Standard treatment for patients with intermediate or locally advanced rectal cancer is (chemo)radiotherapy followed by total mesorectal excision (TME) surgery. In recent years, organ preservation aiming at improving quality of life has been explored. Patients with a complete clinical response to (chemo)radiotherapy can be managed safely with a watch-and-wait approach. However, the optimal organ-preserving treatment strategy for patients with a good, but not complete clinical response remains unclear. The aim of the OPAXX study is to determine the rate of organ preservation that can be achieved in patients with rectal cancer with a good clinical response after neoadjuvant (chemo)radiotherapy by additional local treatment options.

The OPAXX study is a Dutch multicentre study that investigates the efficacy of two additional local treatments aiming at organ preservation in patients with a good, but not complete response to neoadjuvant treatment (ie near-complete response or a small residual tumour mass

The trial protocol has been approved by the medical ethics committee of the Netherlands Cancer Institute (METC20.1276/M20PAX). Informed consent will be obtained from all participants. The trial results will be published in an international peer-reviewed journal.

NCT05772923.

Poor medication adherence remains highly prevalent and adversely affects health outcomes. Patients frequently describe properties of the pills themselves, like size and shape, as barriers, but this has not been evaluated objectively. We sought to determine the extent to which oral medication properties thought to be influential translate into lower objectively-measured adherence.

Retrospective cohort study.

US nationwide commercial claims database, 2016–2019.

Among patients initiating first-line hypertension, diabetes or hyperlipidaemia treatment based on clinical guidelines, we measured pill size, shape, colour and flavouring, number of pills/day and fixed-dose combination status as properties.

Outcomes included discontinuation after the first fill (ie, never filling again over a minimum of 1-year follow-up) and long-term non-adherence (1-year proportion of days covered

Across 604 323 patients, 14.6% discontinued after filling once (ie, were non-persistent), and 54.0% were non-adherent over 1-year follow-up. Large pill size was associated with non-adherence, except for thiazides (eg, metformin adjusted OR (aOR): 1.12, 95% CI: 1.06 to 1.18). Greater pill burden was associated with a higher risk of non-adherence across all classes (eg, metformin aOR: 1.58, 95% CI: 1.53 to 1.64 for two pills/day). Taking less than one pill/day was also associated with higher risk of non-adherence and non-persistence (eg, non-persistence statin aOR: 1.29, 95% CI: 1.20 to 1.38). Pill shape, colour, flavouring and combination status were associated with mixed effects across classes.

Pill burden and pill size are key properties affecting adherence for almost all classes; others, like size and combination, could modestly affect medication adherence. Clinical interventions could screen patients for potential intolerance to medication and potentially implement more convenient dosing schedules.

Digital health is now routinely being applied in clinical care, and with a variety of clinician-facing systems available, healthcare organisations are increasingly required to make decisions about technology implementation and evaluation. However, few studies have examined how digital health research is prioritised, particularly research focused on clinician-facing decision support systems. This study aimed to identify criteria for prioritising digital health research, examine how these differ from criteria for prioritising traditional health research and determine priority decision support use cases for a collaborative implementation research programme.

Drawing on an interpretive listening model for priority setting and a stakeholder-driven approach, our prioritisation process involved stakeholder identification, eliciting decision support use case priorities from stakeholders, generating initial use case priorities and finalising preferred use cases based on consultations. In this qualitative study, online focus group session(s) were held with stakeholders, audiorecorded, transcribed and analysed thematically.

Fifteen participants attended the online priority setting sessions. Criteria for prioritising digital health research fell into three themes, namely: public health benefit, health system-level factors and research process and feasibility. We identified criteria unique to digital health research as the availability of suitable governance frameworks, candidate technology’s alignment with other technologies in use,and the possibility of data-driven insights from health technology data. The final selected use cases were remote monitoring of patients with pulmonary conditions, sepsis detection and automated breast screening.

The criteria for determining digital health research priority areas are more nuanced than that of traditional health condition focused research and can neither be viewed solely through a clinical lens nor technological lens. As digital health research relies heavily on health technology implementation, digital health prioritisation criteria comprised enablers of successful technology implementation. Our prioritisation process could be applied to other settings and collaborative projects where research institutions partner with healthcare delivery organisations.