Search

Background: Continuous androgen deprivation therapy ± first-generation non-steroidal antiandrogen was previously the standard-of-care for patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC). Treatment intensification with novel hormonal therapy (NHT) or taxane chemotherapy is now approved and guideline-recommended for these patients. Methods: Physician-reported data on adult patients with mCSPC from the Adelphi Prostate Cancer Disease Specific Programme were analyzed descriptively. We evaluated real-world treatment trends for patients with mCSPC in 5 European countries (United Kingdom, France, Germany, Spain, and Italy) and the United States (US), looking at differences between patients initiating treatment in 2016-2018 and in 2019-2020. We also investigated treatment trends by ethnicity and insurance status in the US. Results: This study found that most patients with mCSPC do not receive treatment intensification. However, greater use of treatment intensification with NHT and taxane chemotherapy was observed in 2019-2020 than in 2016-2018 across 5 European countries. In the US, greater use of treatment intensification with NHT in 2019-2020 than in 2016-2018 was observed for all ethnicity groups and those with Medicare and commercial insurance status. Conclusions: As the number of patients with mCSPC who receive treatment intensification increases, more patients who progress to metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) will have been exposed to intensified treatments. Treatment options for patients with mCSPC and mCRPC overlap, suggesting that an unmet need will emerge for new therapies. Further studies are needed to understand optimal treatment sequencing in mCSPC and mCRPC. This study evaluated real-world metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC) treatment trends between 2016 to 2020 across a large, diverse patient population. The study also investigated whether treatment trends vary by ethnicity and insurance status. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Political opposition to fiscal adjustments has varied significantly across countries. Our analysis links this variation to differences in the congruence of voter attitudes towards fiscal trade-offs across political blocs in different countries. These differences in attitudes, in turn, coincide with the implications of the distinct macroeconomic growth strategies that these countries pursue. Based on original survey data, we show that in Germany, supporters of different parties not only share similar views on the appropriate size of fiscal adjustment, but also on how to distribute these cuts across various spending items. In Spain, there is fundamental disagreement on the amount of austerity, but voters largely agree on the composition of fiscal adjustments. In the UK, there is disagreement between voters of diverging political blocs on both accounts. Variation in public attitudes, therefore, gives rise to very diverse political dynamics surrounding fiscal adjustments in different countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Palliative sedation is a commonly accepted medical practice. This study aims to clarify how palliative sedation is regulated in various countries and whether this may impact its practice. Methods An online survey requesting regulations on palliative sedation was conducted in Belgium, Germany, Hungary, Italy, The Netherlands, Spain, Romania and the UK. Purposive sampling strategy was used to identify clinicians from different medical fields and legal experts for each country. Regulations were analyzed using the principles of the European Association for Palliative Care Framework on palliative sedation. Country reports describing how palliative sedation is regulated were elaborated. Results One hundred and thirty-nine out of 223 (62%) participants identified 31 laws and other regulations affecting palliative sedation. In Spain, 12 regional laws recognize palliative sedation as a right of the patient at the end of life when there are refractory symptoms. In Italy, the law of informed consent and advance directives specifically recognizes the doctor can use deep sedation when there are refractory symptoms. There are also general medical laws that, while not explicitly referring to palliative sedation, regulate sedation-related principles: the obligation of doctors to honour advance directives, informed consent, the decision-making process and the obligation to document the whole process. In Germany, the Netherlands and the UK, palliative sedation is also regulated through professional guidelines that are binding as good practice with legal significance. Conclusions Palliative sedation is considered in the general law of medical practice, in laws regarding the patient's autonomy, and through professional guidelines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Inaccessibility of medicines in low- and middle-income countries is a frequent challenge. Yet it is typically assumed that high-income countries have complete access to the full arsenal of medicines. This study tests this assumption for new antibacterials, which are saved as a last resort in order to prevent the development of resistance, resulting in insufficient revenues to offset costs. Prior studies report only regulatory approval, missing the important lag that occurs between approval and commercial launch, although some antibiotics never launch in some countries. Methods We identified all antibacterials approved and launched in the G7 and 7 other high-income countries in Europe for the decade beginning 1 January 2010, using quantitative methods to explore associations. Results Eighteen new antibacterials were identified. The majority were accessible in only 3 countries (United States, United Kingdom, and Sweden), with the remaining 11 high-income countries having access to less than half of them. European marketing authorization did not lead to automatic European access, as 14 of the antibacterials were approved by the European Medicines Agency but many fewer were commercially launched. There was no significant difference in access between "innovative" and "noninnovative" antibacterials. Median annual sales in the first launched market (generally the United States) for these 18 