Prevalence of intentional under- and overdosing of insulin in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the prevalence of insulin under- and overdosing in paediatric patients. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Cross-sectional study including 241 patients (age 14.0 + 2.7 yr, 42.5% males) with type 1 diabetes from 21 diabetic outpatient clinics. Haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), height, and weight were available from clinical records. Patients were interviewed with the Diabetes Self-Management Profile (DSMP) interview. T test, U test, and chi-squared test were used for comparison. RESULTS: On the basis of the DSMP, 103 (42.7%) patients (group A) showed adherence to the therapeutic insulin regimen, while 71 (29.5%) patients (group B) confessed intentional over and/or under-dosing of insulin. Sixty-seven (27.8%) adolescents (group C) reported management problems leading to unintended inappropriate insulin dosages. In group B, 55 (22.8%) injected higher insulin doses and 58 (24.1%) omitted insulin. Patients of group B compared to group A were older 15.0 (±2.5) vs. 14.0 (±2.5) yr (p < 0.01), older at onset 9.5 (±3.6) vs. 8.3 (±3.8) yr (p = 0.05), were more often girls (69 vs. 45.6%), had a higher actual HbA1c (8.7 ± 1.7 vs. 7.8 ± 1.2%), and a higher average HbA1c in the previous year (8.3 ± 1.6 vs. 7.9 ± 1.2%) (p < 0.01). No significant differences could be found between group A and group C. CONCLUSION: Intentional overdosing of insulin is almost as prevalent in children and adolescents as insulin omission. Females are more at risk.

Sharing decisions in breast cancer care: Development of the Decision Analysis System for Oncology (DAS-O) to identify shared decision making during treatment consultations.

BACKGROUND: Shared Decision Making (SDM) is widely accepted as the preferred method for reaching treatment decisions in the oncology setting including those about clinical trial participation: however, there is some disagreement between researchers over the components of SDM. Specific standardized coding systems are needed to help overcome this difficulty. OBJECTIVE: The first objective was to describe the development of an oncology specific SDM coding system, the DAS-O. The second objective was to provide reliability and validity data supporting the DAS-O. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Consultation data were available from tertiary cancer center out patient oncology clinics in: Australia, New Zealand (ANZ), Switzerland, Germany and Austria (SGA). Patients were women with a confirmed diagnosis of early stage breast cancer. Reliability data were from 18 randomly selected coded transcripts drawn from ANZ and SGA. Concurrent validity data are from 55 (ANZ) consultations. MEASUREMENT: Inter and Intra rater reliability data was evaluated using Kappa correlation statistics and correlation coefficients. Correlation coefficients were used to assess concurrent validity between the DAS-O and two other SDM coding systems, OPTION and DSAT. RESULTS: Inter and Intra rater reliability for the system were high with average Kappas of 0.58 and 0.65 respectively. Correlation coefficients between DAS-O and OPTION was 0.73 and >0.5 for DSAT. CONCLUSIONS: We have developed a reliable and valid coding system for identifying and rating the quality of SDM in breast cancer consultations.

Clinical benefit and quality of life in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer receiving gemcitabine plus capecitabine versus gemcitabine alone: a randomized multicenter phase III clinical trial--SAKK 44/00-CECOG/PAN.1.3.001.

PURPOSE: To compare clinical benefit response (CBR) and quality of life (QOL) in patients receiving gemcitabine (Gem) plus capecitabine (Cap) versus single-agent Gem for advanced/metastatic pancreatic cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive GemCap (oral Cap 650 mg/m(2) twice daily on days 1 through 14 plus Gem 1,000 mg/m(2) in a 30-minute infusion on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks) or Gem (1,000 mg/m(2) in a 30-minute infusion weekly for 7 weeks, followed by a 1-week break, and then weekly for 3 weeks every 4 weeks) for 24 weeks or until progression. CBR criteria and QOL indicators were assessed over this period. CBR was defined as improvement from baseline for >or= 4 consecutive weeks in pain (pain intensity or analgesic consumption) and Karnofsky performance status, stability in one but improvement in the other, or stability in pain and performance status but improvement in weight. RESULTS: Of 319 patients, 19% treated with GemCap and 20% treated with Gem experienced a CBR, with a median duration of 9.5 and 6.5 weeks, respectively (P < .02); 54% of patients treated with GemCap and 60% treated with Gem had no CBR (remaining patients were not assessable). There was no treatment difference in QOL (n = 311). QOL indicators were improving under chemotherapy (P < .05). These changes differed by the time to failure, with a worsening 1 to 2 months before treatment failure (all P < .05). CONCLUSION: There is no indication of a difference in CBR or QOL between GemCap and Gem. Regardless of their initial condition, some patients experience an improvement in QOL on chemotherapy, followed by a worsening before treatment failure.

Patient-reported outcomes of patients with advanced biliary tract cancers receiving gemcitabine plus capecitabine: a multicenter, phase II trial of the Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the effects of palliative chemotherapy with gemcitabine plus capecitabine (GemCap) on patient-reported outcomes measured using clinical benefit response (CBR) and quality-of-life (QOL) measures in patients with advanced biliary tract cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients had to manifest symptoms of advanced biliary tract cancer and have at least one of the following: impaired Karnofsky performance score (60 to 80), average analgesic consumption >or= 10 mg of morphine equivalents per day, and average pain intensity score of >or= 20 mm out of 100 mm. Treatment consisted of oral capecitabine 650 mg/m(2) twice daily on days 1 through 14 plus gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m(2) as a 30-minute infusion on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks until progression. The primary end point was the number of patients categorized as having a CBR or stable CBR (SCBR) during the first three treatment cycles. RESULTS: Forty-four patients were enrolled (bile duct cancer, n = 36; gallbladder cancers, n = 8). The main grade 3 or 4 adverse events included hematologic toxicity and fatigue. After three cycles, 36% of patients achieved a CBR, and 34% achieved an SCBR. Over the full course of treatment, 57% of patients achieved a CBR, and 18% achieved an SCBR. Improved QOL was observed in patients with a CBR or SCBR. The objective response rate was 25%. Median time to progression and overall survival times were 7.2 months and 13.2 months, respectively. CONCLUSION: Chemotherapy with GemCap is well tolerated and effective and leads to a high CBR rate. Patient-reported outcomes are useful for evaluating the effects of palliative chemotherapy in patients with biliary tract cancer.