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
4
result(s) for
"Olivier, Pascale, MD"
Sort by:
Adaptation of time‐driven activity‐based costing to the evaluation of the efficiency of ambulatory care provided in the emergency department
by
Guertin, Jason R., PhD
,
Boilard, Christian, MD
,
Mokhtari, Akram, MD, BSc
in
Activity based costing
,
Adaptation
,
Ambulatory care
2022
AbstractObjectivesThe aim of this study was: (1) to adapt the time‐driven activity‐based costing (TDABC) method to emergency department (ED) ambulatory care; (2) to estimate the cost of care associated with frequently encountered ambulatory conditions; and (3) to compare costs calculated using estimated time and objectively measured time. MethodsTDABC was applied to a retrospective cohort of patients with upper respiratory tract infections, urinary tract infections, unspecified abdominal pain, lower back pain and limb lacerations who visited an ED in Québec City (Canada) during fiscal year 2015–2016. The calculated cost of care was the product of the time required to complete each care procedure and the cost per minute of each human resource or equipment involved. Costing based on durations estimated by care professionals were compared to those based on objective measurements in the field. ResultsOverall, 220 care episodes were included and 3080 time measurements of 75 different processes were collected. Differences between costs calculated using estimated and measured times were statistically significant for all conditions except lower back pain and ranged from $4.30 to $55.20 (US) per episode. Differences were larger for conditions requiring more advanced procedures, such as imaging or the attention of ED professionals. ConclusionsThe greater the use of advanced procedures or the involvement of ED professionals in the care, the greater is the discrepancy between estimated‐time‐based and measured‐time‐based costing. TDABC should be applied using objective measurement of the time per procedure.
Journal Article
Cytoreductive surgery plus hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy versus cytoreductive surgery alone for colorectal peritoneal metastases (PRODIGE 7): a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial
2021
The addition of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) to cytoreductive surgery has been associated with encouraging survival results in some patients with colorectal peritoneal metastases who were eligible for complete macroscopic resection. We aimed to assess the specific benefit of adding HIPEC to cytoreductive surgery compared with receiving cytoreductive surgery alone.
We did a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial at 17 cancer centres in France. Eligible patients were aged 18–70 years and had histologically proven colorectal cancer with peritoneal metastases, WHO performance status of 0 or 1, a Peritoneal Cancer Index of 25 or less, and were eligible to receive systemic chemotherapy for 6 months (ie, they had adequate organ function and life expectancy of at least 12 weeks). Patients in whom complete macroscopic resection or surgical resection with less than 1 mm residual tumour tissue was completed were randomly assigned (1:1) to cytoreductive surgery with or without oxaliplatin-based HIPEC. Randomisation was done centrally using minimisation, and stratified by centre, completeness of cytoreduction, number of previous systemic chemotherapy lines, and timing of protocol-mandated systemic chemotherapy. Oxaliplatin HIPEC was administered by the closed (360 mg/m2) or open (460 mg/m2) abdomen techniques, and systemic chemotherapy (400 mg/m2 fluorouracil and 20 mg/m2 folinic acid) was delivered intravenously 20 min before HIPEC. All individuals received systemic chemotherapy (of investigators' choosing) with or without targeted therapy before or after surgery, or both. The primary endpoint was overall survival, which was analysed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in all patients who received surgery. This trial is registed with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00769405, and is now completed.
Between Feb 11, 2008, and Jan 6, 2014, 265 patients were included and randomly assigned, 133 to the cytoreductive surgery plus HIPEC group and 132 to the cytoreductive surgery alone group. After median follow-up of 63·8 months (IQR 53·0–77·1), median overall survival was 41·7 months (95% CI 36·2–53·8) in the cytoreductive surgery plus HIPEC group and 41·2 months (35·1–49·7) in the cytoreductive surgery group (hazard ratio 1·00 [95·37% CI 0·63–1·58]; stratified log-rank p=0·99). At 30 days, two (2%) treatment-related deaths had occurred in each group.. Grade 3 or worse adverse events at 30 days were similar in frequency between groups (56 [42%] of 133 patients in the cytoreductive surgery plus HIPEC group vs 42 [32%] of 132 patients in the cytoreductive surgery group; p=0·083); however, at 60 days, grade 3 or worse adverse events were more common in the cytoreductive surgery plus HIPEC group (34 [26%] of 131 vs 20 [15%] of 130; p=0·035).
Considering the absence of an overall survival benefit after adding HIPEC to cytoreductive surgery and more frequent postoperative late complications with this combination, our data suggest that cytoreductive surgery alone should be the cornerstone of therapeutic strategies with curative intent for colorectal peritoneal metastases.
Institut National du Cancer, Programme Hospitalier de Recherche Clinique du Cancer, Ligue Contre le Cancer.
