300,000+ clinical trials. Find the right one.

734 active trials for Cancer

Antibiotic De-escalation in Onco-hematology Patients for Sepsis or Septic Shock

De-escalation aims at reducing the use of broad-spectrum antibiotics and therefore the emergence of multidrug-resistant (MDR) pathogens. Observational studies suggested that this strategy seems to be safe. However, there is no adequate, direct evidence showing de-escalation of antimicrobial agents to be effective and safe for onco-hematology patients with sepsis or septic shock. Thus, randomized clinical trials are needed for testing the safety and efficiency of de-escalation of antimicrobial therapy. The investigator's hypothesis is that de-escalation of empirical antimicrobial therapy in onco-hematology patients with sepsis or septic shock is noninferior to the continuation of empirical antimicrobial therapy. The first aim of the study is to demonstrate that de-escalation is noninferior to the continuation of broad-spectrum antibiotics in terms of hospital mortality. The secondary aims are to compare the two strategies in terms of mortality, duration of antimicrobial therapy, durations of mechanical ventilation, vasopressor use, numbers of superinfections, organ failure. Antimicrobial de-escalation (ADE) of antimicrobial therapy is a strategy proposed to allow for the rational use of broad-spectrum antimicrobial therapy as the empiric treatment for infections and minimize the overall exposure to these broad-spectrum agents. The need for prompt, effective antimicrobial therapy for patients with known or suspected infections is widely accepted. This principle leads to the use of very broad-spectrum antimicrobial therapy to increase the odds that all suspected potential pathogens are adequately treated. However, the potential drawback is selection of multidrug-resistant (MDR) organisms. ADE is widely recommended in the management of antimicrobial therapy in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. The Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines describe and recommend the process for selecting antimicrobial therapy as commencement of antimicrobials within the first hour, antimicrobial therapy broad enough to cover all likely pathogens, and daily reassessment for potential ADE. To date, no randomized study assessing this strategy is available for this specific population of cancer critically ill patients. In a recent systematic review based on 13 observational studies and one randomized controlled trial, the authors conclude that the equipoise remains and a large randomized trial is required to assess the effect of the antibiotics de-escalation strategy on the bacterial ecosystem, on MDR carriage, and on patient outcomes.

Start: November 2018
Post-chemotherapy Symptom Management SMART

Sample: The sample will be 344 ethnically diverse (at least 30% Hispanic) survivors who have a new diagnosis or localized recurrence of solid tumor cancer and elevated depression and co-morbid illnesses. Design: The SMART design incorporates two interventions with proven efficacy and addresses heterogeneity of survivors' responses by following the clinical logic of starting with one intervention, assessing its success, and continuing it when effective. High need survivors will be initially randomized to receive 1) weekly symptom assessment with referral for elevated symptoms to a printed Symptom Management and Survivorship Handbook (SMSH) or 2) a more intensive intervention adding SMSH to Telephone Interpersonal Counselling (TIP-C). After 4 weeks, non-responders to SMSH alone on depression will be re-randomized to continue SMSH for 8 more weeks to allow for symptom resolution, or TIP-C will be added for the remaining 8 weeks. Specific Aims: 1. Test the effects of interventions on summed index of severity of 15 post-chemotherapy symptoms (primary outcome) and symptom-specific responses and times to response (secondary outcomes). Hypothesis 1.Survivors that starts with TIP-C+SMSH versus those that start with SMSH alone created by the first randomization will have better primary and secondary outcomes at weeks 1-13. Hypothesis 2. Among nonresponders to the SMSH alone after 4 weeks, survivors in TIP-C+SMSH as compared to the SMSH alone group created by the second randomization will have better primary and secondary outcomes at weeks 5-13. Hypothesis 3. Self-efficacy and social support will mediate improvements in the primary outcome at week 13. Aim 2. Compare symptom outcomes of intervention sequences against the benchmark low need group. Exploratory Aim. Explore which survivor characteristics are associated with responses to the SMSH alone during weeks 1-4 and optimal symptom outcomes during weeks 1-13. This will allow us to determine tailoring variables to inform decision rules for choosing intervention sequences for individual survivors in the future.

Start: July 2018