A blended preconception lifestyle programme for couples undergoing IVF:lessons learned from a multicentre randomized controlled trial

Study question: What is the effect of a blended preconception lifestyle programme on reproductive and lifestyle outcomes of couples going through their first 12 months of IVF as compared to an attention control condition?Summery answer:This randomized controlled trial (RCT) was stopped prematurely because of the coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) pandemic but the available data did not suggest that a blended preconception lifestyle programme could meaningfully affect time to ongoing pregnancy or other reproductive and lifestyle outcomes.What is know already:Increasing evidence shows associations between a healthy lifestyle and IVF success rates. Lifestyle programmes provided through a mobile phone application have yet to be evaluated by RCTs in couples undergoing IVF.Study design, size, duration:A multicentre RCT (1:1) was carried out. The RCT started in January 2019 and was prematurely stopped because of the Covid-19 pandemic, leading to a reduced sample size (211 couples initiating IVF) and change in primary outcome (cumulative ongoing pregnancy to time to ongoing pregnancy).Participants/materials, setting, methods:Heterosexual couples initiating IVF in five fertility clinics were randomized between an attention control arm and an intervention arm for 12 months. The attention control arm received treatment information by mobile phone in addition to standard care. The intervention arm received the blended preconception lifestyle (PreLiFe)-programme in addition to standard care. The PreLiFe-programme included a mobile application, offering tailored advice and skills training on diet, physical activity and mindfulness, in combination with motivational interviewing over the telephone. The primary outcome was 'time to ongoing pregnancy'. Secondary reproductive outcomes included the Core Outcome Measures for Infertility Trials and IVF discontinuation. Changes in the following secondary lifestyle outcomes over 3 and 6 months were studied in both partners: diet quality, fruit intake, vegetable intake, total moderate to vigorous physical activity, sedentary behaviour, emotional distress, quality of life, BMI, and waist circumference. Finally, in the intervention arm, acceptability of the programme was evaluated and actual use of the mobile application part of the programme was tracked. Analysis was according to intention to treat.Main results and the role of chance:A total of 211 couples were randomized (105 control arm, 106 intervention arm). The hazard ratio of the intervention for time to ongoing pregnancy was 0.94 (95% CI 0.63 to 1.4). Little to no effect on other reproductive or lifestyle outcomes was identified. Although acceptability of the programme was good (6/10), considerable proportions of men (38%) and 9% of women did not actively use all the modules of the mobile application (diet, physical activity, or mindfulness).Limitations, reasons for caution:The findings of this RCT should be considered exploratory, as the Covid-19 pandemic limited its power and the actual use of the mobile application was low.Wider implications of the findings:This is the first multicentre RCT evaluating the effect of a blended preconception lifestyle programme for women and their partners undergoing IVF on both reproductive and lifestyle outcomes. This exploratory RCT highlights the need for further studies into optimal intervention characteristics and actual use of preconception lifestyle programmes, as well as RCTs evaluating effectiveness.Study fonding/competing intrest(s):Supported by the Research foundation Flanders (Belgium) (FWO-TBM; reference: T005417N). No competing interests to declare.Trial registration number:ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03790449TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE 31 December 2018DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT 2 January 201

Challenges of caring for older patients with multimorbidity including cancer

Introduction: As the population is ageing, the number of older patients with multimorbidity including cancer continues to increase. To improve care for these patients, the European Union-funded project "Streamlined Geriatric and Oncological evaluation based on IC Technology" (GERONTE) was initiated to develop a new, patientcentred, holistic care pathway. The aim of this paper is to analyse what challenges are encountered in everyday clinical practice according to patients, their informal caregivers, and healthcare professionals as a starting point for the development of the care pathway.Materials and Methods: An expert panel of cancer and geriatrics specialists participated in an online survey to answer what challenges they experience in caring for older patients with multimorbidity including cancer and what treatment outcomes could be improved. Furthermore, in-depth interviews with older patients and their informal caregivers were organised to assess what challenges they experience.Results: Healthcare professionals (n = 36) most frequently mentioned the challenge of choosing the best treatment in light of the lack of evidence in this population and how to handle interactions between the (cancer) treatment and multimorbidities. Twelve patients and caregivers participated, and they most frequently mentioned challenges related to treatment outcomes, such as how to deal with symptoms of disease or treatment and how to maintain quality of life. From the challenges, five main themes emerged that should be taken into account when developing a new care pathway for older patients with multimorbidity including cancer. Two themes focus on decision making aspects such as personalized treatment recommendations and inclusion of nononcologic information, two focus on patient support and monitoring to maintain quality of life and functioning, and one overarching theme addresses care coordination to prevent fragmentation of care.Discussion: In conclusion, the management of older patients with multimorbidity including cancer is complex and although progress has been made on improving aspects of their care, challenges remain and patients are at risk of receiving inappropriate, unnecessary, and potentially harmful treatment. A patient-centred care pathway that integrates solutions to the five main themes and that moves away from a single-disease centred approach is needed.Horizon 2020 (H2020

