Citations

Abstract Introduction Revascularization to prevent limb loss is not feasible or represents a very high risk in a significant proportion of patients with chronic limb-threatening ischaemia (CLTI). No standard definition currently exists to define this population of patients. The aim of this study was to develop a consensus-based, multidomain definition to improve clinical assessment and reporting of studies in people with ‘no option’ (NO) or ‘poor option’ (PO) CLTI. Methods A modified Delphi process was conducted with 164 specialists from 30 countries. Two iterative survey rounds were used to reach consensus, defined as ≥70% agreement with a score of ≥7 on a nine-point scale. Results Some 164 international vascular specialists participated in the study, averaging 19 years of experience. A multidomain framework including arterial disease anatomy, biology, risk, function, and context (ABRFC) achieved 83% consensus. A ‘desert foot’ was defined as the absence of distal arterial revascularization targets on advanced non-invasive imaging, invasive digital subtraction angiography, and at least one failed endovascular revascularization attempt (81.6% agreement). Inadequate autogenous bypass conduit was defined as the lack of usable autologous vein across all four limbs (85% agreement). Patients were classified as NO for revascularization if they present with ‘desert foot’, prohibitive medical risk, a non-functional limb, or in those patients who refused arterial revascularization. PO revascularization patients combined factors such as severe infection, lack of autologous vein, or treatment non-compliance (72.1% agreement). Conclusion This consensus study established a structured, expert-validated definition of no option or poor option for revascularisation of patients with CLTI. The multidomain ABRFC framework provides a foundation for standardized clinical assessment, trial design, and future guideline development.

Importance The ideal duration of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for treating localized prostate cancer is unknown due to variable adherence and treatment durations tested in clinical trials. Objective To determine the ideal duration of ADT for patients with prostate cancer treated with radiotherapy. Data Sources This individual patient data meta-analysis of 13 randomized phase 3 clinical trials evaluated the use of radiotherapy alone or with ADT. It included patients with a median follow-up of 11.3 (IQR, 9.5-14.5) years and ADT duration of 0 to 36 months. Most patients (7392 [72%]) included had National Comprehensive Cancer Network high-risk or very high-risk disease. Study Selection For this meta-analysis, a systematic literature search from 1980 to 2020 was performed in trial registries (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and ClinicalTrials.gov), MEDLINE (1966-2020), Embase (1982-2020), Web of Science, and Scopus to identify trials. Data Extraction and Synthesis Intention-to-treat and as-treated analyses were performed. The number needed to treat to prevent 1 distant metastasis at 10 years was calculated based on prognostic risk group. The analyses were conducted from January 5 to August 15, 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary end point for this study was overall survival, defined as time to death or last follow-up from randomization. Secondary end points included biochemical recurrence, distant metastasis (DM), prostate cancer–specific mortality, and other-cause mortality. Results The median (IQR) age among the 10 266 male patients was 70 (65-74) years. Longer durations of ADT were associated with nonlinear improvement in relative benefits of DM, prostate cancer–specific mortality, and overall survival, with reduced estimated benefits beyond 9 to 12 months of ADT based on the end point. There was a near-linear increase in other-cause mortality associated with long-term ADT use (hazard ratio, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.09-1.50; P = .002 for 28 vs 0 months of ADT). The optimal ADT duration based on 10-year DM was 0, 6, 12 months, and undefined for patients with 1 intermediate-risk factor, 2 or more intermediate-risk factors, and National Comprehensive Cancer Network high-risk and very high-risk disease, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance The results of this meta-analysis suggest that, for men with localized prostate cancer treated with definitive radiotherapy and ADT, there are relative and absolute benefits from increasing durations of ADT that help provide individualized risk estimates.

Introduction Robust randomised trial data have shown that routine preoperative (pre-op) testing for cataract surgery patients is inappropriate. While guidelines have discouraged testing since 2002, cataract pre-op testing rates have remained unchanged since the 1990s. Given the challenges of reducing low-value care despite strong consensus around the evidence, innovative approaches are needed to promote high-value care. This trial evaluates the impact of an interdisciplinary electronic health record (EHR) intervention that is informed by behavioural economic theory. Methods and analysis This pragmatic randomised trial is being conducted at UCLA Health between June 2021 and June 2022 with a 12-month follow-up period. We are randomising all UCLA Health physicians who perform pre-op visits during the study period to one of the three nudge arms or usual care. These three nudge alerts address (1) patient harm, (2) increased out-of-pocket costs for patients and (3) psychological harm to the patients related to pre-op testing. The nudges are triggered when a physician starts to order a pre-op test. We hypothesise that receipt of a nudge will be associated with reduced pre-op testing. The primary outcome will be the change in the percentage of patients undergoing pre-op testing at 12 months. Secondary outcomes will include the percentage of patients undergoing specific categories of pre-op tests (labs, EKGs, chest X-rays (CXRs)), the efficacy of each nudge, same-day surgery cancellations and cost savings. Ethics and dissemination The study protocol was approved by the institutional review board of the University of California, Los Angeles as well as a nominated Data Safety Monitoring Board. If successful, we will have created a tool that can be disseminated rapidly to EHR vendors across the nation to reduce inappropriate testing for the most common low-risk surgical procedures in the country. Trial registration number ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04104256 .