FreshRSS

🔒
❌ Acerca de FreshRSS
Hay nuevos artículos disponibles. Pincha para refrescar la página.
AnteayerTus fuentes RSS

Alpha 2 agonists for sedation to produce better outcomes from critical illness (A2B trial): protocol for a mixed-methods process evaluation of a randomised controlled trial

Por: Aitken · L. M. · Emerson · L. M. · Kydonaki · K. · Blackwood · B. · Creagh-Brown · B. · Lone · N. I. · McKenzie · C. A. · Reade · M. C. · Weir · C. J. · Wise · M. P. · Walsh · T. S.
Introduction

An association between deep sedation and adverse short-term outcomes has been demonstrated although this evidence has been inconsistent. The A2B (alpha-2 agonists for sedation in critical care) sedation trial is designed to determine whether the alpha-2 agonists clonidine and dexmedetomidine, compared with usual care, are clinically and cost-effective. The A2B intervention is a complex intervention conducted in 39 intensive care units (ICUs) in the UK. Multicentre organisational factors, variable cultures, perceptions and practices and the involvement of multiple members of the healthcare team add to the complexity of the A2B trial. From our pretrial contextual exploration it was apparent that routine practices such as type and frequency of pain, agitation and delirium assessment, as well as the common sedative agents used, varied widely across the UK. Anticipated challenges in implementing A2B focused on the impact of usual practice, perceptions of risk, ICU culture, structure and the presence of equipoise. Given this complexity, a process evaluation has been embedded in the A2B trial to uncover factors that could impact successful delivery and explore their impact on intervention delivery and interpretation of outcomes.

Methods and analysis

This is a mixed-methods process evaluation guided by the A2B intervention logic model. It includes two phases of data collection conducted during and at the end of trial. Data will be collected using a combination of questionnaires, stakeholder interviews and routinely collected trial data. A framework approach will be used to analyse qualitative data with synthesis of data within and across the phases. The nature of the relationship between delivery of the A2B intervention and the trial primary and secondary outcomes will be explored.

Ethics and dissemination

All elements of the A2B trial, including the process evaluation, are approved by Scotland A Research Ethics Committee (Ref. 18/SS/0085). Dissemination will be via publications, presentations and media engagement.

Trial registration number

NCT03653832.

Acceptability of aspirin for cancer preventive therapy: a survey and qualitative study exploring the views of the UK general population

Por: Lloyd · K. E. · Hall · L. H. · Ziegler · L. · Foy · R. · Green · S. M. C. · MacKenzie · M. · Taylor · D. G. · Smith · S. G. · Aspirin for Cancer Prevention AsCaP Steering Committee · Cuzick · Balkwill · Bishop · Burn · Chan · Crooks · Hawkey · Langley · McKenzie · Nedjai · Patrign
Objectives

Aspirin could be offered for colorectal cancer prevention for the UK general population. To ensure the views of the general population are considered in future guidance, we explored public perceptions of aspirin for preventive therapy.

Design

We conducted an online survey to investigate aspirin use, and awareness of aspirin for cancer prevention among the UK general population. We conducted semistructured interviews with a subsample of survey respondents to explore participants’ acceptability towards aspirin for cancer preventive therapy. We analysed the interview data using reflexive thematic analysis and mapped the themes onto the Theoretical Domains Framework, and the Necessity and Concerns Framework.

Setting

Online survey and remote interviews.

Participants

We recruited 400 UK respondents aged 50–70 years through a market research company to the survey. We purposefully sampled, recruited and interviewed 20 survey respondents.

Results

In the survey, 19.0% (76/400) of respondents were aware that aspirin can be used to prevent cancer. Among those who had previously taken aspirin, 1.9% (4/216) had taken it for cancer prevention. The interviews generated three themes: (1) perceived necessity of aspirin; (2) concerns about side effects; and (3) preferred information sources. Participants with a personal or family history of cancer were more likely to perceive aspirin as necessary for cancer prevention. Concerns about taking aspirin at higher doses and its side effects, such as gastrointestinal bleeding, were common. Many described wanting guidance and advice on aspirin to be communicated from sources perceived as trustworthy, such as healthcare professionals.

Conclusions

Among the general population, those with a personal or family history of cancer may be more receptive towards taking aspirin for preventive therapy. Future policies and campaigns recommending aspirin may be of particular interest to these groups. Multiple considerations about the benefits and risks of aspirin highlight the need to support informed decisions on the medication.

Alpha 2 agonists for sedation to produce better outcomes from critical illness (A2B Trial): protocol for a multicentre phase 3 pragmatic clinical and cost-effectiveness randomised trial in the UK

Por: Walsh · T. S. · Aitken · L. M. · McKenzie · C. A. · Boyd · J. · Macdonald · A. · Giddings · A. · Hope · D. · Norrie · J. · Weir · C. · Parker · R. A. · Lone · N. I. · Emerson · L. · Kydonaki · K. · Creagh-Brown · B. · Morris · S. · McAuley · D. F. · Dark · P. · Wise · M. P. · Gordon · A. C.
Introduction

Almost all patients receiving mechanical ventilation (MV) in intensive care units (ICUs) require analgesia and sedation. The most widely used sedative drug is propofol, but there is uncertainty whether alpha2-agonists are superior. The alpha 2 agonists for sedation to produce better outcomes from critical illness (A2B) trial aims to determine whether clonidine or dexmedetomidine (or both) are clinically and cost-effective in MV ICU patients compared with usual care.

Methods and analysis

Adult ICU patients within 48 hours of starting MV, expected to require at least 24 hours further MV, are randomised in an open-label three arm trial to receive propofol (usual care) or clonidine or dexmedetomidine as primary sedative, plus analgesia according to local practice. Exclusions include patients with primary brain injury; postcardiac arrest; other neurological conditions; or bradycardia. Unless clinically contraindicated, sedation is titrated using weight-based dosing guidance to achieve a Richmond-Agitation-Sedation score of –2 or greater as early as considered safe by clinicians. The primary outcome is time to successful extubation. Secondary ICU outcomes include delirium and coma incidence/duration, sedation quality, predefined adverse events, mortality and ICU length of stay. Post-ICU outcomes include mortality, anxiety and depression, post-traumatic stress, cognitive function and health-related quality of life at 6-month follow-up. A process evaluation and health economic evaluation are embedded in the trial.

The analytic framework uses a hierarchical approach to maximise efficiency and control type I error. Stage 1 tests whether each alpha2-agonist is superior to propofol. If either/both interventions are superior, stages 2 and 3 testing explores which alpha2-agonist is more effective. To detect a mean difference of 2 days in MV duration, we aim to recruit 1437 patients (479 per group) in 40–50 UK ICUs.

Ethics and dissemination

The Scotland A REC approved the trial (18/SS/0085). We use a surrogate decision-maker or deferred consent model consistent with UK law. Dissemination will be via publications, presentations and updated guidelines.

Trial registration number

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03653832.

❌