Dataset Information

Home care/outpatient versus hospital admission in mild acute pancreatitis: protocol of a multicentre, randomised controlled trial (PADI_2 trial).

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Acute pancreatitis (AP) is the third most common gastrointestinal disease resulting in hospital admission, with over 70% of AP admissions being mild cases. In the USA, it costs 2.5 billion dollars annually. The most common standard management of mild AP (MAP) still is hospital admission. Patients with MAP usually achieve complete recovery in less than a week and the severity predictor scales are reliable. The aim of this study will be to compare three different strategies for the management of MAP.

Methods/design

This is a randomised, controlled, three-arm multicentre trial. Patients with MAP will be randomly assigned to group A (outpatient), B (home care) or C (hospital admission). The primary endpoint of the trial will be the treatment failure rate of the outpatient/home care management for patients with MAP compared with that of hospitalised patients. The secondary endpoints will be pain relapse, diet intolerance, hospital readmission, hospital length of stay, need for intensive care unit admission, organ failure, complications, costs and patient satisfaction. The general feasibility, safety and quality checks required for high-quality evidence will be adhered to.

Ethics and dissemination

The study (version 3.0, 10/2022) has been approved by the Scientific and Research Ethics Committee of the 'Institut d'Investigació Sanitaria Pere Virgili-IISPV' (093/2022). This study will provide evidence as to whether outpatient/home care is similar to usual management of AP. The conclusions of this study will be published in an open-access journal.

Trial registration number

ClinicalTrials.gov Registry (NCT05360797).

SUBMITTER: Ramirez-Maldonado E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10410805 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Home care/outpatient versus hospital admission in mild acute pancreatitis: protocol of a multicentre, randomised controlled trial (PADI_2 trial).

Ramírez-Maldonado Elena E Rodrigo-Rodrigo Marta M Lopez Gordo Sandra S Sanchez Ariadna A Coronado Llanos Daniel D Sanchez Raquel R Vaz Joao J Fondevila Constantino C Jorba-Martin Rosa R

BMJ open 20230628 6

<h4>Introduction</h4>Acute pancreatitis (AP) is the third most common gastrointestinal disease resulting in hospital admission, with over 70% of AP admissions being mild cases. In the USA, it costs 2.5 billion dollars annually. The most common standard management of mild AP (MAP) still is hospital admission. Patients with MAP usually achieve complete recovery in less than a week and the severity predictor scales are reliable. The aim of this study will be to compare three different strategies fo ...[more]

PMID: 37380212

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo determine whether ultraviolet B phototherapy at home is equally safe and equally effective as ultraviolet B phototherapy in an outpatient setting for patients with psoriasis.DesignPragmatic multicentre single blind randomised clinical trial (PLUTO study).SettingDermatology departments of 14 hospitals in the Netherlands.Participants196 patients with psoriasis who were clinically eligible for narrowband (TL-01) ultraviolet B phototherapy. The first 105 consecutive patients were also followed for one year after therapy.InterventionUltraviolet B phototherapy at home using a TL-01 home phototherapy unit compared with standard narrowband ultraviolet B phototherapy in an outpatient setting. Both therapies were done in a setting reflecting routine daily practice in the Netherlands.Main outcome measuresThe main outcome measure was effectiveness as measured by the proportion of patients with a 50% or more reduction of the baseline psoriasis area and severity index (PASI) or self administered psoriasis area and severity index (SAPASI), called the PASI 50 and SAPASI 50 (relevant treatment effect). Another outcome of effectiveness was the percentage reduction in median scores on the PASI as well as SAPASI. Also the proportions of patients reaching the PASI 75 and SAPASI 75 (successful treatment effect), and the PASI 90 and SAPASI 90 (almost complete clearance) were calculated. Other secondary outcomes were quality of life (SF-36, psoriasis disability index), burden of treatment (questionnaire), patients' preferences and satisfaction (questionnaire), and dosimetry and short term side effects (diary).Results82% of the patients treated at home compared with 79% of the patients treated in an outpatient setting reached the SAPASI 50 (difference 2.8%, 95% confidence interval -8.6% to 14.2%), and 70% compared with 73% reached the PASI 50 (-2.3%, -15.7% to 11.1%). For patients treated at home the median SAPASI score decreased 82% (from 6.7 to 1.2) and the median PASI score decreased 74% (from 8.4 to 2.2), compared with 79% (from 7.0 to 1.4) and 70% (from 7.0 to 2.1) for patients treated in an outpatient setting. Treatment effect as defined by the mean decline in PASI and SAPASI scores was significant (P<0.001) and similar across groups (P>0.3). Total cumulative doses of ultraviolet B light were similar (51.5 v 46.1 J/cm(2), difference 5.4, 95% confidence interval -5.2 to 16.0), and the occurrence of short term side effects did not differ. The burden of undergoing ultraviolet B phototherapy was significantly lower for patients treated at home (differences 1.23 to 3.01, all P</=0.001). Quality of life increased equally regardless of treatment, but patients treated at home more often rated their experience with the therapy as "excellent" (42%, 38/90) compared with patients treated in the outpatient department (23%, 20/88; P=0.001).ConclusionUltraviolet B phototherapy administered at home is equally safe and equally effective, both clinically and for quality of life, as ultraviolet B phototherapy administered in an outpatient setting. Furthermore, ultraviolet B phototherapy at home resulted in a lower burden of treatment and led to greater patients' satisfaction. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN83025173 and Clinicaltrials.gov NCT00150930.

