Search

With the increasing prevalence of comorbidity in an ageing population, it is crucial to better understand the impact of comorbidity on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) after lymphoma or multiple myeloma (MM) diagnosis. We included 261 newly diagnosed patients (67% response rate) diagnosed with lymphoma or MM between October 2020 and March 2023 in a longitudinal survey. The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) questionnaires were used to measure generic and disease-specific HRQoL. Evidence-based guidelines for interpretation of the EORTC questionnaires were used to identify clinical importance. Patients were classified as having 'no comorbidity', 'mild comorbidity' (e.g. arthrosis or rheumatism), or 'moderate-severe comorbidity' (e.g. heart or lung disease), using the adapted self-administered comorbidity questionnaire. At diagnosis, the mean age was 64 years, 63% were male and 38% reported no comorbidity, 33% mild comorbidity, and 29% moderate-severe comorbidity. Patients with mild or moderate-severe comorbidity reported clinically relevant worse HRQoL at diagnosis than patients without comorbidity. One year post-diagnosis most outcomes showed clinically relevant improvement, irrespective of comorbidity. However, outcomes of physical functioning (β=-7.9, p < 0.05), global health status (β=-7.6, p < 0.05), bone pain (β = 8.1 to 9.1, p < 0.05), muscle/joint pain (β = 14.5 to 18.8, p < 0.01) and muscle weakness (β = 10.4 to 15.6, p < 0.05) improved less among those with comorbidity, and clinically relevant differences between comorbidity groups persisted over time. With clinically relevant worse HRQoL at diagnosis and less recovery of HRQoL during the first year after diagnosis in patients with comorbidity, consideration of both prognosis and HRQoL is important when making treatment decisions., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Introduction: The web-based self-management application Oncokompas was developed to support cancer survivors to monitor health-related quality of life and symptoms (Measure) and to provide tailored information (Learn) and supportive care options (Act). In a previously reported randomised controlled trial (RCT), 68% of 655 recruited survivors were eligible, and of those 45% participated in the RCT. Among participants of the RCT that were randomised to the intervention group, 52% used Oncokompas as intended. The aim of this study was to explore reasons for not participating in the RCT, and reasons for not using Oncokompas among non-users, and the use and evaluation of Oncokompas among users., Methods: Reasons for not participating were assessed with a study-specific questionnaire among 243 survivors who declined participation. Usage was investigated among 320 participants randomised to the intervention group of the RCT via system data and a study-specific questionnaire that was assessed during the 1 week follow-up (T1) assessment., Results: Main reasons for not participating were not interested in participation in scientific research (40%) and not interested in scientific research and Oncokompas (28%). Main reasons for not being interested in Oncokompas were wanting to leave the period of being ill behind (29%), no symptom burden (23%), or lacking internet skills (18%). Out of the 320 participants in the intervention group 167 (52%) used Oncokompas as intended. Among 72 non-users, main reasons for not using Oncokompas were no symptom burden (32%) or lack of time (26%). Among 248 survivors that activated their account, satisfaction and user-friendliness were rated with a 7 (scale 0-10). Within 3 (IQR 1-4) sessions, users selected 32 (IQR 6-37) topics. Main reasons for not using healthcare options in Act were that the information in Learn was already sufficient (44%) or no supportive care needs (32%)., Discussion: Main reasons for not reaching or using Oncokompas were no symptom burden, no supportive care needs, or lack of time. Users selected many cancer-generic and tumour-specific topics to address, indicating added value of the wide range of available topics., Competing Interests: IMV-dL has received grants from the Dutch Cancer Society (KWF Kankerbestrijding), Pink Ribbon, the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development (ZonMW), the SAG Foundation–Zilveren Kruis Health Care Assurance Company, Danone Ecofund–Nutricia, Red-kite (distributor of eHealth tools), and Bristol-Myers Squibb, during the conduct of this study. CRL has received personal fees for global advisory board participation from MSD, during the conduct of this study. All other authors have no conflicts of interest., (© 2021 The Authors.)

Background: Oncokompas is a web-based self-management application that supports cancer survivors to monitor their health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and symptoms, and to obtain personalised feedback and tailored options for supportive care. In a large randomised controlled trial among survivors of head and neck cancer, colorectal cancer, and breast cancer and (non-)Hodgkin lymphoma, Oncokompas proved to improve HRQOL, and to reduce several tumour-specific symptoms. Effect sizes were however small, and no effect was observed on the primary outcome patient activation. Therefore, this study aims to explore which subgroups of cancer survivors may especially benefit from Oncokompas., Materials and Methods: Cancer survivors ( n  = 625) were randomly assigned to the intervention group (access to Oncokompas, n  = 320) or control group (6 months waiting list, n  = 305). Outcome measures were HRQOL, tumour-specific symptoms, and patient activation. Potential moderators included socio-demographic (sex, age, marital status, education, employment), clinical (tumour type, stage, time since diagnosis, treatment modality, comorbidities), and personal factors (self-efficacy, personal control, health literacy, Internet use), and patient activation, mental adjustment to cancer, HRQOL, symptoms, and need for supportive care, measured at baseline. Linear mixed models were performed to investigate potential moderators., Results: The intervention effect on HRQOL was the largest among cancer survivors with low to moderate self-efficacy, and among those with high personal control and those with high health literacy scores. Cancer survivors with higher baseline symptom scores benefitted more on head and neck (pain in the mouth, social eating, swallowing, coughing, trismus), and colorectal cancer (weight) specific symptoms., Discussion: Oncokompas seems most effective in reducing symptoms in head and neck cancer and colorectal cancer survivors who report a higher burden of tumour-specific symptoms. Oncokompas seems most effective in improving HRQOL in cancer survivors with lower self-efficacy, and in cancer survivors with higher personal control, and higher health literacy.

Purpose: The eHealth self-management application 'Oncokompas' was developed to support cancer survivors in monitoring health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and symptoms, and obtaining personalized feedback and options for supportive care. The aim of this study was to assess the cost-utility of Oncokompas compared with care as usual (CAU) among cancer survivors., Methods: Survivors were randomly allocated to the intervention or control group. Direct (non-)medical, indirect non-medical costs, and HRQOL were measured at 3- and 6-month follow-up, using iMTA Medical Consumption and Productivity Costs and the EuroQol-5D questionnaires. Mean cumulative costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were compared between both groups., Results: In total, 625 survivors were randomized into intervention (n = 320) or control group (n = 305). Base case analysis showed that incremental costs from a societal perspective were - €163 (95% CI, - 665 to 326), and incremental QALYs were 0.0017 (95% CI, - 0.0121 to 0.0155) in the intervention group compared with those in the control group. The probability that, compared with CAU, Oncokompas is more effective was 60%, less costly 73%, and both more effective and less costly 47%. Sensitivity analyses showed that incremental costs vary between - €40 and €69, and incremental QALYs vary between - 0.0023 and - 0.0057., Conclusion: Oncokompas is likely to be equally effective on utilities, and not more expensive than CAU, and will therefore contribute to sustainable cancer survivorship care in a (cost-)effective manner., Implications for Cancer Survivors: Oncokompas seems to improve HRQOL and reduces the burden of several tumour-specific symptoms, while costs from a societal perspective are similar to CAU.

Background: Knowledge about the efficacy of behavioural intervention technologies that can be used by cancer survivors independently from a health-care provider is scarce. We aimed to assess the efficacy, reach, and usage of Oncokompas, a web-based eHealth application that supports survivors in self-management by monitoring health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and cancer-generic and tumour-specific symptoms and obtaining tailored feedback with a personalised overview of supportive care options., Methods: In this non-blinded, randomised, controlled trial, we recruited patients treated at 14 hospitals in the Netherlands for head and neck cancer, colorectal cancer, breast cancer, Hodgkin lymphoma, or non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Adult survivors (aged ≥18 years) were recruited through the Netherlands Cancer Registry (NCR) and invited by their treating physician through the Patient Reported Outcomes Following Initial Treatment and Long term Evaluation of Survivorship (PROFILES) registry. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) by an independent researcher to the intervention group (access to Oncokompas) or control group (access to Oncokompas after 6 months), by use of block randomisation (block length of 68), stratified by tumour type. The primary outcome was patient activation (knowledge, skills, and confidence for self-management), assessed at baseline, post-intervention, and 3-month and 6-month follow-up. Linear mixed models (intention-to-treat) were used to assess group differences over time from baseline to 6-month follow-up. The trial is registered in the Netherlands Trial Register, NTR5774 and is completed., Findings: Between Oct 12, 2016, and May 24, 2018, 625 (21%) of 2953 survivors assessed for eligibility were recruited and randomly assigned to the intervention (320) or control group (305). Median follow-up was 6 months (IQR 6-6). Patient activation was not significantly different between intervention and control group over time (difference at 6-month follow-up 1·7 [95% CI -0·8-4·1], p=0·41)., Interpretation: Oncokompas did not improve the amount of knowledge, skills, and confidence for self-management in cancer survivors. This study contributes to the evidence for the development of tailored strategies for development and implementation of behavioural intervention technologies among cancer survivors., Funding: Dutch Cancer Society (KWF Kankerbestrijding)., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Sepsis is one of the major challenges of today. Although gram-positive bacteria related infections are more prevalent in hospital setting, the highest mortality rate is associated with gram-negative microorganisms especially Enterobacteriaceae . Enterobacteriaceae , including Escherichia coli, Klebsiella spp., Proteus spp., Enterobacter spp. and Serratia spp. Resistance to β-lactams in Enterobacteriaceae is primarily attributed to the production of B-lactamase enzymes with subsequent antibiotic hydrolysis and to a lesser extent by alteration of efflux pump or porins expression. Carbapenem resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) and Acinetobacter baumannii are the most notorious pathogens due to the high incidence of morbidity and mortality especially in the immunocompromised patients in the intensive care unit. The most appropriate antimicrobial therapy to treat CRE is still controversial. Combination therapy is preferred over monotherapy due to its broad-spectrum coverage of micro-organisms, due to its synergetic effect and to prevent development of further resistance. Current suggested therapies for CRE resistance as well as promising antibiotics that are currently under investigation for winning the war against the emerging CRE resistance are reviewed and discussed., Competing Interests: Conflict-of-interest statement: None.