FreshRSS

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

The N-LVA Study: effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of lymphaticovenous anastomosis (LVA) for patients with cancer who suffer from chronic peripheral lymphoedema - study protocol of a multicentre, randomised sham-controlled trial

Por: Kleeven · A. · Jonis · Y. M. J. · Tielemans · H. · van Kuijk · S. · Kimman · M. · van der Hulst · R. · Vasilic · D. · Hummelink · S. · Qiu · S. S.
Introduction

Cancer-related lymphoedema is one of the most debilitating side-effects of cancer treatment with an overall incidence of 15.5%. Patients may suffer from a variety of symptoms, possibly resulting in a diminished health-related quality of life (HRQoL). A microsurgical technique known as lymphaticovenous anastomosis (LVA) might be a promising treatment option. The objective of this study is to evaluate whether LVA is effective and cost-effective compared with sham surgery in improving the HRQoL.

Methods and analysis

A multicentre, double-blind, randomised sham-controlled trial conducted in three university hospitals in the Netherlands. The study population comprises 110 patients over the age of 18 years with unilateral, peripheral cancer-related lymphoedema, including 70 patients with upper limb lymphoedema and 40 patients with lower limb lymphoedema. A total of 55 patients will undergo the LVA operation, while the remaining 55 will undergo sham surgery. The follow-up will be at least 24 months. Patients are encouraged to complete the follow-up by explaining the importance of the study. Furthermore, patients may benefit from regular monitoring moments for their lymphoedema. The primary outcome is the HRQoL. The secondary outcomes are the limb circumference, excess limb volume, changes in conservative therapy, postoperative complications, patency of the LVA and incremental cost-effectiveness.

Ethics and dissemination

The study was approved by the Medical Ethical Committee of Maastricht University Medical Center on 20 September 2023 (NL84169.068.23). The results will be presented at scientific conferences and published in peer-reviewed medical journals.

Trial registration number

NCT06082349.

Self-Management Analysis in Chronic Conditions (SMACC) checklist: an international consensus-based tool to develop, compare and evaluate self-management support programmes

Por: Moreels · T. · Cruyt · E. · De Baets · S. · Andries · L. · Arts-Tielemans · M. · Rodriguez-Bailon · M. · Bergström · A. · Boete · K. · Bormans · I. · Costa · U. · Declercq · H. · Dekelver · S. · Dekyvere · V. · Delooz · E. · Engels · C. · Helderweirt · S. · Jarrey · M. · Lenaerts · A.
Objectives

The Self-Management Analysis in Chronic Conditions (SMACC) checklist was developed as a guidance tool to support the development, comparison and evaluation of self-management support programmes for persons with a chronic condition. The checklist was based on a previously performed concept analysis of self-management. The aim of this study was to validate its content using an international Delphi study and to deliver a final version.

Design

A two-round Delphi study was conducted between October 2022 and January 2023. Using the researchers’ networks, professionals with research or clinical expertise in self-management support and chronic conditions were recruited via online purposive snowball sampling. Participants were asked to score each item of the checklist (16 items total) on 3 content validity indicators: (1) clarity and comprehensibility, (2) relevance and importance and (3) degree of alignment with the overall goal of the checklist to promote adequate and comprehensive self-management support programmes. A consensus threshold of 75% agreement was used. The participants were also asked general questions about the checklist as a whole and were asked to provide feedback considering its refinement.

Results

Fifty-four professionals with an average 14.5 years of experience participated in round 1, 48 with an average 12.5 years of experience participated in round 2. The majority of professionals were from Western Europe. For the majority of items consensus was reached after round 1. In round 2, 3 of the 4 remaining items reached consensus, 1 last item was retained based on highly recurring feedback.

Conclusions

The SMACC checklist was considered a valid and comprehensive tool to aid the development, evaluation and comparison of self-management support programmes. It was acknowledged as a useful instrument to supplement existing frameworks and was seen as feasible to implement in both research and clinical settings. Further validation in the field, with input from patients and peer experts, will be valuable.

❌