Daratumumab, Cyclophosphamide, Bortezomib, Lenalidomide, and Dexamethasone as Induction and Extended Consolidation Improves Outcome in Ultra-High-Risk Multiple Myeloma.

PURPOSE: The multicenter OPTIMUM (MUKnine) phase II trial investigated daratumumab, low-dose cyclophosphamide, lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (Dara-CVRd) before and after autologous stem-cell transplant (ASCT) in newly diagnosed patients with molecularly defined ultra-high-risk (UHiR) multiple myeloma (NDMM) or plasma cell leukemia (PCL). To provide clinical context, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were referenced to contemporaneous outcomes seen in patients with UHiR NDMM treated in the recent Myeloma XI (MyeXI) trial. METHODS: Transplant-eligible all-comers NDMM patients were profiled for UHiR disease, defined by presence of ≥2 genetic risk markers t(4;14)/t(14;16)/t(14;20), del(1p), gain(1q), and del(17p), and/or SKY92 gene expression risk signature. Patients with UHiR MM/PCL were offered treatment with Dara-CVRd induction, V-augmented ASCT, extended Dara-VR(d) consolidation, and Dara-R maintenance. UHiR patients treated in MyeXI with carfilzomib, lenalidomide, dexamethasone, and cyclophosphamide, or lenalidomide, dexamethasone, and cyclophosphamide, ASCT, and R maintenance or observation were identified by mirrored molecular screening. OPTIMUM PFS at 18 months (PFS18m) was compared against MyeXI using a Bayesian framework, and patients were followed up to the end of consolidation for PFS and OS. RESULTS: Of 412 screened NDMM OPTIMUM patients, 103 were identified as UHiR or PCL and subsequently treated on trial with Dara-CVRd; 117 MyeXI patients identified as UHiR formed the external comparator arm, with comparable clinical and molecular characteristics to OPTIMUM. Comparison of PFS18m per Bayesian framework resulted in a 99.5% chance of OPTIMUM being superior to MyeXI. At 30 months' follow-up, PFS was 77% for OPTIMUM versus 39.8% for MyeXI, and OS 83.5% versus 73.5%, respectively. Extended post-ASCT Dara-VRd consolidation therapy was highly deliverable, with limited toxicity. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that Dara-CVRd induction and extended post-ASCT Dara-VRd consolidation markedly improve PFS for UHiR NDMM patients over conventional management, supporting further evaluation of this strategy.

Development of an Item Pool for a Needs-Based Measure of Quality of Life of Carers of a Family Member with Dementia.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: This paper describes the development of an item pool for a needs-based self-report outcome measure of the impact of caring for a relative, friend or neighbour with dementia on carer quality of life. The aims are to give a detailed account of the steps involved and describe the resulting item pool. METHODS: Seven steps were followed: generation of an initial item set drawing on 42 needs-led interviews with carers; a content and face validity check; assessment of psychometric potential; testing of response formats; pre-testing through cognitive interviews with 22 carers; administration rehearsal with two carers; and final review. RESULTS: An initial set of 99 items was refined to a pool of 70 to be answered using a binary response format. Items were excluded due to overlap with others, ceiling effects, ambiguity, dependency on function of the person with dementia or two-part phrasing. Items retained covered a breadth of areas of impact of caring and were understandable and acceptable to respondents. CONCLUSIONS: The resulting dementia carer-specific item pool reflects the accounts of a diverse sample of those who provide care for a person with dementia, allowing them to define the nature of the impact on their lives and resulting in a valid, acceptable set of items.

A Needs-led Framework for Understanding the Impact of Caring for a Family Member With Dementia.

Background and Objectives: Approximately half the care for people with dementia is provided by families. It is therefore imperative that research informs ways of maintaining such care. In this study, we propose that a needs-led approach can provide a useful, novel means of conceptualizing the impact of caring on the lives of family carers. Our aim was to develop and present a needs-led framework for understanding how providing care impacts on carers' fulfilment of needs. Design and Methods: In this qualitative study, we conducted 42 semistructured interviews with a purposively diverse sample of family carers to generate nuanced contextualized accounts of how caring impacted on carers' lives. Our inductive thematic analysis focused upon asking: "What need is being impacted here?" in order to generate a needs-led framework for understanding. Results: Nine themes were widely endorsed. Each completed the sentence: "Being a carer impacts on fulfilling my need to/for….": Freedom; feel close to my relative; feel in control of my life; be my own person; protect my relative; share/express my thoughts and feelings; take care of myself; feel connected to the people around me; get things done. Discussion and Implications: These needs echo those from other research areas, with relational needs emerging as particularly central. The needs-led approach offers a perspective that is able to capture both stresses and positive aspects of caregiving. We recommend that clinical interviewing using Socratic questioning to discover human needs that are being impacted by caring would provide a valuable starting point for care planning.

