Dataset Information

Methadone induction in primary care (ANRS-Methaville): a phase III randomized intervention trial.

ABSTRACT: In France, the rapid scale-up of buprenorphine, an opioid maintenance treatment (OMT), in primary care for drug users has led to an impressive reduction in HIV prevalence among injecting drug users (IDU) but has had no major effect on Hepatitis C incidence. To date, patients willing to start methadone can only do so in a methadone clinic (a medical centre for drug and alcohol dependence (CSAPA) or a hospital setting) and are referred to primary care physicians after dose stabilization. This study aims to assess the effectiveness of methadone in patients who initiated treatment in primary care compared with those who initiated it in a CSAPA, by measuring abstinence from street opioid use after one year of treatment.The ANRS-Methaville study is a randomized multicenter non-inferiority control trial comparing methadone induction (lasting approximately 2 weeks) in primary care and in CSAPA. The model of care chosen for methadone induction in primary care was based on study-specific pre-training of all physicians, exclusion criteria and daily supervision of methadone during the initiation phase. Between January 2009 and January 2011, 10 sites each having one CSAPA and several primary care physicians, were identified to recruit patients to be randomized into two groups, one starting methadone in primary care (n = 147), the other in CSAPA (n = 48). The primary outcome of the study is the proportion of participants abstinent from street opioids after 1 year of treatment i.e. non-inferiority of primary care model in terms of the proportion of patients not using street opioids compared with the proportion observed in those starting methadone in a CSAPA.The ANRS-Methaville study is the first in France to use an interventional trial to improve access to OMT for drug users. Once the non-inferiority results become available, the Ministry of Health and agency for the safety of health products may change the the New Drug Application (NDA) of methadone and make methadone induction by trained primary care physicians possible.The trial is registered with the French Agency of Pharmaceutical Products (AFSSAPS) under the number 2008-A0277-48, the European Union Drug Regulating Authorities Clinical Trials.Number Eudract 2008-001338-28, the ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00657397 and the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number Register ISRCTN31125511.

SUBMITTER: Roux P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3528472 | biostudies-literature | 2012 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Methadone induction in primary care (ANRS-Methaville): a phase III randomized intervention trial.

Roux Perrine P Michel Laurent L Cohen Julien J Mora Marion M Morel Alain A Aubertin Jean-Francois JF Desenclos Jean-Claude JC Spire Bruno B Carrieri Patrizia M PM

BMC public health 20120628

<h4>Background</h4>In France, the rapid scale-up of buprenorphine, an opioid maintenance treatment (OMT), in primary care for drug users has led to an impressive reduction in HIV prevalence among injecting drug users (IDU) but has had no major effect on Hepatitis C incidence. To date, patients willing to start methadone can only do so in a methadone clinic (a medical centre for drug and alcohol dependence (CSAPA) or a hospital setting) and are referred to primary care physicians after dose stabi ...[more]

PMID: 22741944

Similar Datasets

Project description:Methadone coverage is poor in many countries due in part to methadone induction being possible only in specialized care (SC). This multicenter pragmatic trial compared the effectiveness of methadone treatment between two induction models: primary care (PC) and SC.In this study, registered at ClinicalTrials.Gov (NCT00657397), opioid-dependent individuals not on methadone treatment for at least one month or receiving buprenorphine but needing to switch were randomly assigned to start methadone in PC (N = 155) or in SC (N = 66) in 10 sites in France. Visits were scheduled at months M0, M3, M6 and M12. The primary outcome was self-reported abstinence from street-opioids at 12 months (M12) (with an underlying 15% non-inferiority hypothesis for PC). Secondary outcomes were abstinence during follow-up, engagement in treatment (i.e. completing the induction period), retention and satisfaction with the explanations provided by the physician. Primary analysis used intention to treat (ITT). Mixed models and the log-rank test were used to assess the arm effect (PC vs. SC) on the course of abstinence and retention, respectively.In the ITT analysis (n = 155 in PC, 66 in SC), which compared the proportions of street-opioid abstinent participants, 85/155 (55%) and 22/66 (33%) of the participants were classified as street-opioid abstinent at M12 in PC and SC, respectively. This ITT analysis showed the non-inferiority of PC (21.5 [7.7; 35.3]). Engagement in treatment and satisfaction with the explanations provided by the physician were significantly higher in PC than SC. Retention in methadone and abstinence during follow-up were comparable in both arms (p = 0.47, p = 0.39, respectively).Under appropriate conditions, methadone induction in primary care is feasible and acceptable to both physicians and patients. It is as effective as induction in specialized care in reducing street-opioid use and ensuring engagement and retention in treatment for opioid dependence.Number Eudract 2008-001338-28; ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00657397; International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number Register ISRCTN31125511.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Fostering a culture of safety is an essential step in ensuring patient safety and quality in primary care. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of an educational intervention to improve the safety culture in the family and community medicine teaching units in an Atlantic European Region. METHODS:Randomized study conducted in family and community medicine teaching units in Galicia (Spain). Participants were all fourth-year residents and their tutors (N?=?138). Those who agreed to participate were randomized into one of two groups (27 tutors/26 residents in the intervention group, 23 tutors/ 23 residents in the control one).All were sent the Survey on Patient Safety Culture. After that, the intervention group received specific training in safety; they also recorded incidents over 15?days, documented them following a structured approach, and had feedback on their performance. The control group did not receive any action. All participants completed the same survey four months later. Outcome measures were the changes in safety culture as quantified by the results variables of the Survey: Patient Safety Grade and Number of events reported. We conducted bivariate and adjusted analyses for the outcome measures. To explore the influence of participants' demographic characteristics and their evaluation of the 12 dimensions of the safety culture, we fitted a multivariate model for each outcome. RESULTS:Trial followed published protocol. There were 19 drop outs. The groups were comparable in outcome and independent variables at start. The experiment did not have any effect on Patient safety grade (-?0.040) in bivariate analysis. The odds of reporting one to two events increased by 1.14 (0.39-3.35), and by 13.75 (2.41-354.37) the odds of reporting 3 or more events. Different dimensions had significant independent effects on each outcome variable. CONCLUSION:A educational intervention in family and community medicine teaching units may improve the incidents reported. The associations observed among organizational dimensions and outcomes evidence the complexity of patient safety culture measurement and, also, show the paths for improvement. In the future, it would be worthwhile to replicate this study in teaching units from different settings and with different health professionals engaged. TRIAL REGISTRATION:It was retrospectively registered with ( ISRCTN41911128 , 31/12/2010).

