ABSTRACT
Purpose: To investigate and compare how patients with diabetes mellitus and doctors rate the importance of outcomes used as part of composite endpoints in clinical diabetes trials. Secondly, to compare the ratings of outcomes between patients with low and high education. Methods: Using a pre-piloted questionnaire, patients with diabetes and doctors working with diabetes were asked to rate the importance of 36 different outcomes commonly used in trials assessing intervention effects in patients with diabetes. The respondents were asked to rate individual outcomes as being either critical, of major importance, of moderate importance, or of minor importance. Results: The study population consisted of 139 patients with a mean age of 56.6 years and an average duration of diabetes for 13.6 years and 45 doctors with a mean time of practice of 19.6 years. There was no difference between patients' and doctors' rating of risk of mortality and non-fatal myocardial infarction, and percutaneous coronary intervention (all p-values > 0.34). Non-fatal stroke, admission for heart failure or angina was perceived more severely by patients compared to doctors (all p-values < 0.03). Patients rated risk of foot-ulcers, amputations and quality of life as more important compared to doctors (p-values < 0.01). Conclusion: The current study suggest that patients and doctors weigh some diabetic outcomes used as part of composite endpoints in clinical diabetes trials differently. These findings call for more studies on patient reported outcomes and patient education for improved personal care. Highlights: ⢠We performed this study to assess how patients and practicing physicians rate the importance of outcomes commonly used in diabetes trials.⢠We found that patients and doctors rate the importance of some outcomes used in clinical diabetes trials differently.⢠These findings suggest that shared decision making is pivotal when taking clinical decisions and that future diabetes studies incorporate end points relevant to both patients and clinicians and do not combine end points which are not equally important.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: Acute pancreatitis with walled-off necrosis (WON) is associated with considerable morbidity and mortality. Previous studies have evaluated outcomes in WON collections of limited size, while data about large WON with long-term follow-up are lacking. We aimed to report our experience in managing large WON. METHODS: Between 2010 and 2020, consecutive patients with large (>15 cm) WON were identified from a prospectively maintained database. Patients with chronic pancreatitis or an index intervention 90 days or more from the debut of symptoms were excluded. We registered clinical and technical outcomes following minimally invasive treatment in WON >15 cm. Follow-up was a minimum of 1 year. RESULTS: Overall, 144 patients with WON >15 cm, with a median age of 60 (interquartile range [IQR] 49-69) years, were included. The median WON size was 19.2 cm (IQR 16.8-22.1). Most patients were treated with endoscopic transluminal drainage (93%). The median length of stay was 53 days (IQR 39-76) and 61 (42%) patients needed intensive care support during their hospital stay. As 143 patients (99%) were managed using endoscopic or video-assisted retroperitoneal techniques, only one (0.7%) patient needed an open necrosectomy. Procedure-related adverse events occurred in 10 (7%) patients. Overall, 24 patients (17%) died during admission, all due to multiorgan failure. The median follow-up was 35 months (IQR 15-63.5). Complete resolution was achieved in all remaining patients. CONCLUSION: Minimally invasive treatment of large WON is feasible, with a minimal need for surgery and acceptable rates of morbidity and mortality.
