An infodemiology study on exploring the quality and reliability of colorectal cancer immunotherapy information

Background

Immunotherapy is a new treatment modality which promises hope for advanced colorectal cancer patients. To our knowledge, no previous studies have evaluated the quality of patient information available on this topic online.

Objective

This study will explore the quality and reliability of colorectal cancer immunotherapy information using the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) and DISCERN tools.

Methods

Design thinking methodology was integrated with systematic scoping reviews framework to inform our descriptive observational media analysis study. Google Chrome was used to run four searches using prespecified search terms selected according to the top patient concerns about immunotherapy. The first 20 relevant results were identified (n = 80) and then duplicates were removed. Descriptive narrative univariate and bivariate analysis was done for the relevant variables.

Results

The total of included websites was 17. Most websites score <3 points on JAMA and fair/poor on DISCERN. Most of the websites that score ≥3 points on JAMA and excellent/good on DISCERN have a charity affiliation. A total of 58.8% of the websites present the date, 41.2% demonstrate authorship, and sources are mentioned in 29.4% of the websites. Lack of content was noticed in providing the prognosis of patients if no treatment is given, clear aim and the effect of treatments on patient's quality of life.

Conclusion

Assessing the reliability of information about cancer treatments online remains a challenge. Further research is required to understand the patient perceptions and use of online information and whether it has an impact on their behavioural health outcomes.

Workforce Planning Models for Oral Health Care: A Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

For health care services to address the health care needs of populations and respond to changes in needs over time, workforces must be planned. This requires quantitative models to estimate future workforce requirements that take account of population size, oral health needs, evidence-based approaches to addressing needs, and methods of service provision that maximize productivity. The aim of this scoping review was to assess whether and how these 4 elements contribute to existing models of oral health workforce planning.

METHODS

A scoping review was conducted. MEDLINE, Embase, HMIC, and EconLit were searched, all via OVID. Additionally, gray literature databases were searched and key bodies and policy makers contacted. Workforce planning models were included if they projected workforce numbers and were specific to oral health. No limits were placed on country. A single reviewer completed initial screening of abstracts; 2 independent reviewers completed secondary screening and data extraction. A narrative synthesis was conducted.

RESULTS

A total of 4,009 records were screened, resulting in 42 included articles detailing 47 models. The workforce planning models varied significantly in their use of data on oral health needs, evidence-based services, and provider productivity, with most models relying on observed levels of service utilization and demand.

CONCLUSIONS

This review has identified quantitative workforce planning models that aim to estimate future workforce requirements. Approaches to planning the oral health workforce are not always based on deriving workforce requirements from population oral health needs. In many cases, requirements are not linked to population needs, while in models where needs are included, they are constrained by the existence and availability of the required data. It is critical that information systems be developed to effectively capture data necessary to plan future oral health care workforces in ways that relate directly to the needs of the populations being served.

KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER STATEMENT

Policy makers can use the results of this study when making decisions about the planning of oral health care workforces and about the data to routinely collect within health services. Collection of suitable data will allow for the continual improvement of workforce planning, leading to a responsive health service and likely future cost savings.

Effect of Hydrocortisone on Mortality and Organ Support in Patients With Severe COVID-19: The REMAP-CAP COVID-19 Corticosteroid Domain Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Evidence regarding corticosteroid use for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is limited.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether hydrocortisone improves outcome for patients with severe COVID-19.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

An ongoing adaptive platform trial testing multiple interventions within multiple therapeutic domains, for example, antiviral agents, corticosteroids, or immunoglobulin. Between March 9 and June 17, 2020, 614 adult patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were enrolled and randomized within at least 1 domain following admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) for respiratory or cardiovascular organ support at 121 sites in 8 countries. Of these, 403 were randomized to open-label interventions within the corticosteroid domain. The domain was halted after results from another trial were released. Follow-up ended August 12, 2020.

INTERVENTIONS

The corticosteroid domain randomized participants to a fixed 7-day course of intravenous hydrocortisone (50 mg or 100 mg every 6 hours) (n = 143), a shock-dependent course (50 mg every 6 hours when shock was clinically evident) (n = 152), or no hydrocortisone (n = 108).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of ICU-based respiratory or cardiovascular support) within 21 days, where patients who died were assigned -1 day. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model that included all patients enrolled with severe COVID-19, adjusting for age, sex, site, region, time, assignment to interventions within other domains, and domain and intervention eligibility. Superiority was defined as the posterior probability of an odds ratio greater than 1 (threshold for trial conclusion of superiority >99%).

RESULTS

After excluding 19 participants who withdrew consent, there were 384 patients (mean age, 60 years; 29% female) randomized to the fixed-dose (n = 137), shock-dependent (n = 146), and no (n = 101) hydrocortisone groups; 379 (99%) completed the study and were included in the analysis. The mean age for the 3 groups ranged between 59.5 and 60.4 years; most patients were male (range, 70.6%-71.5%); mean body mass index ranged between 29.7 and 30.9; and patients receiving mechanical ventilation ranged between 50.0% and 63.5%. For the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively, the median organ support-free days were 0 (IQR, -1 to 15), 0 (IQR, -1 to 13), and 0 (-1 to 11) days (composed of 30%, 26%, and 33% mortality rates and 11.5, 9.5, and 6 median organ support-free days among survivors). The median adjusted odds ratio and bayesian probability of superiority were 1.43 (95% credible interval, 0.91-2.27) and 93% for fixed-dose hydrocortisone, respectively, and were 1.22 (95% credible interval, 0.76-1.94) and 80% for shock-dependent hydrocortisone compared with no hydrocortisone. Serious adverse events were reported in 4 (3%), 5 (3%), and 1 (1%) patients in the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among patients with severe COVID-19, treatment with a 7-day fixed-dose course of hydrocortisone or shock-dependent dosing of hydrocortisone, compared with no hydrocortisone, resulted in 93% and 80% probabilities of superiority with regard to the odds of improvement in organ support-free days within 21 days. However, the trial was stopped early and no treatment strategy met prespecified criteria for statistical superiority, precluding definitive conclusions.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707.