Journal Article
Gemcitabine and oxaliplatin with or without cetuximab in advanced biliary-tract cancer (BINGO): a randomised, open-label, non-comparative phase 2 trial
by
Fartoux, Laetitia
,
Malka, David
,
Blanc, Jean-Frédéric
in
Adult
,
Aged
,
Alanine Transaminase - blood
2014
Gemcitabine plus a platinum-based agent (eg, cisplatin or oxaliplatin) is the standard of care for advanced biliary cancers. We investigated the addition of cetuximab to chemotherapy in patients with advanced biliary cancers.
In this non-comparative, open-label, randomised phase 2 trial, we recruited patients with locally advanced (non-resectable) or metastatic cholangiocarcinoma, gallbladder carcinoma, or ampullary carcinoma and a WHO performance status of 0 or 1 from 18 hospitals across France and Germany. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) centrally with a minimisation procedure to first-line treatment with gemcitabine (1000 mg/m2) and oxaliplatin (100 mg/m2) with or without cetuximab (500 mg/m2), repeated every 2 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Randomisation was stratified by centre, primary site of disease, disease stage, and previous treatment with curative intent or adjuvant therapy. Investigators who assessed treatment response were not masked to group assignment. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who were progression-free at 4 months, analysed by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00552149.
Between Oct 10, 2007, and Dec 18, 2009, 76 patients were assigned to chemotherapy plus cetuximab and 74 to chemotherapy alone. 48 (63%; 95% CI 52–74) patients assigned to chemotherapy plus cetuximab and 40 (54%; 43–65) assigned to chemotherapy alone were progression-free at 4 months. Median progression-free survival was 6·1 months (95% CI 5·1–7·6) in the chemotherapy plus cetuximab group and 5·5 months (3·7–6·6) in the chemotherapy alone group. Median overall survival was 11·0 months (9·1–13·7) in the chemotherapy plus cetuximab group and 12·4 months (8·6–16·0) in the chemotherapy alone group. The most common grade 3–4 adverse events were peripheral neuropathy (in 18 [24%] of 76 patients who received chemotherapy plus cetuximab vs ten [15%] of 68 who received chemotherapy alone), neutropenia (17 [22%] vs 11 [16%]), and increased aminotransferase concentrations (17 [22%] vs ten [15%]). 70 serious adverse events were reported in 39 (51%) of 76 patients who received chemotherapy plus cetuximab (34 events in 19 [25%] patients were treatment-related), whereas 41 serious adverse events were reported in 25 (35%) of 71 patients who received chemotherapy alone (20 events in 12 [17%] patients were treatment-related). One patient died of atypical pneumonia related to treatment in the chemotherapy alone group.
The addition of cetuximab to gemcitabine and oxaliplatin did not seem to enhance the activity of chemotherapy in patients with advanced biliary cancer, although it was well tolerated. Gemcitabine and platinum-based combination should remain the standard treatment option.
Institut National du Cancer, Merck Serono.
Journal Article
Safety and immunogenicity of double-dose versus standard-dose hepatitis B revaccination in non-responding adults with HIV-1 (ANRS HB04 B-BOOST): a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial
2015
Revaccination with double-dose hepatitis B vaccine has been recommended in HIV-infected patients who do not respond to standard vaccination, but has not yet been assessed. We aimed to compare the safety and immunogenicity of a reinforced hepatitis B revaccination protocol with the standard revaccination schedule in HIV-infected patients not responding to primary vaccination.
We did this multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial, at 53 centres in France. HIV-infected adults (aged ≥18 years), with CD4 counts of 200 cells per μL or more and no response to a previous hepatitis B vaccination or a 20 μg booster dose, were randomly assigned (1:1), according to a computer-generated randomisation list with permuted blocks (block sizes of two to six), to receive either standard-dose (20 μg) or double-dose (40 μg) recombinant hepatitis B vaccine at weeks 0, 4, and 24. Randomisation was stratified by baseline CD4 count (200–349 vs ≥350 cells per μL). Patients and treating physicians were not masked to treatment allocation, but the randomisation list was concealed from the investigators who assigned participants to the vaccination groups. The primary endpoint was the proportion of responders, defined as patients with hepatitis B surface antibody (anti-HBs) titres of 10 mIU/mL or more, at week 28. We did analysis by modified intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00670839.
Between May 19, 2008, and May 8, 2011, 178 participants were randomly assigned to the standard-dose group (n=90) or the double-dose group (n=88), of whom 176 (98%) participants were included in the primary efficacy analysis. At week 28, we recorded a response in 60 patients (67%, 95% CI 57–77) in the standard-dose group versus 64 patients (74%, 63–82) in the double-dose group (p=0·334). Except for more frequent local reactions in the double-dose group than the standard-dose group (13 [15%] vs four [4%] patients; p=0·020), there was no difference in safety between groups.
In adults with HIV-1 who have not responded to previous hepatitis B vaccination, double-dose revaccination did not achieve a higher response rate than did revaccination with standard single-dose regimen. However, the safety profile was similar between treatment groups. Our results should be assessed in future studies before double-dose vaccine can be considered for the standard of care of vaccine non-responders.
French National Institute for Medical Research–French National Agency for Research on AIDS and Viral Hepatitis.
Journal Article