Project description:BackgroundDelivering hospital-level care with comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) in the home is one approach to deal with the increased demand for bed-based hospital care, but clinical effectiveness is uncertain.ObjectiveTo assess the clinical effectiveness of admission avoidance hospital at home (HAH) with CGA for older persons.DesignMultisite randomized trial. (ISRCTN registry number: ISRCTN60477865).Setting9 hospital and community sites in the United Kingdom.Patients1055 older persons who were medically unwell, were physiologically stable, and were referred for a hospital admission.InterventionAdmission avoidance HAH with CGA versus hospital admission with CGA when available using 2:1 randomization.MeasurementsThe primary outcome of living at home was measured at 6 months. Secondary outcomes were new admission to long-term residential care, death, health status, delirium, and patient satisfaction.ResultsParticipants had a mean age of 83.3 years (SD, 7.0). At 6-month follow-up, 528 of 672 (78.6%) participants in the CGA HAH group versus 247 of 328 (75.3%) participants in the hospital group were living at home (relative risk [RR], 1.05 [95% CI, 0.95 to 1.15]; P = 0.36); 114 of 673 (16.9%) versus 58 of 328 (17.7%) had died (RR, 0.98 [CI, 0.65 to 1.47]; P = 0.92); and 37 of 646 (5.7%) versus 27 of 311 (8.7%) were in long-term residential care (RR, 0.58 [CI, 0.45 to 0.76]; P < 0.001).LimitationThe findings are most applicable to older persons referred from a hospital short-stay acute medical assessment unit; episodes of delirium may have been undetected.ConclusionAdmission avoidance HAH with CGA led to similar outcomes as hospital admission in the proportion of older persons living at home as well as a decrease in admissions to long-term residential care at 6 months. This type of service can provide an alternative to hospitalization for selected older persons.Primary funding sourceThe National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research Programme (12/209/66).

Project description:IntroductionAcute pancreatitis (AP) is an inflammatory disease with no specific treatment. Mitochondrial injury followed by ATP depletion in both acinar and ductal cells is a recently discovered early event in its pathogenesis. Importantly, preclinical research has shown that intracellular ATP delivery restores the physiological function of the cells and protects from cell injury, suggesting that restoration of energy levels in the pancreas is therapeutically beneficial. Despite several high quality experimental observations in this area, no randomised trials have been conducted to date to address the requirements for energy intake in the early phase of AP.Methods/designThis is a randomised controlled two-arm double-blind multicentre trial. Patients with AP will be randomly assigned to groups A (30 kcal/kg/day energy administration starting within 24 hours of hospital admission) or B (low energy administration during the first 72 hours of hospital admission). Energy will be delivered by nasoenteric tube feeding with additional intravenous glucose supplementation or total parenteral nutrition if necessary. A combination of multiorgan failure for more than 48 hours and mortality is defined as the primary endpoint, whereas several secondary endpoints such as length of hospitalisation or pain will be determined to elucidate more detailed differences between the groups. The general feasibility, safety and quality checks required for high quality evidence will be adhered to.Ethics and disseminationThe study has been approved by the relevant organisation, the Scientific and Research Ethics Committee of the Hungarian Medical Research Council (55961-2/2016/EKU). This study will provide evidence as to whether early high energy nutritional support is beneficial in the clinical management of AP. The results of this trial will be published in an open access way and disseminated among medical doctors.Trial registrationThe trial has been registered at the ISRCTN (ISRTCN 63827758).

