Dataset Information

Implementing a personalized pharmaceutical plan in kidney or liver transplant patients: study protocol for a stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial (GRePH)

ABSTRACT:

Background

Nowadays, the main challenge of transplantation is the improvement of long-term care, aiming at reducing treatment-related complications and at decreasing rejection rates. Patients’ adherence to both treatment and hygienic-dietary measures is mandatory to achieve these objectives. Adherence to immunosuppressive drugs is estimated to be only 70%. We hypothesized that the implementation of a personalized pharmaceutical plan (PPP) would increase adherence and therefore graft survival.

Methods/design

This study is a stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial with transplantation units defining clusters. Twelve clusters from 10 university hospitals were recruited. All centres started on the same day in the control phase. Every 7 weeks, one centre will switch to the intervention phase and remain there until the end of inclusions. We plan to recruit 1716 kidney and/or liver transplant patients. The intervention phase consists in setting up the PPP: development of the patient’s hospital and community pharmaceutical follow-up. In the hospital, the pharmacist will carry out drug reconciliation upon admission, daily pharmaceutical follow-up of prescriptions and pharmaceutical interviews with the patient in order to explain the modalities of taking immunosuppressive drugs and hygienic-dietary measures. After hospitalization, during the post-transplantation year, pharmaceutical meetings will take place, prior to medical consultations in order to check the patient’s understanding of the prescription, his adherence, to remind them of hygienic-dietary measures and to look for adverse effects. The hospital pharmacist will also be in charge of establishing a close link with the community pharmacist (CP) and general practitioner, especially providing discharge medication reconciliation, an e-learning and a checklist. Moreover, prior to each pharmaceutical consultation, the hospital pharmacist will contact the CP to discuss patient adherence. The primary outcome is adherence to immunosuppressive treatments 1 year post-transplantation assessed by using the BAASIS questionnaire and the health insurance data from the national health data system. A medico-economic study will measure the efficiency of this plan.

Discussion

GRePH aims to increase adherence of liver and/or kidney transplant patients to their immunosuppressive therapies in order to reduce transplant rejections. To this end, a new clinical pharmacy model, the PPP, will be set up in 10 university hospitals.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04295928. Registered on 5 March 2020

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-021-05749-w.

SUBMITTER: Pourrat X

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8573912 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundTo improve quality of care for patients with hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA), a structured model for integrated OA care was developed based on international recommendations. The objective of this study was to assess the effectiveness of this model in primary care.Methods and findingsWe conducted a cluster-randomised controlled trial with stepped-wedge cohort design in 6 Norwegian municipalities (clusters) between January 2015 and October 2017. The randomised order was concealed to the clusters until the time of crossover from the control to the intervention phase. The intervention was implementation of the SAMBA model, facilitated by interactive workshops for general practitioners and physiotherapists with an update on OA treatment recommendations. Patients in the intervention group attended a physiotherapist-led OA education and individually tailored exercise programme for 8-12 weeks. The primary outcome was patient-reported quality of care (OsteoArthritis Quality Indicator questionnaire; 0-100, 100 = optimal quality) at 6 months. Secondary outcomes included patient-reported referrals to physiotherapy, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and orthopaedic surgeon consultation; patients' satisfaction with care; physical activity level; and proportion of patients who were overweight or obese (body mass index ≥ 25 kg/m2). In all, 40 of 80 general practitioners (mean age [SD] 50 [12] years, 42% females) and 37 of 64 physiotherapists (mean age [SD] 42 [8] years, 65% females) participated. They identified 531 patients, of which 393 patients (mean age [SD] 64 [10] years, 71% females) with symptomatic hip or knee OA were included. Among these, 109 patients were recruited during the control periods (control group), and 284 patients were recruited during interventions periods (intervention group). The patients in the intervention group reported significantly higher quality of care (score of 60 versus 41, mean difference 18.9; 95% CI 12.7, 25.1; p < 0.001) and higher satisfaction with OA care (odds ratio [OR] 12.1; 95% CI 6.44, 22.72; p < 0.001) compared to patients in the control group. The increase in quality of care was close to, but below, the pre-specified minimal important change. In the intervention group, a higher proportion was referred to physiotherapy (OR 2.5; 95% CI 1.08, 5.73; p = 0.03), a higher proportion fulfilled physical activity recommendations (OR 9.3; 95% CI 2.87, 30.37; p < 0.001), and a lower proportion was referred to an orthopaedic surgeon (OR 0.3; 95% CI 0.08, 0.80; p = 0.02), as compared to the control group. There were no significant group differences regarding referral to MRI (OR 0.6; 95% CI 0.13, 2.38; p = 0.42) and proportion of patients who were overweight or obese (OR 1.3; 95% CI 0.70, 2.51; p = 0.34). Study limitations include the imbalance in patient group size, which may have been due to an increased attention to OA patients among the health professionals during the intervention phase, and a potential recruitment bias as the patient participants were identified by their health professionals.ConclusionsIn this study, a structured model in primary care resulted in higher quality of OA care as compared to usual care. Future studies should explore ways to implement the structured model for integrated OA care on a larger scale.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02333656.

Project description:ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to assess whether the superior cost-effectiveness of a personalized physical therapy approach (Coach2Move)-which was demonstrated in a previous trial when compared to usual care physical therapy (UCP)-can be replicated in daily clinical practice.MethodsA multicenter cluster-randomized stepped wedge trial with 4 clusters consisting of 4 physical therapist practices in the Netherlands was used to compare a personalized physical therapy approach to elicit physical activity (Coach2Move) versus care as usual. Multilevel analyses for effectiveness were conducted for the amount of physical activity (Longitudinal Aging Study Amsterdam Physical Activity Questionnaire) and functional mobility (Timed "Up & Go" Test) at 3, 6 (primary outcome), and 12 months' follow-up. Secondary outcomes were: level of frailty (Evaluative Frailty Index for Physical Activity), perceived effect (Global Perceived Effect and Patient-Specific Complaints questionnaires), quality of life (Euro Quality of Life-5 Dimensions-5 Levels [EQ-5D-5L]), and health care expenditures.ResultsThe 292 community-dwelling older adults with mobility problems visiting physical therapists were included in either the Coach2Move (n = 112; mean [SD] age = 82 [5] y; 60% female) or UCP (n = 180; mean [SD] age = 81 (6) y; 62% female) section of the trial. At baseline, Coach2Move participants were less physically active as compared with UCP participants (mean difference = -198; 95% CI = -90 to -306) active minutes. At 6 months, between-group mean differences (95% CI) favored Coach2Move participants on physical activity levels (297 [83 to 512] active minutes), functional mobility (-14.2 [-21 to -8]) seconds] and frailty levels (-5 [-8 to -1] points). At 12 months, the physical activity levels of Coach2Move participants further increased and frailty levels and secondary outcomes remained stable, whereas outcomes of UCP participants decreased. After the Coach2Move implementation strategy, physical therapists utilized significantly fewer treatment sessions compared with before the implementation (15 vs 22). Anticipated cost savings were not observed.ConclusionsThis study replicated the results of an earlier trial and shows that Coach2Move leads to better mid- and long-term outcomes (physical activity, functional mobility, level of frailty) in fewer therapeutic sessions compared with UCP. Based on these and earlier findings, the implementation of Coach2Move in physical therapist practice is recommended.ImpactThis article describes the implementation of the Coach2Move approach, a treatment strategy that has proven to be cost-effective in a previously conducted randomized controlled trial. Implementation of Coach2Move in a real-life setting allowed an evaluation of the effects in a clinically relevant population. Coach2Move has been shown to increase physical activity, improve functional mobility, and reduce frailty more effectively in comparison with usual care physical therapy and, therefore, has application for physical therapists working with older adults in daily clinical practice.Lay summaryCoach2Move is a new physical therapeutic approach for older adults. This manuscript describes how implementation of Coach2Move in daily clinical practice achieves better outcomes over a longer period of time against similar costs in comparison with regular physical therapy.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Cluster randomised trials with unequal sized clusters often have lower precision than with clusters of equal size. To allow for this, sample sizes are inflated by a modified version of the design effect for clustering. These inflation factors are valid under the assumption that randomisation is stratified by cluster size. We investigate the impact of unequal cluster size when that constraint is relaxed, with particular focus on the stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial, where this is more difficult to achieve. METHODS:Assuming a multi-level mixed effect model with exchangeable correlation structure for a cross-sectional design, we use simulation methods to compare the precision for a trial with clusters of unequal size to a trial with clusters of equal size (relative efficiency). For a range of scenarios we illustrate the impact of various design features (the cluster-mean correlation - a function of the intracluster correlation and the cluster size, the number of clusters, number of randomisation sequences) on the average and distribution of the relative efficiency. RESULTS:Simulations confirm that the average reduction in precision, due to varying cluster sizes, is smaller in a stepped-wedge trial compared to the parallel trial. However, the variance of the distribution of the relative efficiency is large; and is larger under the stepped-wedge design compared to the parallel design. This can result in large variations in actual power, depending on the allocation of clusters to sequences. Designs with larger variations in cluster sizes, smaller number of clusters and studies with smaller cluster-mean correlations (smaller cluster sizes or smaller intra-cluster correlation) are particularly at risk. CONCLUSION:The actual realised power in a stepped-wedge trial might be substantially higher or lower than that estimated. This is particularly important when there are a small number of clusters or the variability in cluster sizes is large. Constraining the randomisation on cluster size, where feasible, might mitigate this effect.

