Explore the vast range of titles available.

IntroductionDexmedetomidine is a promising pharmaceutical strategy to minimise opioid use during surgery. Despite its growing use, it is uncertain whether dexmedetomidine can improve patient-centred outcomes such as quality of recovery and pain.Methods and analysisWe will conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis following the recommendations of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews. We will search MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, Web of Science and CINAHL approximately in October 2023. We will include randomised controlled trials evaluating the impact of systemic intraoperative dexmedetomidine on patient-centred outcomes. Patient-centred outcome definition will be based on the consensus definition established by the Standardised Endpoints in Perioperative Medicine initiative (StEP-COMPAC). Our primary outcome will be the quality of recovery after surgery. Our secondary outcomes will be patient well-being, function, health-related quality of life, life impact, multidimensional assessment of postoperative acute pain, chronic pain, persistent postoperative opioid use, opioid-related adverse events, hospital length of stay and adverse events. Two reviewers will independently screen and identify trials and extract data. We will evaluate the risk of bias of trials using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool (RoB 2.0). We will synthesise data using a random effects Bayesian model framework, estimating the probability of achieving a benefit and its clinical significance. We will assess statistical heterogeneity with the tau-squared and explore sources of heterogeneity with meta-regression. We have involved patient partners, clinicians, methodologists, and key partner organisations in the development of this protocol, and we plan to continue this collaboration throughout all phases of this systematic review.Ethics and disseminationOur systematic review does not require research ethics approval. It will help inform current clinical practice guidelines and guide development of future randomised controlled trials. The results will be disseminated in open-access peer-reviewed journals, presented at conferences and shared among collaborators and networks.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42023439896.

IntroductionFor close to a century opioid administration has been a standard of care to complement anaesthesia during surgery. Considering the worldwide opioid epidemic, this practice is now being challenged and there is a growing use of systemic pharmacological opioid minimising strategies. Our aim is to conduct a scoping review that will examine clinical trials that have evaluated the impact of intraoperative opioid minimisation strategies on patient-centred outcomes and identify promising strategies.Methods and analysisOur scoping review will follow the framework developed by Arksey and O’Malley. We will search MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, Web of Science and CINAHL from their inception approximately in March 2023. We will include randomised controlled trials, assessing the impact of systemic intraoperative pharmacologic opioid minimisation strategies on patient-centred outcomes. We define an opioid minimisation strategy as any non-opioid drug with antinociceptive properties administered during the intraoperative period. Patient-centred outcomes will be defined and classified based on the consensus definitions established by the Standardised Endpoints in Perioperative Medicine initiative (StEP-COMPAC group) and informed by knowledge users and patient partners. We will use a coproduction approach involving interested parties. Our multidisciplinary team includes knowledge users, patient partners, methodologists and knowledge user organisations. Knowledge users will provide input on methods, outcomes, clinical significance of findings, implementation and feasibility. Patient partners will participate in assessing the relevance of our design, methods and outcomes and help to facilitate evidence translation. We will provide a thorough description of available clinical trials, compare their reported patient-centred outcome measures with established recommendations and identify promising strategies.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval is not required for the review. Our scoping review will inform future research including clinical trials and systematic reviews through identification of important intraoperative interventions. Results will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed publication, presentation at conferences and through our network of knowledge user collaborators.RegistrationOpen Science Foundation (currently embargoed)