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Pregnant women faced with complications of pregnancy often require long-term hospital admission for maternal and/or fetal monitoring. Antenatal admissions cause a burden to patients as well as hospital resources and costs. A telemonitoring platform connected to wireless cardiotocography (CTG) and automated blood pressure (BP) devices can be used for telemonitoring in pregnancy. Home telemonitoring might improve autonomy and reduce admissions and thus costs. The aim of this study is to compare the effects on patient safety, satisfaction and cost-effectiveness of hospital care versus telemonitoring (HOTEL) as an obstetric care strategy in high-risk pregnancies requiring daily monitoring. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:The HOTEL trial is an ongoing multicentre randomised controlled clinical trial with a non-inferiority design. Eligible pregnant women are >26+0 weeks of singleton gestation requiring monitoring because of pre-eclampsia (hypertension with proteinuria), fetal growth restriction, preterm rupture of membranes without contractions, recurrent reduced fetal movements or an intrauterine fetal death in a previous pregnancy.Randomisation takes place between traditional hospitalisation (planned n=208) versus telemonitoring (planned n=208) until delivery. Telemonitoring at home is facilitated with Sense4Baby CTG devices, Microlife BP monitor and daily telephone calls with an obstetric healthcare professional as well as weekly hospital visits.Primary outcome is a composite of adverse perinatal outcome, defined as perinatal mortality, 5 min Apgar <7 or arterial cord blood pH <7.05, maternal morbidity (eclampsia, HELLP (hemolysis, elevated liver enzymes, and low platelets) syndrome, thromboembolic event), neonatal intensive care admission and caesarean section rate. Patient satisfaction and preference of care will be assessed using validated questionnaires. We will perform an economic 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 Center and the boards of all six participating centres. Trial results will be submitted to peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:NTR6076.

Project description:ObjectiveTo determine whether, in children with newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes who were not acutely unwell, management at home for initiation of insulin treatment and education of the child and family, would result in improved clinical and psychological outcomes at 2?years postdiagnosis.DesignA multicentre randomised controlled trial (January 2008/October 2013).SettingEight paediatric diabetes centres in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.Participants203 clinically well children aged under 17 years, with newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes and their carers.InterventionManagement of the initiation period from diagnosis at home, for a minimum of 3?days, to include at least six supervised injections and delivery of pragmatic educational care.Main outcome measuresPrimary outcome was glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c) concentration at 24 months postdiagnosis. Secondary outcomes included coping, anxiety, quality of life and use of NHS resources.Results203 children, newly diagnosed, were randomised to commence management at home (n=101) or in hospital (n=102). At the 24?month primary end point, there was one withdrawal and a follow-up rate of 194/202 (96%). Mean HbA1c in the home treatment arm was 72.1?mmol/mol and in the hospital treated arm 72.6?mmol/mol. There was a negligible difference between the mean HbA1c levels in the two arms adjusted for baseline (1.01, 95%?CI 0.93 to 1.09). There were mostly no differences in secondary outcomes at 24 months, apart from better child self-esteem in the home-arm. No home-arm children were admitted to hospital during initiation and there were no adverse events at that time. The number of investigations was higher in hospital patients during the follow-up period. There were no differences in insulin regimens between the two arms.ConclusionsThere is no evidence of a difference between home-based and hospital-based initiation of care in children newly diagnosed with type 1 diabetes across relevant outcomes.Trial registration numberISRCTN78114042.

Dataset Information

Home care/outpatient versus hospital admission in mild acute pancreatitis: protocol of a multicentre, randomised controlled trial (PADI_2 trial).

Introduction

Methods/design

Ethics and dissemination

Trial registration number

Publications

Home care/outpatient versus hospital admission in mild acute pancreatitis: protocol of a multicentre, randomised controlled trial (PADI_2 trial).

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets