Dataset Information

Prehospital evaluation and economic analysis of different coronary syndrome treatment strategies--PREDICT--rationale, development and implementation.

ABSTRACT: A standard of prehospital care for patients presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) includes prehospital 12-lead and advance Emergency Department notification or prehospital bypass to percutaneous coronary intervention centres. Implementation of either care strategies is variable across communities and neither may exist in some communities. The main objective is to compare prehospital care strategies for time to treatment and survival outcomes as well as cost effectiveness.PREDICT is a multicentre, prospective population-based cohort study of all chest pain patients 18 years or older presenting within 30 mins to 6 hours of symptom onset and treated with nitroglycerin, transported by paramedics in a number of different urban and rural regions in Ontario. The primary objective of this study is to compare the proportion of study subjects who receive reperfusion within the target door-to-reperfusion times in subjects obtained after four prehospital strategies: 12-lead ECG and advance emergency department (ED) notification or 3-lead ECG monitoring and alert to dispatch prior to hospital arrival; either with or without the opportunity to bypass to a PCI centre.We anticipate four challenges to successful study implementation and have developed strategies for each: 1) diversity in the interpretation of the ethical and privacy issues across 47 research ethics boards/committees covering 71 hospitals, 2) remote oversight of data guardian abstraction, 3) timeliness of implementation, and 4) potential interference in the study by concurrent technological advances. Research ethics approvals from academic centres were obtained initially and submitted to non academic centre applications. Data guardians were trained by a single investigator and data entry is informed by a detailed data dictionary including variable definitions and abstraction instructions and subjected to error and logic checks. Quality oversight provided by a single investigator. The window of the trial in each community has been confirmed with the base-hospital medical director to correspond to the planned technological advances of the system of care. We hope this comparative analysis across treatment strategies for clinical outcomes and cost will provide sufficient evidence to implement the superior strategy across all communities and improve outcomes for all STEMI patients.

SUBMITTER: Morrison LJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3076236 | biostudies-literature | 2011 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Prehospital evaluation and economic analysis of different coronary syndrome treatment strategies--PREDICT--rationale, development and implementation.

Morrison Laurie J LJ Rac Valeria E VE Bowen James M JM Schwartz Brian B Perreira Tyrone T Ryan Welson W Zahn Cathy C Chadha Rishab R Craig Alan A O'Reilly Daria D Goeree Ron R

BMC emergency medicine 20110329

<h4>Background</h4>A standard of prehospital care for patients presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) includes prehospital 12-lead and advance Emergency Department notification or prehospital bypass to percutaneous coronary intervention centres. Implementation of either care strategies is variable across communities and neither may exist in some communities. The main objective is to compare prehospital care strategies for time to treatment and survival outcomes as wel ...[more]

