Dataset Information

Study protocol for a single-centre, prospective, non-blinded, randomised, 12-month, parallel-group superiority study to compare the efficacy of pharmacist intervention versus usual care for elderly patients hospitalised in orthopaedic wards.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Given that polypharmacy and potentially inappropriate prescribing are common in elderly orthopaedic patients, pharmacist interventions to improve medication practices among this population are important. However, past studies have reported mixed results regarding the effectiveness of pharmacist-led interventions in inpatient elderly care. Furthermore, few randomised controlled trials have evaluated patient-relevant outcomes as a primary endpoint. Therefore, we will evaluate whether a pharmacist-led intervention could reduce readmission of hospitalised elderly orthopaedic patients with polypharmacy or potentially inappropriate prescribing.

Methods and analysis

This is an ongoing single-centre, prospective, non-blinded, randomised controlled trial designed to evaluate the superiority of a pharmacist-led intervention for hospitalised elderly patients compared with usual care. The trial will include newly admitted orthopaedic patients 70 years of age and older with polypharmacy or at least one potentially inappropriate prescription, as identified by the screening tool of older people's prescriptions (STOPP) criteria. Usual care includes medication reconciliation, patient education and monitoring, as well as providing information about discharge medications. Pharmacist interventions, in addition to usual care, include advising the patient's physician to stop unnecessary or inappropriate medications and start necessary medications. The primary outcome is the 1-year readmission rate. Secondary outcomes are the proportion of patients who undergo emergency department visits and the occurrences of all-cause death, a new fracture, myocardial infarction and ischaemic stroke. The study started in November 2017, and up to approximately 220 patients will be enrolled.

Ethics and dissemination

The protocol was approved by the Medical Ethics Committee of the National Hospital Organization Tochigi Medical Center (No. 29-22). The trial was registered at the University Hospital Medical Information Network (UMIN) clinical registry. The results of this trial will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

Trial registration number

UMIN000029404.

SUBMITTER: Komagamine J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6067359 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Study protocol for a single-centre, prospective, non-blinded, randomised, 12-month, parallel-group superiority study to compare the efficacy of pharmacist intervention versus usual care for elderly patients hospitalised in orthopaedic wards.

Komagamine Junpei J Sugawara Kenichi K Kaminaga Miho M Tatsumi Shinpei S

BMJ open 20180730 7

<h4>Introduction</h4>Given that polypharmacy and potentially inappropriate prescribing are common in elderly orthopaedic patients, pharmacist interventions to improve medication practices among this population are important. However, past studies have reported mixed results regarding the effectiveness of pharmacist-led interventions in inpatient elderly care. Furthermore, few randomised controlled trials have evaluated patient-relevant outcomes as a primary endpoint. Therefore, we will evaluate ...[more]

PMID: 30061440

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundA cluster randomised controlled trial (cRCT) performed from July 2018 to March 2019 demonstrated the clinical impact of a community pharmacist delivered minor ailment service (MAS) compared with usual pharmacist care (UC). MAS consisted of a technology-based face-to-face consultation delivered by trained community pharmacists. The consultation was guided by clinical pathways for assessment and management, and communication systems, collaboratively agreed with general practitioners. MAS pharmacists were trained and provided monthly practice support by a practice change facilitator. The objective of this study was to assess the cost utility of MAS, compared to UC.MethodsParticipants recruited were adult patients with symptoms suggestive of a minor ailment condition, from community pharmacies located in Western Sydney. Patients received MAS (intervention) or UC (control) and were followed-up by telephone 14-days following consultation with the pharmacist. A cost utility analysis was conducted alongside the cRCT. Transition probabilities and costs were directly derived from cRCT study data. Utility values were not available from the cRCT, hence we relied on utility values reported in the published literature which were used to calculate quality adjusted life years (QALYs), using the area under the curve method. A decision tree model was used to capture the decision problem, considering a societal perspective and a 14-day time horizon. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses assessed robustness and uncertainty of results, respectively.ResultsPatients (n = 894) were recruited from 30 pharmacies and 82% (n = 732) responded to follow-up. On average, MAS was more costly but also more effective (in terms of symptom resolution and QALY gains) compared to UC. MAS patients (n = 524) gained an additional 0.003 QALYs at an incremental cost of $7.14 (Australian dollars), compared to UC (n = 370) which resulted in an ICER of $2277 (95% CI $681.49-3811.22) per QALY.ConclusionEconomic findings suggest that implementation of MAS within the Australian context is cost effective.Trial registration Registered with Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) and allocated the ACTRN: ACTRN12618000286246. Registered on 23 February 2018.

