Determining the research priorities for patients with chronic kidney disease not on dialysis

Background

The importance of engaging key stakeholders, and patients in particular, in determining research priorities has been recognized. We sought to identify the top 10 research priorities for patients with non-dialysis chronic kidney disease (CKD), their caregivers, and the clinicians and policy-makers involved in their care.

Methods

We used the four-step James Lind Alliance process to establish the top 10 research priorities. A national survey of patients with non-dialysis CKD (estimated glomerular filtration rate <45 mL/min/1.73 m 2 ), their caregivers, and the clinicians and policy-makers involved in their care was conducted to identify research uncertainties. A Steering Group of patients, caregivers, clinicians and researchers combined and reduced these uncertainties to 30 through a series of iterations. Finally, a workshop with participants from across Canada (12 patients, 6 caregivers, 3 physicians, 2 nurses, 1 pharmacist and 1 policy-maker) was held to determine the top 10 research priorities, using a nominal group technique.

Results

Overall, 439 individuals responded to the survey and identified 1811 uncertainties, from which the steering group determined the top 30 uncertainties to be considered at the workshop. The top 10 research uncertainties prioritized at the workshop included questions about treatments to prevent progression of kidney disease (including diet) and to treat symptoms of CKD, provider- and patient-targeted strategies for managing CKD, the impact of lifestyle on disease progression, harmful effects of medications on disease progression, optimal strategies for treatment of cardiovascular disease in CKD and for early identification of kidney disease, and strategies for equitable access to care for patients with CKD.

Conclusions

We identified the top 10 research priorities for patients with CKD that can be used to guide researchers, as well as inform funders of health-care research.

Patient characteristics, resource use and outcomes associated with general internal medicine hospital care: the General Medicine Inpatient Initiative (GEMINI) retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

The precise scope of hospital care delivered under general internal medicine services remains poorly quantified. The purpose of this study was to describe the demographic characteristics, medical conditions, health outcomes and resource use of patients admitted to general internal medicine at 7 hospital sites in the Greater Toronto Area.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study involving all patients who were admitted to or discharged from general internal medicine at the study sites between Apr. 1, 2010, and Mar. 31, 2015. Clinical data from hospital electronic information systems were linked to administrative data from each hospital. We examined trends in resource use and patient characteristics over the study period.

RESULTS

There were 136 208 admissions to general internal medicine involving 88 121 unique patients over the study period. General internal medicine admissions accounted for 38.8% of all admissions from the emergency department and 23.7% of all hospital bed-days. Over the study period, the number of admissions to general internal medicine increased by 32.4%; there was no meaningful change in the median length of stay or cost per hospital stay. The median patient age was 73 (interquartile range [IQR] 57-84) years, and the median number of coexisting conditions was 6 (IQR 3-9). The median acute length of stay was 4.6 (IQR 2.5-8.6) days, and the median total cost per hospital stay was $5850 (IQR $3915-$10 061). Patients received at least 1 computed tomography scan in 52.2% of admissions. The most common primary discharge diagnoses were pneumonia (5.0% of admissions), heart failure (4.7%), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (4.1%), urinary tract infection (4.0%) and stroke (3.6%).

INTERPRETATION

Patients admitted to general internal medicine services represent a large, heterogeneous, resource-intensive and growing population. Understanding and improving general internal medicine care is essential to promote a high-quality, sustainable health care system.

Top 10 research priorities in head and neck cancer: Results of an Alberta priority setting partnership of patients, caregivers, family members, and clinicians

BACKGROUND

The epidemiology, etiology, and management of head and neck cancer are evolving. Understanding the perspectives and priorities of nonresearchers regarding treatment uncertainties is important to inform future research.

METHODS

Using the James Lind Alliance approach, patients, caregivers, and clinicians responded to a survey regarding their unanswered questions about treating and managing head and neck cancer. Distinct uncertainties were extracted from responses and sorted into themes. Uncertainties already answered in the literature were removed. Those remaining were ranked by patients and clinicians to develop a short list of priorities, which were discussed at a workshop and reduced to the top 10.

RESULTS

One hundred sixty-one respondents posed 818 uncertainties, culminating in 77 for interim ranking and 27 for discussion at a workshop. Participants reached consensus on the top 10, which included questions on prevention, screening, treatment, and quality of life.

CONCLUSION

Nonresearchers can effectively collaborate to establish priorities for future research in head and neck cancer.

The kidney cancer research priority-setting partnership: Identifying the top 10 research priorities as defined by patients, caregivers, and expert clinicians

It is critically important to define disease-specific research priorities to better allocate limited resources. There is growing recognition of the value of involving patients and caregivers, as well as expert clinicians in this process. To our knowledge, this has not been done this way for kidney cancer. Using the transparent and inclusive process established by the James Lind Alliance, the Kidney Cancer Research Network of Canada (KCRNC) sponsored a collaborative consensus-based priority-setting partnership (PSP) to identify research priorities in the management of kidney cancer. The final result was identification of 10 research priorities for kidney cancer, which are discussed in the context of current initiatives and gaps in knowledge. This process provided a systematic and effective way to collaboratively establish research priorities with patients, caregivers, and clinicians, and provides a valuable resource for researchers and funding agencies.

Impact of the pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review on provincial concordance with respect to cancer drug funding decisions and time to funding

BACKGROUND

The pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review (pcodr) was implemented in 2011 to address uneven drug coverage and lack of transparency with respect to the various provincial cancer drug review processes in Canada. We evaluated the impact of the pcodr on provincial decision concordance and time from Notice of Compliance (noc) to drug funding.

METHODS

In a retrospective review, Health Canada's Drug Product Database was used to identify new indications for cancer drugs between January 2003 and May 2014, and provincial formulary listings for drug-funding dates and decisions between 1 January 2003 and 31 December 2014 were retrieved. Multiple linear models and quantile regressions were used to evaluate changes in time to decision-making before and after the implementation of the pcodr. Agreement of decisions between provinces was evaluated using kappa statistics.

RESULTS

Data were available from 9 provinces (all Canadian provinces except Quebec), identifying 88 indications that represented 51 unique cancer drugs. Two provinces lacked available data for all 88 indications at the time of data collection. Interprovincial concordance in drug funding decisions significantly increased after the pcodr's implementation (Brennan-Prediger coefficient: 0.54 pre-pcodr vs. 0.78 post-pcodr; p = 0.002). Nationwide, the median number of days from Health Canada's noc date to the date of funding significantly declined (to 393 days from 522 days, p < 0.001). Exploratory analyses excluding provinces with incomplete data did not change the results.

CONCLUSIONS

After the implementation of the pcodr, greater concordance in cancer drug funding decisions between provinces and decreased time to funding decisions were observed.

A paradigm change to inform fibromyalgia research priorities by engaging patients and health care professionals

Background: Research objectives should be focused toward advancing knowledge that has meaningful impact on health. However, research agendas are mostly driven by the health care community, with limited input from patients.

Aims: In this study, prioirities of uncertainties for the management of fibromyalgia (FM) that could propel future research were identified by a defined process using the James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership (JLA-PSP) methodology.

Methods: As a first step, a survey was distributed across Canada that engaged patients, caregivers, and health care professionals to provide narrative input to eight open-ended questions regarding FM care. Responses were thematically condensed and synthesized into an initial list of 43 uncertainties used to guide a comprehensive literature search. Questions already effectively addressed in the literature were excluded, leaving 25 uncertainties that were ranked during a one-day consensus workshop.

Results: Three broad themes emerged: the value of personalized targeted treatment and subgrouping of patients; the efficacy of various self-management strategies and educational initiatives; and identification of the ideal health care setting to provide FM care. Opioids and cannabinoids were the only specific pharmacologic interventions ranked as needing further research.

Conclusions: The prioritized questions highlight the importance of recognizing the heterogeneity of FM symptoms, the need for a personalized treatment approach, and a better understanding of the value of self-management strategies. This is the first study that uses an established and transparent methodology to engage all FM stakeholders to help inform researchers and funding bodies of clinically relevant research priorities.

Association Between Immigrant Status and End-of-Life Care in Ontario, Canada

IMPORTANCE

People who immigrate face unique health literacy, communication, and system navigation challenges, and they may have diverse preferences that influence end-of-life care.

OBJECTIVE

To examine end-of-life care provided to immigrants to Canada in the last 6 months of their life.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This population-based cohort study (April 1, 2004, to March 31, 2015) included 967 013 decedents in Ontario, Canada, using validated linkages between health and immigration databases to identify immigrant (since 1985) and long-standing resident cohorts.