PMID: 21447161

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundRoutine evidence-based tobacco use treatment minimizes cancer-specific and all-cause mortality, reduces treatment-related toxicity, and improves quality of life among patients receiving cancer care. Few cancer centers employ mechanisms to systematically refer patients to evidence-based tobacco cessation services. Implementation strategies informed by behavioral economics can increase tobacco use treatment engagement within oncology care.MethodsA four-arm cluster-randomized pragmatic trial will be conducted across nine clinical sites within the Implementation Science Center in Cancer Control Implementation Lab to compare the effect of behavioral economic implementation strategies delivered through embedded messages (or "nudges") promoting patient engagement with the Tobacco Use Treatment Service (TUTS). Nudges are electronic medical record (EMR)-based messages delivered to patients, clinicians, or both, designed to counteract known patient and clinician biases that reduce treatment engagement. We used rapid cycle approaches (RCA) informed by relevant stakeholder experiences to refine and optimize our implementation strategies and methods prior to trial initiation. Data will be obtained via the EMR, clinician survey, and semi-structured interviews with a subset of clinicians and patients. The primary measure of implementation is penetration, defined as the TUTS referral rate. Secondary outcome measures of implementation include patient treatment engagement (defined as the number of patients who receive FDA-approved medication or behavioral counseling), quit attempts, and abstinence rates. The semi-structured interviews, guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, will assess contextual factors and patient and clinician experiences with the nudges.DiscussionThis study will be the first in the oncology setting to compare the effectiveness of nudges to clinicians and patients, both head-to-head and in combination, as implementation strategies to improve TUTS referral and engagement. We expect the study to (1) yield insights into the effectiveness of nudges as an implementation strategy to improve uptake of evidence-based tobacco use treatment within cancer care, and (2) advance our understanding of the multilevel contextual factors that drive response to these strategies. These results will lay the foundation for how patients with cancer who smoke are best engaged in tobacco use treatment and may lead to future research focused on scaling this approach across diverse centers.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov, NCT04737031 . Registered 3 February 2021.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:To evaluate and compare the lifetime costs associated with strategies to identify individuals with monogenic diabetes and change their treatment to more appropriate therapy. DESIGN:A decision analytical model from the perspective of the National Health Service (NHS) in England and Wales was developed and analysed. The model was informed by the literature, routinely collected data and a clinical study conducted in parallel with the modelling. SETTING:Secondary care in the UK. PARTICIPANTS:Simulations based on characteristics of patients diagnosed with diabetes <30 years old. INTERVENTIONS:Four test-treatment strategies to identify individuals with monogenic diabetes in a prevalent cohort of diabetics diagnosed under the age of 30 years were modelled: clinician-based genetic test referral, targeted genetic testing based on clinical prediction models, targeted genetic testing based on biomarkers, and blanket genetic testing. The results of the test-treatment strategies were compared with a strategy of no genetic testing. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES:Discounted lifetime costs, proportion of cases of monogenic diabetes identified. RESULTS:Based on current evidence, strategies using clinical characteristics or biomarkers were estimated to save approximately £100-£200 per person with diabetes over a lifetime compared with no testing. Sensitivity analyses indicated that the prevalence of monogenic diabetes, the uptake of testing, and the frequency of home blood glucose monitoring had the largest impact on the results (ranging from savings of £400-£50 per person), but did not change the overall findings. The model is limited by many model inputs being based on very few individuals, and some long-term data informed by clinical opinion. CONCLUSIONS:Costs to the NHS could be saved with targeted genetic testing based on clinical characteristics or biomarkers. More research should focus on the economic case for the use of such strategies closer to the time of diabetes diagnosis. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:NCT01238380.

Project description:ObjectiveA comparative assessment of treatment alternatives for T1N0 anal canal cancer has never been conducted. We compared the outcomes associated with the treatment alternatives-chemoradiotherapy (CRT), radiotherapy (RT), and surgery or ablation techniques (surgery/ablation)-for T1N0 anal canal cancer.Materials and methodsThis retrospective cohort study was conducted using the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) registries linked with Medicare longitudinal data (SEER-Medicare database). Analysis included 190 patients who were treated for T1N0 anal canal cancer using surgery/ablation (n=44), RT (n=50), or CRT (n=96). The outcomes were reported in terms of survival and hazards ratios using Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards modeling, respectively; lifetime costs; and cost-effectiveness measured in terms of incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, that is, the ratio of the difference in costs between the 2 alternatives to the difference in effectiveness between the same 2 alternatives.ResultsThere was no significant difference in the survival duration between the treatment groups as predicted by the Kaplan-Meier curves. After adjusting for patient characteristics and propensity score, the hazard ratio of death for the patients who received CRT compared with surgery/ablation was 1.742 (95% confidence interval, 0.793-3.829) and RT was 2.170 (95% confidence interval, 0.923-5.101); however, the relationship did not reach statistical significance. Surgery/ablation resulted in lower lifetime cost than RT or CRT. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio associated with CRT compared with surgery/ablation was $142,883 per life year gained.ConclusionsThere was no statistically significant difference in survival among the treatment alternatives for T1N0 anal canal cancer. Given that surgery/ablation costs less than RT or CRT and might be cost-effective compared with RT and CRT, it is crucial to explore this finding further in this era of limited health care resources.

Dataset Information

Prehospital evaluation and economic analysis of different coronary syndrome treatment strategies--PREDICT--rationale, development and implementation.

Publications

Prehospital evaluation and economic analysis of different coronary syndrome treatment strategies--PREDICT--rationale, development and implementation.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets