoring genomic information for nonâ geneticists is an essential next step in the clinical use of genomic sequencing. To initiate development of a framework for genomic results communication, we conducted eighteen qualitative interviews with oncologists who had referred adult cancer patients to a matched tumorâ normal tissue genomic sequencing study. In our qualitative analysis, we found varied levels of clinician knowledge relating to sequencing technology, the scope of the tumor genomic sequencing study, and incidental germline findings. Clinicians expressed a perceived need for more genetics education. Additionally, they had a variety of suggestions for improving results reports and possible resources to aid in results interpretation. Most clinicians felt genetic counselors were needed when incidental germline findings were identified. Our research suggests that more consistent genetics education is imperative in ensuring the proper utilization of genomic sequencing in cancer care. Clinician suggestions for results interpretation resources and results report modifications could be used to improve communication. Cliniciansâ perceived need to involve genetic counselors when incidental germline findings were found suggests genetic specialists could play a critical role in ensuring patients receive appropriate followâ up.Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/147187/1/jgc40187.pd

Association between atrial fibrillation and <i>Helicobacter pylori</i>

The connection between atrial fibrillation (AF) and H. pylori (HP) infection is still matter of debate. We performed a systematic review and metanalysis of studies reporting the association between AF and HF. A systematic review of all available reports in literature of the incidence of HP infection in AF and comparing this incidence with subjects without AF were analysed. Risk ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) and risk difference with standard error (SE) were the main statistics indexes. Six retrospective studies including a total of 2921 were included at the end of the selection process. Nine hundred-fifty-six patients (32.7%) were in AF, whereas 1965 (67.3%) were in normal sinus rhythm (NSR). Overall, 335 of 956 patients with AF were HP positive (35%), whereas 621 were HP negative (65%). In addition, 643 of 1965 NSR patients (32.7%) were HP positive while 1,322 were negative (67.3%; Chi-square 2.15, p = 0.21). The Cumulative Risk Ratio for AF patients for developing an HP infection was 1.19 (95% CI 1.08–1.41). In addition, a small difference risk towards AF was found (0.11 [SE = 0.04]). Moreover, neither RR nor risk difference were influenced by the geographic area at meta-regression analysis. Finally, there was a weak correlation between AF and HP (coefficient = 0.04 [95% CI −0.01–0.08]). We failed to find any significant correlation between H. pylori infection and AF and, based on our data, it seems unlikely than HP can be considered a risk factor for AF. Further larger research is warranted

AGILE: a seamless phase I/IIa platform for the rapid evaluation of candidates for COVID-19 treatment: an update to the structured summary of a study protocol for a randomised platform trial letter.

Funder: UnitaidBACKGROUND: There is an urgent unmet clinical need for the identification of novel therapeutics for the treatment of COVID-19. A number of COVID-19 late phase trial platforms have been developed to investigate (often repurposed) drugs both in the UK and globally (e.g. RECOVERY led by the University of Oxford and SOLIDARITY led by WHO). There is a pressing need to investigate novel candidates within early phase trial platforms, from which promising candidates can feed into established later phase platforms. AGILE grew from a UK-wide collaboration to undertake early stage clinical evaluation of candidates for SARS-CoV-2 infection to accelerate national and global healthcare interventions. METHODS/DESIGN: AGILE is a seamless phase I/IIa platform study to establish the optimum dose, determine the activity and safety of each candidate and recommend whether it should be evaluated further. Each candidate is evaluated in its own trial, either as an open label single arm healthy volunteer study or in patients, randomising between candidate and control usually in a 2:1 allocation in favour of the candidate. Each dose is assessed sequentially for safety usually in cohorts of 6 patients. Once a phase II dose has been identified, efficacy is assessed by seamlessly expanding into a larger cohort. AGILE is completely flexible in that the core design in the master protocol can be adapted for each candidate based on prior knowledge of the candidate (i.e. population, primary endpoint and sample size can be amended). This information is detailed in each candidate specific trial protocol of the master protocol. DISCUSSION: Few approved treatments for COVID-19 are available such as dexamethasone, remdesivir and tocilizumab in hospitalised patients. The AGILE platform aims to rapidly identify new efficacious and safe treatments to help end the current global COVID-19 pandemic. We currently have three candidate specific trials within this platform study that are open to recruitment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT Number: 2020-001860-27 14 March 2020 ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04746183  19 February 2021 ISRCTN reference: 27106947