scholarly journals Promoting colonoscopy screening among low‐income Latinos at average risk of colorectal cancer: A randomized clinical trial

Cancer ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 126 (4) ◽  
pp. 782-791
Author(s):  
Katherine N. DuHamel ◽  
Elizabeth A. Schofield ◽  
Cristina Villagra ◽  
Pathu Sriphanlop ◽  
Steven H. Itzkowitz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trial ◽  
Low Income ◽  
Average Risk ◽  
Colonoscopy Screening

scholarly journals Multicomponent Obesity Prevention Intervention in Low-Income Preschoolers: Primary and Subgroup Analyses of the NET-Works Randomized Clinical Trial, 2012–2017

2018 ◽  
Vol 108 (12) ◽  
pp. 1695-1706 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simone A. French ◽  
Nancy E. Sherwood ◽  
Sara Veblen-Mortenson ◽  
A. Lauren Crain ◽  
Meghan M. JaKa ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trial ◽  
Obesity Prevention ◽  
Low Income ◽  
Prevention Intervention ◽  
Subgroup Analyses

Abstract 13345: Efficacy and Safety of an Anticoagulation Clinic in Low-income Brazilian Patients With Heart Disease: a Randomized Clinical Trial

Circulation ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 130 (suppl_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria A Martins ◽  
João A Oliveira ◽  
Daniel D Ribeiro ◽  
Cibele C César ◽  
Vandack A Nobre ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Heart Disease ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trial ◽  
Incidence Rate ◽  
Latin American ◽  
Low Income ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Low Literacy ◽  
Clinical Trial Registration ◽  
Group B

Introduction: Anticoagulation clinics (AC) have better impact on anticoagulation control than usual medical care (UMC). However, there is no randomized trial testing the results of AC in low-income realities. We sought to examine the performance of an AC in a group of patients treated at a Brazilian public hospital. Hypothesis: The assistance provided by AC presents difference in TTR when compared to the UMC. Methods: This was a randomized clinical trial to test the efficacy and safety of a recently-implemented AC over UMC in a group of outpatients with heart disease. The primary and secondary endpoints were time in the therapeutic range (TTR) and warfarin-associated complications, respectively. Overall, 280 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to one of the two arms: group A: one year at AC (A1: first semester; A2: second semester); and group B: one semester receiving UMC (B1) and other at AC (B2). Results: The mean age was 56.8±13.1 years and patients were mostly female (54.6%). The median monthly income was 464 US dollars. Low literacy was predominant in this group of studied patients (>68%). A1 showed higher TTR (62.4±20.8%) than B1 (55.1±28.5%) (p=0.014). An improvement of TTR was observed within group B, rising from 55.1±28.5% (B1) to 62.2±23.1% (B2) (p=0.008). A1 showed lower incidence rate (IR) per patients-year (p-y) of total bleedings than B1 (incidence rate ratio (IRR): 0.78; p=0.041) and a decline in the IR p-y was found for intra-group comparisons, both presenting IRR 0.58; p<0.001. A1 showed lower IR p-y for thromboembolism than B1 (IRR=0.12; p=0.047). (Clinical trial registration: www.clinicaltrials.gov/. Identifier: NCT01006486) Conclusions: AC helped increase TTR and reduce warfarin-complications, even in low-income settings. Extending this assistance to similar populations in other Latin American countries could reduce hospitalizations and deaths related to warfarin use.

scholarly journals Cost-Effectiveness of Colonoscopy-Based Colorectal Cancer Screening in Childhood Cancer Survivors

2019 ◽  
Vol 111 (11) ◽  
pp. 1161-1169 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrea Gini ◽  
Reinier G S Meester ◽  
Homa Keshavarz ◽  
Kevin C Oeffinger ◽  
Sameera Ahmed ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cancer Survivors ◽  
Childhood Cancer ◽  
Childhood Cancer Survivors ◽  
Average Risk ◽  
Crc Screening ◽  
Colonoscopy Screening ◽  
Life Years ◽  
The Us

Abstract Background Childhood cancer survivors (CCS) are at increased risk of developing colorectal cancer (CRC) compared to the general population, especially those previously exposed to abdominal or pelvic radiation therapy (APRT). However, the benefits and costs of CRC screening in CCS are unclear. In this study, we evaluated the cost-effectiveness of early-initiated colonoscopy screening in CCS. Methods We adjusted a previously validated model of CRC screening in the US population (MISCAN-Colon) to reflect CRC and other-cause mortality risk in CCS. We evaluated 91 colonoscopy screening strategies varying in screening interval, age to start, and age to stop screening for all CCS combined and for those treated with or without APRT. Primary outcomes were CRC deaths averted (compared to no screening) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). A willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 per life-years gained (LYG) was used to determine the optimal screening strategy. Results Compared to no screening, the US Preventive Services Task Force’s average risk screening schedule prevented up to 73.2% of CRC deaths in CCS. The optimal strategy of screening every 10 years from age 40 to 60 years averted 79.2% of deaths, with ICER of $67 000/LYG. Among CCS treated with APRT, colonoscopy every 10 years from age 35 to 65 years was optimal (CRC deaths averted: 82.3%; ICER: $92 000/LYG), whereas among those not previously treated with APRT, screening from age 45 to 55 years every 10 years was optimal (CRC deaths averted: 72.7%; ICER: $57 000/LYG). Conclusions Early initiation of colonoscopy screening for CCS is cost-effective, especially among those treated with APRT.

scholarly journals Randomized clinical trial of selective decontamination of the digestive tract in elective colorectal cancer surgery (SELECT trial)

2019 ◽  
Vol 106 (4) ◽  
pp. 355-363 ◽  
Author(s):  
G. S. A. Abis ◽  
H. B. A. C. Stockmann ◽  
H. J. Bonjer ◽  
N. van Veenendaal ◽  
M. L. M. van Doorn-Schepens ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trial ◽  
Digestive Tract ◽  
Selective Decontamination ◽  
Cancer Surgery ◽  
Colorectal Cancer Surgery ◽  
Select Trial
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document