Brachytherapy: An emblematic example of extreme hypofractionated regimen

In order to provide more convenient irradiation regimens for patient comfort, radiation facility organization and health expenses, new hypofractionated protocols have been evaluated. Moderately (dose/fraction: 2.3 to 3 Gy), then ultra (dose/fraction: 5.2 to 6.1 Gy) hypofractionated irradiations were first validated. The current question is: is it possible to go forward using extreme hypofractionated regimens (EHR) based on 1 to 3 fractions. Different irradiation techniques are under investigation. However, brachytherapy remains the smartest way to deliver a high dose in a small volume. We report prospective and retrospective study results which evaluated EHR for breast and prostate brachytherapy. While oncological outcome and toxicity profile appear extremely encouraging for low-risk breast cancer after a 1 to 4 fractions (6.25 to 20 Gy/fraction), the use of a single fraction of 19 to 23 Gy appears debatable for prostate cancer. Brachytherapy represents an emblematic example of EHR but longer follow-up and more mature results are awaited in order to specify the right indications and refine the EQD2 calculation method including new biological and technical factors.     

Thrombosis and thromboembolism: Brighton collaboration case definition and guidelines for data collection,analysis, and presentation of immunization safety data

This is a Brighton Collaboration case definition of thrombosis and thromboembolism to be used in the evaluation of adverse events following immunization, and for epidemiologic studies for the assessment of background incidence or hypothesis testing. The case definition was developed by a group of experts convened by the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) in the context of active development of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. The case definition format of the Brighton Collaboration was followed to develop a consensus definition and defined levels of certainty, after an exhaustive review of the literature and expert consultation. The document underwent peer review by the Brighton Collaboration Network and by selected expert reviewers prior to submission.     

Stakeholder collaboration in long-term care of older people in Lithuania

Demographic situation, changes in the role of women in society and growing demand for long-term care (LTC) of older people have challenged the ability to meet the growing LTC needs in most developed countries. In countries where responsibility for LTC is still largely laid on families, it is, however, even more critical and calls for improvements in formal LTC systems. More intensive stakeholder collaboration in LTC policy development, organising and delivery are of primary importance in improving LTC systems. Such collaboration, however, is not always successful; thus, it is critical to understand what makes it effective and efficient. In this paper, we specifically look into multistakeholder collaboration in LTC in Lithuania, one of the fastest ageing countries in the EU, with the demand for LTC services growing fast and exceeding the supply despite rising business and NGO engagement. To determine facilitators of such collaboration, we build on the data obtained through eight focus group discussions with all key stakeholder representatives (LTC policymakers, organisers and service providers [public, private and NGOs], 54 participants in total). Our findings indicate that in addition to national and organisational level facilitators studied in prior research, there are important individual level factors, such as meaningfulness at work, concern and care for others, possibility for personal growth and development, satisfaction with supervision, a sense of belonging and role clarity. On the other hand, our results show that collaboration is constrained by a shortage of human resources, increased workload caused by growing LTC demand, bureaucratic requirements, legal restrictions, lack of awareness of LTC service availability among elder persons, and prevailing social norms and attitudes to institutionalised care. Interestingly, a lack of financial resources is not perceived as a major constraint.     

Glycaemic control for patients with severe acute brain injury: Protocol for a systematic review

Background

Hyperglycaemia is common in patients with acute brain injury admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU). Many studies have found associations between development of hyperglycaemia and increased mortality in hospitalised patients. However, the optimal target for blood glucose control is unknown. We want to conduct a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis to explore the beneficial and harmful effects of restrictive versus liberal glucose control on patient outcomes in adults with severe acute brain injury.

Methods

We will systematically search medical databases including CENTRAL, Embase, MEDLINE and trial registries. We will search the following websites for ongoing or unpublished trials: http://www.controlled-trials.com/ , http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ , www.eudraCT.com , http://centerwatch.com/ , The Cochrane Library's CENTRAL, PubMed, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded and CINAHL. Two authors will independently review and select trials and extract data. We will include randomised trials comparing levels of glucose control in our analyses and observational studies will be included to address potential harms. The primary outcomes are defined as all-cause mortality, functional outcome and health-related quality of life. Secondary outcomes include serious adverse events including hypoglycaemia, length of ICU stay and duration of mechanical ventilation, and explorative outcomes including intracranial pressure and infection. Trial Sequential Analysis will be used to investigate the risk of type I error due to repetitive testing and to further explore imprecision. Quality of trials will be evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool, and quality of evidence will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach.

Discussion

The results of the systematic review will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publication. With the review, we hope to inform future randomised clinical trials and improve clinical practice.