Browsing by Author "Carter, Ebony B."

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Effect of Prophylactic Negative Pressure Wound Therapy vs Standard Wound Dressing on Surgical-Site Infection in Obese Women After Cesarean Delivery
    (JAMA, 2020-09-22) Tuuli, Methodius G.; Liu, Jingxia; Tita, Alan T.N.; Longo, Sherri; Trudell, Amanda; Carter, Ebony B.; Shanks, Anthony L.; Woolfolk, Candice; Caughey, Aaron B.; Warren, David K.; Odibo, Anthony O.; Colditz, Graham; Macones, George A.; Harper, Lorie; Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medicine
    Importance: Obesity increases the risk of both cesarean delivery and surgical-site infection. Despite widespread use, it is unclear whether prophylactic negative pressure wound therapy reduces surgical-site infection after cesarean delivery in obese women. Objective: To evaluate whether prophylactic negative pressure wound therapy, initiated immediately after cesarean delivery, lowers the risk of surgical-site infections compared with standard wound dressing in obese women. Design, setting, and participants: Multicenter randomized trial conducted from February 8, 2017, through November 13, 2019, at 4 academic and 2 community hospitals across the United States. Obese women undergoing planned or unplanned cesarean delivery were eligible. The study was terminated after 1624 of 2850 participants were recruited when a planned interim analysis showed increased adverse events in the negative pressure group and futility for the primary outcome. Final follow-up was December 18, 2019. Interventions: Participants were randomly assigned to either undergo prophylactic negative pressure wound therapy, with application of the negative pressure device immediately after repair of the surgical incision (n = 816), or receive standard wound dressing (n = 808). Main outcomes and measures: The primary outcome was superficial or deep surgical-site infection according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention definitions. Secondary outcomes included other wound complications, composite of surgical-site infections and other wound complications, and adverse skin reactions. Results: Of the 1624 women randomized (mean age, 30.4 years, mean body mass index, 39.5), 1608 (99%) completed the study: 806 in the negative pressure group (median duration of negative pressure, 4 days) and 802 in the standard dressing group. Superficial or deep surgical-site infection was diagnosed in 29 participants (3.6%) in the negative pressure group and 27 (3.4%) in the standard dressing group (difference, 0.36%; 95% CI, -1.46% to 2.19%, P = .70). Of 30 prespecified secondary end points, 25 showed no significant differences, including other wound complications (2.6% vs 3.1%; difference, -0.53%; 95% CI, -1.93% to 0.88%; P = .46) and composite of surgical-site infections and other wound complications (6.5% vs 6.7%; difference, -0.27%; 95% CI, -2.71% to 2.25%; P = .83). Adverse skin reactions were significantly more frequent in the negative pressure group (7.0% vs 0.6%; difference, 6.95%; 95% CI, 1.86% to 12.03%; P < .001). Conclusions and relevance: Among obese women undergoing cesarean delivery, prophylactic negative pressure wound therapy, compared with standard wound dressing, did not significantly reduce the risk of surgical-site infection. These findings do not support routine use of prophylactic negative pressure wound therapy in obese women after cesarean delivery.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Outcomes of shared institutional review board compared with multiple individual site institutional review board models in a multisite clinical trial
    (Elsevier, 2023) Martin, Samantha L.; Allman, Phillip H.; Dugoff, Lorraine; Sibai, Baha; Lynch, Stephanie; Ferrara, Jennifer; Aagaard, Kjersti; Zornes, Christina; Wilson, Jennifer L.; Gibson, Marie; Adams, Molly; Longo, Sherri A.; Staples, Amy; Saade, George; Beche, Imene; Carter, Ebony B.; Owens, Michelle Y.; Simhan, Hyagriv; Frey, Heather A.; Khan, Shama; Palatnik, Anna; August, Phyllis; Irby, Les'Shon; Lee, Tiffany; Lee, Christine; Schum, Paula; Chan-Akeley, Rosalyn; Duhon, Catera; Rincon, Monica; Gibson, Kelly; Wiegand, Samantha; Eastham, Donna; Oparil, Suzanne; Szychowski, Jeff M.; Tita, Alan; Chronic Hypertension and Pregnancy Consortium; Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medicine