To what extent can behaviour change techniques be identified within an adaptable implementation package for primary care? A prospective directed content analysis.

BACKGROUND: Interpreting evaluations of complex interventions can be difficult without sufficient description of key intervention content. We aimed to develop an implementation package for primary care which could be delivered using typically available resources and could be adapted to target determinants of behaviour for each of four quality indicators: diabetes control, blood pressure control, anticoagulation for atrial fibrillation and risky prescribing. We describe the development and prospective verification of behaviour change techniques (BCTs) embedded within the adaptable implementation packages. METHODS: We used an over-lapping multi-staged process. We identified evidence-based, candidate delivery mechanisms-mainly audit and feedback, educational outreach and computerised prompts and reminders. We drew upon interviews with primary care professionals using the Theoretical Domains Framework to explore likely determinants of adherence to quality indicators. We linked determinants to candidate BCTs. With input from stakeholder panels, we prioritised likely determinants and intervention content prior to piloting the implementation packages. Our content analysis assessed the extent to which embedded BCTs could be identified within the packages and compared them across the delivery mechanisms and four quality indicators. RESULTS: Each implementation package included at least 27 out of 30 potentially applicable BCTs representing 15 of 16 BCT categories. Whilst 23 BCTs were shared across all four implementation packages (e.g. BCTs relating to feedback and comparing behaviour), some BCTs were unique to certain delivery mechanisms (e.g. 'graded tasks' and 'problem solving' for educational outreach). BCTs addressing the determinants 'environmental context' and 'social and professional roles' (e.g. 'restructuring the social and 'physical environment' and 'adding objects to the environment') were indicator specific. We found it challenging to operationalise BCTs targeting 'environmental context', 'social influences' and 'social and professional roles' within our chosen delivery mechanisms. CONCLUSION: We have demonstrated a transparent process for selecting, operationalising and verifying the BCT content in implementation packages adapted to target four quality indicators in primary care. There was considerable overlap in BCTs identified across the four indicators suggesting core BCTs can be embedded and verified within delivery mechanisms commonly available to primary care. Whilst feedback reports can include a wide range of BCTs, computerised prompts can deliver BCTs at the time of decision making, and educational outreach can allow for flexibility and individual tailoring in delivery.

Acute and Late Adverse Events Associated With Radical Radiation Therapy Prostate Cancer Treatment: A Systematic Review of Clinician and Patient Toxicity Reporting in Randomized Controlled Trials.

PURPOSE: This review aimed to determine the clinician and patient reported outcome (PRO) instruments currently usedin randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of radical radiation therapy for nonmetastatic prostate cancer to report acute and late adverse events (AEs), review the quality of methodology and PRO reporting, and report the prevalence of acute and late AEs. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched between April and August 2014 according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement. Identified reports were reviewed according to the PRO Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guidelines and the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. In all, 1149 records were screened, and 21 articles were included in the final review. RESULTS: We determined the acute and late AEs for 9040 patients enrolled in 15 different RCTs. Only clinician reported instruments were used to report acute AEs <3 months (eg, Radiation Therapy Oncology Group [RTOG] and Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events [CTCAE]). For late clinician reporting, the Late Effects on Normal Tissues-Subjective, Objective, Management and Analytic scale and RTOG were used and were often augmented with additional items to provide comprehensive coverage of sexual functioning and anorectal symptoms. Some late AEs were reported (48% articles) using PROs (eg, ULCA-PCI [University of California, Los Angeles Prostate Cancer Index], FACT-G and P [Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy General & Prostate Module], EORTC QLQC-30 + PR25 [European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire & Prostate Module]); however, a definitive "preferred" instrument was not evident. DISCUSSION: Our findings are at odds with recent movements toward including patient voices in reporting of AEs and patient engagement in clinical research. We recommend including PRO to evaluate radical radiation therapy before, during, and after the treatment to fully capture patient experiences, and we support the development of predictive models for late effects based on the severity of early toxicity. CONCLUSION: Patient reporting of acute and late AEs is underrepresented in radiation therapy trials. We recommend working toward a consistent approach to PRO assessment of radiation therapy-related AEs.

