ObjectiveTo identify research priorities that address the needs of people affected by cardiac surgery and those who support and care for them.DesignJames Lind Alliance (JLA) process—two surveys and a consensus workshop guided by an independent JLA adviser.SettingThe UK with international participation.ParticipantsThree stakeholder groups—heart surgery patients, carers and healthcare professionals involved in care delivery.MethodsThe initial survey was set to collect potential research questions in cardiac surgery as identified by stakeholders. Submitted questions were summarised into indicative questions. The existing evidence was searched to verify that these indicative questions had not been answered. In the second survey, stakeholders then voted for their top 10 from the list of unanswered questions. The top voted questions were taken forward for final ranking in a workshop.ResultsIn the initial survey, 629 respondents (28% patients/carers, 62% healthcare professionals) submitted 1082 potential questions. Of these, 797 in-scope questions were summarised into 49 indicative questions and of which 45 had not been answered by existing research. In the second survey, 492 respondents (43% patients/carers, 49% healthcare professionals) cast their votes with the top 12 from each of the three stakeholder groups totalling 21 questions advancing to the final priority setting workshop. The workshop attended by 25 delegates (10 patients/carers and 15 healthcare professionals) agreed on the top 10 research questions including long-term outcomes (quality of life), and aspects from preoperative personalised care (prehabilitation, frailty, comorbidities), intraoperative management (minimally invasive techniques), to prevention and management of postoperative complications (organ injury, atrial fibrillation, infection).ConclusionsThis Priority Setting Partnership (PSP) identified the priorities and unmet needs of patients and clinicians in cardiac surgery. The next step is to disseminate and implement the PSP results to ensure that these priorities shape future research and improve clinical services.
Background Travelers’ diarrhea (TD) is a leading threat to military readiness. Most trials of rifaximin chemoprophylaxis involve civilians or short-duration travel, whereas military travelers are exposed for longer periods at austere locations and are often physically taxed. We sought to assess efficacy of two regimens among military personnel deployed overseas. Methods This was a multi-site, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of deployed military, randomized to placebo, rifaximin 550 mg daily, or rifaximin 550 mg twice-daily, for up to 42 days (1:1:1; 6 randomizations/block). Diaries were reviewed with subjects on return. Primary endpoint was time to first unformed stool (TFUS) in a TD episode. Other endpoints were assessed by intention to treat (ITT) and subgroups included incidence of any loose stool, meeting criteria for TD, safety, efficacy, adherence and impact to activity endpoints. Results 343 subjects were included in the ITT population. All UK travelers deployed to a single-site in Kenya; US travelers mostly deployed to various Asia-Pacific locations. Of 73 (21.2%) subjects reporting diarrhea, 42 (57.5%) met TD criteria. Among rifaximin-treated subjects, 15.9% (n=17) reported diarrhea in the twice-daily arm, 20.7% (n=25) in the daily arm, vs. 27.0% (n=31) of placebo recipients; p=.04 and 0.26 respectively. TD was reported by 10.3% (n=11) and 10.7% (n=13) in the daily and twice-daily arms, vs. 15.7% (n=18) among placebo recipients; p=0.24 vs. 0.26 respectively. Among UK personnel, a twice-daily regimen vs. placebo resulted in significantly fewer TD episodes (1.6% vs. 11.9%; p=0.03). Adverse events were similar between groups. Table 1: Demographics, endpoints, and adverse events (Comparisons are across placebo vs. each dosing regimen. Intent-to-treat [ITT] population defined as subjects enrolled into the study, randomized, travelled and had follow-up. p-values calculated from chi-square or Fisher’s exact test [categorical variables] and Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test [continuous variables]. Analyses performed on SAS v9.4. BID: twice-daily) Conclusion This is the first trial comparing two high-dose regimens of rifaximin prophylaxis in deployed personnel. Unlike prior reports, neither regimen was associated with an overall significant decrease in TD, potentially due to low overall TD incidence. However, the twice-daily regimen was associated with a numerically lower incidence of diarrheal stool, and in the UK subject group, there was a significant decrease of both TD and diarrheal stool. The impact of variability in regional TD risk, pathogen distribution and adherence in austere deployment environments on efficacy will be reviewed. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.