Purpose: To determine the effectiveness of a shared decision-making (SDM) tool versus guideline-informed usual care in translating evidence into primary care, and to explore how use of the tool... Show morePurpose: To determine the effectiveness of a shared decision-making (SDM) tool versus guideline-informed usual care in translating evidence into primary care, and to explore how use of the tool changed patient perspectives about diabetes medication decision making. Methods: In this mixed methods multicenter cluster randomized trial, we included patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and their primary care clinicians. We compared usual care with or without a within-encounter SDM conversation aid. We assessed participant-reported decisions made and quality of SDM (knowledge, satisfaction, and decisional conflict), clinical outcomes, adherence, and observer-based patient involvement in decision-making (OPTION12-scale). We used semi-structured interviews with patients to understand their perspectives. Results: We enrolled 350 patients and 99 clinicians from 20 practices and interviewed 26 patients. Use of the conversation aid increased post-encounter patient knowledge (correct answers, 52% vs. 45%, p = 0.02) and clinician involvement of patients (Mean between-arm difference in OPTION12, 7.3 (95% CI 3, 12); p = 0.003). There were no between-arm differences in treatment choice, patient or clinician satisfaction, encounter length, medication adherence, or glycemic control. Qualitative analyses highlighted differences in how clinicians involved patients in decision making, with intervention patients noting how clinicians guided them through conversations using factors important to them. Conclusions: Using an SDM conversation aid improved patient knowledge and involvement in SDM without impacting treatment choice, encounter length, medication adherence or improved diabetes control in patients with type 2 diabetes. Future interventions may need to focus specifically on patients with signs of poor treatment fit. Show less
Background The epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) is a key protein involved in cancer development. Monoclonal antibodies targeting EGFR are approved for the treatment of metastatic colorectal... Show moreBackground The epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) is a key protein involved in cancer development. Monoclonal antibodies targeting EGFR are approved for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC). Despite the beneficial clinical effects observed in subgroups of patients, the acquisition of resistance to treatment remains a major concern. Protein N-glycosylation of cellular receptors is known to regulate physiological processes leading to activation of downstream signaling pathways. In the present study, the role of EGFR-specific terminal alpha 2,6-sialylation was analyzed in modulation of the malignant phenotype of CRC cells and their resistance to monoclonal antibody Cetuximab-based therapy.Methods Glycoengineered CRC cell models with specific sialyltransferase ST6GAL1 expression levels were applied to evaluate EGFR activation, cell surface glycosylation and therapeutic response to Cetuximab.Results Glycoproteomic analysis revealed EGFR as a major target of ST6Gal1-mediated alpha 2,6-sialylation in a glycosite-specific manner. Mechanistically, CRC cells with increased ST6Gal1 expression and displaying terminal alpha 2,6-sialylation showed a marked resistance to Cetuximab-induced cytotoxicity. Moreover, we found that this resistance was accompanied by downregulation of EGFR expression and its activation.Conclusions Our data indicate that EGFR alpha 2,6-sialylation is a key factor in modulating the susceptibility of CRC cells to antibody targeted therapy, thereby disclosing a potential novel biomarker and providing key molecular information for tailor made anti-cancer strategies. Show less