Effect of Hydrocortisone on Mortality and Organ Support in Patients With Severe COVID-19: The REMAP-CAP COVID-19 Corticosteroid Domain Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Evidence regarding corticosteroid use for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is limited.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether hydrocortisone improves outcome for patients with severe COVID-19.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

An ongoing adaptive platform trial testing multiple interventions within multiple therapeutic domains, for example, antiviral agents, corticosteroids, or immunoglobulin. Between March 9 and June 17, 2020, 614 adult patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were enrolled and randomized within at least 1 domain following admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) for respiratory or cardiovascular organ support at 121 sites in 8 countries. Of these, 403 were randomized to open-label interventions within the corticosteroid domain. The domain was halted after results from another trial were released. Follow-up ended August 12, 2020.

INTERVENTIONS

The corticosteroid domain randomized participants to a fixed 7-day course of intravenous hydrocortisone (50 mg or 100 mg every 6 hours) (n = 143), a shock-dependent course (50 mg every 6 hours when shock was clinically evident) (n = 152), or no hydrocortisone (n = 108).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of ICU-based respiratory or cardiovascular support) within 21 days, where patients who died were assigned -1 day. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model that included all patients enrolled with severe COVID-19, adjusting for age, sex, site, region, time, assignment to interventions within other domains, and domain and intervention eligibility. Superiority was defined as the posterior probability of an odds ratio greater than 1 (threshold for trial conclusion of superiority >99%).

RESULTS

After excluding 19 participants who withdrew consent, there were 384 patients (mean age, 60 years; 29% female) randomized to the fixed-dose (n = 137), shock-dependent (n = 146), and no (n = 101) hydrocortisone groups; 379 (99%) completed the study and were included in the analysis. The mean age for the 3 groups ranged between 59.5 and 60.4 years; most patients were male (range, 70.6%-71.5%); mean body mass index ranged between 29.7 and 30.9; and patients receiving mechanical ventilation ranged between 50.0% and 63.5%. For the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively, the median organ support-free days were 0 (IQR, -1 to 15), 0 (IQR, -1 to 13), and 0 (-1 to 11) days (composed of 30%, 26%, and 33% mortality rates and 11.5, 9.5, and 6 median organ support-free days among survivors). The median adjusted odds ratio and bayesian probability of superiority were 1.43 (95% credible interval, 0.91-2.27) and 93% for fixed-dose hydrocortisone, respectively, and were 1.22 (95% credible interval, 0.76-1.94) and 80% for shock-dependent hydrocortisone compared with no hydrocortisone. Serious adverse events were reported in 4 (3%), 5 (3%), and 1 (1%) patients in the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among patients with severe COVID-19, treatment with a 7-day fixed-dose course of hydrocortisone or shock-dependent dosing of hydrocortisone, compared with no hydrocortisone, resulted in 93% and 80% probabilities of superiority with regard to the odds of improvement in organ support-free days within 21 days. However, the trial was stopped early and no treatment strategy met prespecified criteria for statistical superiority, precluding definitive conclusions.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707.

Protocol for a Randomised controlled trial to Evaluate the effectiveness and cost benefit of prescribing high dose FLuoride toothpaste in preventing and treating dEntal Caries in high-risk older adulTs (reflect trial)

BACKGROUND

Dental caries in the expanding elderly, predominantly-dentate population is an emerging public health concern. Elderly individuals with heavily restored dentitions represent a clinical challenge and significant financial burden for healthcare systems, especially when their physical and cognitive abilities are in decline. Prescription of higher concentration fluoride toothpaste to prevent caries in older populations is expanding in the UK, significantly increasing costs for the National Health Services (NHS) but the effectiveness and cost benefit of this intervention are uncertain. The Reflect trial will evaluate the effectiveness and cost benefit of General Dental Practitioner (GDP) prescribing of 5000 ppm fluoride toothpaste and usual care compared to usual care alone in individuals 50 years and over with high-risk of caries.

METHODS/DESIGN

A pragmatic, open-label, randomised controlled trial involving adults aged 50 years and above attending NHS dental practices identified by their dentist as having high risk of dental caries. Participants will be randomised to prescription of 5000 ppm fluoride toothpaste (frequency, amount and duration decided by GDP) and usual care only. 1200 participants will be recruited from approximately 60 dental practices in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland and followed up for 3 years. The primary outcome will be the proportion of participants receiving any dental treatment due to caries. Secondary outcomes will include coronal and root caries increments measured by independent, blinded examiners, patient reported quality of life measures, and economic outcomes; NHS and patient perspective costs, willingness to pay, net benefit (analysed over the trial follow-up period and modelled lifetime horizon). A parallel qualitative study will investigate GDPs' practises of and beliefs about prescribing the toothpaste and patients' beliefs and experiences of the toothpaste and perceived impacts on their oral health-related behaviours.

DISCUSSION

The Reflect trial will provide valuable information to patients, policy makers and clinicians on the costs and benefits of an expensive, but evidence-deficient caries prevention intervention delivered to older adults in general dental practice.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN: 2017-002402-13 registered 02/06/2017, first participant recruited 03/05/2018. Ethics Reference No: 17/NE/0329/233335. Funding Body: Health Technology Assessment funding stream of National Institute for Health Research. Funder number: HTA project 16/23/01. Trial Sponsor: Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9WL. The Trial was prospectively registered.