AimsObservational studies have suggested a mechanistic link between the leucocyte-derived enzyme myeloperoxidase (MPO) and vasomotor function. Here, we tested whether MPO is systemically affecting vascular tone in humans.Methods and resultsA total of 12 135 patients were screened for leucocyte peroxidase activity. We identified 15 individuals with low MPO expression and activity (MPOlow), who were matched with 30 participants exhibiting normal MPO protein content and activity (control). Nicotine-dependent activation of leucocytes caused attenuation of endothelial nitric oxide (NO) bioavailability in the control group (P < 0.01), but not in MPOlow individuals (P = 0.12); here the MPO burden of leucocytes correlated with the degree of vasomotor dysfunction (P = 0.008). To directly test the vasoactive properties of free circulating MPO, the enzyme was injected into the left atrium of anaesthetized, open-chest pigs. Myeloperoxidase plasma levels peaked within minutes and rapidly declined thereafter, reflecting vascular binding of MPO. Blood flow in the left anterior descending artery and the internal mammary artery (IMA) as well as myocardial perfusion decreased following MPO injection when compared with albumin-treated animals (P < 0.001). Isolated IMA-rings from animals subjected to MPO revealed markedly diminished relaxation in response to acetylcholine (P < 0.01) and nitroglycerine as opposed to controls (P < 0.001).ConclusionMyeloperoxidase elicits profound effects on vascular tone of conductance and resistance vessels in vivo. These findings not only call for revisiting the biological functions of leucocytes as systemic and mobile effectors of vascular tone, but also identify MPO as a critical systemic regulator of vasomotion in humans and thus a potential therapeutic target.

BackgroundShared decision-making (SDM) has become increasingly important in health care. However, despite scientific evidence, effective implementation strategies, and a prominent position on the health policy agenda, SDM is not widely implemented in routine practice so far. Therefore, we developed a program for routine implementation of SDM in oncology by conducting an analysis of the current state and a needs assessment in a pilot study based on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Based on these results, the main aim of our current study is to evaluate the process and outcome of this theoretically and empirically grounded multicomponent implementation program designed to foster SDM in routine cancer care.MethodsWe use a stepped wedge design, a variant of the cluster randomized controlled trial. The intervention to be implemented is SDM. Three participating clinics of one comprehensive cancer center will be randomized and receive the multicomponent SDM implementation program in a time-delayed sequence. The program consists of the following strategies: (a) SDM training for health care professionals, (b) individual coaching for physicians, (c) patient activation strategy, (d) provision of patient information material and decision aids, (e) revision of the clinics’ quality management documents, and (f) critical reflection of current organization of multidisciplinary team meetings. We will conduct a mixed methods outcome and process evaluation. The outcome evaluation will consist of four measurement points. The primary outcome is adoption of SDM, measured by the 9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire. A range of other implementation outcomes will be assessed (i.e., acceptability, readiness for implementing change, appropriateness, penetration). The implementation process will be evaluated using stakeholder interviews and field notes. This will allow adapting interventions if necessary.DiscussionThis study is the first large study on routine implementation of SDM conducted in German cancer care. We expect to foster implementation of SDM at the enrolled clinics. Insights gained from this study, using a theoretically and empirically grounded approach, can inform other SDM implementation studies and health policy developments, both nationally and internationally.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov, NCT03393351. Registered 8 January 2018.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s13012-018-0740-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background Shared decision-making (SDM) is preferred by many patients in cancer care. However, despite scientific evidence and promotion by health policy makers, SDM implementation in routine health care lags behind. This study aimed to evaluate an empirically and theoretically grounded implementation program for SDM in cancer care. Methods In a stepped wedge design, three departments of a comprehensive cancer center sequentially received the implementation program in a randomized order. It included six components: training for health care professionals (HCPs), individual coaching for physicians, patient activation intervention, patient information material/decision aids, revision of quality management documents, and reflection on multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTMs). Outcome evaluation comprised four measurement waves. The primary endpoint was patient-reported SDM uptake using the 9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire. Several secondary implementation outcomes were assessed. A mixed-methods process evaluation was conducted to evaluate reach and fidelity. Data were analyzed using mixed linear models, qualitative content analysis, and descriptive statistics. Results A total of 2,128 patient questionnaires, 559 questionnaires from 408 HCPs, 132 audio recordings of clinical encounters, and 842 case discussions from 66 MDTMs were evaluated. There was no statistically significant improvement in the primary endpoint SDM uptake. Patients in the intervention condition were more likely to experience shared or patient-lead decision-making than in the control condition (d=0.24). HCPs in the intervention condition reported more knowledge about SDM than in the control condition (d = 0.50). In MDTMs the quality of psycho-social information was lower in the intervention than in the control condition (d = − 0.48). Further secondary outcomes did not differ statistically significantly between conditions. All components were implemented in all departments, but reach was limited (e.g., training of 44% of eligible HCPs) and several adaptations occurred (e.g., reduced dose of coaching). Conclusions The process evaluation provides possible explanations for the lack of statistically significant effects in the primary and most of the secondary outcomes. Low reach and adaptations, particularly in dose, may explain the results. Other or more intensive approaches are needed for successful department-wide implementation of SDM in routine cancer care. Further research is needed to understand factors influencing implementation of SDM in cancer care. Trial registration clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03393351, registered 8 January 2018.