Purpose While there is limited patient-centred evidence (i.e., evidence that is important for patients and end-users) to inform the use of pharmacologic opioid minimization strategies (i.e., the use of opioid alternatives) for adult surgical patients requiring general anesthesia, such strategies are increasingly being adopted into practice. Our objectives were to describe anesthesiologists’ beliefs regarding intraoperative opioid minimizing strategies use and utility, and to explore important clinical decision-making factors. Methods We conducted a pan-Canadian web-based survey of anesthesiologists that was distributed using a modified Dillman technique. Our multidisciplinary team, including a patient partners panel, participated in the process of domains and items generation, items reduction, formatting, and composition. Our sampling frames were members of the Canadian Anesthesiologists’ Society and members of the Association des Anesthésiologistes du Québec. We used the newsletters of each organization to distribute our survey, which was available in English and French and housed on the LimeSurvey (LimeSurvey GmbH, Hamburg, Germany) platform. Results From our eligible sampling frame, 18% completed the survey (356 respondents out of 2,008 eligible participants). Most of the respondents believed that using opioid minimization strategies during general anesthesia could improve postoperative clinical outcomes, including pain control (84% agree or strongly agree, n  = 344/409). Reported use of pharmacologic opioid minimization strategies was variable; however, most respondents believed that nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, acetaminophen, N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonists (ketamine), α 2 -adrenoceptor agonists (dexmedetomidine), corticosteroids, and intravenous lidocaine improve prostoperative clinical outcomes. The primary factors guiding decision-making regarding the use of opioid minimization strategies were postoperative acute pain intensity, the impact of acute pain on functioning, patient well-being (i.e., quality of recovery) and patient satisfaction with care. A lack of evidence was the most important barrier limiting the use of opioid minimization strategies. Conclusion In our survey of Canadian anesthesiologists, several opioid minimization strategies were believed to be effective complements to general anesthesia, although there was substantial variation in their reported use. Future randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews evaluating the effectiveness of opioid minimization strategies should prioritize patient-centred outcome measures assessment such as the quality of recovery or the impact of acute pain on functioning.

While there is limited patient-centred evidence (i.e., evidence that is important for patients and end-users) to inform the use of pharmacologic opioid minimization strategies (i.e., the use of opioid alternatives) for adult surgical patients requiring general anesthesia, such strategies are increasingly being adopted into practice. Our objectives were to describe anesthesiologists' beliefs regarding intraoperative opioid minimizing strategies use and utility, and to explore important clinical decision-making factors. We conducted a pan-Canadian web-based survey of anesthesiologists that was distributed using a modified Dillman technique. Our multidisciplinary team, including a patient partners panel, participated in the process of domains and items generation, items reduction, formatting, and composition. Our sampling frames were members of the Canadian Anesthesiologists' Society and members of the Association des Anesthésiologistes du Québec. We used the newsletters of each organization to distribute our survey, which was available in English and French and housed on the LimeSurvey (LimeSurvey GmbH, Hamburg, Germany) platform. From our eligible sampling frame, 18% completed the survey (356 respondents out of 2,008 eligible participants). Most of the respondents believed that using opioid minimization strategies during general anesthesia could improve postoperative clinical outcomes, including pain control (84% agree or strongly agree, n = 344/409). Reported use of pharmacologic opioid minimization strategies was variable; however, most respondents believed that nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, acetaminophen, N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonists (ketamine), α -adrenoceptor agonists (dexmedetomidine), corticosteroids, and intravenous lidocaine improve prostoperative clinical outcomes. The primary factors guiding decision-making regarding the use of opioid minimization strategies were postoperative acute pain intensity, the impact of acute pain on functioning, patient well-being (i.e., quality of recovery) and patient satisfaction with care. A lack of evidence was the most important barrier limiting the use of opioid minimization strategies. In our survey of Canadian anesthesiologists, several opioid minimization strategies were believed to be effective complements to general anesthesia, although there was substantial variation in their reported use. Future randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews evaluating the effectiveness of opioid minimization strategies should prioritize patient-centred outcome measures assessment such as the quality of recovery or the impact of acute pain on functioning.

Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis is a progressive neurodegenerative disorder leading to muscle weakness and respiratory failure. Arimoclomol, a heat-shock protein-70 (HSP70) co-inducer, is neuroprotective in animal models of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, with multiple mechanisms of action, including clearance of protein aggregates, a pathological hallmark of sporadic and familial amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of arimoclomol in patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. ORARIALS-01 was a multinational, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial done at 29 centres in 12 countries in Europe and North America. Patients were eligible if they were aged 18 years or older and met El Escorial criteria for clinically possible, probable, probable laboratory-supported, definite, or familial amyotrophic lateral sclerosis; had an ALS Functional Rating Scale-Revised score of 35 or more; and had slow vital capacity at 70% or more of the value predicted on the basis of the participant's age, height, and sex. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) in blocks of 6, stratified by use of a stable dose of riluzole or no riluzole use, to receive oral arimoclomol citrate 1200 mg/day (400 mg three times per day) or placebo. The Randomisation sequence was computer generated centrally. Investigators, study personnel, and study participants were masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was the Combined Assessment of Function and Survival (CAFS) rank score over 76 weeks of treatment. The primary outcome and safety were analysed in the modified intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03491462, and is completed. Between July 31, 2018, and July 17, 2019, 287 patients were screened, 245 of whom were enrolled in the trial and randomly assigned. The modified intention-to-treat population comprised 239 patients (160 in the arimoclomol group and 79 in the placebo group): 151 (63%) were male and 88 (37%) were female; mean age was 57·6 years (SD 10·9). CAFS score over 76 weeks did not differ between groups (mean 0·51 [SD 0·29] in the arimoclomol group vs 0·49 [0·28] in the placebo group; p=0·62). Cliff's delta comparing the two groups was 0·039 (95% CI –0·116 to 0·194). Proportions of participants who died were similar between the treatment groups: 29 (18%) of 160 patients in the arimoclomol group and 18 (23%) of 79 patients in the placebo group. Most deaths were due to disease progression. The most common adverse events were gastrointestinal. Adverse events were more often deemed treatment-related in the arimoclomol group (104 [65%]) than in the placebo group (41 [52%]) and more often led to treatment discontinuation in the arimoclomol group (26 [16%]) than in the placebo group (four [5%]). Arimoclomol did not improve efficacy outcomes compared with placebo. Although available biomarker data are insufficient to preclude future strategies that target the HSP response, safety data suggest that a higher dose of arimoclomol would not have been tolerated. Orphazyme.

BackgroundOvarian cancer with miliary disease spread is an aggressive phenotype lacking targeted management strategies. We sought to determine whether adjuvant intravenous/intraperitoneal (IV/IP) chemotherapy is beneficial in this disease setting.MethodsPatient/tumor characteristics and survival data of patients with stage IIIC epithelial ovarian cancer who underwent optimal primary debulking surgery from 01/2010 to 11/2014 were abstracted from records. Chi-square and Mann–Whitney U tests were used to compare categorical and continuous variables. The Kaplan–Meier method was used to estimate survival curves, and outcomes were compared using log-rank tests. Factors significant on univariate analysis were combined into multivariate logistic regression survival models.ResultsAmong 90 patients with miliary disease spread, 41 (46%) received IV/IP chemotherapy and 49 (54%) received IV chemotherapy. IV/IP chemotherapy, compared with IV chemotherapy, resulted in improved progression-free survival (PFS; 23.0 versus 12.0 months; p = 0.0002) and overall survival (OS; 52 versus 36 months; p = 0.002) in patients with miliary disease. Among 78 patients with nonmiliary disease spread, 23 (29%) underwent IV/IP chemotherapy and 55 (71%) underwent IV chemotherapy. There was no PFS or OS benefit associated with IV/IP chemotherapy over IV chemotherapy in these patients. On multivariate analysis, IV/IP chemotherapy was associated with improved PFS (HR, 0.28; 95% CI 0.15–0.53) and OS (HR, 0.33; 95% CI 0.18–0.61) in patients with miliary disease compared with those with nonmiliary disease (PFS [HR, 1.53; 95% CI 0.74–3.19]; OS [HR, 1.47; 95% CI 0.70–3.09]).ConclusionsAdjuvant IV/IP chemotherapy was associated with oncologic benefit in miliary disease spread. This survival benefit was not observed in nonmiliary disease.

ObjectiveTo evaluate the impact of size and distribution of residual disease after interval debulking surgery on the timing and patterns of recurrence for patients with advanced-stage epithelial ovarian cancer.MethodsPatient demographics and data on disease treatment/recurrence were collected from medical records of patients with stage IIIC/IV epithelial ovarian cancer who were managed with neoadjuvant chemotherapy/interval debulking surgery between January 2010 and December 2014. Among patients without complete surgical resection but with ≤1 cm of residual disease, the number of anatomic sites (<1 cm single anatomic location vs <1 cm multiple anatomic locations) was used to describe the size and distribution of residual disease. ResultsA total of 224 patients were included. Of these, 70.5% (n=158) had a complete surgical resection, 12.5% (n=28) had <1 cm single anatomic location, and 17.0% (n=38) had <1 cm multiple anatomic locations. Two-year progression-free survival for complete surgical resection, <1 cm single anatomic location, and <1 cm multiple anatomic locations was 22.2%, 17.9% and 7%, respectively (p=0.007). Size and distribution of residual disease after interval debulking surgery did not affect location of recurrence and most patients had recurrence at multiple sites (complete surgical resection: 64.7%, <1 cm single anatomic location: 55.6%, and <1 cm multiple anatomic locations: 71.4%). Controlling for additional factors that may influence platinum resistance and surgical complexity, the rate of platinum-resistant recurrence was similar for patients with complete surgical resection and <1 cm single anatomic location (OR=1.07, 95% CI 0.40 to 2.86; p=0.888), but women with <1 cm multiple anatomic locations had an increased risk of platinum resistance (OR=3.09, 95% CI 1.41 to 6.78 p=0.005).ConclusionsDespite current classification as ‘optimal,’ <1 cm multiple anatomic location at the time of interval debulking surgery is associated with a shorter progression-free survival and increased risk of platinum resistance.