Project description:The Portuguese National Health Directorate has issued clinical practice guidelines on prescription of anti-inflammatory drugs, acid suppressive therapy, and antiplatelets. However, their effectiveness in changing actual practice is unknown.The study will compare the effectiveness of educational outreach visits regarding the improvement of compliance with clinical guidelines in primary care against usual dissemination strategies. A cost-benefit analysis will also be conducted. We will carry out a parallel, open, superiority, randomized trial directed to primary care physicians. Physicians will be recruited and allocated at a cluster-level (primary care unit) by minimization. Data will be analyzed at the physician level. Primary care units will be eligible if they use electronic prescribing and have at least four physicians willing to participate. Physicians in intervention units will be offered individual educational outreach visits (one for each guideline) at their workplace during a six-month period. Physicians in the control group will be offered a single unrelated group training session. Primary outcomes will be the proportion of cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors prescribed in the anti-inflammatory class, and the proportion of omeprazole in the proton pump inhibitors class at 18 months post-intervention. Prescription data will be collected from the regional pharmacy claims database. We estimated a sample size of 110 physicians in each group, corresponding to 19 clusters with a mean size of 6 physicians. Outcome collection and data analysis will be blinded to allocation, but due to the nature of the intervention, physicians and detailers cannot be blinded.This trial will attempt to address unresolved issues in the literature, namely, long term persistence of effect, the importance of sequential visits in an outreach program, and cost issues. If successful, this trial may be the cornerstone for deploying large scale educational outreach programs within the Portuguese National Health Service.ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT01984034.

Project description:BackgroundAzithromycin is an orally active synthetic macrolide antibiotic with a wide range of anti-bacterial, anti-inflammatory and antiviral properties. It is a safe, inexpensive, generic licenced drug available worldwide and manufactured to scale and is a potential candidate therapy for pandemic coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Azithromycin was widely used to treat severe SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, but to date, no randomised data are available in any coronavirus infections. Other ongoing trials are exploring short courses of azithromycin either in early disease, within the first 7 days of symptoms, when azithromycin's antiviral properties may be important, or late in disease when anti-bacterial properties may reduce the risk of secondary bacterial infection. However, the molecule's anti-inflammatory properties, including suppression of pulmonary macrophage-derived pro-inflammatory cytokines such as interleukins-1β, -6, -8, and -18 and cytokines G-CSF and GM-CSF may provide a distinct therapeutic benefit if given in as a prolonged course during the period of progression from moderate to severe disease.MethodsATOMIC2 is a phase II/III, multi-centre, prospective, open-label, two-arm randomised superiority clinical trial of azithromycin versus standard care for adults presenting to hospital with COVID-19 symptoms who are not admitted at initial presentation. We will enrol adults, ≥ 18 years of age assessed in acute hospitals in the UK with clinical diagnosis of COVID-19 infection where management on an ambulatory care pathway is deemed appropriate. Participants will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio to usual care or to azithromycin 500 mg orally daily for 14 days with telephone follow-up at days 14 and 28. The primary objective is to compare the proportion with either death or respiratory failure requiring invasive or non-invasive mechanical ventilation over 28 days from randomisation. Secondary objectives include mortality/respiratory failure in those with a PCR-confirmed diagnosis; all-cause mortality; progression to pneumonia; progression to severe pneumonia; peak severity of illness and mechanistic analysis of blood and nasal biomarkers.DiscussionThis trial will determine the clinical utility of azithromycin in patients with moderately severe, clinically diagnosed COVID-19 and could be rapidly applicable worldwide.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT04381962 . Registered on 11 May 2020. EudraCT identifier 2020-001740-26 . Opened for accrual on 29 May 2020.

Project description:Aims and objectivesTo identify and compare frailty instruments used with hospitalised orthopaedic patients aged over 65.BackgroundFrailty predicts clinical events in orthopaedic patients aged over 65. However, the strengths and limitations of different approaches to measuring frailty in this population are rarely discussed. As such, a comprehensive review to address the gap is needed.DesignScoping review using Arksey and O'Malley framework.MethodsPubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Scopus and EMBASE databases were searched to identify studies published from 2006 to 2020 regarding frailty instruments in older orthopaedic patients. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses were followed.ResultsThe initial search resulted in 1,471 articles. After review against inclusion and exclusion criteria, a final set of 31 articles containing 15 unique frailty instruments were evaluated. Most of the articles were from Western countries. Fried's phenotype and Frailty Index were commonly used. The frailty index was mostly modified to measure frailty. In hip fracture, physical function items were frequently modified in the measurement of frailty. Trained physicians and nurses administered most frailty instruments. Frailty screening was commonly conducted at hospital admission and used to prognosticate both postoperative complications and hospital outcomes. Most instruments could be completed within 10 min. Reported psychometrics had acceptable reliability and validity.ConclusionMany reliable frailty measures have been used in the inpatient orthopaedic settings; however, evidence is still lacking for a gold standard frailty instrument. More research is needed to identify the best-performing measure. Frailty evaluation in patients with physical limitations is challenging with existing instruments. Clinical context, resources required and instrument quality are essential factors in selecting a frailty instrument.Relevance to clinical practiceMusculoskeletal symptoms in older patients may bias frailty assessment. Proactive frailty screening with valid and practical instruments is vital to strengthen preoperative risk stratification and improve post-surgical outcomes.

