Search

Numerous guideline recommendations for airway and perioperative management during the COVID-19 pandemic have been published. We identified, synthesized, and compared guidelines intended for anesthesiologists.Member society websites of the World Federation of Societies of Anesthesiologists and the European Society of Anesthesiologists were searched. Recommendations that focused on perioperative airway management of patients with proven or potential COVID-19 were included. Accelerated screening was used; data were extracted by one reviewer and verified by a second. Data were organized into themes based on perioperative phase of care.Thirty unique sets of recommendations were identified. None reported methods for systematically searching or selecting evidence to be included. Four were updated following initial publication. For induction and airway management, most recommended minimizing personnel and having the most experienced anesthesiologist perform tracheal intubation. Significant congruence was observed among recommendations that discussed personal protective equipment. Of those that discussed tracheal intubation methods, most (96%) recommended videolaryngoscopy, while discordance existed regarding use of flexible bronchoscopy. Intraoperatively, 23% suggested specific anesthesia techniques and most (63%) recommended a specific operating room for patients with COVID-19. Postoperatively, a minority discussed extubation procedures (33%), or care in the recovery room (40%). Non-technical considerations were discussed in 27% and psychological support for healthcare providers in 10%.Recommendations for perioperative airway management of patients with COVID-19 overlap to a large extent but also show significant differences. Given the paucity of data early in the pandemic, it is not surprising that identified publications largely reflected expert opinion rather than empirical evidence. We suggest future efforts should promote coordinated responses and provide suggestions for studying and establishing best practices in perioperative patients.Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/a2k4u/ ); date created, 26 March 2020.RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: De nombreuses recommandations ont été publiées pour la prise en charge des voies aériennes et périopératoires pendant la pandémie de COVID-19. Nous avons identifié, synthétisé et comparé les lignes directrices destinées aux anesthésiologistes.Les sites internet des sociétés membres de la Fédération mondiale des sociétés d’anesthésiologistes et de la Société européenne d’anesthésiologie ont été consultés. Les recommandations axées sur la prise en charge périopératoire des voies aériennes des patients atteints de COVID-19 prouvée ou potentielle ont été incluses. Une sélection accélérée a été utilisée; les données ont été extraites par un examinateur et vérifiées par un second. Les données ont été thématiquement organisées en fonction de la phase périopératoire des soins.Trente ensembles uniques de recommandations ont été identifiés. Aucun de ces ensemble n’a fait état de méthodes de recherche ou de sélection systématiques des données probantes à inclure. Quatre ont été mis à jour après leur publication initiale. Pour l’induction et la prise en charge des voies aériennes, la plupart ont recommandé de minimiser le personnel et de demander à l’anesthésiologiste le plus expérimenté de réaliser l’intubation trachéale. Une congruence significative a été observée parmi les recommandations qui portaient sur les équipements de protection individuelle. Parmi les lignes directrices évoquant les méthodes d’intubation trachéale, la plupart (96 %) ont recommandé la vidéolaryngoscopie, alors qu’il existait une discordance concernant l’utilisation de bronchoscopes flexibles. En peropératoire, 23 % ont suggéré des techniques d’anesthésie spécifiques et la plupart (63 %) ont recommandé une salle d’opération spécifique pour les patients atteints de COVID-19. En postopératoire, une minorité a abordé le sujet des procédures d’extubation (33 %) ou des soins en salle de réveil (40 %). Les considérations non techniques ont été traitées dans 27 % des cas et le soutien psychologique aux fournisseurs de soins de santé dans 10 %.Les recommandations pour la prise en charge périopératoire des voies aériennes des patients atteints de COVID-19 se chevauchent dans une large mesure, mais montrent également des différences significatives. Compte tenu de la rareté des données au début de la pandémie, il n’est pas surprenant que les publications identifiées reflètent en grande partie l’opinion d’experts plutôt que de se fonder sur des données probantes empiriques. Nous suggérons que les efforts futurs soient déployés de manière à promouvoir des réponses coordonnées et proposer des suggestions pour étudier et établir les meilleures pratiques chez les patients en période périopératoire. ENREGISTREMENT DE L’éTUDE: Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/a2k4u/ ); date de création, 26 mars 2020.

Dysregulation of immune responses to surgical stress in older patients and those with frailty may manifest as differences in inflammatory biomarkers. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine differences in perioperative inflammatory biomarkers between older and younger patients, and between patients with and without frailty.MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, and CINAHL databases were searched (Inception to June 23, 2020). Observational or experimental studies reporting the perioperative level or activity of biomarkers in surgical patients stratified by age or frailty status were included. The primary outcome was inflammatory biomarkers (grouped by window of ascertainment: pre-op; post-op:12 hours, 12-24 hours, 1-3 days, 3 days to 1 week, and1 week). Quality assessment was conducted using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Inverse-variance, random-effects meta-analysis was conducted.Forty-five studies (4263 patients) were included in the review, of which 36 were pooled for meta-analysis (28 noncardiac and 8 cardiac studies). Two studies investigated frailty as the exposure, while the remaining investigated age. In noncardiac studies, older patients had higher preoperative levels of interleukin (IL)-6 and C-reactive protein (CRP), lower preoperative levels of lymphocytes, and higher postoperative levels of IL-6 (12 hours) and CRP (12-24 hours) than younger patients. In cardiac studies, older patients had higher preoperative levels of IL-6 and CRP and higher postoperative levels of IL-6 (12 hours and1 week).Our findings demonstrate a paucity of frailty-specific studies; however, the presence of age-associated differences in the perioperative inflammatory response is consistent with age-associated states of chronic systemic inflammation and immunosenescence. Additional studies assessing frailty-specific changes in the systemic biologic response to surgery may inform the development of targeted interventions.

Mesenchymal stromal cell-derived extracellular vesicles (MSC-EVs) are a promising treatment for bone injuries, although studies remain preclinical. A systematic review and meta-analysis can assess the efficacy of MSC-EVs and identify treatment aspects associated with enhanced bone repair. English language, preclinical, controlled, in vivo studies identified in our systematic search (up to May 8, 2020) examining the use of MSC-EVs in bone healing were included. Risk of bias (ROB) was assessed using the SYRCLE tool. Aggregate Data Meta-Analysis was performed to determine the effect of MSC-EVs on Bone Volume/Total Volume (BV/TV) and New Bone Formation (NBF). Thirteen studies were included. Twelve reported either BV/TV or NBF and were included in meta-analysis. ROB was unclear in all studies. Overall, MSC-EVs displayed benefit in terms of bone healing for both BV/TV (22.2% mean difference (MD); 95% CI: 15.8–28.5%, p

Use of rigorous study design methods and transparent reporting in publications are 2 key strategies proposed to improve the reproducibility of preclinical research. Despite promotion of these practices by funders and journals, assessments suggest uptake is low in preclinical research. Thirty preclinical scientists were interviewed to better understand barriers and enablers to rigorous design and reporting. The interview guide was informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework, which is a framework used to understand determinants of current and desired behavior. Four global themes were identified; 2 reflecting enablers and 2 reflecting barriers. We found that basic scientists are highly motivated to apply the methods of rigorous design and reporting and perceive a number of benefits to their adoption (e.g., improved quality and reliability). However, there was varied awareness of the guidelines and in implementation of these practices. Researchers also noted that these guidelines can result in disadvantages, such as increased sample sizes, expenses, time, and can require several personnel to operationalize. Most researchers expressed additional resources such as personnel and education/training would better enable the application of some methods. Using existing guidance (Behaviour Change Wheel (BCW); Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) project implementation strategies), we mapped and coded our interview findings to identify potential interventions, policies, and implementation strategies to improve routine use of the guidelines by preclinical scientists. These findings will help inform specific strategies that may guide the development of programs and resources to improve experimental design and transparent reporting in preclinical research.

The Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) guidelines for patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery address the lack of standardized management for patients at risk of perioperative cardiovascular complications. Our interdisciplinary group evaluated the implementation of these guidelines. We used an interrupted time series design to evaluate the effect of implementation of the CCS guidelines, using routinely collected hospital data. The study population consisted of elective, non-cardiac surgery patients who were: i) inpatients following surgery and ii) age ≥ 65 or age 45–64 yr with a Revised Cardiac Risk Index ≥ 1. Outcomes included adherence to troponin I (TnI) monitoring (primary) and adherence to appropriate consultant care for patients with elevated TnI (secondary). Exploratory outcomes included cost measures and clinical outcomes such as length of stay. We included 1,421 patients (706 pre- and 715 post-implementation). We observed a 67% absolute increase (95% confidence interval, 55 to 80; P < 0.001) in adherence to TnI testing following the implementation of the guidelines. In patients who had elevated TnI following guideline implementation (n = 64), the majority (85%) received appropriate follow-up care in the form of a general medicine or cardiology consult, all received at least one electrocardiogram, and half received at least one advanced cardiac test (e.g., cardiac perfusion scan, or percutaneous intervention). Our study showed the ability to implement and adhere to the CCS guidelines. Large-scale multicentre evaluations of CCS guideline implementation are needed to gain a better understanding of potential effects on clinically relevant outcomes.

Background Novel therapies often fail to reach the bedside due to low trial recruitment rates. Prior to conducting one of the first chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapy trials in Canada, we used the Theoretical Domains Framework, a novel tool for identifying barriers and enablers to behavior change, to identify physician-related barriers and enablers to screening and recruiting patients for an early phase immunotherapy trial. Methods We conducted interviews with hematologists across Canada and used a directed content analysis to identify relevant domains reflecting the key factors that may affect screening and recruitment. Results In total, we interviewed 15 hematologists. Physicians expressed “cautious hope”; while expressing safety, feasibility, and screening criteria concerns, 14 out of 15 hematologists intended to screen for the trial (domains: knowledge, goals, beliefs about consequences, intentions). Physicians underscored the “challenging contexts,” identifying resources, workload, forgetting, and patient wait times to receive CAR T cells as key practical barriers to screening (domains: environmental context and resources, memory, attention and decision-making, behavioral regulation). They also highlighted “variability in roles and procedures” that may lead to missed trial candidates (domain: social and professional role). Left unaddressed, these barriers may undermine trial recruitment. Conclusions This study is among the first to use the Theoretical Domains Framework from the physician perspective to identify recruitment challenges to early phase trials and demonstrates the value of this approach for identifying barriers to screening and recruitment that may not otherwise have been elicited. This approach can optimize trial procedures and may serve to inform future promising early phase cancer therapy trials. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03765177. Registered on December 5, 2018.

Remote ischemic conditioning (RIC) is a promising neuroprotective therapy for ischemic stroke. Preclinical studies investigating RIC have shown RIC reduced infarct volume, but clinical trials have been equivocal. Therefore, the efficacy of RIC in reducing infarct volume and quality of current literature needs to be evaluated to identify knowledge gaps to support future clinical trials. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of preclinical literature involving RIC in rodent models of focal ischemia. This review was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42019145441). Eligibility criteria included rat or mice models of focal ischemia that received RIC to a limb either before, during, or after stroke. MEDLINE and Embase databases were searched from 1946 to August 2019. Risk of bias was assessed using the SYRCLE risk of bias tool along with construct validity. Seventy-two studies were included in the systematic review. RIC was shown to reduce infarct volume (SMD - 2.19; CI - 2.48 to - 1.91) when compared to stroke-only controls and no adverse events were reported with regard to RIC. Remote ischemic conditioning was shown to be most efficacious in males (SMD - 2.26; CI - 2.58 to - 1.94) and when delivered poststroke (SMD - 1.34; CI - 1.95 to - 0.73). A high risk of bias was present; thus, measures of efficacy may be exaggerated. A limitation is the poor methodological reporting of many studies, resulting in unclear construct validity. We identified several important, but under investigated topics including the efficacy of RIC in different stroke models, varied infarct sizes and location, and potential sex differences.

Engaging patients as partners in the design and execution of early-phase clinical trials offers a unique opportunity to ensure patient perspectives are considered. Here we describe our experience partnering with four individuals with lived experience of blood cancer to co-develop documents and services to support participants of an early-phase trial. Through regular team meetings, patient partners co-developed a visual informed consent document and a non-technical summary of the informed consent document to facilitate participant understanding of trial procedures. Overall, patient partners highlighted important trial components that would not have been identified without their input.

Mesenchymal stem cell-derived extracellular vesicles (MSC-EVs) can reduce inflammation, promote healing, and improve organ function, thereby providing a potential "cell-free" therapy. Prior to clinical translation, it is critical to synthesize existing evidence on preclinical methods and efficacy. To address these issues, we used gold standard systematic review methodology to consolidate information from all published animal studies investigating MSC-EVs as an intervention. A systematic search of MEDLINE and Embase identified 206 studies. Data were extracted in duplicate for methodology, experimental design, interventional traits, modifications, and outcomes. MSC-EVs were used to treat a variety of diseases and demonstrated benefits in 97% of studies. Adverse effects were reported in only three studies, two demonstrating tumor growth. A quarter of articles modified EVs to enhance efficacy, with 72% leading to markedly improved outcomes as compared to unmodified EVs. However, several key methodological concerns were evident. Only 60% of studies used nomenclature consistent with the size definitions of EVs. Ultracentrifugation (70%) and isolation kits (23%) were the most common isolation techniques with noted differences in yield and purity. EVs were inconsistently dosed by protein (68%) or particle concentration (16%). Two-thirds of studies administered xenogeneic EVs, suggesting immunocompatibility. Less than 25% of studies assessed EV biodistribution. Approaches for determining size, protein markers, and morphology were highly heterogeneous, with only 12 and 4 studies meeting the MISEV 2014 and 2018 recommendations, respectively. Knowledge gaps identified from this systematic review highlight important opportunities to improve preclinical design and methodology in the rapidly growing field of EV therapeutics.

Background Low molecular weight heparins (LMWH) are often used as a first-line therapy for the prevention of thrombosis in cancer patients. Preclinical evidence from animal models suggests that LMWH may have antimetastatic properties. Clinical evidence of this effect is inconclusive. The objective of this systematic review is to evaluate the effect of LMWH on overall survival in patients with solid tumor malignancies. Methods MEDLINE, Embase, and The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled trials were searched from inception to November 26, 2018. We included randomized controlled trials that compared LMWH to placebo, a no-treatment arm, or a short-term prophylactic course of LMWH in adult patients with solid tumors. The primary outcome was overall survival. Secondary outcomes included progression-free survival, the occurrence of venous thromboembolism, and major bleeding events. The risk of bias was assessed in duplicate using the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias tool. Results Forty-five articles were included in the review. Overall, no difference in overall survival was observed between groups (risk ratio: 1.00; 95% confidence interval: 0.98–1.02; I2 = 36.5%). In our a priori defined subgroup analyses, the effect was not shown to vary by the type of LMWH, duration of LMWH use, length of study follow-up, comparator used in the study, or the setting in which the LMWH was administered. The majority of studies had an unclear risk of bias for at least one methodological criterion. Conclusion Although LMWH is thought to possess antimetastatic properties and thus have the potential to improve survival in cancer patients, existing data do not support this hypothesis.

Preclinical studies suggest mesenchymal stromal cell extracellular vesicles (MSC‐EVs) reduce inflammation and improve organ function in lung diseases; however, an objective analysis of all available data is needed prior to translation. Using rigorous meta‐research methods, we determined the effectiveness of MSC‐EVs for preclinical respiratory diseases and identified experimental conditions that may further refine this therapy. A systematic search of MEDLINE/Embase identified 1167 records. After screening, 52 articles were included for data extraction and evaluated for risk of bias and quality of reporting in study design. A random effects meta‐analysis was conducted for acute lung injury (ALI; N = 23), bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD; N = 8) and pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH; N = 7). Subgroup analyses identified EV methods/characteristics that may be associated with improved efficacy. Data is presented as standardized mean differences (SMD) or risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). For ALI, MSC‐EVs markedly reduced lung injury (SMD ‐4.33, CI ‐5.73 to ‐2.92), vascular permeability (SMD ‐2.43, CI ‐3.05 to ‐1.82), and mortality (RR 0.39, CI 0.22 to 0.68). Small EVs were more consistently effective than large EVs whereas no differences were observed between tissue sources, immunocompatibility or isolation techniques. For BPD, alveolarization was improved by MSC‐EVs (SMD ‐1.45, CI ‐2.08 to ‐0.82) with small EVs more consistently beneficial then small/large EVs. In PAH, right ventricular systolic pressure (SMD ‐4.16, CI ‐5.68 to ‐2.64) and hypertrophy (SMD ‐2.80, CI ‐3.68 to ‐1.91) were significantly attenuated by EVs. In BPD and PAH, EVs isolated by ultracentrifugation demonstrated therapeutic benefit whereas tangential flow filtration (N = 2) displayed minimal efficacy. Lastly, risk of bias and quality of reporting for experimental design were consistently unclear across all studies. Our findings demonstrate clear potential of MSC‐EVs to be developed as therapy for acute and chronic lung diseases. However, greater transparency in research design and direct comparisons of isolation technique and EV subtypes are needed to generate robust evidence to guide clinical translation. Protocol Registration: PROSPERO CRD42020145334

PurposeNumerous guideline recommendations for airway and perioperative management during the COVID-19 pandemic have been published. We identified, synthesized, and compared guidelines intended for anesthesiologists.SourceMember society websites of the World Federation of Societies of Anesthesiologists and the European Society of Anesthesiologists were searched. Recommendations focused on perioperative airway management of patients with proven or potential COVID-19 disease were included. Accelerated screening was used; data extraction was performed by one reviewer and verified by a second. Data was organized into themes based on perioperative phase of care.Principal FindingsThirty unique sets of recommendations were identified. None reported methods for systematically searching or selecting evidence to be included. Four were updated following initial publication. For induction and airway management, most recommended minimizing personnel and having the most experienced anesthesiologist perform tracheal intubation. Significant congruence was observed amongst recommendations that discussed personal protective equipment. Of those that discussed tracheal intubation methods, most (96%) recommended video laryngoscopy, while discordance existed regarding use of flexible bronchoscopy. Intraoperatively, 23% suggested specific anesthesia techniques and most (63%) recommended a specific operating room for patients with COVID-19. Postoperatively, a minority discussed extubation procedures (33%), or care in the recovery room (40%). Non-technical considerations were discussed in 27% and psychological support for healthcare providers in 10%.ConclusionRecommendations for perioperative airway management of patients with COVID-19 overlap to a large extent. However, we also identified significant differences. This may reflect the absence of a coordinated response towards studying and establishing best-practices in perioperative patients with COVID-19.RegistrationOpen Science Framework (https://osf.io/a2k4u/)

Resistant starches (RSs) have been advocated as a dietary supplement to address microbiota dysbiosis. They are postulated to act through the production of SCFAs. Their clinical tolerability and effect on SCFA production has not been systematically evaluated.We conducted a systematic review of RS supplementation as an intervention in adults (healthy individuals and persons with medical conditions) participating in randomized controlled trials. The primary outcome was tolerability of RS supplementation, the secondary outcome was SCFA production.MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register were searched. Articles were screened, and data extracted, independently and in duplicate.A total of 39 trials met eligibility criteria, including a total of 2263 patients. Twenty-seven (69%) studies evaluated the impact of RS supplementation in healthy subjects whereas 12 (31%) studies included individuals with an underlying medical condition (e.g., obesity, prediabetes). Type 2 RS was most frequently investigated (29 studies). Of 12 studies performed in subjects with health conditions, 11 reported on tolerability. All studies showed that RS supplementation was tolerated; 9 of these studies used type 2 RS with doses of 20-40 g/d for4 wk. Of 27 studies performed in healthy subjects, 20 reported on tolerability. In 14 studies, RS supplementation was tolerated, and the majority used type 2 RS with a dose between 20 and 40 g/d. Twenty-one (78%) studies reporting SCFAs used type 2 RS with a dose of 20-40 g/d for 1-4 wk. In 16 of 23 studies (70%), SCFA production was increased, in 7 studies there was no change in SCFA concentration before and after RS supplementation, and in 1 study SCFA concentration decreased.Available evidence suggests that RS supplementation is tolerated in both healthy subjects and in those with an underlying medical condition. In addition, SCFA production was increased in most of the studies.

There may be the potential to improve stroke recovery with mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs); however, questions about the efficacy and safety of this treatment remain. To address these issues and inform future studies, we performed a preclinical and clinical systematic review of MSC therapy for subacute and chronic ischemic stroke. MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, and PubMed were searched. For the clinical review, interventional and observational studies of MSC therapy in ischemic stroke patients were included. For the preclinical review, interventional studies of MSC therapy using in vivo animal models of subacute or chronic stroke were included. Measures of safety and efficacy were assessed. Eleven clinical and 76 preclinical studies were included. Preclinically, MSC therapy was associated with significant benefits for multiple measures of motor and neurological function. Clinically, MSC therapy appeared to be safe, with no increase in adverse events reported (with the exception of self-limited fever immediately following injection). However, the efficacy of treatment was less apparent, with significant heterogeneity in both study design and effect size being observed. Additionally, in the only randomized phase II study to date, efficacy of MSC therapy was not observed. Preclinically, MSC therapy demonstrated considerable efficacy. Although MSC therapy demonstrated safety in the clinical setting, efficacy has yet to be determined. Future studies will need to address the discordance in the continuity of evidence as MSC therapy has been translated from "bench-to-bedside".

Promising efficacy results of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy have been tempered by safety considerations. Our objective was to comprehensively summarize the efficacy and safety of CAR-T cell therapy in patients with relapsed or refractory hematologic or solid malignancies. MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (inception - November 21, 2017). Interventional studies investigating CAR-T cell therapy in patients with malignancies were included. Our primary outcome of interest was complete response (defined as the absence of detectable cancer). Two independent reviewers extracted relevant data, assessed risk of bias, and graded the quality of evidence using established methods. A total of 42 hematological malignancy studies and 18 solid tumor studies met were included (913 participants). Of 486 evaluable hematologic patients, 54.4% [95% CI, 42.5%-65.9%] experienced complete response in 27 CD19 CAR-T cell therapy studies. Of 65 evaluable hematologic patients, 24.4% [95% CI, 9.4%-50.3%] experienced complete response in seven non-CD19 CAR-T cell therapy studies. Cytokine release syndrome was experienced by 55.3% [95% CI, 40.3%-69.4%] of patients and neurotoxicity 37.2% [95% CI, 28.6%-46.8%] of patients with hematologic malignancies. Of 86 evaluable solid tumor patients, 4.1% [95% CI, 1.6%-10.6%] experienced complete response in eight CAR-T cell therapy studies. Limitations include heterogeneity of study populations, as well as high risk of bias of included studies. There was a strong signal for efficacy of CAR-T cell therapy in patients with CD19+ hematologic malignancies and no overall signal in solid tumor trials published to date. These results will help inform patients, physicians, and other stakeholders of the benefits and risks associated with CAR-T cell therapy.

Perioperative intermediate care units (termed surgical special care units) have been widely implemented across health systems because they are believed to improve surveillance and management of high-risk surgical patients. Our objective was to conduct a systematic review to investigate the effects of a 3-level model of perioperative care delivery (ie, ward, surgical special care unit, or intensive care unit) compared to a 2-level model of care (ie, ward, intensive care unit) on postoperative outcomes. Our protocol was registered with PROSPERO, the international prospective register of systematic reviews (CRD42015025155). Randomized controlled studies and nonrandomized comparator studies were included. We performed a systematic search of Medline, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Embase, and the Cochrane library (inception - 11/2017). The primary outcome was mortality; secondary outcomes included length of stay and hospital costs. We identified 1995 citations with our search, and 21 studies met eligibility criteria (2 randomized controlled studies and 19 nonrandomized comparator studies; 44,134 patients in total). Surgical special care units were characterized by continuous monitoring (12 studies), the absence of mechanical ventilation (8 studies), nurse-to-patient ratios (range, 1:2-1:4), and number of beds (median: 5; range: 3-33). Thirteen studies reported on mortality. Notable findings included no observed difference in overall in-hospital mortality, but an apparent increase in intensive care unit mortality in a 3-level model of care. This may reflect a decanting of lower acuity patients from the intensive care unit to the surgical special care unit. No significant difference was found in hospital length of stay; however, 2 studies demonstrated reductions in hospital costs with the implementation of a surgical special care unit. Significant clinical and methodological heterogeneity precluded pooled analysis. Given the prevalence of surgical special care units, the results of our review suggest that additional methodologically rigorous investigations are needed to understand the effect of these units on the surgical population.

ObjectivesBench to bedside translation of groundbreaking treatments like chimeric antigen receptor T (CAR-T) cell therapy depends on patient participation in early phase trials. Unfortunately, many novel therapies fail to be adequately evaluated due to low recruitment rates, which slows patient access to emerging treatments. Using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF), we sought to identify potential patient barriers and enablers to participating in an early phase CAR-T cell therapy trial.DesignWe used qualitative semistructured interviews to identify potential barriers and enablers to patients’ hypothetical participation in an early phase CAR-T cell therapy trial. We used the TDF and directed content analysis to identify relevant domains based on frequency, relevance and the presence of conflicting beliefs.ParticipantsCanadian adult patients diagnosed with haematological malignancies.ResultsIn total, we interviewed 13 participants (8 women, 5 men). Participants ranged in age from 18 to 73 (median=56) and had been living with haematological cancer from a few months to several years. We found participants were unfamiliar with CAR-T cell therapy but wished to know more about treatment safety, efficacy and trial logistics (domains: knowledge, beliefs about consequences). They were motivated by altruistic considerations, though many prioritised personal health benefits despite recognising the goals (ie, establishing safety) of early phase clinical trials (domains: goals, intentions). Every participant valued receiving medical advice from their haematologists and oncologists, though some preferred impartial medical experts to inform their decision making (domain: social influences). Finally, participants indicated that improving access to financial and social supports would improve their trial participation experience (domain: environmental context and resources).ConclusionUsing the TDF allowed us to identify factors that might undermine participation to a CAR-T cell therapy trial and to optimise recruitment processes by considering patient perspectives to taking part in early phase trials.Trial regestration:NCT03765177; Pre-results.

The Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) guidelines for patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery address the lack of standardized management for patients at risk of perioperative cardiovascular complications. Our interdisciplinary group evaluated the implementation of these guidelines.We used an interrupted time series design to evaluate the effect of implementation of the CCS guidelines, using routinely collected hospital data. The study population consisted of elective, non-cardiac surgery patients who were: i) inpatients following surgery and ii) age ≥ 65 or age 45-64 yr with a Revised Cardiac Risk Index ≥ 1. Outcomes included adherence to troponin I (TnI) monitoring (primary) and adherence to appropriate consultant care for patients with elevated TnI (secondary). Exploratory outcomes included cost measures and clinical outcomes such as length of stay.We included 1,421 patients (706 pre- and 715 post-implementation). We observed a 67% absolute increase (95% confidence interval, 55 to 80; P0.001) in adherence to TnI testing following the implementation of the guidelines. In patients who had elevated TnI following guideline implementation (n = 64), the majority (85%) received appropriate follow-up care in the form of a general medicine or cardiology consult, all received at least one electrocardiogram, and half received at least one advanced cardiac test (e.g., cardiac perfusion scan, or percutaneous intervention).Our study showed the ability to implement and adhere to the CCS guidelines. Large-scale multicentre evaluations of CCS guideline implementation are needed to gain a better understanding of potential effects on clinically relevant outcomes.RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: Les lignes directrices de la Société canadienne de cardiologie (SCC) concernant les patients subissant une chirurgie non cardiaque ont été conçues pour pallier l’absence de standardisation dans la prise en charge des patients à risque de complications cardiovasculaires périopératoires. Notre groupe interdisciplinaire a évalué la mise en œuvre de ces lignes directrices. MéTHODE: Nous avons utilisé une méthodologie de série chronologique interrompue pour évaluer l’effet de la mise en œuvre des lignes directrices de la SCC, à l’aide des données hospitalières habituellement recueillies. La population à l’étude se composait de patients de chirurgies non cardiaques non urgentes qui étaient : i) hospitalisés après leur chirurgie et ii) âgés de ≥ 65 ans ou de 45 à 64 ans avec un Indice de risque cardiaque révisé ≥ 1. Les critères d’évaluation comprenaient l’observance du monitorage de la troponine I (TnI) (critère d’évaluation primaire) et l’observance des soins spécialisés appropriés aux patients présentant un taux élevé de TnI (critère secondaire). Les critères exploratoires comprenaient des mesures de coûts et des résultats cliniques tels que la durée de séjour. RéSULTATS: Nous avons inclus 1421 patients (706 avant et 715 après la mise en œuvre). Nous avons observé une augmentation absolue de 67 % (intervalle de confiance de 95 %, 55 à 80; P0,001) de l’observance des tests de la TnI suite à la mise en œuvre des lignes directrices. Parmi les patients présentant un taux élevé de TnI suite à la mise en œuvre des lignes directrices (n = 64), la majorité (85%) a reçu des soins de suivi appropriés sous la forme d’une consultation en médecine générale ou en cardiologie; tous ont subi au moins un électrocardiogramme, et la moitié ont passé au moins un examen cardiaque subséquent (p. ex., évaluation de la perfusion myocardique par scintigraphie ou cathétérisme percutané). CONCLUSION: Notre étude a montré qu’il est possible de mettre en œuvre et d’adhérer aux nouvelles lignes directrices de la SCC. Des évaluations multicentriques à grande échelle portant sur la mise en œuvre des lignes directrices de la SCC sont nécessaires pour mieux comprendre ses effets potentiels sur les devenirs cliniquement pertinents.