EXPOSURES

All decedents who immigrated to Canada between 1985 and 2015 were classified as recent immigrants, with subgroup analyses assessing the association of time since immigration, and region of birth, with end-of-life care.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Location of death and intensity of care received in the last 6 months of life. Analysis included modified Poisson regression with generalized estimating equations, adjusting for age, sex, socioeconomic position, causes of death, urban and rural residence, and preexisting comorbidities.

RESULTS

Among 967 013 decedents of whom 47 514 (5%) immigrated since 1985, sex, socioeconomic status, urban (vs rural) residence, and causes of death were similar, while long-standing residents were older than immigrant decedents (median [interquartile range] age, 75 [58-84] vs 80 [68-87] years). Recent immigrant decedents were overall more likely to die in intensive care (15.6% vs 10.0%; difference, 5.6%; 95% CI, 5.2%-5.9%) after adjusting for differences in age, sex, income, geography, and cause of death (relative risk, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.27-1.32). In their last 6 months of life, recent immigrant decedents experienced more intensive care admissions (24.9% vs 19.2%; difference, 5.7%; 95% CI, 5.3%-6.1%), hospital admissions (72.1% vs 68.2%; difference, 3.9%; 95% CI, 3.5%-4.3%), mechanical ventilation (21.5% vs 13.6%; difference, 7.9%; 95% CI, 7.5%-8.3%), dialysis (5.5% vs 3.4%; difference, 2.1%; 95% CI, 1.9%-2.3%), percutaneous feeding tube placement (5.5% vs 3.0%; difference, 2.5%; 95% CI, 2.3%-2.8%), and tracheostomy (2.3% vs 1.1%; difference, 1.2%; 95% CI, 1.1%-1.4%). Relative risk of dying in intensive care for recent immigrants compared with long-standing residents varied according to recent immigrant region of birth from 0.84 (95% CI, 0.74-0.95) among those born in Northern and Western Europe to 1.96 (95% CI, 1.89-2.05) among those born in South Asia.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among decedents in Ontario, Canada, recent immigrants were significantly more likely to receive aggressive care and to die in an intensive care unit compared with other residents. Further research is needed to understand the mechanisms behind this association.

Hypertension management research priorities from patients, caregivers, and healthcare providers: A report from the Hypertension Canada Priority Setting Partnership Group

Patient- and stakeholder-oriented research is vital to improving the relevance of research. The authors aimed to identify the 10 most important research priorities of patients, caregivers, and healthcare providers (family physicians, nurses, nurse practitioners, pharmacists, and dietitians) for hypertension management. Using the James Lind Alliance approach, a national web-based survey asked patients, caregivers, and care providers to submit their unanswered questions on hypertension management. Questions already answered from randomized controlled trial evidence were removed. A priority setting process of patient, caregiver, and healthcare providers then ranked the final top 10 research priorities in an in-person meeting. There were 386 respondents who submitted 598 questions after exclusions. Of the respondents, 78% were patients or caregivers, 29% lived in rural areas, 78% were aged 50 to 80 years, and 75% were women. The 598 questions were distilled to 42 unique questions and from this list, the top 10 research questions prioritized included determining the combinations of healthy lifestyle modifications to reduce the need for antihypertensive medications, stress management interventions, evaluating treatment strategies based on out-of-office blood pressure compared with conventional (office) blood pressure, education tools and technologies to improve patient motivation and health behavior change, management strategies for ethnic groups, evaluating natural and alternative treatments, and the optimal role of different healthcare providers and caregivers in supporting patients with hypertension. These priorities can be used to guide clinicians, researchers, and funding bodies on areas that are a high priority for hypertension management research for patients, caregivers, and healthcare providers. This also highlights priority areas for improved knowledge translation and delivering patient-centered care.

A qualitative study of emergency physicians' perspectives on PROMS in the emergency department

INTRODUCTION

There is a growing emphasis on including patients' perspectives on outcomes as a measure of quality care. To date, this has been challenging in the emergency department (ED) setting. To better understand the root of this challenge, we looked to ED physicians' perspectives on their role, relationships and responsibilities to inform future development and implementation of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs).

METHODS

ED physicians from hospitals across Canada were invited to participate in interviews using a snowballing sampling technique. Semistructured interviews were conducted by phone with questions focused on the role and practice of ED physicians, their relationship with their patients and their thoughts on patient-reported feedback as a mechanism for quality improvement. Transcripts were analysed using a modified constant comparative method and interpretive descriptive framework.

RESULTS

Interviews were completed with 30 individual physicians. Respondents were diverse in location, training and years in practice. Physicians reported being interested in 'objective' postdischarge information including adverse events, readmissions, other physicians' notes, etc in a select group of complex patients, but saw 'patient-reported' feedback as less valuable due to perceived biases. They were unsure about the impact of such feedback mainly because of the episodic nature of their work. Concerns about timing, as well as about their legal and ethical responsibilities to follow-up if poor patient outcomes are reported, were raised.

CONCLUSIONS

Data collection and feedback are key elements of a learning health system. While patient-reported outcomes may have a role in feedback, ED physicians are conflicted about the actionability of such data and ethical implications, given the inherently episodic nature of their work. These findings have important implications for PROM design and implementation in this unique clinical setting.

Priority setting in paediatric preventive care research

OBJECTIVES

To identify the unanswered research questions in paediatric preventive care that are most important to parents and clinicians, and to explore how questions from parents and clinicians may differ.

DESIGN

Iterative mixed methods research priority setting process.

SETTING

Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

PARTICIPANTS

Parents of children aged 0-5 years enrolled in a research network in Toronto, and clinicians practising in Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

INTERVENTIONS

Informed by the James Lind Alliance's methodology, an online questionnaire collected unanswered research questions in paediatric preventive care from study participants. Similar submissions were combined and ranked. A consensus workshop attended by 28 parents and clinicians considered the most highly ranked submissions and used the nominal group technique to select the 10 most important unanswered research questions.

RESULTS

Forty-two clinicians and 115 parents submitted 255 and 791 research questions, respectively, which were combined into 79 indicative questions. Most submissions were about nutrition, illness prevention, parenting and behaviour management. Parents were more likely to ask questions about screen time (49 parents vs 8 clinicians, p<0.05) and environmental toxins (18 parents vs 0 clinicians, p<0.05). The top 10 unanswered questions identified at the workshop related to mental health, parental stress, physical activity, obesity, childhood development, behaviour management and screen time.

CONCLUSION

The top 10 most important unanswered research questions in paediatric preventive care from the perspective of parents and clinicians were identified. These research priorities may be important in advancing preventive healthcare for children.

Effect of High-Dose vs Standard-Dose Wintertime Vitamin D Supplementation on Viral Upper Respiratory Tract Infections in Young Healthy Children

IMPORTANCE

Epidemiological studies support a link between low 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels and a higher risk of viral upper respiratory tract infections. However, whether winter supplementation of vitamin D reduces the risk among children is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether high-dose vs standard-dose vitamin D supplementation reduces the incidence of wintertime upper respiratory tract infections in young children.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A randomized clinical trial was conducted during the winter months between September 13, 2011, and June 30, 2015, among children aged 1 through 5 years enrolled in TARGet Kids!, a multisite primary care practice-based research network in Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

INTERVENTIONS

Three hundred forty-nine participants were randomized to receive 2000 IU/d of vitamin D oral supplementation (high-dose group) vs 354 participants who were randomized to receive 400 IU/d (standard-dose group) for a minimum of 4 months between September and May.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was the number of laboratory-confirmed viral upper respiratory tract infections based on parent-collected nasal swabs over the winter months. Secondary outcomes included the number of influenza infections, noninfluenza infections, parent-reported upper respiratory tract illnesses, time to first upper respiratory tract infection, and serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels at study termination.

RESULTS

Among 703 participants who were randomized (mean age, 2.7 years, 57.7% boys), 699 (99.4%) completed the trial. The mean number of laboratory-confirmed upper respiratory tract infections per child was 1.05 (95% CI, 0.91-1.19) for the high-dose group and 1.03 (95% CI, 0.90-1.16) for the standard-dose group, for a between-group difference of 0.02 (95% CI, -0.17 to 0.21) per child. There was no statistically significant difference in number of laboratory-confirmed infections between groups (incidence rate ratio [RR], 0.97; 95% CI, 0.80-1.16). There was also no significant difference in the median time to the first laboratory-confirmed infection: 3.95 months (95% CI, 3.02-5.95 months) for the high-dose group vs 3.29 months (95% CI, 2.66-4.14 months) for the standard-dose group, or number of parent-reported upper respiratory tract illnesses between groups (625 for high-dose vs 600 for standard-dose groups, incidence RR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.88-1.16). At study termination, serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels were 48.7 ng/mL (95% CI, 46.9-50.5 ng/mL) in the high-dose group and 36.8 ng/mL (95% CI, 35.4-38.2 ng/mL) in the standard-dose group.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among healthy children aged 1 to 5 years, daily administration of 2000 IU compared with 400 IU of vitamin D supplementation did not reduce overall wintertime upper respiratory tract infections. These findings do not support the routine use of high-dose vitamin D supplementation in children for the prevention of viral upper respiratory tract infections.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01419262.

