Accuracy of MRI-guided Versus Systematic Prostate Biopsy in Patients Under Active Surveillance: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

This meta-analysis focuses on the accuracy of upgrading to clinically significant prostate cancer (PCa) by multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy (MRI-TB) versus systematic biopsy (SB). We searched the Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, Scopus, and Literatura Latino Americana em Ciências da Saúde databases through January 2020 for comparative, retrospective/prospective, paired-cohort, and randomized clinical trials with paired comparisons. The population consisted of patients with low-risk PCa in active surveillance with at least 1 index lesion on imaging. We evaluated the quality of evidence by using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 score. Group comparisons considered the differences between the area under the curve summary receiver operating characteristic curve in a 2-tailed method. We also compared the positive predictive value of the best single method (MRI-TB or SB) and the referral study test (combined biopsy, a combination of MRI-TB and SB). The meta-analysis included 6 studies enrolling 741 patients. The pooled sensitivity for the 2 groups was 0.79 (95% confidence interval, 0.74-0.83; I² = 75%) and 0.67 (95% confidence interval, 0.63-0.74; I² = 55.4%), respectively. The area under the curve for the MRI-TB and SB groups were 0.99 and 0.92 (P < .001), respectively. The positive predictive value for the MRI-TB and combined biopsy groups were similar. The accumulated evidence suggests better results for MRI-TB compared with SB. Therefore, use of MRI-TB alone may be preferable in patients in active surveillance harboring low-risk PCa.     

Patients' expectations,experience and acceptability of postoperative analgesia: a nested qualitative study within a randomised controlled trial comparing rectus sheath catheter and thoracic epidural analgesia

Adequate postoperative analgesia is a key element of enhanced recovery programmes. Thoracic epidural analgesia is associated with superior postoperative analgesia but can lead to complications. Rectus sheath catheter analgesia may provide an alternative. In a nested qualitative study (within a two-year randomised controlled trial) focussing on the acceptability, expectations and experiences of receiving the interventions, participants (n = 20) were interviewed 4 weeks post-intervention using a grounded theory approach. Constant comparative analysis, with patient and public involvement, enabled emerging findings to be pursued through subsequent data collection. We found no notable differences regarding postoperative acceptability or the experience of pain management. Pre-operatively, however, thoracic epidural analgesia was a source of anticipatory fear and anxiety. Both interventions resulted in some experienced adverse events (proportionately more with thoracic epidural analgesia). Participants had negative experiences of the insertion of thoracic epidural analgesia; others receiving the rectus sheath catheter lacked confidence in staff members' ability to manage the local anaesthetic infusion pump. The anticipation of the technique of thoracic epidural analgesia, and concerns about its impact on mobility, represented an additional, unpleasant experience for patients already managing an illness experience, anticipating a life-changing operation and dealing with concerns about the future. The anticipation of rectus sheath catheter analgesia was not associated with such anxieties. Patients' experiences start far earlier than the experience of the intervention itself through anticipatory anxieties and fears about receiving a technique and its potential implications. Complex pain packages can take on greater meaning than their actual efficacy in relieving postoperative pain. Future research into patient acceptability and experience should not focus solely on efficacy of pain relief but should include anticipatory fears, anxieties and experiences.     

A Type 1 diabetes technology pathway: consensus statement for the use of technology in Type 1 diabetes

In both adults and children with diabetes, technologies such as continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion using insulin pumps and continuous glucose monitoring can help improve diabetes control, reduce hypoglycaemia and improve quality of life. Access to these technologies in the UK is very variable. Some technologies are recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, while others have not been appraised, and new technologies are emerging all the time. Additionally, different guidelines for adults and children further complicate access to diabetes technology in the transition from paediatric to adult care. Against this background, Diabetes UK and NHS England have brought together a multidisciplinary group of experts, including clinicians and people with diabetes, to develop this consensus guideline, combining the different technologies into a common pathway to aid clinical and policy decision‐making. We created a pathway that supports the incremental addition of technology as monotherapy and then dual therapy in the same way that we incrementally add in therapeutic agents to support people with Type 2 diabetes to achieve their personalized glycaemic targets. The pathway emphasizes the importance of structured education, specialist support and appropriate access to psychological therapies, as essential pillars for optimized use of diabetes‐related technology, and recommends the re‐evaluation of its use when the individual is unable either to use the technology appropriately or to achieve the intended outcomes. This pathway is endorsed by UK‐wide clinical and patient associations and we recommend that providers and commissioners use it to ensure the right individual with diabetes has access to the right technology in a timely way to help achieve better outcomes.     

Factors associated with provision of depot medroxyprogesterone acetate to adolescents by US health care providers

ObjectiveIdentify factors associated with healthcare providers' frequency of depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA) provision to adolescents.Study designWe analyzed data from surveys mailed to a nationally representative sample of public-sector providers and office-based physicians (n=1984). We estimated adjusted odds ratios (aORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of factors associated with frequent DMPA provision to adolescents in the past year.ResultsAlthough most providers (>95%) considered DMPA safe for adolescents, fewer reported frequent provision (89% of public-sector providers; 64% of office-based physicians). Among public-sector providers, factors associated with lower odds of frequent provision included working in settings without Title X funding (aOR 0.44, 95% CI 0.30–0.64), reporting primary care as their primary clinical focus versus reproductive or adolescent health (aOR 0.42, 95% CI 0.28–0.61), and providing fewer patients with family planning services. Among office-based physicians, factors associated with lower odds of frequent provision included specializing in obstetrics/gynecology (aOR 0.50, 95% CI 0.27–0.91) and family medicine (aOR 0.21, 95% CI 0.09–0.47) versus adolescent medicine, completing training ≥15 versus <5 years ago (aOR 0.27, 95% CI 0.09–0.83), and reporting that 0–24% of patients pay with Medicaid or other government healthcare assistance versus ≥50% (aOR 0.23, 95% CI 0.09–0.61). The reason most commonly reported by providers for infrequent DMPA provision was patient preference for another method.ConclusionsWhile most providers reported frequently providing DMPA to adolescents, training on evidence-based recommendations for contraception, focused on subgroups of providers with lower odds of frequent DMPA provision, may increase adolescents' access to contraception.ImplicationsAlthough >95% of providers considered depot medroxyprogesterone (DMPA) a safe contraceptive for adolescents, only 89% of public-sector providers and 64% of office-based physicians reported frequently providing DMPA to adolescents. Provider training on evidence-based recommendations for contraception counseling and provision may increase adolescents' access to DMPA and all methods of contraception.