When used during surgery, antifibrinolytic hemostatic agents such as lysine analogues are effective at reducing blood loss and the need for transfusions. Despite proven efficacy, use of hemostatic agents remains low during some surgeries. Our objective was to explore surgeon opinions about, and use of lysine analogues in, oncologic surgeries at a large tertiary care academic institution. We administered a survey to surgeons who perform high-transfusion-risk oncologic surgeries at a large academic hospital in Ottawa, Ontario. Design and distribution of the survey followed a modified Dillman method. To ensure that the survey questionnaire was relevant, clear, and concise, we performed informant interviews, cognitive interviews, and pilot-testing. The final survey consisted of 19 questions divided into 3 sections: respondent demographics, use of hemostatic agents, and potential clinical trial opinions. Of 28 surgeons, 24 (86%) participated. When asked to indicate the frequency of lysine analogue use, &ldquo, never&rdquo, accounted for 46% of the responses, and &ldquo, rarely&rdquo, (, unfamiliar with benefits&rdquo, and &ldquo, prefer alternatives.&rdquo, Fifteen surgeons (63%) felt that a trial was needed to demonstrate the efficacy and safety of lysine analogues in their cancer field. Our survey found that lysine analogues are infrequently used during oncologic surgeries at our institution. Many surgeons are unfamiliar with the benefits and side effects of lysine analogues and, alternatively, use topical hemostatic agents. Our results demonstrate that future trials exploring the efficacy and safety of lysine analogues in oncologic surgery are needed.

IntroductionMany predatory journals fail to follow best publication practices. Studies assessing the impact of predatory journals have focused on how these articles are cited in reputable academic journals. However, it is possible that research from predatory journals is cited beyond the academic literature in policy documents and guidelines. Given that research used to inform public policy or government guidelines has the potential for widespread impact, we will examine whether predatory journals have penetrated public policy.Methods and analysisThis is a descriptive study with no hypothesis testing. Policy documents that cite work from the known predatory publisher OMICS will be downloaded from the Overton database. Overton collects policy documents from over 1200 sources worldwide. Policy documents will be evaluated to determine how the predatory journal article is used. We will also extract epidemiological details of the policy documents, including: who funded their development, the discipline the work is relevant to and the name of the organisations producing the policy. The record of scholarly citations of the identified predatory articles will also be examined. Findings will be reported with descriptive statistics using counts and percentages.Ethics and disseminationNo ethical approval was required for this study since it does not involve human or animal research. Study findings will be discussed at workshops on journalology and predatory publishing and will be disseminated through preprint, peer-reviewed literature and conference presentations.

Aim Though patient engagement in clinical research is growing, recent reports suggest few clinical trials report on such activities. To address this gap, we describe our approach to patient engagement in the development of a clinical trial protocol to assess a new immunotherapy for blood cancer (chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy, CAR-T cell therapy). Methods Our team developed a clinical trial protocol by working with patient partners from inception. Two patient partners with lived blood cancer experience were identified through referrals from our team’s professional network and patient organization contacts. Our patient partners were onboarded to the team and engaged in several studies conducted to develop the clinical trial protocol, including a systematic review of the existing literature on the therapy, patient interviews and a survey to obtain perspectives on barriers and enablers to participating in the trial, an early economic analysis, and a retrospective cohort study. Results Engaging patient partners enhanced our research in ways that would not have otherwise occurred. By selecting patient important outcomes for data collection, our partners helped flag that quality of life and health utility measures have not been reported in previous CAR-T cell therapy trials for blood cancer. Our partners also co-developed a non-technical summary of the systematic review that summarized results in an accessible manner. Our patient partners reviewed interview and survey questions, to improve the language and appropriateness; provided recruitment suggestions; and provided a patient perspective on the results, thereby confirming the importance of findings. Input was also obtained on costs for the early economic analysis. Our patient partners identified costs that may be a burden to both patients and caregivers during a trial and helped to confirm that the overall structure of the economic model reflected the patient care pathway. Our patient partners also shared their diagnosis and treatment stories, which helped to provide the research team with insight into this experience. Conclusions Contributions by our patient partners were invaluable to each component study, as well as the overall development of the trial protocol. We plan to use this approach in the future in order to meaningfully engage patients in the development of other clinical trials; we also hope that by reporting our methods this will help other research teams to do the same. Trial registration Affiliated with the development of NCT03765177.

Aim: Though patient engagement in clinical research is growing, recent reports suggest few clinical trials report on such activities. To address this gap, we describe our approach to patient engagement in the development of a clinical trial protocol for a new immunotherapy for blood cancer (chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy, CAR-T cell therapy). Methods: Our team developed a clinical trial protocol by working with patient partners from inception. Two patient partners with lived blood cancer experience were identified through referrals from our team’s professional network and patient organization contacts. Our patient partners were onboarded to the team and engaged in several studies conducted to develop the clinical trial protocol, including a systematic review of the existing literature on the therapy, patient interviews and a survey to obtain perspectives on barriers and enablers to participating in the trial, an early economic analysis, and a retrospective cohort study. Results: Engaging patient partners enhanced our research in ways that would not have otherwise occurred. By selecting patient important outcomes for data collection, our partners helped flag that quality of life and health utility measures have not been reported in previous CAR-T cell therapy trials for blood cancer. Our partners also co-developed a non-technical summary of the systematic review that summarized results in an accessible manner. Our patient partners reviewed interview and survey questions, to improve the language and appropriateness; provided recruitment suggestions; and provided a patient perspective on the results, thereby confirming the importance of findings. Input was also obtained on costs for the early economic analysis. Our patient partners identified costs that may be a burden to both patients and caregivers during a trial and helped to confirm that the overall structure of the economic model reflected the patient care pathway. Our patient partners also shared their diagnosis and treatment stories, which helped to provide the research team with insight into this experience.Conclusions: Contributions by our patient partners were invaluable to each component study, as well as the overall development of the trial protocol. We plan to use this approach in the future, to meaningfully engage patients in the development of other clinical trials; we also hope that by reporting our methods this will help other research teams to do the same. Trial Registration: Affiliated with the development of NCT03765177

