Search

Health technology assessment (HTA) is increasingly informed by nonrandomized studies, but there is limited guidance from HTA bodies on expectations around evidence quality and study conduct. We developed recommendations to support the appropriate use of such evidence based on a pragmatic literature review and a workshop involving 16 experts from eight countries as part of the EU's Horizon-2020 IMPACT-HTA program (work package six). To ensure HTA processes remain rigorous and robust, HTA bodies should demand clear, extensive and structured reporting of nonrandomized studies, including an in-depth assessment of the risk of bias. In recognition of the additional uncertainty imparted by nonrandomized designs in estimates of treatment effects, HTA bodies should strengthen early scientific advice and engage in collaborative efforts to improve use of real-world data.

Health technology assessment (HTA) is increasingly informed by nonrandomized studies, but there is limited guidance from HTA bodies on expectations around evidence quality and study conduct. We developed recommendations to support the appropriate use of such evidence based on a pragmatic literature review and a workshop involving 16 experts from eight countries as part of the EU's Horizon-2020 IMPACT-HTA program (work package six). To ensure HTA processes remain rigorous and robust, HTA bodies should demand clear, extensive and structured reporting of nonrandomized studies, including an in-depth assessment of the risk of bias. In recognition of the additional uncertainty imparted by nonrandomized designs in estimates of treatment effects, HTA bodies should strengthen early scientific advice and engage in collaborative efforts to improve use of real-world data.

Background The recent World Health Organization (WHO) blueprint for dementia research and Lancet Commission on ending stigma and discrimination in mental health has identified a gap around dementia-related measures of stigma and discrimination that can be used in different cultural, language and regional contexts. Aims We aimed to characterise experiences of discrimination, and report initial psychometric properties of a new tool to capture these experiences, among a global sample of people living with dementia. Method We analysed data from 704 people living with dementia who took part in a global survey from 33 different countries and territories. Psychometric properties were examined, including internal consistency and construct validity. Results A total of 83% of participants reported discrimination in one or more areas of life, and this was similar across WHO Regions. The exploratory factor analysis factor loadings and scree plot supported a unidimensional structure for the Discrimination and Stigma Scale Ultra Short for People Living with Dementia (DISCUS-Dementia). The instrument demonstrated excellent internal consistency, with most of the construct validity hypotheses being confirmed and qualitative responses demonstrating face validity. Conclusions Our analyses suggest that the DISCUS-Dementia performs well with a global sample of people living with dementia. This scale can be integrated into large-scale studies to understand factors associated with stigma and discrimination. It can also provide an opportunity for a structured discussion around stigma and discrimination experiences important to people living with dementia, as well as planning psychosocial services and initiatives to reduce stigma and discrimination.

OBJECTIVES: More people with dementia live in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) than in high-income countries, but best-practice care recommendations are often based on studies from high-income countries. We aimed to map the available evidence on dementia interventions in LMICs. METHODS: We systematically mapped available evidence on interventions that aimed to improve the lives of people with dementia or mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and/or their carers in LMICs (registered on PROSPERO: CRD42018106206). We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published between 2008 and 2018. We searched 11 electronic academic and grey literature databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL Plus, Global Health, World Health Organization Global Index Medicus, Virtual Health Library, Cochrane CENTRAL, Social Care Online, BASE, MODEM Toolkit) and examined the number and characteristics of RCTs according to intervention type. We used the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool to assess the risk of bias. RESULTS: We included 340 RCTs with 29,882 (median, 68) participants, published 2008-2018. Over two-thirds of the studies were conducted in China (n = 237, 69.7%). Ten LMICs accounted for 95.9% of included RCTs. The largest category of interventions was Traditional Chinese Medicine (n = 149, 43.8%), followed by Western medicine pharmaceuticals (n = 109, 32.1%), supplements (n = 43, 12.6%), and structured therapeutic psychosocial interventions (n = 37, 10.9%). Overall risk of bias was judged to be high for 201 RCTs (59.1%), moderate for 136 (40.0%), and low for 3 (0.9%). CONCLUSIONS: Evidence-generation on interventions for people with dementia or MCI and/or their carers in LMICs is concentrated in just a few countries, with no RCTs reported in the vast majority of LMICs. The body of evidence is skewed towards selected interventions and overall subject to high risk of bias. There is a need for a more coordinated approach to robust evidence-generation for LMICs.

