Search

Background The audit and review was carried out in a 24-bed reablement unit designed to improve independence and mobility in those ≥65 years. PPIs have been identified as a significant source of drug expenditure and evidence has shown that they are often prescribed inappropriately. PPIs are effective for conditions including dyspepsia and gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD) but can also be associated with adverse effects and contribute to polypharmacy. The aim of the audit was to: Determine the number of patients admitted on PPIs. Determine the appropriateness of PPI prescriptions. Review any inappropriate prescriptions. Methods Prospective data collection was carried out for all newly admitted older adults over a 9 week period using a pre-approved data collection tool. Information was collected on PPI prescription details, indications and risk factors. PPI appropriateness regarding indications and dosage was reviewed by the pharmacist using guidelines1 and clinical experience. The pharmacist's recommendation was then reviewed by the medical team and changes to prescription made where deemed appropriate. Results n=40 patients assessed. n=24 (60%) prescribed a PPI. n=19 (79.2%) deemed inappropriate by the pharmacist. Interventions made for n=13 (68.4%) of PPIs deemed inappropriate: n=8 (42.1%) were dose reduced. n=5 (26.3%) were discontinued. n=6 (31.6%) deemed unsuitable for review: n=1 deemed high risk for a gastrointestinal bleed. n=3 with GORD symptoms despite PPI use. n=1 for GP follow-up. n=1 previous unsuccessful dose reduction. Conclusion Most patients on a PPI did not have a clear indication. The majority of inappropriate PPIs were deemed suitable for review and were subsequently dose reduced or discontinued. Some patients were unsuitable for PPI review due to multiple risk factors or ongoing symptoms of reflux. The continued need for PPIs should be assessed regularly and a risk-benefit analysis should be carried out. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The potential value of patient preference studies has been recognized in clinical individual treatment decision-making between clinicians and patients, as well as in upstream drug decision-making. Drug developers, regulators, reimbursement and Health Technology Assessment (HTA) bodies are exploring how the use of patient preference studies could inform drug development, regulatory benefit risk-assessment and reimbursement decisions respectively. Understanding patient preferences may be especially valuable in decisions regarding Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) treatment options, where a variety of treatment options with different characteristics raise uncertainty about which features are most important to NSCLC patients. As part of the Innovative Medicines Initiative PREFER project, this qualitative study aimed to identify patient-relevant lung cancer treatment characteristics. Methods: This study consisted of a scoping literature review and four focus group discussions, 2 in Italy and 2 in Belgium, with a total of 24 NSCLC patients (Stages III-IV). The focus group discussions sought to identify which treatment characteristics patients find most relevant. The discussions were analyzed thematically using a thematic inductive analysis. Results: Patients highlighted themes reflecting: 1) positive effects or expected gains from treatment such as greater life expectancy and maintenance of daily functioning, 2) negative effects or adverse events related to therapy that negatively impact patients' daily functioning such as fatigue and 3) uncertainty regarding the duration and type of treatment effects. These overarching themes were consistent among patients from Belgium and Italy, suggesting that treatment aspects related to efficacy and safety as well as the psychological impact of lung cancer treatment are common areas of concern for patients, regardless of cultural background or country. Discussion: Our findings illustrate the value of using qualitative methods with patients to identify preferred treatment characteristics for advanced lung cancer. These could inform a subsequent quantitative preference survey that assesses patient trade-offs regarding treatment options. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Among brominated flame retardants (BFRs), polybrominateddiphenyl ethers (PBDEs) and hexabromocyclododecanes (HBCDs) were the most widely used in past decades. BFRs not being chemically bonded to polymers means they can easily leach from the products into the environment and bioaccumulate. Humans are exposed to flame retardants mainly through food consumption, especially fish and fish products. In the present study, the occurrence of PBDEs and HBCDs in freshwater fishes and crayfish from Lake Trasimeno (Umbria region, central Italy) was assessed according to monitoring plans recommended by European competent authorities. The dietary exposure of the central Italian population to such molecules was calculated, and the risk characterization and the benefit-risk evaluation were also assessed. A total of 90 samples were analyzed by means of gas and liquid chromatography associated with triple quadrupole mass spectroscopy. A total of 51% of samples were found positive for at least one of the congeners; the most frequently found molecule was BDE-47. The data on dietary exposure ranged from 0.138 to 1.113 pg/kg body weight/day for ∑PBDE and from 0.805 to 0.868 pg/kg body weight/day for ∑HBCD. The data show no health risks for the central Italian population consuming freshwater fish products from Lake Trasimeno in relation to exposure to PBDE and HBCD.

Background: The Accelerated Development of VAccine beNefit-risk Collaboration in Europe (ADVANCE) is a public-private collaboration aiming to develop and test a system for rapid benefit-risk (B/R) monitoring of vaccines using electronic health record (eHR) databases in Europe. Proof-of-concept studies were designed to assess the proposed processes and system for generating the required evidence to perform B/R assessment and near-real time monitoring of vaccines. We aimed to test B/R methodologies for vaccines, using the comparison of the B/R profiles of whole-cell (wP) and acellular pertussis (aP) vaccine formulations in children as an example., Methods: We used multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) to structure the B/R assessment combined with individual-level state transition modelling to build the B/R effects table. In the state transition model, we simulated the number of events in two hypothetical cohorts of 1 million children followed from first pertussis dose till pre-school-entry booster (or six years of age, whichever occurred first), with one cohort receiving wP, and the other aP. The benefits were reductions in pertussis incidence and complications. The risks were increased incidences of febrile convulsions, fever, hypotonic-hyporesponsive episodes, injection-site reactions and persistent crying. Most model parameters were informed by estimates (coverage, background incidences, relative risks) from eHR databases from Denmark (SSI), Spain (BIFAP and SIDIAP), Italy (Pedianet) and the UK (RCGP-RSC and THIN). Preferences were elicited from clinical and epidemiological experts., Results: Using state transition modelling to build the B/R effects table facilitated the comparison of different vaccine effects (e.g. immediate vaccine risks vs long-term vaccine benefits). Estimates from eHR databases could be used to inform the simulation model. The model results could be easily combined with preference weights to obtain B/R scores., Conclusion: Existing B/R methodology, modelling and estimates from eHR databases can be successfully used for B/R assessment of vaccines., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Tom de Smedt, Hanne-Dorthe Emborg, Giorgia Danieli, Talita Duarte-Salles, Consuelo Huerta, Elisa Martin-Merino, Gino Picelli and Lara Tramontan declared no potential conflicts of interest. Kaatje Bollaerts and Daniel Weibel received consultancy fees from GSK for work unrelated to the submitted work. Miriam Sturkenboom declared that she has received grants from Novartis, CDC and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, for work unrelated to the submitted work. Edouard Ledent and Vincent Bauchau declared that he is employed by GSK and holds company shares., (Copyright © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)