    Background: Institutional review boards play a crucial role in initiating clinical trials. Although many multicenter clinical trials use an individual institutional review board model, where each institution uses their local institutional review board, it is unknown if a shared (single institutional review board) model would reduce the time required to approve a standard institutional review board protocol. Objective: This study aimed to compare processing times and other processing characteristics between sites using a single institutional review board model and those using their individual site institutional review board model in a multicenter clinical trial. Study design: This was a retrospective study of sites in an open-label, multicenter randomized control trial from 2014 to 2021. Participating sites in the multicenter Chronic Hypertension and Pregnancy trial were asked to complete a survey collecting data describing their institutional review board approval process. Results: A total of 45 sites participated in the survey (7 used a shared institutional review board model and 38 used their individual institutional review board model). Most sites (86%) using the shared institutional review board model did not require a full-board institutional review board meeting before protocol approval, compared with 1 site (3%) using the individual institutional review board model (P<.001). Median total approval times (41 vs 56 days; P=.42), numbers of submission rounds (1 vs 2; P=.09), and numbers of institutional review board stipulations (1 vs 4; P=.12) were lower for the group using the shared institutional review board model than those using the individual site institutional review board model; however, these differences were not statistically significant. Conclusion: The findings supported the hypothesis that the shared institutional review board model for multicenter studies may be more efficient in terms of cumulative time and effort required to obtain approval of an institutional review board protocol than the individual institutional review board model. Given that these data have important implications for multicenter clinical trials, future research should evaluate these findings using larger or multiple multicenter trials.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial of Diabetes Group Prenatal Care
    (Thieme, 2022) Carter, Ebony B.; Barbier, Kate; Hill, Pamela K.; Cahill, Alison G.; Colditz, Graham A.; Macones, George A.; Tuuli, Methodius G.; Mazzoni, Sara E.; Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medicine
    Objective: This study aimed to determine the feasibility and effectiveness of Diabetes Group Prenatal Care to increase patient engagement in diabetes self-care activities. Study design: A pilot randomized controlled trial was conducted at two sites. Inclusion criteria were English or Spanish speaking, type 2 or gestational diabetes, 22 to 34 weeks of gestational age at first study visit, ability to attend group care at specified times, and willingness to be randomized. Exclusion criteria included type 1 diabetes, multiple gestation, major fetal anomaly, serious medical comorbidity, and serious psychiatric illness. Women were randomized to Diabetes Group Prenatal Care or individual prenatal care. The primary outcome was completion of diabetes self-care activities, including diet, exercise, blood sugar testing, and medication adherence. Secondary outcomes included antenatal care characteristics, and maternal, neonatal, and diabetes management outcomes. Analysis followed the intention-to-treat principle. Results: Of 159 eligible women, 84 (53%) consented to participate in the study and were randomized to group (n = 42) or individual (n = 42) prenatal care. Demographic characteristics were similar between study arms. Completion of diabetes self-care activities was similar overall, but women in group care ate the recommended amount of fruits and vegetables on more days per week (5.1 days/week ± 2.0 standard deviation [SD] in group care vs. 3.4 days ± 2.6 SD in individual care; p < 0.01) and gained less weight per week during the study period (0.2 lbs/week [interquartile range: 0-0.7] vs. 0.5 lbs/week [interquartile range: 0.2-0.9]; p = 0.03) than women in individual care. Women with gestational diabetes randomized to group care were 3.5 times more likely to have postpartum glucose tolerance testing than those in individual care (70 vs. 21%; relative risk: 3.5; 95% confidence interval: 1.4-8.8). Other maternal, neonatal, and pregnancy outcomes were similar between study arms. Conclusion: Diabetes group care is feasible and shows promise for decreasing gestational weight gain, improving diet, and increasing postpartum diabetes testing among women with pregnancies complicated by diabetes.