Patients' Perspectives on Outcomes of Care After Discharge From the Emergency Department: A Qualitative Study

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Much effort has been expended to understand what care experiences patients value in the emergency department (ED), yet little is known about which outcomes patients value after ED care. Our goal is to define outcomes of ED care that are valued by patients discharged from the ED, with the goal of informing the development of a patient-reported outcome measure for ED care.

METHODS

We conducted qualitative semistructured interviews with patients recruited during their care at 1 of 2 EDs and interviewed in either English or French 1 to 9 days after their visit. Patients who were hospitalized were excluded. Interviews focused on perceived outcomes of care since the ED visit and expectations of care before the ED visit. We identified themes with standard descriptive content analysis techniques and a modified version of the constant comparative method, drawing on grounded theory methods.

RESULTS

We interviewed 46 patients in English (n=38) or French (n=8). Participants with diverse reasons for seeking care appeared to value common outcomes from ED care that centered around 4 themes: understanding the cause and expected trajectory of their symptoms; reassurance; symptom relief; and having a plan to manage their symptoms, resolve their issue, or pursue further medical care. These themes were also reflected in the expectations participants recalled having when they decided to seek care in the ED.

CONCLUSION

The 4 outcomes defined constitute areas for improvement and will inform the development of an ED patient-reported outcome questionnaire. Consideration should be given to measuring patient-reported outcomes separately from patient experience.

Protocol for a randomised controlled trial evaluating the effects of providing essential medicines at no charge: the Carefully seLected and Easily Accessible at No Charge Medicines (CLEAN Meds) trial

INTRODUCTION

Cost-related non-adherence to medicines is common in low-income, middle-income and high-income countries such as Canada. Medicine non-adherence is associated with poor health outcomes and increased mortality. This randomised trial will test the impact of a carefully selected list of essential medicines at no charge (compared with usual medicine access) in primary care patients reporting cost-related non-adherence.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This is an open-label, parallel two-arm, superiority, individually randomised controlled trial conducted in three primary care sites (one urban, two rural) in Ontario, Canada, that was codesigned by a community guidance panel. Adult patients (≥18 years) who report cost-related non-adherence to medicines are eligible to participate in the study. Participants will be randomised to receive free and convenient access to a carefully selected list of 125 essential medicines (based on the WHO's Model List of Essential Medicines) or usual means of medicine access. Care for patients in both groups will otherwise be unchanged. The primary outcome of this trial is adherence to appropriately prescribed medicines. Secondary outcomes include medicine adherence, appropriate prescribing, blood pressure, haemoglobin A1c, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, patient-oriented outcomes and healthcare costs. All participants will be followed for at least 12 months.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval was obtained in all three participating sites. Results of the main trial and secondary outcomes will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal and discussed with members of the public and decision makers.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02744963.

Meta-analysis of timing of endovascular aneurysm treatment in subarachnoid haemorrhage: inconsistent results of early treatment within 1 day

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

To systematically review and meta-analyse the data on impact of timing of endovascular treatment in aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage (SAH) to determine if earlier treatment is associated with improved clinical outcomes and reduced case fatality.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Cochrane database, EMBASE and Web of Science to identify studies for inclusion. The measures of effect utilised were unadjusted/adjusted ORs. Effect estimates were combined using random effects models for each outcome (poor outcome, case fatality); heterogeneity was assessed using the I² index. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were performed to account for heterogeneity and risk of bias.