Project description:IntroductionThe optimal management of small-sized to medium-sized vestibular schwannoma (VS) is a matter of controversy. Clinical results of the prevailing treatment modalities (microsurgery, stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS), and conservative management (CM)) are documented, but comparative studies are few, and none are randomised or blinded. Upfront radiosurgery, or a careful follow-up by MRI with subsequent treatment on growth, are two strategies used at many centres. The present study aims at comparing these strategies by randomising individuals with newly diagnosed tumours to either upfront SRS or initial CM.Methods and analysisThe Vestibular Schwannoma: Radiosurgery or Expectation study is designed as a randomised, controlled, observer-blinded, single-centre superiority trial with two parallel groups. Eligible patients will be randomised using sequentially numbered opaque sealed envelopes, and the radiosurgery group will undergo standard Gamma Knife Radiosurgery (GKRS) within 2 months following randomisation. The primary endpoint is tumour growth measured as volume ratio V4years/Vbaseline and volume doubling time, evaluated by annual T1 contrast MRI volumetric analysis. Secondary endpoints include symptom and sign development measured by clinical examination, audiovestibular tests, and by patient's responses to standardised validated questionnaires. In addition, the patient's working status, and the health economics involved with both strategies will be evaluated and compared. All outcome assessments will be performed by blinded observers. Power analysis indicates that 100 patients is sufficient to demonstrate the effect of GKRS on tumour volume.Ethics and disseminationThe trial has ethical approval from the Regional Ethical Committee (23503) and funding from The Western Norway Regional Health Authority. Trial methods and results will be reported according to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials 2010 guidelines in a peer-reviewed journal.Trial registration numberClinical trials: NCT02249572. Haukeland University Hospital record: 2014/314. Regional Ethical Committee (REC West): 23 503. The Western Norway Regional Health Authority: 912 281.

Project description:BackgroundMeta-analyses of nonrandomized studies have provided conflicting data on therapeutic hypothermia, or targeted temperature management (TTM), at 33°C in patients successfully resuscitated after nonshockable cardiac arrest. Nevertheless, the latest recommendations issued by the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation and by the European Resuscitation Council recommend therapeutic hypothermia. New data are available on the adverse effects of therapeutic hypothermia, notably infectious complications. The risk/benefit ratio of therapeutic hypothermia after nonshockable cardiac arrest is unclear.MethodsHYPERION is a multicenter (22 French ICUs) trial with blinded outcome assessment in which 584 patients with successfully resuscitated nonshockable cardiac arrest are allocated at random to either TTM between 32.5 and 33.5°C (therapeutic hypothermia) or TTM between 36.5 and 37.5°C (therapeutic normothermia) for 24 hours. Both groups are managed with therapeutic normothermia for the next 24 hours. TTM is achieved using locally available equipment. The primary outcome is day-90 neurological status assessed by the Cerebral Performance Categories (CPC) Scale with dichotomization of the results (1 + 2 versus 3 + 4 + 5). The primary outcome is assessed by a blinded psychologist during a semi-structured telephone interview of the patient or next of kin. Secondary outcomes are day-90 mortality, hospital mortality, severe adverse events, infections, and neurocognitive performance. The planned sample size of 584 patients will enable us to detect a 9% absolute difference in day-90 neurological status with 80% power, assuming a 14% event rate in the control group and a two-sided Type 1 error rate of 4.9%. Two interim analyses will be performed, after inclusion of 200 and 400 patients, respectively.DiscussionThe HYPERION trial is a multicenter, randomized, controlled, assessor-blinded, superiority trial that may provide an answer to an issue of everyday relevance, namely, whether TTM is beneficial in comatose patients resuscitated after nonshockable cardiac arrest. Furthermore, it will provide new data on the tolerance and adverse events (especially infectious complications) of TTM at 32.5-33.5°C.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01994772 .

Dataset Information

Study protocol for a single-centre, prospective, non-blinded, randomised, 12-month, parallel-group superiority study to compare the efficacy of pharmacist intervention versus usual care for elderly patients hospitalised in orthopaedic wards.

Introduction

Methods and analysis

Ethics and dissemination

Trial registration number

Publications

Study protocol for a single-centre, prospective, non-blinded, randomised, 12-month, parallel-group superiority study to compare the efficacy of pharmacist intervention versus usual care for elderly patients hospitalised in orthopaedic wards.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets