How physiotherapists perceive,interpret, and respond to the ethical dimensions of practice: A qualitative study

The profile and reach of physiotherapy has expanded in areas of extended scope of practice, and broader engagement with population needs beyond the individual treatment encounter. These changes raise increasingly complex ethical challenges evidenced by growth in physiotherapy-based ethics studies and discussions. This paper examines how a broad cross section of Australian physiotherapists perceive, interpret, and respond to ethical challenges in their work contexts and how professional codes of conduct are used in their practice. Using an interpretive qualitative methodology, purposive sampling of 88 members of national clinical special interest groups were recruited for focus group discussions. Narrative-based and thematic data analysis identified ethical challenges as emerging from specific clinical contexts, and influenced by health organizations, funding policies, workplace relationships, and individually held perspectives. Five themes were developed to represent these findings: (1) the working environment, (2) balancing diverse needs and expectation, (3) defining ethics, (4) striving to act ethically, and (5) talking about ethics. The results portray a diverse and complex ethical landscape where therapists encounter and grapple with ethical questions emerging from the impact of funding models and policies affecting clinical work, expanding boundaries and scope of practice and changing professional roles and relationships. Codes of conduct were described as foundational ethical knowledge but not always helpful for “in the moment” ethical decision-making. Based on this research, we suggest how codes of conduct, educators, and professional associations could cultivate and nurture ethics capability in physiotherapy practitioners for these contemporary challenges.     

A Phase I Trial of Trametinib in Combination with Sorafenib in Patients with Advanced Hepatocellular Cancer

Lessons Learned

• The combination of trametinib and sorafenib has an acceptable safety profile, albeit at doses lower than approved for monotherapy.
• Maximum tolerated dose is trametinib 1.5 mg daily and sorafenib 200 mg twice daily.
• The limited anticancer activity observed in this unselected patient population does not support further exploration of trametinib plus sorafenib in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma.

BackgroundThe RAS/RAF/MEK/ERK signaling pathway is associated with proliferation and progression of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Preclinical data suggest that paradoxical activation of the MAPK pathway may be one of the resistance mechanisms of sorafenib; therefore, we evaluated trametinib plus sorafenib in HCC.MethodsThis was a phase I study with a 3+3 design in patients with treatment‐naïve advanced HCC. The primary objective was safety and tolerability. The secondary objective was clinical efficacy.ResultsA total of 17 patients were treated with three different doses of trametinib and sorafenib. Two patients experienced dose‐limiting toxicity, including grade 4 hypertension and grade 3 elevation of aspartate aminotransferase (AST)/alanine aminotransferase (ALT)/bilirubin over 7 days. Maximum tolerated dose was trametinib 1.5 mg daily and sorafenib 200 mg twice a day. The most common grade 3/4 treatment‐related adverse events were elevated AST (37%) and hypertension (24%). Among 11 evaluable patients, 7 (63.6%) had stable disease with no objective response. The median progression‐free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 3.7 and 7.8 months, respectively. Phosphorylated‐ERK was evaluated as a pharmacodynamic marker, and sorafenib plus trametinib inhibited phosphorylated‐ERK up to 98.1% (median: 81.2%) in peripheral blood mononuclear cells.ConclusionTrametinib and sorafenib can be safely administered up to trametinib 1.5 mg daily and sorafenib 200 mg twice a day with limited anticancer activity in advanced HCC.     

鼓膜穿刺加压灌注治疗分泌性中耳炎的临床疗效

目的探讨鼓膜穿刺加压灌注疗法治疗分泌性中耳炎的临床疗效。方法选择确诊为分泌性中耳炎患者88例为研究对象,所有患者采用中耳鼓膜穿刺鼓室灌注加压治疗。比较不同性质分泌物患者的临床疗效及治疗前后患者鼓室导抗图变化。结果胶冻状患者治疗时间最长,浆液性患者治疗时间最短,三组治疗时间比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.01)。浆液性总有效率94.0%,黏液性总有效率86.8%,胶冻状总有效率75.0%,三组比较有显著差异(P<0.05)。治疗前鼓室导图主要是B型,治疗后主要是A型,治疗前后比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.01)。结论鼓膜穿刺加压灌注治疗分泌性中耳炎具有较好的临床疗效。