How can hospitals change practice to better implement smoking cessation interventions? A systematic review

Smoking cessation reduces the risk of death, improves recovery, and reduces the risk of hospital readmission. Evidence and policy support hospital admission as an ideal time to deliver smoking-cessation interventions. However, this is not well implemented in practice. In this systematic review, the authors summarize the literature on smoking-cessation implementation strategies and evaluate their success to guide the implementation of best-practice smoking interventions into hospital settings. The CINAHL Complete, Embase, MEDLINE Complete, and PsycInfo databases were searched using terms associated with the following topics: smoking cessation, hospitals, and implementation. In total, 14,287 original records were identified and screened, resulting in 63 eligible articles from 56 studies. Data were extracted on the study characteristics, implementation strategies, and implementation outcomes. Implementation outcomes were guided by Proctor and colleagues' framework and included acceptability, adoption, appropriateness, cost, feasibility, fidelity, penetration, and sustainability. The findings demonstrate that studies predominantly focused on the training of staff to achieve implementation. Brief implementation approaches using a small number of implementation strategies were less successful and poorly sustained compared with well resourced and multicomponent approaches. Although brief implementation approaches may be viewed as advantageous because they are less resource-intensive, their capacity to change practice in a sustained way lacks evidence. Attempts to change clinician behavior or introduce new models of care are challenging in a short time frame, and implementation efforts should be designed for long-term success. There is a need to embrace strategic, well planned implementation approaches to embed smoking-cessation interventions into hospitals and to reap and sustain the benefits for people who smoke.     

Initial assessment of α-synuclein structure in platelets

Journal of Thrombosis and Thrombolysis - Over the last few years data from our group have indicated that α-synuclein is important in development of immune cells as well as potentially...     

Post-thrombolytic coagulopathy and complications in patients with pulmonary embolism treated with fixed-dose systemic alteplase

Journal of Thrombosis and Thrombolysis - Alteplase treatment can cause a systemic coagulopathy although the incidence and contributory factors are unknown in pulmonary embolism (PE). Fixed-dosing...     

Immune checkpoint inhibitors in advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma: Beyond an era of chemoradiation?

Now is an exciting era of development in immunotherapy checkpoint inhibitors and their effect on the treatment of NPC. While the general prognosis of R/M disease is poor, immunotherapy offers some promise in a malignancy associated with EBV and characterized by a peritumoural immune infiltrate. Our study aims to review past and on-going clinical trials of monoclonal antibody therapies against the checkpoint inhibitors (e.g. PD1 and CTLA-4), in R/M NPC. All randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials involving immune checkpoint inhibitor interventions for treatment of NPC were included in the study. We utilized a validated “risk of bias” tool to assess study quality. Four separate Phase I–II trials report the potential of PD1 inhibitor treatment for patients with NPC. Within the observed groups, camrelizumab combined with chemotherapy achieved an objective response in 91% of patients as first-line treatment for metastatic NPC (PFS 68% at 1-year) but this was associated with a high rate of grade >3 adverse events (87%; CTCAE version 4.03). The remaining three studies focused on recurrent NPC disease in patients who had received at least one line of prior chemotherapy. Within this group, camrelizumab monotherapy achieved an objective response in 34% of patients (PFS 27% at 1-year; range across all three studies 20.5–34%). No NPC trial has yet reported on specific outcomes for non-PD1 checkpoint inhibitors but 11 on-going studies include alternative targets (e.g. PD-L1/CTLA-4) as combination or monotherapy treatments. In considering checkpoint immunotherapies for NPC, initial results show promise for anti-PD1 interventions. Further phase I–III trials are in progress to clarify clinical outcomes, fully determine safety profiles, and optimize drug combinations and administration schedules.     

Clear-cell Renal Cell Carcinoma: Molecular Characterization of IMDC Risk Groups and Sarcomatoid Tumors

IntroductionRecent trials have suggested predictive biomarkers in advanced clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (accRCC): International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) good risk or angiogenic gene signature for sunitinib and IMDC intermediate/poor risk for ipilimumab-nivolumab and T-effector cell signature or sarcomatoid dedifferentiation for atezolizumab-bevacizumab. We hypothesized that earlier described molecular subtypes, ccrcc1 to ccrcc4, could provide similar information as a single generic biomarker and molecularly characterize the heterogeneous intermediate-risk group.Patients and MethodsPatients with accRCC treated with systemic therapies were included. We assessed associations between the 5 biomarkers and their impact on progression-free survival (PFS) and response rate (RR) on first-line sunitinib or pazopanib. The cutoff percentage of sarcomatoid dedifferentiation with optimal discriminative value was determined.ResultsIn total, 430 patients were included (163 with molecular data). The molecular ccrcc2 subtype identified tumors with higher angiogenic gene expression across IMDC risk groups: prevalence was high in IMDC good risk and low in IMDC poor risk (P < .001). Molecular subtype, IMDC, and angiogenic gene expression had comparable C-indices to predict PFS and RR (range, 60%-66%). The ccrcc2 subtype and angiogenic gene expression were positive predictors of PFS in IMDC intermediate-risk patients (P = .006; P = .04). Immune signature did not differ between IMDC groups, but was strongly correlated with molecular subtype (P = .8 and P = .0007). A cutoff value of 25% sarcomatoid differentiation discriminated tumors with distinct molecular characteristics and therapeutic sensitivity.ConclusionIn accRCC, molecular subtypes can explain differences in IMDC risk group, expression of angiogenesis and immune response genes, and sarcomatoid dedifferentiation. They can identify molecularly different patient populations within the heterogeneous IMDC intermediate group and select patients for systemic therapies.