Dataset Information

GERiatric Screening in the treatment of elderly patients with Ovarian Carcinoma (GERSOC): study protocol for a pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Approximately 40% of the newly diagnosed patients with advanced ovarian cancer are aged 70?years or older. Standard treatment for advanced disease consists of cytoreductive surgery and combination chemotherapy. In older patients, standard treatment is often withheld or prematurely stopped due to suspected frailty. It remains challenging to distinguish fit elderly patients who can endure standard therapy from frail patients who may benefit from an adapted treatment strategy. As a comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) can contribute to the identification of frail patients and improve tailored therapy in this population, screening tests were developed to select those who may benefit from a CGA. However, the use of these geriatric screening tests has rarely been compared with usual clinical care. The GERSOC-trial will evaluate whether geriatric screening in elderly patients with advanced-stage ovarian cancer improves treatment completion and quality of life.

Methods

This pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial will be conducted at a minimum of 20 hospitals in the Netherlands. Hospitals are randomly assigned to geriatric screening care (in which a geriatric screening comprised of the G8 questionnaire and the Timed Up and Go test is performed), or care as usual (in which current usual care is continued). A total of 320 patients aged ??70?years with primary, advanced-stage ovarian carcinoma will be included. Patients considered fit on geriatric screening will receive standard treatment; patients who are considered unfit will be referred to a geriatrician for analysis and treatment advice. The primary outcome is the percentage difference in completed standard and adapted therapies between the two study arms. Secondary outcomes include quality of life, cost-effectiveness and survival.

Discussion

This trial aims to gather evidence for the use of geriatric screening in treatment decision-making in elderly patients with advanced ovarian cancer. If proven feasible, beneficial and cost-effective, geriatric screening may be implemented in routine clinical practice.

Trial registration

Netherlands Trial Registry, ID: NL6745. Registered on 2 August 2017.

SUBMITTER: van Soolingen NJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7036170 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

GERiatric Screening in the treatment of elderly patients with Ovarian Carcinoma (GERSOC): study protocol for a pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial.

van Soolingen Neeltje J NJ Smorenburg Carolina H CH Hamaker Marije E ME Groen Wim G WG Retèl Valesca P VP Lok Christianne A R CAR van de Poll-Franse Lonneke V LV Trum Johannes W JW

Trials 20200222 1

<h4>Background</h4>Approximately 40% of the newly diagnosed patients with advanced ovarian cancer are aged 70 years or older. Standard treatment for advanced disease consists of cytoreductive surgery and combination chemotherapy. In older patients, standard treatment is often withheld or prematurely stopped due to suspected frailty. It remains challenging to distinguish fit elderly patients who can endure standard therapy from frail patients who may benefit from an adapted treatment strategy. As ...[more]

PMID: 32087750

Similar Datasets

Project description:The prevalence of depression is high and the elderly have an increased risk of developing chronic course. International data suggest that depression in the elderly is under-recognised, the latency before clinicians provide a treatment plan is longer and elderly patients with depression are not offered psychotherapy to the same degree as younger patients. Although recommendations for the treatment of elderly patients with depression exist, health-care professionals adhere to these recommendations to a limited degree only. We conducted a systematic review to identify recommendations for managing depression in the elderly and prioritised six recommendations. We identified and prioritised the determinants of practice related to the implementation of these recommendations in primary care, and subsequently discussed and prioritised interventions to address the identified determinants. The objective of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of these tailored interventions for the six recommendations for the management of elderly patients with depression in primary care.We will conduct a pragmatic cluster randomised trial comparing the implementation of the six recommendations using tailored interventions with usual care. We will randomise 80 municipalities into one of two groups: an intervention group, to which we will deliver tailored interventions to implement the six recommendations, and a control group, to which we will not deliver any intervention. We will randomise municipalities rather than patients, individual clinicians or practices, because we will deliver the intervention for the first three recommendations at the municipal level and we want to minimise the risk of contamination across GP practices for the other three recommendations. The primary outcome is the proportion of actions taken by GPs that are consistent with the recommendations.This trial will investigate whether a tailored implementation approach is an effective strategy for improving collaborative care in the municipalities and health-care professionals' practice towards elderly patients with depression in primary care. The effectiveness evaluation described in this protocol will be accompanied with a process evaluation exploring why and how the interventions were effective or ineffective.ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01913236.

Project description:IntroductionOlder patients raise therapeutic challenges, because they constitute a heterogeneous population with multimorbidity. To appraise this complexity, geriatricians have developed a multidimensional comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA), which may be difficult to apply in primary care settings. Our primary objective was to compare the effect on morbimortality of usual care compared with two complex interventions combining educational seminars about CGA: a dedicated geriatric hotline for general practitioners (GPs) and CGA by trained nurses or GPs.Methods and analysisThe Clinical Epidemiology and Ageing study is an open-label, pragmatic, multicentre, three-arm, cluster randomised controlled trial comparing two intervention groups and one control group. Patients must be 70 years or older with a long-term illness or with unscheduled hospitalisation in the past 3 months (750 patients planned). This study involves volunteering GPs practising in French primary care centres, with randomisation at the practice level. The multifaceted interventions for interventional arms comprise an educational interactive multiprofessional seminar for GPs and nurses, a geriatric hotline dedicated to GPs in case of difficulties and the performance of a CGA updated to primary care. The CGA is systematically performed by a nurse in arm 1 but is GP-led on a case-by-case basis in arm 2. The primary endpoint is a composite criterion comprising overall death, unscheduled hospitalisations, emergency admissions and institutionalisation within 12 months after inclusion. Intention-to-treat analysis will be performed using mixed-effects logistic regression models, with adjustment for potential confounders.Ethics and disseminationThe protocol was approved by an appropriate ethics committee (CPP Ile-de-France IV, Paris, France, approval April 2015;15 664). This study is conducted according to principles of good clinical practice in the context of current care and will provide useful knowledge on the clinical benefits achievable by CGA in primary care.Trial registration numberNCT02664454; Pre-results.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:With the rising prevalence of type 2 diabetes in Australia, screening and earlier diagnosis is needed to provide opportunities to intervene with evidence-based lifestyle and treatment options to reduce the individual, social and economic impact of the disease. The objectives of the Pharmacy Diabetes Screening Trial are to compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of three screening models for type 2 diabetes in a previously undiagnosed population. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:The Pharmacy Diabetes Screening Trial is a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial to be conducted in 363 community pharmacies across metropolitan, regional and remote areas of Australia, randomly allocated by geographical clusters to one of three groups, each with 121 pharmacies and 10 304 screening participants. The three groups are: group A: risk assessment using a validated tool (AUSDRISK); group B: AUSDRISK assessment followed by point-of-care glycated haemoglobin testing; and group C: AUSDRISK assessment followed by point-of-care blood glucose testing. The primary clinical outcome measure is the proportion of newly diagnosed cases of type 2 diabetes. Primary outcome comparisons will be conducted using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test to account for clustering. The secondary clinical outcomes measures are the proportion of those who (1) are referred to the general practitioner (GP), (2) take up referral to the GP, (3) are diagnosed with pre-diabetes, that is, impaired glucose tolerance or impaired fasting glucose and (4) are newly diagnosed with either diabetes or pre-diabetes. The economic outcome measure is the average cost (direct and indirect) per confirmed new case of diagnosed type 2 diabetes based on the incremental net trial-based costs of service delivery and the associated incremental longer term health benefits from a health funder perspective. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:The protocol has been approved by the Human Research Ethics Committees at University of Sydney and Deakin University. Results will be available on the Sixth Community Pharmacy Agreement website and will be published in peer reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:ACTRN12616001240437; Pre-results.

