Citations

Introduction Women residing in rural areas or belonging to lower socioeconomic status (SES) strata experience disproportionately low rates of breast cancer screening, contributing to delayed diagnoses and poorer prognoses. In addition, their participation in clinical trials remains markedly limited, reducing opportunities to access preventive and screening interventions. Promoting research preparedness among women before disease onset may empower them to make informed decisions regarding their health and willingness to participate in clinical research with fewer emotional and logistical barriers. Methods and analysis This project applies a community-based participatory research approach to develop and refine the WeCARE (Women’s Engagement for Cancer Awareness, Resources and Education) intervention for women aged 50–74 years who have either never undergone breast cancer screening or have not received screening in the past 5 years and who reside in rural areas or belong to low SES groups. The intervention consists of two components. Component 1 is a single-day, in-person community forum that includes (a) an educational seminar led by an oncologist to address breast cancer risk and screening guidelines, (b) survivor storytelling to enhance emotional engagement and cultural resonance and (c) facilitated navigation to breast cancer screening and future research participation. Component 2 involves structured post-forum follow-up through multiple touchpoints (phone calls and mailed boosters) to reinforce knowledge, address barriers and support screening completion and research enrolment. Quantitative data (eg, screening completion, satisfaction and follow-up engagement) will be summarised using descriptive statistics to assess feasibility and reach on 50 participants. Qualitative feedback from participants will undergo thematic analysis to identify barriers, facilitators and perceived cultural relevance. Integrated mixed-method interpretation will inform iterative refinement of the WeCARE intervention and guide design of subsequent larger trials. Ethics and dissemination Approved by the Mayo Clinic Institutional Review Board (IRB #25–008934). All participants will provide informed consent. Procedures ensure confidentiality, cultural sensitivity and participant safety. Data will be stored in REDCap and disseminated through publications, conferences, local town halls and community reports.

Background Oral anti-cancer treatment is commonly used, and non-adherence can negatively affect outcomes. The Oral Oncolytic Non-Adherence Estimator (ORACLE) was designed to prospectively categorize patients into risk levels by considering constructs such as self-efficacy, health literacy, perception of treatment, quality of life, social support, and regimen complexity. Validating this estimator is essential. Methods A content validation survey evaluated representativeness, clarity, and factor structure of each construct in ORACLE. A multidisciplinary panel of 8 content experts and 4 lay experts completed the survey. Results were analyzed to evaluate inter-rater agreement, content validity index (CVI), and factorial validity index (FVI). Post-survey workgroup discussions reviewed results and considered tool adjustments. Results All 12 invited experts completed the survey. The average CVI for content experts was 0.88 for representativeness and 0.98 for clarity. The average CVI for lay experts was 0.95 for clarity. The average FVI was 0.88, with self-efficacy and negative perception constructs yielding the lowest scores (0.63 and 0.75, respectively). ORACLE revisions addressed survey results and expert feedback on health literacy, social support, and regimen complexity. Conclusions Strong CVI for content and lay experts (94% and 95%) and strong FVI for content experts (98%) verify that the tool is understandable and addresses non-adherence issues, establishing validity of construct clarity and representativeness. Content validity of the first pre-treatment oral oncolytic non-adherence risk estimator was established, providing a reliable tool to identify patients at higher risk of non-adherence.

Introduction To date, there is no adherence estimator to identify risk of nonadherence prior to initiating oral oncolytics. Methods A workgroup was assembled through the National Community Oncology Dispensing Association and tasked with creating a tool to meet this need. Tool constructs were defined after a review of the literature identifying top barriers to adherence. A second literature search was conducted to identify questions targeting specific barriers from validated adherence questionnaires. Once a finalized draft was complete, the risk assessment tool was built into an electronic survey where a risk category can be automatically calculated for the patient. Results The six most impactful factors affecting compliance to oral oncolytics were identified as patient's confidence, health literacy, perception of treatment, quality of life, social support, and complexity of chemotherapy regimen. A six-item questionnaire was created with five patient-directed questions and one clinician-directed question. Examples and descriptions were provided for clinicians to consider when categorizing complexity of a regimen. The tool was designed for responses to each question to be indexed into categories through a 10-point system. Results will be stratified into low, moderate, or high risk for nonadherence. Conclusion The creation of a tool to predict nonadherence prior to starting therapy is an unmet need for patients initiating oral oncolytics. The aim of this tool is to meet those needs and better guide clinicians to provide patients with strategies to better manage nonadherence. Next steps include tool validation and piloting in clinical practice.

Abstract Background Breastfeeding is beneficial to both mother and infant. However, overlap of lactation with pregnancy and short recuperative intervals may impact mothers nutritionally. We aimed to investigate the possible effects of pregnancy during breastfeeding. Methods In October 2018, we searched systematically in nine electronic databases to investigate any association of breastfeeding during pregnancy with fetal and/or maternal outcomes. The study protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD41017056490). A meta-analysis was done to detect maternal and fetal outcomes and complications during pregnancy. Quality assessment was performed using the Australian Cancer Council bias tool for included studies. Results With 1992 studies initially identified, eight were eligible for qualitative analysis and 12 for quantitative analysis. Our results showed no significant difference in different abortion subtypes between lactating and non-lactating ones. In delivery, no difference between two groups regarding the time of delivery in full-term healthy, preterm delivery and preterm labor. No significant difference was detected in rates of antepartum, postpartum hemorrhage and prolonged labor between two groups. The women with short reproductive intervals may have higher supplemental intake and greater reduction fat store. The present studies showed that breastfeeding during pregnancy does not lead to adverse outcomes in the mother and her fetus in normal low-risk pregnancy, although it may lead to the nutritional burden on the mother. Conclusion The present studies showed that breastfeeding during pregnancy did not lead to the adverse outcomes in the mother and her fetus.

Abstract Background Pharyngeal and rectal Neisseria gonorrhoeae and Chlamydia trachomatis play important roles in infection and antibacterial resistance transmission, but no US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–cleared assays for detection at these sites existed prior to this study. The objective was to estimate performance of assays to detect those infections in pharyngeal and rectal specimens to support regulatory submission. Methods We performed a cross-sectional, single-visit study of adults seeking sexually transmitted infection testing at 9 clinics in 7 states. We collected pharyngeal and rectal swabs from participants. The primary outcome was positive and negative percent agreement for detection of N. gonorrhoeae and C. trachomatis for 3 investigational assays compared to a composite reference. Secondary outcomes included positivity as well as positive and negative predictive values and likelihood ratios. Subgroup analyses included outcomes by symptom status and sex. Results A total of 2598 participants (79% male) underwent testing. We observed N. gonorrhoeae positivity of 8.1% in the pharynx and 7.9% in the rectum and C. trachomatis positivity of 2.0% in the pharynx and 8.7% in the rectum. Positive percent agreement ranged from 84.8% to 96.5% for different anatomic site infection combinations, whereas negative percent agreement was 98.8% to 99.6%. Conclusions This study utilized a Master Protocol to generate diagnostic performance data for multiple assays from different manufacturers in a single study population, which ultimately supported first-in-class FDA clearance for extragenital assays. We observed very good positive percent agreement when compared to a composite reference method for the detection of both pharyngeal and rectal N. gonorrhoeae and C. trachomatis. Clinical Trials Registration NCT02870101.

AbstractBackgroundOvercoming β-lactam resistance in pathogens such as Pseudomonas aeruginosa is a major clinical challenge. Rapid molecular diagnostics (RMDs) have the potential to inform selection of empiric therapy in patients infected by P. aeruginosa.MethodsIn this study, we used a heterogeneous collection of 197 P. aeruginosa that included multidrug-resistant isolates to determine whether 2 representative RMDs (Acuitas Resistome test and VERIGENE gram-negative blood culture test) could identify susceptibility to 2 newer β-lactam/β-lactamase inhibitor (BL-BLI) combinations, ceftazidime/avibactam (CZA) and ceftolozane/tazobactam (TOL/TAZO).ResultsWe found that the studied RMD platforms were able to correctly identify BL-BLI susceptibility (susceptibility sensitivity, 100%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 97%, 100%) for both BLs-BLIs. However, their ability to detect resistance to these BLs-BLIs was lower (resistance sensitivity, 66%; 95% CI, 52%, 78% for TOL/TAZO and 33%; 95% CI, 20%, 49% for CZA).ConclusionsThe diagnostic platforms studied showed the most potential in scenarios where a resistance gene was detected or in scenarios where a resistance gene was not detected and the prevalence of resistance to TOL/TAZO or CZA is known to be low. Clinicians need to be mindful of the benefits and risks that result from empiric treatment decisions that are based on resistance gene detection in P. aeruginosa, acknowledging that such decisions are impacted by the prevalence of resistance, which varies temporally and geographically.