Exceptional LAS Requests in Eurotransplant:Analysis of an 8-year Effort to Improve Lung Allocation for Precarious Patients

PURPOSE: Following introduction of the lung allocation score (LAS) in 2011, Eurotransplant member centers can apply for an exceptional LAS (eLAS) if the calculated LAS insufficiently reflects the perceived transplant benefit for a patient, specifically in case of primary pulmonary hypertension group 1 and 4; combined lung+non-renal transplantation; rare diseases; or extracorporeal support. Each eLAS proposal is evaluated by a LAS Review Board, consisting of ≥3 lung transplant experts, which subsequently declines or approves the eLAS request in consensus of ≥3 votes. In case of a lower than accepted score, predefined business rules to assign LAS percentiles are used. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of all eLAS requests in Eurotransplant from December 2011 until September 2019. RESULTS: Overall, 5183 lung transplants (deceased donors) were performed and 420 eLAS requests were made (Germany 52%, Netherlands 18%, Austria 18%, Belgium 13%), of which 116 (28%) were approved. Most eLAS requests concerned group B/Pulmonary vascular disease (44%), followed by group C/Cystic fibrosis or immunodeficiency disorder (28%), then group D/Restrictive lung disease (15%) and finally group A/Obstructive lung disease (11%); whereas 10 patients (2%) were not classified. The proportion of accepted eLAS requests significantly differed between countries (Germany 25%, Netherlands 37%, Austria 20%, Belgium 36%) (p=0.042). eLAS requests decreased in the Netherlands following its LAS introduction in 2014 (2011-2014 mean 13/yr vs. 2015-2019 mean 4.6/yr; p=0.060). However, since 2015 an overall annual increasing number of eLAS requests is seen, with doubling of the eLAS requests in 2018 vs. 2015, but no difference in acceptance rate (2015-2018: 22.4%) (Figure). Acceptance rates were 38% for Group B, 21% for Group C, 20% for Group D and 11% for Group A. CONCLUSION: The observed variations require further investigation to optimize lung allocation for specific patient populations in Eurotransplant

Novel De Novo Mutation in Sulfonylurea Receptor 1 Presenting as Hyperinsulinism in Infancy Followed by Overt Diabetes in Early Adolescence

OBJECTIVE—Congenital hyperinsulinism, usually associated with severe neonatal hypoglycemia, may progress to diabetes, typically during the 4th decade of life in nonpancreatectomized patients. We aimed to genotype the ATP-sensitive K+ channel in a 10.5-year-old girl presenting with overt diabetes following hyperinsulinism in infancy

Impact of donor lung quality on post-transplant recipient outcome in the Lung Allocation Score era in Eurotransplant – a historical prospective study

The aim of this study was to investigate whether there is an impact of donation rates on the quality of lungs used for transplantation and whether donor lung quality affects post-transplant outcome in the current Lung Allocation Score era. All consecutive adult LTx performed in Eurotransplant (ET) between January 2012 and December 2016 were included (N = 3053). Donors used for LTx in countries with high donation rate were younger (42% vs. 33% ≤45 years, P < 0.0001), were less often smokers (35% vs. 46%, P < 0.0001), had more often clear chest X-rays (82% vs. 72%, P < 0.0001), had better donor oxygenation ratios (20% vs. 26% with PaO2/FiO2 ≤ 300 mmHg, P < 0.0001), and had better lung donor score values (LDS; 28% vs. 17% with LDS = 6, P < 0.0001) compared with donors used for LTx in countries with low donation rate. Survival rates for the groups LDS = 6 and ≥7 at 5 years were 69.7% and 60.9% (P = 0.007). Lung donor quality significantly impacts on long-term patient survival. Countries with a low donation rate are more oriented to using donor lungs with a lesser quality compared to countries with a high donation rate. Instead of further stretching donor eligibility criteria, the full potential of the donor pool should be realized