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the effectiveness of different brief intervention strategies at reducing hazardous or harmful drinking in primary care. The hypothesis was that more intensive intervention would result in a greater reduction in hazardous or harmful drinking.DesignPragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial.SettingPrimary care practices in the north east and south east of England and in London.Participants3562 patients aged 18 or more routinely presenting in primary care, of whom 2991 (84.0%) were eligible to enter the trial: 900 (30.1%) screened positive for hazardous or harmful drinking and 756 (84.0%) received a brief intervention. The sample was predominantly male (62%) and white (92%), and 34% were current smokers.InterventionsPractices were randomised to three interventions, each of which built on the previous one: a patient information leaflet control group, five minutes of structured brief advice, and 20 minutes of brief lifestyle counselling. Delivery of the patient leaflet and brief advice occurred directly after screening and brief lifestyle counselling in a subsequent consultation.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was patients' self reported hazardous or harmful drinking status as measured by the alcohol use disorders identification test (AUDIT) at six months. A negative AUDIT result (score <8) indicated non-hazardous or non-harmful drinking. Secondary outcomes were a negative AUDIT result at 12 months, experience of alcohol related problems (alcohol problems questionnaire), health utility (EQ-5D), service utilisation, and patients' motivation to change drinking behaviour (readiness to change) as measured by a modified readiness ruler.ResultsPatient follow-up rates were 83% at six months (n=644) and 79% at 12 months (n=617). At both time points an intention to treat analysis found no significant differences in AUDIT negative status between the three interventions. Compared with the patient information leaflet group, the odds ratio of having a negative AUDIT result for brief advice was 0.85 (95% confidence interval 0.52 to 1.39) and for brief lifestyle counselling was 0.78 (0.48 to 1.25). A per protocol analysis confirmed these findings.ConclusionsAll patients received simple feedback on their screening outcome. Beyond this input, however, evidence that brief advice or brief lifestyle counselling provided important additional benefit in reducing hazardous or harmful drinking compared with the patient information leaflet was lacking.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN06145674.

Project description:IntroductionPersonal digital devices that provide health information, such as the Apple Watch, have developed an increasing array of cardiopulmonary tracking features which have received regulatory clearance and are directly marketed to consumers. Despite their widespread and increasing use, data about the impact of personal digital device use on patient-reported outcomes and healthcare utilisation are sparse. Among a population of patients with atrial fibrillation and/or atrial flutter undergoing cardioversion, our primary aim is to determine the impact of the heart rate measurement, irregular rhythm notification, and ECG features of the Apple Watch on quality of life and healthcare utilisation.Methods and analysisWe are conducting a prospective, open-label multicentre pragmatic randomised clinical trial, leveraging a unique patient-centred health data sharing platform for enrolment and follow-up. A total of 150 patients undergoing cardioversion for atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter will be randomised 1:1 to receive the Apple Watch Series 6 or Withings Move at the time of cardioversion. The primary outcome is the difference in the Atrial Fibrillation Effect on QualiTy-of-life global score at 6 months postcardioversion. Secondary outcomes include inpatient and outpatient healthcare utilisation. Additional secondary outcomes include a comparison of the Apple Watch ECG and pulse oximeter features with gold-standard data obtained in routine clinical care settings.Ethics and disseminationThe Institutional Review Boards at Yale University, Mayo Clinic, and Duke University Health System have approved the trial protocol. This trial will provide important data to policymakers, clinicians and patients about the impact of the heart rate, irregular rhythm notification, and ECG features of widely used personal digital devices on patient quality of life and healthcare utilisation. Findings will be disseminated to study participants, at professional society meetings and in peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration numberNCT04468321.

Project description:IntroductionWhether medication optimisation improves clinical outcomes in elderly individuals remains unclear. The current study aims to evaluate the effect of multidisciplinary team-based medication optimisation on survival, rehospitalisation and unscheduled hospital visits in elderly patients.Methods and analysisWe report the protocol of a single-centre, open-label, randomised controlled trial. The enrolled subjects will be medical inpatients, aged 65 years or older, admitted to a community hospital and receiving five or more regular medications. The participants will be randomly assigned to receive either an intervention for medication optimisation or the usual care. The intervention will consist of a multidisciplinary team-based medication review, followed by a medication optimisation proposal based on the Screening Tool of Older Persons' potentially inappropriate Prescriptions/Screening Tool to Alert doctors to the Right Treatment criteria and an implicit medication optimisation protocol. Medication optimisation summaries will be sent to primary care physicians and community pharmacists on discharge. The primary outcome will be a composite of death, unscheduled hospital visits and rehospitalisation until 48 weeks after randomisation. Secondary outcomes will include each of the primary endpoints, the number of prescribed medications, quality of life score, level of long-term care required, drug-related adverse events, death during hospitalisation and falls. Participants will be followed up for 48 weeks with bimonthly telephone interviews to assess the primary and secondary outcomes. A log-rank test stratified by randomisation factors will be used to compare the incidence of the composite endpoint. The study was initiated in 2019 and a minimum of 500 patients will be enrolled.Ethics and disseminationThe study protocol has been approved by the Institutional Ethical Committee of St. Marianna University School of Medicine (No. 4129). The results of the current study will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal.Trial registration numberUMIN000035265.

