| 1. |
- Benoit, D D, et al.
(author)
-
Outcome in patients perceived as receiving excessive care across different ethical climates: a prospective study in 68 intensive care units in Europe and the USA.
- 2018
-
In: Intensive care medicine. - 1432-1238. ; 44:7, s. 1039-1049
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Whether the quality of the ethical climate in the intensive care unit (ICU) improves the identification of patients receiving excessive care and affects patient outcomes is unknown.In this prospective observational study, perceptions of excessive care (PECs) by clinicians working in 68 ICUs in Europe and the USA were collected daily during a 28-day period. The quality of the ethical climate in the ICUs was assessed via a validated questionnaire. We compared the combined endpoint (death, not at home or poor quality of life at 1 year) of patients with PECs and the time from PECs until written treatment-limitation decisions (TLDs) and death across the four climates defined via cluster analysis.Of the 4747 eligible clinicians, 2992 (63%) evaluated the ethical climate in their ICU. Of the 321 and 623 patients not admitted for monitoring only in ICUs with a good (n = 12, 18%) and poor (n = 24, 35%) climate, 36 (11%) and 74 (12%), respectively were identified with PECs by at least two clinicians. Of the 35 and 71 identified patients with an available combined endpoint, 100% (95% CI 90.0-1.00) and 85.9% (75.4-92.0) (P = 0.02) attained that endpoint. The risk of death (HR 1.88, 95% CI 1.20-2.92) or receiving a written TLD (HR 2.32, CI 1.11-4.85) in patients with PECs by at least two clinicians was higher in ICUs with a good climate than in those with a poor one. The differences between ICUs with an average climate, with (n = 12, 18%) or without (n = 20, 29%) nursing involvement at the end of life, and ICUs with a poor climate were less obvious but still in favour of the former.Enhancing the quality of the ethical climate in the ICU may improve both the identification of patients receiving excessive care and the decision-making process at the end of life.
|
|
| 2. |
- Eechoute, Karel, et al.
(author)
-
A long-term prospective population pharmacokinetic study on imatinib plasma concentrations in GIST patients
- 2012
-
In: Clinical Cancer Research. - 1078-0432 .- 1557-3265. ; 18:20, s. 5780-5787
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Purpose: Imatinib minimal (trough) plasma concentrations after one month of treatment have shown a significant association with clinical benefit in patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST). Considering that a retrospective pharmacokinetic analysis has also suggested that imatinib clearance increases over time in patients with soft tissue sarcoma and GIST, the primary aim of this study was to assess systemic exposure to imatinib at multiple time points in a long-term prospective population pharmacokinetic study. As imatinib is mainly metabolized in the liver, our secondary aim was to elucidate the potential effects of the volume of liver metastases on exposure to imatinib. Experimental Design: Full pharmacokinetic blood sampling was conducted in 50 patients with GIST on the first day of imatinib treatment, and after one, six, and 12 months. In addition, on day 14, and monthly during imatinib treatment, trough samples were taken. Pharmacokinetic analysis was conducted using a compartmental model. Volume of liver metastases was assessed by computed tomographic (CT) imaging. Results: After 90 days of treatment, a significant decrease in imatinib systemic exposure of 29.3% compared with baseline was observed (P < 0.01). For every 100 cm 3 increase of metastatic volume, a predicted decrease of 3.8% in imatinib clearance was observed. Conclusions: This is the first prospective pharmacokinetic study in patients with GIST, showing a significant decrease of approximately 30% in imatinib exposure after long-term treatment. This means that future "trough level - clinical benefit" analyses should be time point specific. GIST liver involvement, however, has a marginal effect on imatinib clearance.
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