ObjectivesOvarian cancer patients with miliary disease have the lowest rates of complete surgical resection and poorest survival. Adjunct surgical techniques may potentially increase rates of complete surgical resection. No studies have evaluated the use of these techniques in primary debulking surgery for ovarian cancer patients with miliary disease. The aim of this study was to examine the use of adjunct surgical techniques during primary debulking surgery for patients with advanced epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, and primary peritoneal cancer with miliary disease.MethodsMedical records of patients with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stages IIIC–IVB epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer with miliary disease undergoing primary debulking surgery from January 2010 to December 2014 were reviewed. Adjunct surgical techniques were defined as ultrasonic surgical aspiration, argon enhanced electrocautery, thermal plasma energy, and traditional electrocautery ablation. Patients undergoing surgery with and without these devices were compared with respect to demographics, operative characteristics, postoperative complications, residual disease, progression free survival and overall survival.ResultsA total of 135 patients with miliary disease underwent primary debulking surgery, of which 30 (22.2%) patients used adjunct surgical techniques. The most common devices were ultrasonic surgical aspiration (40%) and argon enhanced electrocautery (36.7%). The most common sites of use were diaphragm (63.3%), pelvic peritoneum (30%), bowel mesentery (20%), and large bowel serosa (20%). There were no differences in age, stage, primary site, histology, operative time, surgical complexity, or postoperative complications for patients operated on with or without these devices. Volume of residual disease was similar (0.1–1 cm: 60% with adjunct techniques versus 68.6% without; complete surgical resection: 16.7% with adjunct techniques versus 13.3% without; p=0.67). For patients with ≤1 cm residual disease, median progression free survival (15 versus 15 months, p=0.65) and median overall survival (40 versus 55 months, p=0.38) were also similar.ConclusionAdjunct surgical techniques may be incorporated during primary debulking surgery for patients with advanced epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer with miliary disease; however, these do not improve the rate of optimal cytoreduction.

Depression, anxiety, and at-risk drinking are highly prevalent in primary care settings. Many jurisdictions experience geographical barriers to accessing mental health services, necessitating the development and validation of alternative models of care delivery. Existing evidence supports the acceptability and effectiveness of providing mental health care by telephone. This analysis assesses patient's acceptability of computer-aided telephone support delivered by lay providers to primary care patients with depression, anxiety, or at-risk drinking. The Primary care Assessment and Research of a Telephone intervention for Neuropsychiatric conditions with Education and Resources study is a randomized controlled trial comparing a computer-aided telephone-based intervention to usual care enhanced by periodic assessments in adult primary care patients referred for the treatment of depression, anxiety, or at-risk drinking; no part of the study involves in-person contact. For this analysis, the following data were obtained: reasons provided for declining consent; reasons provided for withdrawing from the study; study retention rate; and a thematic analysis of a satisfaction survey upon study completion. During the consent process, 17.1% (114/667) patients referred to the study declined to participate and 57.0% of them (65/114) attributed their refusal to research-related factors (ie, randomization and time commitment); a further 16.7% (19/114) declined owing to the telephone delivery of the intervention. Among the 377 participants who were randomized to the 1-year intervention, the overall retention rate was 82.8% (312/377). Almost no participants who withdrew from the study identified the telephone components of the study as their reason for withdrawal. Analysis of a qualitative satisfaction survey revealed that 97% (38/39) of comments related to the telephone components were positive with key reported positive attributes being accessibility, convenience, and privacy. Our results suggest that a computer-aided telephone support is highly acceptable to primary care patients with depression, anxiety, or at-risk drinking. In particular, these patients appreciate its accessibility, flexibility, and privacy. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02345122; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02345122 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/73R9Q2cle).