Project description:Implementation research is concerned with bridging the gap between evidence and practice through the study of methods to promote the uptake of research into routine practice. Good quality evidence has been summarised into guideline recommendations to show that peri-operative fasting times could be considerably shorter than patients currently experience. The objective of this trial was to evaluate the effectiveness of three strategies for the implementation of recommendations about peri-operative fasting.A pragmatic cluster randomised trial underpinned by the PARIHS framework was conducted during 2006 to 2009 with a national sample of UK hospitals using time series with mixed methods process evaluation and cost analysis. Hospitals were randomised to one of three interventions: standard dissemination (SD) of a guideline package, SD plus a web-based resource championed by an opinion leader, and SD plus plan-do-study-act (PDSA). The primary outcome was duration of fluid fast prior to induction of anaesthesia. Secondary outcomes included duration of food fast, patients' experiences, and stakeholders' experiences of implementation, including influences. ANOVA was used to test differences over time and interventions.Nineteen acute NHS hospitals participated. Across timepoints, 3,505 duration of fasting observations were recorded. No significant effect of the interventions was observed for either fluid or food fasting times. The effect size was 0.33 for the web-based intervention compared to SD alone for the change in fluid fasting and was 0.12 for PDSA compared to SD alone. The process evaluation showed different types of impact, including changes to practices, policies, and attitudes. A rich picture of the implementation challenges emerged, including inter-professional tensions and a lack of clarity for decision-making authority and responsibility.This was a large, complex study and one of the first national randomised controlled trials conducted within acute care in implementation research. The evidence base for fasting practice was accepted by those participating in this study and the messages from it simple; however, implementation and practical challenges influenced the interventions' impact. A set of conditions for implementation emerges from the findings of this study, which are presented as theoretically transferable propositions that have international relevance.ISRCTN18046709--Peri-operative Implementation Study Evaluation (POISE).

Project description:IntroductionPostoperative delirium, arbitrarily defined as occurring within 5 days of surgery, affects up to 50% of patients older than 60 after a major operation. This geriatric syndrome is associated with longer intensive care unit and hospital stay, readmission, persistent cognitive deterioration and mortality. No effective preventive methods have been identified, but preliminary evidence suggests that EEG monitoring during general anaesthesia, by facilitating reduced anaesthetic exposure and EEG suppression, might decrease incident postoperative delirium. This study hypothesises that EEG-guidance of anaesthetic administration prevents postoperative delirium and downstream sequelae, including falls and decreased quality of life.Methods and analysisThis is a 1232 patient, block-randomised, double-blinded, comparative effectiveness trial. Patients older than 60, undergoing volatile agent-based general anaesthesia for major surgery, are eligible. Patients are randomised to 1 of 2 anaesthetic approaches. One group receives general anaesthesia with clinicians blinded to EEG monitoring. The other group receives EEG-guidance of anaesthetic agent administration. The outcomes of postoperative delirium (≤5 days), falls at 1 and 12 months and health-related quality of life at 1 and 12 months will be compared between groups. Postoperative delirium is assessed with the confusion assessment method, falls with ProFaNE consensus questions and quality of life with the Veteran's RAND 12-item Health Survey. The intention-to-treat principle will be followed for all analyses. Differences between groups will be presented with 95% CIs and will be considered statistically significant at a two-sided p<0.05.Ethics and disseminationElectroencephalography Guidance of Anesthesia to Alleviate Geriatric Syndromes (ENGAGES) is approved by the ethics board at Washington University. Recruitment began in January 2015. Dissemination plans include presentations at scientific conferences, scientific publications, internet-based educational materials and mass media.Trial registration numberNCT02241655; Pre-results.

Dataset Information

GERiatric Screening in the treatment of elderly patients with Ovarian Carcinoma (GERSOC): study protocol for a pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial.

Background

Methods

Discussion

Trial registration

Publications

GERiatric Screening in the treatment of elderly patients with Ovarian Carcinoma (GERSOC): study protocol for a pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets