Search

Supplemental material, sj-pdf-1-pmj-10.1177_02692163221102000 for Effects of a theory-based advance care planning intervention for nursing homes: A cluster randomized controlled trial by Lara Pivodic, Annelien Wendrich-van Dael, Joni Gilissen, Stefanie De Buyser, Luc Deliens, Chris Gastmans, Robert Vander Stichele and Lieve Van den Block in Palliative Medicine

BACKGROUND: Peripheral arterial disease (PAD) is a manifestation of systemic atherosclerosis. Intermittent claudication is a symptomatic form of PAD that is characterized by pain in the lower limbs caused by chronic occlusive arterial disease. This pain develops in a limb during exercise and is relieved with rest. Propionyl‐L‐carnitine (PLC) is a drug that may alleviate the symptoms of PAD through a metabolic pathway, thereby improving exercise performance. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review is to determine whether propionyl‐L‐carnitine is efficacious compared with placebo, other drugs, or other interventions used for treatment of intermittent claudication (e.g. exercise, endovascular intervention, surgery) in increasing pain‐free and maximum walking distance for people with stable intermittent claudication, Fontaine stage II. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL databases and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and the ClinicalTrials.gov trials register to July 7, 2021. We undertook reference checking and contact with study authors and pharmaceutical companies to identify additional unpublished and ongoing studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Double‐blind randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in people with intermittent claudication (Fontaine stage II) receiving PLC compared with placebo or another intervention. Outcomes included pain‐free walking performance (initial claudication distance ‐ ICD) and maximal walking performance (absolute claudication distance ‐ ACD), analyzed by standardized treadmill exercise test, as well as ankle brachial index (ABI), quality of life, progression of disease, and adverse events. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials, extracted data, and evaluated trials for risk of bias. We contacted study authors for additional information. We resolved any disagreements by consensus. We performed fixed‐effect model meta‐analyses with mean differences (MDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We graded the certainty of evidence according to GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included 12 studies in this review with a total number of 1423 randomized participants. A majority of the included studies assessed PLC versus placebo (11 studies, 1395 participants), and one study assessed PLC versus L‐carnitine (1 study, 26 participants). We identified no RCTs that assessed PLC versus any other medication, exercise, endovascular intervention, or surgery. Participants received PLC 1 grams to 2 grams orally (9 studies) or intravenously (3 studies) per day or placebo. For the comparison PLC versus placebo, there was a high level of both clinical and statistical heterogeneity due to study size, participants coming from different countries and centres, the combination of participants with and without diabetes, and use of different treadmill protocols. We found a high proportion of drug company‐backed studies. The overall certainty of the evidence was moderate. For PLC compared with placebo, improvement in maximal walking performance (ACD) was greater for PLC than for placebo, with a mean difference in absolute improvement of 50.86 meters (95% CI 50.34 to 51.38; 9 studies, 1121 participants), or a 26% relative improvement (95% CI 23% to 28%). Improvement in pain‐free walking distance (ICD) was also greater for PLC than for placebo, with a mean difference in absolute improvement of 32.98 meters (95% CI 32.60 to 33.37; 9 studies, 1151 participants), or a 31% relative improvement (95% CI 28% to 34%). Improvement in ABI was greater for PLC than for placebo, with a mean difference in improvement of 0.09 (95% CI 0.08 to 0.09; 4 studies, 369 participants). Quality of life improvement was greater with PLC (MD 0.06, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.07; 1 study, 126 participants). Progression of disease and adverse events including nausea, gastric intolerance, and flu‐like symptoms did not differ greatly between PLC and placebo. For the comparison of PLC with L‐carnitine, the certainty of evidence was low because this included a single, very small, cross‐over study. Mean improvement in ACD was slightly greater for PLC compared to L‐carnitine, with a mean difference in absolute improvement of 20.00 meters (95% CI 0.47 to 39.53; 1 study, 14 participants) or a 16% relative improvement (95% CI 0.4% to 31.6%). We found no evidence of a clear difference in the ICD (absolute improvement 4.00 meters, 95% CI ‐9.86 to 17.86; 1 study, 14 participants); or a 3% relative improvement (95% CI ‐7.4% to 13.4%). None of the other outcomes of this review were reported in this study. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: When PLC was compared with placebo, improvement in walking distance was mild to moderate and safety profiles were similar, with moderate overall certainty of evidence. Although In clinical practice, PLC might be considered as an alternative or an adjuvant to standard treatment when such therapies are found to be contraindicated or ineffective, we found no RCT evidence comparing PLC with standard treatment to directly support such use.

Background There is an increasing need to organize the care around the patient and not the disease, while considering the complex realities of multiple physical and psychosocial conditions, and polypharmacy. Integrated patient-centered care delivery platforms have been developed for both patients and clinicians. These platforms could provide a promising way to achieve a collaborative environment that improves the provision of integrated care for patients via enhanced information and communication technology solutions for semiautomated clinical decision support. Objective The Collaborative Care and Cure Cloud project (C3-Cloud) has developed 2 collaborative computer platforms for patients and members of the multidisciplinary team (MDT) and deployed these in 3 different European settings. The objective of this study is to pilot test the platforms and evaluate their impact on patients with 2 or more chronic conditions (diabetes mellitus type 2, heart failure, kidney failure, depression), their informal caregivers, health care professionals, and, to some extent, health care systems. Methods This paper describes the protocol for conducting an evaluation of user experience, acceptability, and usefulness of the platforms. For this, 2 “testing and evaluation” phases have been defined, involving multiple qualitative methods (focus groups and surveys) and advanced impact modeling (predictive modeling and cost-benefit analysis). Patients and health care professionals were identified and recruited from 3 partnering regions in Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom via electronic health record screening. Results The technology trial in this 4-year funded project (2016-2020) concluded in April 2020. The pilot technology trial for evaluation phases 3 and 4 was launched in November 2019 and carried out until April 2020. Data collection for these phases is completed with promising results on platform acceptance and socioeconomic impact. We believe that the phased, iterative approach taken is useful as it involves relevant stakeholders at crucial stages in the platform development and allows for a sound user acceptance assessment of the final product. Conclusions Patients with multiple chronic conditions often experience shortcomings in the care they receive. It is hoped that personalized care plan platforms for patients and collaboration platforms for members of MDTs can help tackle the specific challenges of clinical guideline reconciliation for patients with multimorbidity and improve the management of polypharmacy. The initial evaluative phases have indicated promising results of platform usability. Results of phases 3 and 4 were methodologically useful, yet limited due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03834207; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03834207 International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) RR1-10.2196/21994