Project description:BACKGROUND: Preterm-born or asphyxiated term-born children who received neonatal intensive care show more emotional and behavioral problems than term-born children without a medical condition. It is uncertain whether regular parenting intervention programs to which the parents of these children are usually referred, are effective in reducing child problem behavior in this specific population. Our objective was to investigate whether a regular, brief parenting intervention, Primary Care Triple P, is effective in decreasing emotional and behavioral problems in preterm-born or asphyxiated term-born preschoolers. METHODS: For this pragmatic, open randomized clinical trial, participants were recruited from a cohort of infants admitted to the neonatal intensive care units (NICU) of two Dutch hospitals. Children born with a gestational age <32 weeks or birth weight <1500 g and children born at a gestational age 37-42 weeks with perinatal asphyxia were included. After screening for a t-score ?60 on the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL), children were randomly assigned to Primary Care Triple P (n = 34) or a wait-list control group (n = 33). The primary outcome was child emotional and behavioral problems reported by parents on the CBCL, 6 months after the start of the trial. RESULTS: There was no effect of the intervention on the CBCL at the trial endpoint (t64 = 0.54, P = .30). On secondary measurements of child problem behavior, parenting style, parenting stress, and parent perceived child vulnerability, groups either did not differ significantly or the intervention group showed more problems. In both the intervention and control group there was a significant decrease in emotional and behavioral problems during the trial. CONCLUSIONS: Primary Care Triple P, a brief parenting intervention, is not effective in reducing child emotional and behavioral problems in preterm-born children or term-born children with perinatal asphyxia. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands National Trial Register (NTR): NTR2179.

Project description:CALGB 40601 was activated as a 3-arm study (paclitaxel + trastuzumab + lapatinib [THL], paclitaxel + trastuzumab [TH] and paclitaxel + lapatinib [TL]). In December 2010, twoneoadjuvant studies were presented at the Cancer Therapy and Research Center-American Association for Cancer Research (CTRC-AACR) San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium that affected the scientific and practical enthusiasm for the TL arm. For this reason the CALGB 40601 has been amended to omit the TL treatment arm (arm 3). In the Geparquinto trial, patients with HER2-positive breast cancer received epirubicin/cyclophosphamide followed by docetaxel combined either with trastuzumab (EC-DOC-H) or lapatinib (EC-DOC-L) neoadjuvantly, then trastuzumab for a total of 12 months adjuvantly [34]. Pathologic complete response (pCR) in breast and axilla was the primary endpoint. Among 620 patients randomized, there was a higher pCR rate (31% vs 22%) and lower toxicity with fewer discontinuations (10% vs 16%) among patients on the trastuzumab arm than the lapatinib arm. The first results of the NeoALTTO trial were similar [35]. Approximately 450 women with HER2-positive breast cancer received a lead-in phase of 6 weeks of biologic therapy withlapatinib (L), trastuzumab (H), or both, then paclitaxel was added for an additional 12 weeks prior to surgery. All drugs were given at doses similar to CALGB 40601. Postoperative adjuvant therapy included additional chemotherapy and biologic therapy, however, the presentation focused solely on the primary endpoint of pCR in the breast at surgery; no longterm outcomes were presented. There were more grade > 3 adverse events in the lapatinib arm compared with the trastuzumab arm, including diarrhea (23% vs 2%), hepatic abnormalities (13% vs 1%), and neutropenia (16% vs 3%). The only death occurred in the combined biologic (LH) arm. Failure to complete treatment as planned was higher in the L (34%) and LH arms (39%) that in the H arm (u%). PCR was highest with LH-paclitaxel (51%), followed by H-paclitaxel (30%), and L-paclitaxel (25%). Based on the inferior results and higher toxicity of the investigational lapatinib arms of these studies and in discussion with CTEP, in January 2011 it was decided to amend CALGB 40601 to omit Arm 3 (TL). Those patients on this arm will complete protocol therapy as perthe original study design. In CALGB 40601, it is recommended that all patients receive trastuzumab adjuvantly for 1 year, hence all of the patients including those previously randomized to the TL neoadjuvant arm, will be able to receive the known benefit of trastuzumab. After local IRB approval of Update #5, the remainder of the patients will be enrolled and randomized to Arm 1 (THL) and Arm 2 (TH) in a 2:1 fashion. Given that TH isthe standard regimen, and is also clearly the best tolerated, we will continue that arm of thestudy as the comparator, with THL as the only investigational arm.