Project description:BackgroundPrevious research indicates that people with osteoarthritis (OA) are not receiving the recommended and optimal treatment. Based on international treatment recommendations for hip and knee OA and previous research, the SAMBA model for integrated OA care in Norwegian primary health care has been developed. The model includes physiotherapist (PT) led patient OA education sessions and an exercise programme lasting 8-12 weeks. This study aims to assess the effectiveness, feasibility, and costs of a tailored strategy to implement the SAMBA model.Methods/designA cluster randomized controlled trial with stepped wedge design including an effect, process, and cost evaluation will be conducted in six municipalities (clusters) in Norway. The municipalities will be randomized for time of crossover from current usual care to the implementation of the SAMBA model by a tailored strategy. The tailored strategy includes interactive workshops for general practitioners (GPs) and PTs in primary care covering the SAMBA model for integrated OA care, educational material, educational outreach visits, feedback, and reminder material. Outcomes will be measured at the patient, GP, and PT levels using self-report, semi-structured interviews, and register based data. The primary outcome measure is patient-reported quality of care (OsteoArthritis Quality Indicator questionnaire) at 6-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes include referrals to PT, imaging, and referrals to the orthopaedic surgeon as well as participants' treatment satisfaction, symptoms, physical activity level, body weight, and self-reported and measured lower limb function. The actual exposure to the tailor made implementation strategy and user experiences will be measured in a process evaluation. In the economic evaluation, the difference in costs of usual OA care and the SAMBA model for integrated OA care will be compared with the difference in health outcomes and reported by the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).DiscussionThe results from the present study will add to the current knowledge on tailored strategies, which aims to improve the uptake of evidence-based OA care recommendations and improve the quality of OA care in primary health care. The new knowledge can be used in national and international initiatives designed to improve the quality of OA care.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02333656.

Project description:BackgroundThe World Health Organization (WHO) Labour Care Guide (LCG) is a paper-based labour monitoring tool designed to facilitate the implementation of WHO's latest guidelines for effective, respectful care during labour and childbirth. Implementing the LCG into routine intrapartum care requires a strategy that improves healthcare provider practices during labour and childbirth. Such a strategy might optimize the use of Caesarean section (CS), along with potential benefits on the use of other obstetric interventions, maternal and perinatal health outcomes, and women's experience of care. However, the effects of a strategy to implement the LCG have not been evaluated in a randomised trial. This study aims to: (1) develop and optimise a strategy for implementing the LCG (formative phase); and (2) To evaluate the implementation of the LCG strategy compared with usual care (trial phase).MethodsIn the formative phase, we will co-design the LCG strategy with key stakeholders informed by facility assessments and provider surveys, which will be field tested in one hospital. The LCG strategy includes a LCG training program, ongoing supportive supervision from senior clinical staff, and audit and feedback using the Robson Classification. We will then conduct a stepped-wedge, cluster-randomized pilot trial in four public hospitals in India, to evaluate the effect of the LCG strategy intervention compared to usual care (simplified WHO partograph). The primary outcome is the CS rate in nulliparous women with singleton, term, cephalic pregnancies in spontaneous labour (Robson Group 1). Secondary outcomes include clinical and process of care outcomes, as well as women's experience of care outcomes. We will also conduct a process evaluation during the trial, using standardized facility assessments, in-depth interviews and surveys with providers, audits of completed LCGs, labour ward observations and document reviews. An economic evaluation will consider implementation costs and cost-effectiveness.DiscussionFindings of this trial will guide clinicians, administrators and policymakers on how to effectively implement the LCG, and what (if any) effects the LCG strategy has on process of care, health and experience outcomes. The trial findings will inform the rollout of LCG internationally.Trial registrationCTRI/2021/01/030695 (Protocol version 1.4, 25 April 2022).

Project description:BACKGROUND:Clinical pharmaceutical care has long played an important role in the improvement of healthcare safety. Pharmaceutical care is a collaborative care approach, implicating all the actors of the medication circuit in order to prevent and correct drug-related problems that can lead to adverse drug events. The collaborative pharmaceutical care performed during patients' hospitalization requires two mutually reinforcing activities: medication reconciliation and medication review. Until now, the impact of the association of these two activities has not been clearly studied. METHODS:This is a multicentric stepped wedge randomized study involving six care units from six French University Hospitals (each unit corresponding to a cluster) over seven consecutive 14-day periods. Each hospital unit will start with a control period and switch to an experimental period after a randomized number of 14-day periods. Patients aged at least 65 years hospitalized in one of the participating care units and having given their consent to be called for a 30-day and 90-day follow-up can be enrolled. For each 14-day period, 15 patients will be recruited in each care unit to obtain a total of 630 patients enrolled in all centers. Patients with a hospital stay of more than 21 days will be excluded. During the control period, there will be no clinical pharmacist in the care unit, whereas during the experimental period a clinical pharmacist will perform medication reconciliation and review with the healthcare team. The primary outcome will assess the impact of collaborative pharmaceutical care on preventable medication error rate. The secondary outcomes will evaluate the clinical impact of the strategy, the acceptance rate of pharmaceutical interventions, the induced and avoided costs of the strategy (cost-consequence analysis), and the healthcare team's satisfaction. DISCUSSION:This study will assess the impact of collaborative pharmaceutical care associating medication reconciliation and review at patient admission to hospital in terms of preventable medication error rate and costs. This activity will prevent and correct medication errors arising earlier in the hospitalization. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02598115 . Registered on 4 November 2015.