IntroductionAutologous cancer cell vaccines are promising personalised immunotherapeutic options for solid and haematological malignancies that uses the patient’s own cells to arm an immune response. Evidence suggests that among patients receiving these vaccines, those who mount an immune response against their own tumour cells have better prognosis, and a myriad of preclinical studies have demonstrated the same. Recently, two autologous cell vaccines Vigil and OncoVAX have made it to phase III clinical trials. Here, we outline a protocol to be used for two separate systematic reviews using a parallel approach for inclusion criteria, data extraction and analysis for autologous cell vaccines in (1) solid and (2) haematological malignancies. We aim to review evidence from controlled and uncontrolled interventional studies of autologous cell vaccines administered to patients with cancer to determine their historical efficacy (with or without associated adjuvants or modifications) with clinical response rates and safety outcomes being of particular importance.Methods and analysisWe will search MEDLINE (OVID interface, including In-Process and Epub Ahead of Print), Embase (OVID interface) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Wiley interface) for articles published from 1947 until 30 July 2018 (date search was performed). Studies will be screened first by title and abstract, then by full-text in duplicate. Interventional trials that report the use of an autologous cell vaccine to patients with cancer of any age will be included. The primary outcomes of interest in this review are clinical response (complete or overall/objective response) and safety outcomes (adverse events). Secondary outcomes include immune response, disease-free survival and overall survival. The risk of bias within studies will be assessed using the appropriate Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. If appropriate, a random effects meta-analysis will be performed to synthesise the data and report summary estimates of effect. Statistical heterogeneity will be assessed using the I2 statistic.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval is not required for this systematic review protocol as the review will solely use published literature. Results will be submitted to peer-reviewed journals for publication and presented to relevant stakeholders and scientific meetings.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019140187.

Objective The therapeutic effects of low molecular weight heparins (LMWH) may extend past thrombosis prevention, with preclinical evidence demonstrating anti-metastatic properties. Clinical evidence on the topic, however, remains controversial. A systematic review of preclinical evidence may help elucidate reasons for this contradictory evidence. The objective of our systematic review is to assess the anti-metastatic properties of LMWHs in solid tumour animal models. Methods MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science and PubMed were searched from inception to May 12th, 2020. All articles were screened independently and in duplicate. Studies that compared LMWH to a placebo or no treatment arm in solid tumour animal models were included. The primary outcome was the burden of metastasis. Secondary outcomes included primary tumour growth and mortality. The risk of bias was assessed in duplicate using a modified Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Results Forty-two studies were included in the review. Administration of a LMWH was associated with a significant decrease in the burden of metastasis (SMD −2.18; 95% CI −2.66 to −1.70). Additionally, the administration of a LMWH was also associated with a significant reduction in primary tumour growth (SMD −1.95; 95% CI −2.56 to −1.34) and risk of death (RR 0.39; 95% CI 0.16–0.97). All included studies were deemed to be at an unclear risk of bias for at least one methodological criterion. Conclusions Our results demonstrate that LMWH can effectively reduce metastatic burden and reduce tumour growth in preclinical animal models of solid tumour malignancies. Reasons for the contradiction with clinical evidence require further exploration.

Objectives The objective of the study was to assess the impact of narrative review (NR) vs. systematic review (SR) on expert assessments of a clinical trial. Study Design and Setting Experts in colon and rectal surgery were randomized to read an NR or SR for an ongoing clinical trial involving surgery for colorectal cancer. Experts from the United States and Canada completed online or paper surveys between December 2018 and June 2019. After reading the NR or SR, experts predicted the trial's outcome and evaluated the trial under a hypothetical ethical review. Results Experts who read the NR (n = 55) compared with those who read the SR (n = 56) were more likely to predict a higher absolute risk reduction, 58% vs. 33%, P = 0.018, mean predictions 10.6% vs. 6.6%, mean difference 4.0% [95% confidence interval: 0.3%, 7.8%]. Experts who read the NR were more likely to evaluate the trial more favorably under a hypothetical ethical review, 48% vs. 26%, P = 0.039, 20.0% vs. 8.9% “strongly in favor” of trial being pursued. Conclusion: An NR and an SR for the same trial led to different judgments of likely outcomes and ethical appropriateness. These differences point to a potential source of unaddressed bias in ethical review.