Search

Abstract Background Lung cancer is one of the most lethal cancers worldwide and patient clinical outcomes seem influenced by their socioeconomic position (SEP). Since little has been investigated on this topic in the Italian context, our aim was to investigate the role of SEP in the care pathway of lung cancer patients in terms of diagnosis, treatment and mortality. Methods This observational retrospective cohort study included patients discharged in the Lazio Region with a lung cancer diagnosis between 2014 and 2017. In the main analysis, educational level was used as SEP measure. Multivariate models, adjusted for demographic and clinical variables, were applied to evaluate the association between SEP and study outcomes, stratified for metastatic (M) and non-metastatic (NM) cancer. We defined a diagnosis as 'delayed' when patients received their initial cancer diagnosis after an emergency department admission. Access to advanced lung cancer treatments (high-cost, novel and innovative treatments) and mortality were investigated within the 24-month period post-diagnosis. Moreover, two additional indicators of SEP were examined in the sensitivity analysis: one focusing on area deprivation and the other on income-based exemption. Results A total of 13,251 patients were identified (37.3% with metastasis). The majority were males (> 60%) and over half were older than 70 years. The distribution of SEP levels among patients was as follow: 31% low, 29% medium–low, 32% medium–high and 7% high. As SEP increased, the risks of receiving a delayed diagnosis ((high vs low: M: OR = 0.29 (0.23–0.38), NM: OR = 0.20 (0.16–0.25)) and of mortality ((high vs low M: OR = 0.77 (0.68–0.88) and NM: 0.61 (0.54–0.69)) decreased. Access to advanced lung cancer treatments increased in accordance with SEP only in the M cohort (high vs low: M: OR = 1.57 (1.18–2.09)). The primary findings were corroborated by sensitivity analysis. Conclusions Our study highlighted the need of public health preventive and educational programs in Italy, a country where the care pathway of lung cancer patients, especially in terms of diagnosis and mortality, appears to be negatively affected by SEP level.

Abstract Background Very scanty evidence is available on factors influencing the choice of immunosuppressive drug therapy after kidney transplantation. Methods An Italian multiregional real-world study was conducted integrating national transplant information system and claims data. All patients undergoing kidney transplantation for the first time during 2009–2019 (incident patients) were considered. Multilevel logistic models were used to estimate Odds Ratio (OR) and corresponding 95% Confidence intervals. Factors with statistically significance were identified as characteristics associated with treatment regimens: cyclosporin-CsA vs tacrolimus-Tac and, within the latter group, mTOR inhibitors vs mycophenolate-MMF. Results We identified 3,622 kidney patients undergoing transplantation in 17 hospitals located in 4 Italian regions, 78.3% was treated with TAC-based therapy, of which 78% and 22% in combination with MMF and mTOR, respectively. For both comparison groups, the choice of immunosuppressive regimens was mostly guided by standard hospital practices. Only few recipient and donor characteristics were found associated with specific regimen (donor/receipt age, immunological risk and diabetes). Conclusions The choice of post-renal transplant immunosuppressive therapy seems to be mostly driven by standard Centre practices, while only partially based on patient’s characteristics and recognized international guidelines.

The goal of post-transplant immunosuppressive drug therapy is to prevent organ rejection while minimizing drug toxicities. In clinical practice, a multidrug approach is commonly used and involves drugs with different mechanisms of action, including calcineurin inhibitors (CNI) (tacrolimus or cyclosporine), antimetabolite (antimet) (mycophenolate or azathioprine), inhibitors of mechanistic target of rapamycin (mTOR) (sirolimus or everolimus), and/or steroids. Although evidence based on several randomized clinical trials is available, the optimal immunosuppressive therapy has not been established and may vary among organ transplant settings. To improve the knowledge on this topic, a multiregional research network to Compare the Effectiveness and Safety of Immunosuppressive drugs in Transplant patients (CESIT) has been created with the financial support of the Italian Medicines Agency. In this article, we describe the development of this network, the framework that was designed to perform observational studies, and we also give an overview of the preliminary results that we have obtained. A multi-database transplant cohort was enrolled using a common data model based on healthcare claims data of four Italian regions (Lombardy, Veneto, Lazio, and Sardinia). Analytical datasets were created using an open-source tool for distributed analysis. To link the National Transplant Information System to the regional transplant cohorts, a semi-deterministic record linkage procedure was performed. Overall, 6,914 transplant patients from 2009–19 were identified: 4,029 (58.3%) for kidney, 2,219 (32.1%) for liver, 434 (6.3%) for heart, and 215 (3.1%) for lung. As expected, demographic and clinical characteristics showed considerable variability among organ settings. Although the triple therapy in terms of CNI + antimet/mTOR + steroids was widely dispensed for all settings (63.7% for kidney, 33.5% for liver, 53.3% for heart, and 63.7% for lung), differences in the active agents involved were detected. The CESIT network represents a great opportunity to study several aspects related to the use, safety, and effectiveness of post-transplant maintenance immunosuppressive therapy in real practice.

Importance: Since the beginning of the Coronavirus Disease-19 (COVID-19) pandemic, Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome-CoV-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection has been a serious challenge for immune-compromised patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs). Objective: Our aim was to investigate the impact of COVID-19 in terms of risks of infection, hospitalization and mortality in a cohort of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriasis (PSO) or inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Furthermore, we studied the impact of SARS-CoV-2 infection on the prescribed drug regimen in these patients. Methods: Through the record linkage between health information systems, a cohort of patients, ≥18 years old, assisted in the Lazio region and who had suffered from immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (RA, PSO, IBD) between 2007 and 2019, was identified. The risk of infection, hospitalization or mortality for COVID-19, was assessed by logistic regression models, and reported in an Odds Ratio (ORs; CI 95%), adjusting for sex, age and the Charlson Comorbidity Index. We also estimated these risks separately by IMID and in the subgroup of prevalent biologic drug users. We investigated deferral of biological treatments in the study population by comparing the prevalence of weekly use of biologicals (2019–2020) before and during the pandemic periods. Findings: Within the 65,230 patients with IMIDs, the cumulative incidence for COVID-19 was 303/10,000 ab. In this cohort of patients, we observed a significantly higher risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection than the general population: OR = 1.17 (95% CI 1.12–1.22). The risk was higher even considering separately each disease and in the subgroup of prevalent biologic drug users. This last subgroup of patients showed a higher risk of death related to COVID-19 (OR 1.89; 95% CI 1.04–3.33) than the general population. However, no differences in terms of risks of hospitalization or death related to COVID-19 were recorded in patients with the IMIDs. Comparing the 2019–2020 prevalence of weekly biological drug treatments in prevalent biologic drug users, we found a decrease (−19.6%) during the lockdown, probably due to pandemic restrictions. Conclusions and Relevance: Patients with IMIDs seem to have a higher risk of SARS-CoV2 infection. However, other than for patients with prevalent biologic drug treatment, no significant differences in terms of hospitalization and mortality were reported compared to the general populations; further investigation is warranted on account of unmeasured confounding. In addition, during the lockdown period, the COVID-19 emergency highlighted a lower use of biologic drugs; this phenomenon requires strict pharmacological monitoring as it could be a proxy of forthcoming long-term clinical progression.