Background and Objectives Despite the rapid increase in the number of people living with dementia in Brazil, dementia care is limited. This study describes how people living with dementia and their carers access care, treatment, and support, and identifies what characteristics are likely to enable or prevent access. Research Design and Methods We created 10 vignettes to illustrate fictitious but realistic scenarios involving people living with dementia in Brazil. The vignettes explore a combination of socioeconomic and demographic variables. They were completed using an in-depth desk review of the dementia care landscape in Brazil; a Strengths, Opportunities, Weaknesses, and Threats (SWOT) analysis of the desk review; and expert knowledge. The analysis focused on identifying common sources of service provision, barriers of access to care and support, and specific issues experienced by some population groups. Findings Access to a dementia diagnosis, care, and support for people living with dementia in Brazil is limited. Demographic and socio-economic circumstances play a role in determining the type of services to which a person might have access. Poor knowledge about dementia, lack of capacity in the health system, and lack of formal long-term care support are among the identified barriers to accessing timely diagnosis, care, and support in the country. Discussion and Implications Understanding the barriers and facilitators of access to diagnosis, treatment, and support for people with dementia and families with different demographic and socioeconomic characteristics is crucial for designing dementia policies that are context-specific and responsive to the care needs of different socioeconomic groups in Brazil.

Although disease etiologies differ, heart failure patients with preserved and reduced ejection fraction (HFpEF and HFrEF, respectively) both present with clinical symptoms when under stress and impaired exercise capacity. The extent to which the adaptation of heart rate (HR), stroke volume (SV), and cardiac output (CO) under stress conditions is altered can be quantified by stress testing in conjunction with imaging methods and may help to detect the diminishment in a patient’s condition early. The aim of this meta-analysis was to quantify hemodynamic changes during physiological and pharmacological stress testing in patients with HF. A systematic literature search (PROSPERO 2020:CRD42020161212) in MEDLINE was conducted to assess hemodynamic changes under dynamic and pharmacological stress testing at different stress intensities in HFpEF and HFrEF patients. Pooled mean changes were estimated using a random effects model. Altogether, 140 study arms with 7,248 exercise tests were analyzed. High-intensity dynamic stress testing represented 73% of these data (70 study arms with 5,318 exercise tests), where: HR increased by 45.69 bpm (95% CI 44.51–46.88; I2 = 98.4%), SV by 13.49 ml (95% CI 6.87–20.10; I2 = 68.5%), and CO by 3.41 L/min (95% CI 2.86–3.95; I2 = 86.3%). No significant differences between HFrEF and HFpEF groups were found. Despite the limited availability of comparative studies, these reference values can help to estimate the expected hemodynamic responses in patients with HF. No differences in chronotropic reactions, changes in SV, or CO were found between HFrEF and HFpEF. When compared to healthy individuals, exercise tolerance, as well as associated HR and CO changes under moderate-high dynamic stress, was substantially impaired in both HF groups. This may contribute to a better disease understanding, future study planning, and patient-specific predictive models. Systematic Review Registration: [https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/], identifier [CRD4202016

Objective To evaluate the frequency with which relevant and accurate information about the benefits and related uncertainties of anticancer drugs are communicated to patients and clinicians in regulated information sources in Europe. Design Document content analysis. Setting European Medicines Agency. Participants Anticancer drugs granted a first marketing authorisation by the European Medicines Agency, 2017-19. Main outcome measures Whether written information on a product addressed patients’ commonly asked questions about: who and what the drug is used for; how the drug was studied; types of drug benefit expected; and the extent of weak, uncertain, or missing evidence for drug benefits. Information on drug benefits in written sources for clinicians (summaries of product characteristics), patients (patient information leaflets), and the public (public summaries) was compared with information reported in regulatory assessment documents (European public assessment reports). Results 29 anticancer drugs that received a first marketing authorisation for 32 separate cancer indications in 2017-19 were included. General information about the drug (including information on approved indications and how the drug works) was frequently reported across regulated information sources aimed at both clinicians and patients. Nearly all summaries of product characteristics communicated full information to clinicians about the number and design of the main studies, the control arm (if any), study sample size, and primary measures of drug benefit. None of the patient information leaflets communicated information to patients about how drugs were studied. 31 (97%) summaries of product characteristics and 25 (78%) public summaries contained information about drug benefits that was accurate and consistent with information in regulatory assessment documents. The presence or absence of evidence that a drug extended survival was reported in 23 (72%) summaries of product characteristics and fou

To address unresolved questions about drug safety and efficacy at the time of approval, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) may require that manufacturers conduct additional studies during the postmarketing period. As a growing proportion of new cancer drugs are approved on the basis of limited evidence of clinical benefit, timely completion of postmarketing requirements is important. We used publicly available regulatory documents to evaluate key characteristics of pivotal studies supporting EMA-approved cancer drugs from 2004–2014 and assessed completion rates of postmarketing data collection requirements after a minimum of 5 years. From 2004–2014, 79% (45/57) of EMA-approved cancer drugs had to fulfill postmarketing requirements. Pivotal trials supporting the approval of cancer drugs with postmarketing requirements were less likely to have randomized designs (41/61, 67% vs. 11/11, 100%), include an active comparator (20/61, 33% vs. 10/11, 91%), or measure overall survival as the primary study end point (18/61, 30% vs. 6/11, 55%) compared with pivotal trials for drugs without postmarketing requirements. Among 200 postmarketing requirements, almost half were designed to assess drug safety. After a minimum of 5 years, 60% (121/200) of requirements were completed, 10% (19/200) were ongoing, and 30% (60/200) were delayed. About half (40/75, 53%) of postmarketing requirements for new clinical studies were completed on time. Delays in the completion of postmarketing requirements often did not impact the likelihood of drugs receiving permanent marketing authorization (87%, 39/45) after 5 years. Our findings highlight the need for EMA to better enforce its authority to require timely completion of postmarketing requirements and studies.

The COVID-19 pandemic is unlikely to end until there is global roll-out of vaccines that protect against severe disease and preferably drive herd immunity. Regulators in numerous countries have authorised or approved COVID-19 vaccines for human use, with more expected to be licensed in 2021. Yet having licensed vaccines is not enough to achieve global control of COVID-19: they also need to be produced at scale, priced affordably, allocated globally so that they are available where needed, and widely deployed in local communities. In this Health Policy paper, we review potential challenges to success in each of these dimensions and discuss policy implications. To guide our review, we developed a dashboard to highlight key characteristics of 26 leading vaccine candidates, including efficacy levels, dosing regimens, storage requirements, prices, production capacities in 2021, and stocks reserved for low-income and middle-income countries. We use a traffic-light system to signal the potential contributions of each candidate to achieving global vaccine immunity, highlighting important trade-offs that policy makers need to consider when developing and implementing vaccination programmes. Although specific datapoints are subject to change as the pandemic response progresses, the dashboard will continue to provide a useful lens through which to analyse the key issues affecting the use of COVID-19 vaccines. We also present original data from a 32-country survey (n=26 758) on potential acceptance of COVID-19 vaccines, conducted from October to December, 2020. Vaccine acceptance was highest in Vietnam (98%), India (91%), China (91%), Denmark (87%), and South Korea (87%), and lowest in Serbia (38%), Croatia (41%), France (44%), Lebanon (44%), and Paraguay (51%).

Context: Throughout the Covid-19 pandemic, long-term care researchers have aimed to generate evidence rapidly to inform the pandemic response. It is unclear which areas were prioritised during this period of rapid evidence generation. Objectives: We aimed to map the international scientific evidence on interventions and policy measures to mitigate the impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic on people who use and provide long-term care. Methods: We conducted a pragmatic, rapid mapping review of international evidence to identify the range of interventions, policies, and measures in long-term care studied during the Covid-19 pandemic and published throughout 2020. Studies were primarily identified from two academic databases (MEDLINE; Web of Science). Findings: We included 137 studies from 22 countries, mostly focusing on the United States, Europe, and Canada. Half of the studies focused on preventing or controlling Covid-19 infections. Other common types of interventions were measures to treat Covid-19 or improve access to general healthcare and studies of possible targets for policies and interventions, such as care home ownership. Only 13 studies covered home-based or community-based care. Limitations: This was a pragmatic review that aimed to map key areas of research in long-term care during the pandemic, rather than a systematic review of all available studies. Implications: During the first year of the Covid-19 pandemic, a substantial body of evidence on interventions to mitigate impacts of the pandemic in the long-term care sector emerged. However, reflecting the context and speed with which they were carried out, most studies did not apply an analytical lens and instead provided descriptive findings only. There were very few studies on home-based or community-based care settings. As countries assess the lessons that can be learnt from the pandemic and improve the preparedness of their long-term care systems for future pandemics and other shocks, it will be important

Introduction As the largest and most rapidly ageing population, Chinese people are now the major driver of the continued growth in dementia prevalence globally. The need for evidence-based interventions in Chinese communities is urgent. Although a wide range of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for dementia have been trialled in Chinese populations, the evidence has not been systematically synthesised. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to map out the interventions for people living with dementia and their carers in Chinese communities worldwide and compare the effectiveness of these interventions. Methods and analysis This protocol followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols checklist. We will search Chinese (China National Knowledge Infrastructure, WanFang DATA) and English bibliographical databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL Plus, Global Health, WHO Global Index Medicus, Virtual Health Library, Cochrane CENTRAL, Social Care Online, BASE, MODelling Outcome and cost impacts of interventions for DEMentia (MODEM) Toolkit, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews), complemented by hand searching of reference lists. We will include studies evaluating the effectiveness of interventions for dementia or mild cognitive impairment in Chinese populations, using a randomised controlled trial design, and published between January 2008 and June 2020. We will use a standardised form to extract data and Version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomised trials to assess the risk of bias of the included studies. Collected data will be fully interpreted with narrative synthesis and analysed using pairwise and network meta-analyses to pool intervention effects where sufficient information is available. We will perform subgroup analysis and meta-regression to explore potential reasons for heterogeneity. Ethics and dissemination No formal ethics approval is required for this protocol. The findin