Using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) to understand adherence to multiple evidence-based indicators in primary care: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: There are recognised gaps between evidence and practice in general practice, a setting posing particular implementation challenges. We earlier screened clinical guideline recommendations to derive a set of 'high-impact' indicators based upon criteria including potential for significant patient benefit, scope for improved practice and amenability to measurement using routinely collected data. Here, we explore health professionals' perceived determinants of adherence to these indicators, examining the degree to which determinants were indicator-specific or potentially generalisable across indicators. METHODS: We interviewed 60 general practitioners, practice nurses and practice managers in West Yorkshire, the UK, about adherence to four indicators: avoidance of risky prescribing; treatment targets in type 2 diabetes; blood pressure targets in treated hypertension; and anticoagulation in atrial fibrillation. Interview questions drew upon the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). Data were analysed using framework analysis. RESULTS: Professional role and identity and environmental context and resources featured prominently across all indicators whilst the importance of other domains, for example, beliefs about consequences, social influences and knowledge varied across indicators. We identified five meta-themes representing more general organisational and contextual factors common to all indicators. CONCLUSIONS: The TDF helped elicit a wide range of reported determinants of adherence to 'high-impact' indicators in primary care. It was more difficult to pinpoint which determinants, if targeted by an implementation strategy, would maximise change. The meta-themes broadly underline the need to align the design of interventions targeting general practices with higher level supports and broader contextual considerations. However, our findings suggest that it is feasible to develop interventions to promote the uptake of different evidence-based indicators which share common features whilst also including content-specific adaptations.

Action to Support Practices Implement Research Evidence (ASPIRE): protocol for a cluster-randomised evaluation of adaptable implementation packages targeting 'high impact' clinical practice recommendations in general practice.

BACKGROUND: There are recognised gaps between evidence and practice in general practice, a setting which provides particular challenges for implementation. We earlier screened clinical guideline recommendations to derive a set of 'high impact' indicators based upon criteria including potential for significant patient benefit, scope for improved practice and amenability to measurement using routinely collected data. We aim to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a multifaceted, adaptable intervention package to implement four targeted, high impact recommendations in general practice. METHODS/DESIGN: The research programme Action to Support Practice Implement Research Evidence (ASPIRE) includes a pair of pragmatic cluster-randomised trials which use a balanced incomplete block design. Clusters are general practices in West Yorkshire, United Kingdom (UK), recruited using an 'opt-out' recruitment process. The intervention package adapted to each recommendation includes combinations of audit and feedback, educational outreach visits and computerised prompts with embedded behaviour change techniques selected on the basis of identified needs and barriers to change. In trial 1, practices are randomised to adapted interventions targeting either diabetes control or risky prescribing and those in trial 2 to adapted interventions targeting either blood pressure control in patients at risk of cardiovascular events or anticoagulation in atrial fibrillation. The respective primary endpoints comprise achievement of all recommended target levels of haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), blood pressure and cholesterol in patients with type 2 diabetes, a composite indicator of risky prescribing, achievement of recommended blood pressure targets for specific patient groups and anticoagulation prescribing in patients with atrial fibrillation. We are also randomising practices to a fifth, non-intervention control group to further assess Hawthorne effects. Outcomes will be assessed using routinely collected data extracted 1 year after randomisation. Economic modelling will estimate intervention cost-effectiveness. A process evaluation involving eight non-trial practices will examine intervention delivery, mechanisms of action and unintended consequences. DISCUSSION: ASPIRE will provide 'real-world' evidence about the effects, cost-effectiveness and delivery of adapted intervention packages targeting high impact recommendations. By implementing our adaptable intervention package across four distinct clinical topics, and using 'opt-out' recruitment, our findings will provide evidence of wider generalisability. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN91989345.