Catalogue Search | MBRL
Search Results Heading
Explore the vast range of titles available.
MBRLSearchResults
-
DisciplineDiscipline
-
Is Peer ReviewedIs Peer Reviewed
-
Item TypeItem Type
-
SubjectSubject
-
YearFrom:-To:
-
More FiltersMore FiltersSourceLanguage
Done
Filters
Reset
2
result(s) for
"LaDelfa, Anthony"
Sort by:
Impact of Reported Beta-Lactam Allergy on Inpatient Outcomes: A Multicenter Prospective Cohort Study
2016
Background. Reported allergy to beta-lactam antibiotics is common and often leads to unnecessary avoidance in patients who could tolerate these antibiotics. We prospectively evaluated the impact of these reported allergies on clinical outcomes. Methods. We conducted a trainee-led prospective cohort study to determine the burden and clinical impact of reported beta-lactam allergy on patients seen by infectious diseases consultation services at 3 academic hospitals. The primary outcome was a composite measure of readmission for the same infection, acute kidney injury, Clostridium difficile infection, or drug-related adverse reactions requiring discontinuation. Predictors of interest were history of beta-lactam allergy and receipt of preferred beta-lactam therapy. Results. Among 507 patients, 95 (19%) reported beta-lactam allergy; preferred therapy was a beta-lactam in 72 (76%). When betalactam therapy was preferred, 25 (35%) did not receive preferred therapy due to their report of allergy even though 13 (52%) reported non-severe prior reactions. After adjustment for confounders, patients who did not receive preferred beta-lactam therapy were at greater risk of adverse events (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 3.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.28–7.89) compared with those without reported allergy. In contrast, patients who received preferred beta-lactam therapy had a similar risk of adverse events compared with patients not reporting allergy (aOR, 1.33; 95% CI, .62–2.87). Conclusions. Avoidance of preferred beta-lactam therapy in patients who report allergy is associated with an increased risk of adverse events. Development of inpatient programs aimed at accurately identifying beta-lactam allergies to safely promote beta-lactam administration among these patients is warranted.
Journal Article
Cancer patients’ acceptability of incorporating an epidemiology questionnaire within a clinical trial
2015
Background/aims
Understanding the influence or impact of epidemiological factors on cancer outcomes in clinical trials can broaden our knowledge of disease, trial populations and therapeutic effects thus leading to improved patient care. However, there is a lack of data on cancer patients’ compliance with an epidemiology questionnaire in the context of a clinical trial.
Patients and methods
Cancer patients were provided with a hypothetical scenario and surveyed regarding their willingness and preferences to complete an epidemiology questionnaire if incorporated into a cancer therapy trial. Patient compliance with completing a voluntary epidemiology questionnaire and trial coordinators perceptions therein were separately determined in the NCIC Clinical Trials Group HN.6 clinical trial, an ongoing randomized phase III trial comparing two first-line treatment regimens in patients with locoregionally advanced head and neck cancer.
Results
Of 617 cancer patients from community, academic and tertiary cancer centres, the majority were willing to complete an epidemiology questionnaire either unconditionally (45%), or provided it did not inconvenience them (31%); 4% would refuse. Patients preferred shorter questionnaires of 30–50 questions requiring 10–20 min to complete, administered over 1–3 sessions. Patients were less willing, but still compliant, to answer questions relating to sexual history (71%) and annual household income (66%) relative to other questions (>90%). Eighteen percent thought that the questionnaire should be mandatory, with 31% believing that they may benefit personally from such research. In the HN.6 trial, compliance averaged 94.8% per question.
Conclusions
Cancer patients are very willing to complete epidemiology questions in clinical trials.
Journal Article