RESULTS

16 studies met the inclusion criteria. Treatment <1 day was associated with a reduced odds of poor outcome compared with treatment >1 day (OR=0.40 (95% CI 0.28 to 0.56; I²=0%)) but not when compared with treatment at 1-3 days (OR=1.16 (95% CI 0.47 to 2.90; I²=81%)). Treatment at <2 days and at <3 days were associated with similar odds of poor outcome compared with later treatment (OR=1.20 (95% CI 0.70 to 2.05; I²=73%; OR=0.71 (95% CI 0.36 to 1.37; I²=71%)). Early treatment was associated with similar odds of case fatality compared with later treatment, regardless of how early/late treatment were defined (OR=1.80 (95% CI 0.88 to 3.67; I²=34%) for treatment <1 day vs days 1-3; OR=1.71 (95% CI 0.72 to 4.03; I²=54%) for treatment <2 days vs later; OR=0.90 (95% CI 0.31 to 2.68; I²=48%) for treatment <3 days vs later).

CONCLUSIONS

In only 1 of the analyses was there a statistically significant result, which favoured treatment <1 day. The inconsistent results and heterogeneity within most analyses highlight the lack of evidence for best timing of endovascular treatment in SAH patients.

Development of a preliminary essential medicines list for Canada

BACKGROUND

Some evidence supports the use of a short list of essential medicines to improve prescribing. We aimed to create a preliminary essential medicines list for use in Canada.

METHODS

The 2013 World Health Organization Model List of Essential Medicines was initially adapted by the research team. Fourteen Canadian clinicians gave suggestions for changes to the list. Literature relevant to each unique suggestion was gathered and presented to 3 clinician-scientists who used a modified nominal group technique to make recommendations on the suggested changes. Audits of prescriptions of 2 Toronto-based family health teams (an inner city clinic and a suburban site) between Aug. 1, 2013, and July 30, 2014, were performed to identify common prescriptions that were not on the draft list. Literature relevant to these additional medications was gathered and shared with the clinician-scientist review panel to determine whether each should be added to the list, and a list was developed. The audits were repeated based on the final list to provide a preliminary assessment of the coverage of the list.

RESULTS

The multistep process produced a list of 125 medications. The medications included on this list covered 90.8% and 92.6% of prescriptions at the inner city clinic and the suburban site, respectively. In total, 93% of the patients seen at the inner city clinic and 96% of the patients seen at the suburban clinic had all or all but 1 of their medications covered by the list.

INTERPRETATION

A preliminary list of essential medicines was developed that covered most, but not all, prescriptions at 2 primary care sites. The list should be further refined based on wider input.

Preference-Based Antithrombotic Therapy in Atrial Fibrillation: Implications for Clinical Decision Making

Background. Patient preferences and expert-generated clinical practice guidelines regarding treatment decisions may not be identical. The authors compared the thresholds for antithrombotic treatment from studies that determined or modeled the treatment preferences of patients with atrial fibrillation with recommendations from clinical practice guidelines. Methods. Methods included MEDLINE identification, systematic review, and pooling with some reanalysis of primary data from relevant studies. Results. Eight pertinent studies, including 890 patients, were identified. These studies used 3 methods (decision analysis, probability tradeoff, and decision aids) to determine or model patient preferences. All methods highlighted that the threshold above which warfarin was preferred over aspirin was highly variable. In 6 of 8 studies, patient preferences indicated that fewer patients would take warfarin compared to the recommendations of the guidelines. In general, at a stroke rate of 1% with aspirin, half of the participants would prefer warfarin, and at a rate of 2% with aspirin, two thirds would prefer warfarin. In 3 studies, warfarin must provide at least a 0.9% to 3.0% per year absolute reduction in stroke risk for patients to be willing to take it, corresponding to a stroke rate of 2% to 6% on aspirin. Conclusions. For patients with atrial fibrillation, treatment recommendations from clinical practice guidelines often differ from patient preferences, with substantial heterogeneity in their individual preferences. Since patient preferences can have a substantial impact on the clinical decision-making process, acknowledgment of their importance should be incorporated into clinical practice guidelines. Practicing physicians need to balance the patient preferences with the treatment recommendations from clinical practice guidelines.

Potential Cost-Effectiveness of Ambulatory Cardiac Rhythm Monitoring After Cryptogenic Stroke

Background and Purpose—

Prolonged ambulatory ECG monitoring after cryptogenic stroke improves detection of covert atrial fibrillation, but its long-term cost-effectiveness is uncertain.

Methods—

We estimated the cost-effectiveness of noninvasive ECG monitoring in patients aged ≥55 years after a recent cryptogenic stroke and negative 24-hour ECG. A Markov model used observed rates of atrial fibrillation detection and anticoagulation from a randomized controlled trial (EMBRACE) and the published literature to predict lifetime costs and effectiveness (ischemic strokes, hemorrhages, life-years, and quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs]) for 30-day ECG (primary analysis) and 7-day or 14-day ECG (secondary analysis), when compared with a repeat 24-hour ECG.

Results—

Prolonged ECG monitoring (7, 14, or 30 days) was predicted to prevent more ischemic strokes, decrease mortality, and improve QALYs. If anticoagulation reduced stroke risk by 50%, 30-day ECG (at a cost of USD $447) would be highly cost-effective ($2000 per QALY gained) for patients with a 4.5% annual ischemic stroke recurrence risk. Cost-effectiveness was sensitive to stroke recurrence risk and anticoagulant effectiveness, which remain uncertain, especially at higher costs of monitoring. Shorter duration (7 or 14 days) monitoring was cost saving and more effective than an additional 24-hour ECG; its cost-effectiveness was less sensitive to changes in ischemic stroke risk and treatment effect.

Conclusions—

After a cryptogenic stroke, 30-day ECG monitoring is likely cost-effective for preventing recurrent strokes; 14-day monitoring is an attractive value alternative, especially for lower risk patients. These results strengthen emerging recommendations for prolonged ECG monitoring in secondary stroke prevention. Cost-effectiveness in practice will depend on careful patient selection.

A randomized controlled trial comparing in-person and wiki-inspired nominal group techniques for engaging stakeholders in chronic kidney disease research prioritization

Background

Few studies have evaluated stakeholder engagement in chronic kidney disease (CKD) research prioritization. In this two-arm, parallel group randomized controlled trial, we sought to compare an in-person nominal group technique (NGT) approach with an online wiki-inspired alternative to determining the top 10 CKD research priorities, and to evaluate stakeholder engagement and satisfaction with each process.

Methods

Eligible participants included adults ≥18 years with access to a computer and Internet, high health literacy, and from one of the following stakeholder groups: patients with CKD not on dialysis, their caregivers, health care providers who care for patients with CKD, or CKD-related health policymakers. Fifty-six participants were randomized to a wiki-inspired modified NGT that occurred over 3 weeks vs. a 1-day in-person NGT workshop, informed by James Lind Alliance methodology, to determine the top 10 CKD-related research priorities. The primary outcome was the pairwise agreement between the two groups’ final top 10 ranked priorities, evaluated using Spearman’s correlation coefficient. Secondary outcomes included participant engagement and satisfaction and wiki tool usability.

Results

Spearman’s rho for correlation between the two lists was 0.139 (95 % confidence interval −0.543 to 0.703, p = 0.71), suggesting low correlation between the top 10 lists across the two groups. Both groups ranked the same item as the top research priority, with 5 of the top 10 priorities ranked by the wiki group within the top 10 for the in-person group. In comparison to the in-person group, participants from the wiki group were less likely to report: satisfaction with the format (73.7 vs.100 %, p = 0.011); ability to express their views (57.9 vs 96.0 %, p = 0.0003); and perception that they contributed meaningfully to the process (68.4 vs 84.0 %, p = 0.004).

Conclusions

A CKD research prioritization approach using an online wiki-like tool identified low correlation in rankings compared with an in-person approach, with less satisfaction and perceptions of active engagement. Modifications to the wiki-inspired tool are required before it can be considered a potential alternative to an in-person workshop for engaging patients in determining research priorities.

Trial registration

(ISRCTN18248625)

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12911-016-0351-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Survival Analysis in the Presence of Competing Risks: The Example of Waitlisted Kidney Transplant Candidates

Competing events (or risks) preclude the observation of an event of interest or alter the probability of the event's occurrence and are commonly encountered in transplant outcomes research. Transplantation, for example, is a competing event for death on the waiting list because receiving a transplant may significantly decrease the risk of long-term mortality. In a typical analysis of time-to-event data, competing events may be censored or incorporated into composite end points; however, the presence of competing events violates the assumption of "independent censoring," which is the basis of standard survival analysis techniques. The use of composite end points disregards the possibility that competing events may be related to the exposure in a way that is different from the other components of the composite. Using data from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, this paper reviews the principles of competing risks analysis; outlines approaches for analyzing data with competing events (cause-specific and subdistribution hazards models); compares the estimates obtained from standard survival analysis, which handle competing events as censoring events; discusses the appropriate settings in which each of the two approaches could be used; and contrasts their interpretation.