Search

Introduction: As with most medicines historically, clinicians prescribing tildrakizumab have relied on information derived from registration studies undertaken in a prospective controlled clinical trial setting. More recently, clinicians, policymakers, and commissioners increasingly rely on real-world data to inform both policy and practice. Methods: A retrospective real-world data study was undertaken at four specialist dermatology departments in the United Kingdom. All adult patients treated with tildrakizumab for moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis were included, with data being collected for 122 patients. Results: Psoriatic patients on tildrakizumab tended to be overweight (median body mass index of 32 (range 19–59) (n = 61); 26/68 (38%) < 90 kg, 32/68 (47%) between 90 and 120 kg, and 10/68 (15%) > 120 kg). The study population had high levels of comorbidities (83/116, 72%), multiple special sites (39/117, 33%), and histories of biological treatments (81/100, 81%). Most patients (61/80, 76%) initiated on tildrakizumab were switched from another biological treatment. Tildrakizumab was effective, with 91/122 (75%) patients remaining on treatment for the duration of the study—a median of 12 months per patient (range 1–29 months)—and achieving a change in median Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) from 12 to 0.35 and in Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) from 20 to 0. The response rate was 57/66 (86%) when tildrakizumab was used as the first- or second-line biologic compared to 19/31 (61%) when used as the third- to seventh-line. Thirty-three (78.6%) patients over 90 kg of weight received the 200-mg dose of tildrakizumab. All but one (n = 8) patient with body weight over 120 kg maintained response over time. There was one treatment discontinuation; a patient who had a local sensitivity reaction. Conclusions: In UK clinical practice, tildrakizumab was well tolerated and effective at doses of 100 mg or 200 mg in a range of patient phenotypes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Summary: This article explores the differences in status between General Practitioners (GPs) and social workers in England and explores the was in which each profession is regulated. • Findings: A brief historical overview of the professionalization of the role of GPs and social workers is used to contextualize and compare the development of the philosophy of regulatory practice that underpins the two professions. In particular, the level of involvement of people who use services is used to examine the similarities and differences in the regulation of the two professions. The perception of the public towards the two professions and interprofessional perceptions are explored. Some of the limitations of the comparative regulatory paradigms are also identified. • Applications: This article concludes with a discussion about the balance of power (or lack of it) within the regulatory framework for GPs and social workers. There has been an increase in more stringent independent regulation of social workers; however, there appears to be less impetus towards an equivalent system of monitoring GPs. Professional bodies and those involved in the registration processes should be mindful of the findings in this article. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Most published studies, regarding students' participation in drinking games (DGs), originate from the United States of America (USA). This study extends research to the United Kingdom (UK) and countries of mainland Europe. University students from five countries completed an anonymous online questionnaire which included measures of the frequency of DG participation, along with types, contexts and motives for participation. Responses are compared by the gender, and country of domicile of the participants. The study is based on the results of the questionnaire administered to 306 Social Work students from five universities/countries of which 72.2% are females, with a mean age of 22.6 years. This included students in Austria, Germany, the Netherlands, the UK and the USA. A high proportion of students, irrespective of gender, or country of domicile, stated that they participated in DGs. To 'meet people' and 'to get drunk' are the most important reasons stated for DG participation. Less benign motives, to 'control others' or 'get other people drunk', are reported as 'not important'. The most common types of DGs were consumption and team DGs. The pre-partying involved in DGs and associated consequences show important targets in alcohol harm minimization interventions. Harm minimization/public health messages regarding safer drinking need to recognize that younger students often feel they are immortal and do not fully appreciate risks and adverse effects of DGs and drink to have fun and be sociable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]