antibiotics were low, $16.2M. Conclusions Patient access to new antibacterials is limited in some high-income countries including Canada, Japan, France, Germany, Italy, and Spain. With low expected sales, companies may have decided to delay or forego commercialization due to expectations of insufficient profitability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background In responding to Covid-19, governments have tried to balance protecting health while minimizing gross domestic product (GDP) losses. We compare health-related net benefit (HRNB) and GDP losses associated with government responses of the UK, Ireland, Germany, Spain and Sweden from UK healthcare payer perspective. Methods We compared observed cases, hospitalizations and deaths under 'mitigation' to modelled events under 'no mitigation' to 20 July 2020. We thus calculated healthcare costs, quality adjusted life years (QALYs), and HRNB at £20,000/QALY saved by each country. On per population (i.e. per capita) basis, we compared HRNB with forecast reductions in 2020 GDP growth (overall or compared with Sweden as minimal mitigation country) and qualitatively and quantitatively described government responses. Results The UK saved 3.17 (0.32–3.65) million QALYs, £33 (8–38) billion healthcare costs and £1416 (220–1637) HRNB per capita at £20,000/QALY. Per capita, this is comparable to £1455 GDP loss using Sweden as comparator and offsets 46.1 (7.1–53.2)% of total £3075 GDP loss. Germany, Spain, and Sweden had greater HRNB per capita. These also offset a greater percentage of total GDP losses per capita. Ireland fared worst on both measures. Countries with more mask wearing, testing, and population susceptibility had better outcomes. Highest stringency responses did not appear to have best outcomes. Conclusions Our exploratory analysis indicates the benefit of government Covid-19 responses may outweigh their economic costs. The extent that HRNB offset economic losses appears to relate to population characteristics, testing levels, and mask wearing, rather than response stringency. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Guideline‐recommended antiemetic prophylaxis improves nausea and vomiting control in most patients undergoing chemotherapy. Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer/European Society for Medical Oncology (MASCC/ESMO) antiemetic guidelines recommend prophylaxis with a neurokinin‐1 receptor antagonist (NK1RA), a 5‐hydroxytryptamine‐3 receptor antagonist (5‐HT3RA), and dexamethasone for patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC), including anthracycline‐cyclophosphamide (AC)‐ and carboplatin (considered moderately emetogenic chemotherapy)‐based chemotherapy. Here, we analyze the use of NK1RA–5‐HT3RA–dexamethasone for antiemetic prophylaxis associated with HEC and carboplatin. Methods: The data source was the Global Oncology Monitor (Ipsos Healthcare). Geographically representative physicians from France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the U.K. were screened for treatment involvement and number of patients treated per month. Patients' data from January to December 2018 were collected from medical charts and extrapolated on the basis of the total number of physicians who prescribe chemotherapy. The emetic risk of chemotherapy was classified per MASCC/ESMO guidelines. Results: Data from 45,324 chemotherapy‐treated patients were collected, representing a total extrapolated prevalence of 1,394,848 chemotherapy treatments included in the analysis. NK1RAs were used in 45%, 42%, and 19% of patients receiving cisplatin‐, AC‐, and carboplatin‐based chemotherapy, respectively; 18%, 24%, and 7% received the guideline‐recommended NK1RA–5‐HT3RA–dexamethasone combination; no antiemetics were prescribed for 12% of the treatments. Often, physicians' perception of the emetic risk of chemotherapy did not follow MASCC/ESMO guideline classification. Conclusion: Low adherence to antiemetic guidelines was revealed in clinical practice in five European countries, with 15% of all HEC‐/carboplatin‐based treatments receiving guideline‐recommended NK1RA–5‐HT3RA–dexamethasone prophylaxis and 12% of them receiving no antiemetics. New strategies for improving guideline adherence are urgently needed. Implications for Practice: Despite recent advances in antiemetic therapy, a substantial proportion of patients experience nausea and vomiting associated with chemotherapy in daily clinical practice. Antiemetic guidelines aim at prevention of chemotherapy‐induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), and guideline‐consistent antiemetic therapy can effectively prevent vomiting and, to a lesser extent, nausea in most patients with cancer. This study reports low adherence to antiemetic guidelines in the highly emetogenic chemotherapy setting in daily clinical practice across five European countries. Opportunity exists to increase adherence to antiemetic guideline recommendations. Implementation of strategies to facilitate guideline adherence can potentially improve CINV control. Adherence to antiemetic guidelines is associated with improved control of chemotherapy‐induced nausea and vomiting. This article analyzes the use of guideline‐recommended NK1RA‐based regimens for antiemetic prophylaxis of highly emetogenic chemotherapy and carboplatin regimens in real‐world clinical practice across Europe. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background To stop the spread of the new coronavirus disease in 2019 (COVID-19), many countries had completely locked down. This lockdown restricted the everyday life of the affected residents and changed their mobility pattern, but its effects on sleep pattern were largely unknown. Methods Here, utilizing one of the largest crowdsourced database (Sleep as Android), we analyzed the sleep pattern of 25 217 users with 1 352 513 sleep records between 1 January and 29 April 2020 in the US and 16 European countries (Germany, UK, Spain, France, Italy, The Netherlands, Belgium, Hungary, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Czech, Sweden, Austria, Poland and Switzerland) with more than 100 records in all days of 2020. Results During the COVID-19 pandemic, the sleeping pattern before and after the country-level lockdown largely differed. The subjects increased their sleep duration by an average of 11.3 to 18.6 min on weekday nights, except Denmark (4.9 min) and Finland (7.1 min). In addition, subjects form all 16 European countries delayed their sleep onset from 10.7 min (Sweden) to 29.6 min (Austria). Conclusion During the COVID-19 pandemic, residents in the US and 16 European countries delayed their bedtime and slept longer than usual. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective. To gain insight into clinical practice regarding referral, early diagnosis and other aspects of the management of patients with dcSSc in Europe and the USA. Methods. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 84 rheumatologists (or internal medicine physicians) and 40 dermatologists in different countries (the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the USA). Physicians were asked to identify key steps in the patient pathway relating to patient presentation, diagnosis and referral, in addition to other treatment and follow-up processes. Results. The interviewed physicians reported that late presentation with dcSSc was common, with some patients presenting to primary care physicians after symptoms had persisted for up to 1 year. Awareness of dcSSc is reported to vary widely among primary care physicians. Final diagnosis, generally following guideline-based recommendations, was by rheumatologists in most cases (or internal medicine physicians in France) and they remained responsible for global patient management, with lesser involvement in diagnosis and management by dermatologists. Specialist centres were not well defined and did not exist in all countries. Conclusion. Patients and primary healthcare providers can be unaware of the symptoms of dcSSc, therefore presentation and referral to specialist care are often late. Thus, improved awareness among patients and primary care physicians is necessary to facilitate earlier referral and diagnosis. Once referred, more consistent use of the modified Rodnan skin score at diagnosis and follow-up may help to monitor disease progression. Furthermore, establishing specialist centres may help to promote such changes and improve patient care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims 1. To quantify barriers to alcohol screening among hypertensive patients reported by primary healthcare professionals. 2. To examine whether education and screening frequency measures are associated with stigma-related barriers. Methods A web survey was conducted among 3081 primary healthcare professionals from France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK. Participants were asked about perceived barriers to alcohol screening as free-text response. The replies were independently categorized by two raters. Stigma-related barriers were predicted by logistic regressions with education, knowledge on alcohol as risk factor and frequency of alcohol screening. Results In France and Italy, almost half of the reported barriers were stigma-related, whereas time constraints were cited most commonly in Spain and the UK. In Germany, nearly half of respondents rated the importance of alcohol screening for hypertension as low. Perception that regular screening is inappropriate or associated with too much effort, beliefs that screening is unnecessary, and insufficient knowledge of screening tools were cited as further barriers. Professional education on alcohol use was consistently rated to be poorer than the equivalent education on hypertension, and only a minority of respondents perceived alcohol as important risk factor for hypertension. Stigma-related barriers could not be significantly predicted by education, knowledge or screening frequency in most models. Conclusions Overall, regular alcohol screening among hypertensive patients seems to be widely accepted, but further education (Germany) and structural support (Spain, UK) could contribute to increase screening rates. In France and Italy, screening uptake could be improved by addressing stigma. Short Summary Alcohol screening among hypertensive patients was largely accepted among general practitioners from five different European countries. Reported screening barriers varied between countries and included time constraints, stigma and underrated importance of alcohol. Results did not indicate a positive impact of education and screening frequency on perception of stigma as barrier to screening. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Effective linkage to specialist care following screening is crucial for secondary prevention of chronic viral hepatitis-related consequences. Methods: To explore the frequency of referral of patients to secondary care from the health services involved in screening and to gather information on the services responsible for the provision of post-test counselling and contact tracing, four online surveys were conducted among general practitioners (GP), and experts working in sexual health services (SHS), antenatal care (ANC) and specialist secondary care in Germany, Hungary, Italy, The Netherlands, Spain and the UK. Results: Overall, 60% of GPs report referring all patients to specialist care. Although 67% of specialists commonly receive patients referred by GPs, specialists in Germany rarely or never receive patients from ANC or from centres testing injecting drug users; and specialists in the Netherlands, Hungary and Germany rarely receive patients from SHS. Gastroenterologists/hepatologists are the professionals mainly responsible for the provision of counselling following a positive diagnosis of viral hepatitis according to two-thirds of specialists, 14% of SHS providers and 11% of ANC providers. Almost half of ANC providers (45%) stated that gynaecologists are the professionals responsible for the provision of counselling to positive pregnant women; among SHS providers, only 14% identified SHS as the services responsible. Conclusion: Our findings suggest the existence of complex/ineffective referral practices or that opportunities to screen risk groups are missed. Recommendations clarifying the services responsible at each step of the referral pathway are needed in order to increase the success of screening programmes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]