Project description:BackgroundMore than 90% of antibiotics are prescribed in primary care, but 50% may be unnecessary. Reducing unnecessary antibiotic overuse is needed to limit antimicrobial resistance. We conducted a pragmatic trial of a primary care provider-focused antimicrobial stewardship intervention to reduce antibiotic prescriptions in primary care.MethodsPrimary care practitioners from six primary care clinics in Toronto, Ontario were assigned to intervention or control groups to evaluate the effectiveness of a multi-faceted intervention for reducing antibiotic prescriptions to adults with respiratory and urinary tract infections. The intervention included provider education, clinical decision aids, and audit and feedback of antibiotic prescribing. The primary outcome was total antibiotic prescriptions for these infections. Secondary outcomes were delayed prescriptions, prescriptions longer than 7 days, recommended antibiotic use, and outcomes for individual infections. Generalized estimating equations were used to estimate treatment effects, adjusting for clustering by clinic and baseline differences.ResultsThere were 1682 encounters involving 54 primary care providers from January until May 31, 2019. In intervention clinics, the odds of any antibiotic prescription was reduced 22% (adjusted Odds Ratio (OR) = 0.78; 95% Confidence Interval (CI) = 0.64.0.96). The odds that a delay in filling a prescription was recommended was increased (adjusted OR=2.29; 95% CI=1.37, 3.83), while prescription durations greater than 7 days were reduced (adjusted OR=0.24; 95% CI=0.13, 0.43). Recommended antibiotic use was similar in control (85.4%) and intervention clinics (91.8%, p=0.37).ConclusionsA community-based, primary care provider-focused antimicrobial stewardship intervention was associated with a reduced likelihood of antibiotic prescriptions for respiratory and urinary infections, an increase in delayed prescriptions, and reduced prescription durations.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov ( NCT03517215 ).

Project description:BackgroundA gap exists between evidence and practice regarding the management of cardiovascular risk factors. This gap could be narrowed if systematically developed clinical practice guidelines were effectively implemented in clinical practice. We evaluated the effects of a tailored intervention to support the implementation of systematically developed guidelines for the use of antihypertensive and cholesterol-lowering drugs for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease.Methods and findingsWe conducted a cluster-randomized trial comparing a tailored intervention to passive dissemination of guidelines in 146 general practices in two geographical areas in Norway. Each practice was randomized to either the tailored intervention (70 practices; 257 physicians) or control group (69 practices; 244 physicians). Patients started on medication for hypertension or hypercholesterolemia during the study period and all patients already on treatment that consulted their physician during the trial were included. A multifaceted intervention was tailored to address identified barriers to change. Key components were an educational outreach visit with audit and feedback, and computerized reminders linked to the medical record system. Pharmacists conducted the visits. Outcomes were measured for all eligible patients seen in the participating practices during 1 y before and after the intervention. The main outcomes were the proportions of (1) first-time prescriptions for hypertension where thiazides were prescribed, (2) patients assessed for cardiovascular risk before prescribing antihypertensive or cholesterol-lowering drugs, and (3) patients treated for hypertension or hypercholesterolemia for 3 mo or more who had achieved recommended treatment goals. The intervention led to an increase in adherence to guideline recommendations on choice of antihypertensive drug. Thiazides were prescribed to 17% of patients in the intervention group versus 11% in the control group (relative risk 1.94; 95% confidence interval 1.49-2.49, adjusted for baseline differences and clustering effect). Little or no differences were found for risk assessment prior to prescribing and for achievement of treatment goals.ConclusionsOur tailored intervention had a significant impact on prescribing of antihypertensive drugs, but was ineffective in improving the quality of other aspects of managing hypertension and hypercholesterolemia in primary care.

Dataset Information

Methadone induction in primary care (ANRS-Methaville): a phase III randomized intervention trial.

Publications

Methadone induction in primary care (ANRS-Methaville): a phase III randomized intervention trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets