Search

Objective: The European Reference Network on Rare Endocrine Conditions (Endo-ERN) aims to organize high-quality healthcare throughout Europe, inc luding care for pituitary adenoma patients. As surgery is the mainstay of treatment, we aimed to describe the current surgical practice and published surgical outcomes of pi tuitary adenoma within Endo-ERN. Design and Methods: Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting surgical outcomes of pituitary adenoma patients within Endo-ERN MTG6 pituitary reference centers between 2010 and 2019. A survey was completed by refere nce centers on their current surgical practice. Results: A total of 18 out of 43 (42%) reference centers located in 7 of the 20 (35%) MTG6- represented countries published 48 articles. Remission rates we re 50% (95% CI: 42–59) for patients with acromegaly, 68% (95% CI: 60–75) for Cushing’s disease, and 53% (95% CI: 39–66%) for prolactinoma. Gross total resection was achieved in 49% (95% CI: 37–61%) of patients and visual improvement in 78% (95% CI: 68–87). Mort ality, hemorrhage, and carotid injury occurred in less than 1% of patients. New-onset hypopituitarism occurred in 16% (95% CI: 11–23), transient diabetes insipidus in 12% (95 % CI: 6–21), permanent diabetes insipidus in 4% (95% CI: 3–6), syndrome of inappropria te secretion of antidiuretic hormone (SIADH) in 9% (95% CI: 5–14), severe epist axis in 2% (95% CI: 0–4), and cerebrospinal fluid leak in 4% (95% CI: 2–6). Thirty-five (81 %) centers completed the survey: 54% were operated endoscopically and 57% were together with an ENT surgeon. Conclusion: The results of this study could be used as a first benchmark for the outcomes of pituitary adenoma surgery within Endo-ERN. However, the hete rogeneity between studies in the reporting of outcomes hampers comparability and warrants outcome collection through registries.

Abstract Background First-line treatment for prolactinomas is a medical treatment with dopamine agonists (DAs), which effectively control hyperprolactinaemia in most patients, although post-withdrawal remission rates are approximately 34%. Therefore, many patients require prolonged DA treatment, while side effects negatively impact health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Endoscopic transsphenoidal resection is reserved for patients with severe side effects, or with DA-resistant prolactinoma. Surgery has a good safety profile and high probability of remission and may thus deserve a more prominent place in prolactinoma treatment. The hypothesis for this study is that early or upfront surgical resection is superior to DA treatment both in terms of HRQoL and remission rate in patients with a non-invasive prolactinoma of limited size. Methods We present a combined randomised clinical trial and observational cohort study design, which comprises three unblinded randomised controlled trials (RCTs; PRolaCT-1, PRolaCT-2, PRolaCT-3), and an observational study arm (PRolaCT-O) that compare neurosurgical counselling, and potential subsequent endoscopic transsphenoidal adenoma resection, with current standard care. Patients with a non-invasive prolactinoma (< 25 mm) will be eligible for one of three RCTs based on the duration of pre-treatment with DAs: PRolaCT-1: newly diagnosed, treatment-naïve patients; PRolaCT-2: patients with limited duration of DA treatment (4–6 months); and PRolaCT-3: patients with persisting prolactinoma after DA treatment for > 2 years. PRolaCT-O will include patients who decline randomisation, due to e.g. a clear treatment preference. Primary outcomes are disease remission after 36 months and HRQoL after 12 months. Discussion Early or upfront surgical resection for patients with a limited-sized prolactinoma may be a reasonable alternative to the current standard practice of DA treatment, which we will investigate in three RCTs and an observational cohort study. Within the three RCTs, patients will be randomised between neurosurgical counselling and standard care. The observational study arm will recruit patients who refuse randomisation and have a pronounced treatment preference. PRolaCT will collect randomised and observational data, which may facilitate a more individually tailored practice of evidence-based medicine. Trial registration US National Library of Medicine registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) NCT04107480 . Registered on 27 September 2019, registered retrospectively (by 2 months).

BackgroundThe brain and retina share many neuronal and vasculature characteristics. We investigated the retinal microvasculature in patients with a monogenic vasculopathy using optical coherence tomography angiography (OCTA). OCT-A is a novel precise non-invasive imaging method that may provide biomarkers suitable for diagnosis and follow-up of small vessel diseases.MethodsIn this exploratory cross-sectional study, eleven RVCL-S patients and eleven age-matched healthy control participants were included. The size of the foveal avascular zone (FAZ) and the vascular density of the superficial capillary networks in the retina were measured by OCT-A.ResultsThe symptomatic and presymptomatic patients showed significantly lower vascular density values than controls in the foveal region [median (IQR) 18.2% (15.8–18.6) vs. 24.4% (21.5–26.8) (p < 0.001), 29.8% (29.6–30.8) vs. 33.2% (32.0–33.6) (p = 0.002), respectively]. The FAZ was significantly larger in the symptomatic RVCL-S patients than in the control group [13,416 square pixels [7,529–22,860] vs. 1,405 square pixels [1,344–2,470] (p < 0.001)]. No significant difference was identified in measurements of FAZ comparing presymptomatic and controls.ConclusionOur findings with OCT-A demonstrated that RVCL-S causes an increase in the size of the FAZ in symptomatic RVCL-S patients compared to healthy participants. Moreover, there is a decrease in vessel density in the superficial capillary networks in both symptomatic and presymptomatic patients. In the future, newly developed precise objective instruments such as OCT (-A) may provide important tools in determining disease activity for follow up of common small vessel diseases.

PurposeValue-based healthcare (VBHC) provides a framework to improve care by improving patient outcomes and reducing healthcare costs. To support value-based decision making in clinical practice we evaluated healthcare costs and cost drivers in perioperative care for pituitary tumour patients.MethodsWe retrospectively assessed financial and clinical data for surgical treatment up to the first year after surgery of pituitary tumour patients treated between 2015 and 2018 in a Dutch tertiary referral centre. Multivariable regression analyses were performed to identify determinants of higher costs.Results271 patients who underwent surgery were included. Mean total costs (SD) were €16339 (13573) per patient, with the following cost determinants: surgery time (€62 per minute; 95% CI: 50, 74), length of stay (€1331 per day; 95% CI 1139, 1523), admission to higher care unit (€12154 in total; 95% CI 6413, 17895), emergency surgery (€10363 higher than elective surgery; 95% CI: 1422, 19305) and postoperative cerebrospinal fluid leak (€14232; 95% CI 9667, 18797). Intradural (€7128; 95% CI 10421, 23836) and combined transsphenoidal/transcranial surgery (B: 38494; 95% CI 29191, 47797) were associated with higher costs than standard. Further, higher costs were found in these baseline conditions: Rathke’s cleft cyst (€9201 higher than non-functioning adenoma; 95% CI 1173, 17230), giant adenoma (€19106 higher than microadenoma; 95% CI 12336, 25877), third ventricle invasion (€14613; 95% CI 7613, 21613) and dependent functional status (€12231; 95% CI 3985, 20477). In patients with uncomplicated course, costs were €8879 (3210) and with complications €17551 (14250).ConclusionsLength of hospital stay, and complications are the main drivers of costs in perioperative pituitary tumour healthcare as were some baseline features, e.g. larger tumors, cysts and dependent functional status. Costs analysis may correspond with healthcare resource utilization and guide further individualized care path development and capacity planning.

Introduction Meningioma is the most common primary intracranial tumour in adults. The majority are non-malignant, but a proportion behave more aggressively. Incidental/minimally symptomatic meningioma are often managed by serial imaging. Symptomatic meningioma, those that threaten neurovascular structures, or demonstrate radiological growth, are usually resected as first-line management strategy. For patients in poor clinical condition, or with inoperable, residual or recurrent disease, radiotherapy is often used as primary or adjuvant treatment. Effective pharmacotherapy treatments do not currently exist. There is heterogeneity in the outcomes measured and reported in meningioma clinical studies. Two ‘Core Outcome Sets’ (COS) will be developed: (COSMIC: Intervention) for use in meningioma clinical effectiveness trials and (COSMIC: Observation) for use in clinical studies of incidental/untreated meningioma.Methods and analysis Two systematic literature reviews and trial registry searches will identify outcomes measured and reported in published and ongoing (1) meningioma clinical effectiveness trials, and (2) clinical studies of incidental/untreated meningioma. Outcomes include those that are clinician reported, patient reported, caregiver reported and based on objective tests (eg, neurocognitive tests), as well as measures of progression and survival. Outcomes will be deduplicated and categorised to generate two long lists. The two long lists will be prioritised through two, two-round, international, modified eDelphi surveys including patients with meningioma, healthcare professionals, researchers and those in caring/supporting roles. The two final COS will be ratified through two 1-day online consensus meetings, with representation from all stakeholder groups.Ethics and dissemination Institutional review board (University of Liverpool) approval was obtained for the conduct of this study. Participant eConsent will be obtained prior to participation in the eDelphi surveys and consensus meetings. The two systematic literature reviews and two final COS will be published and freely available.Trial registration number COMET study ID 1508

Objective In the past few decades, there has been an increase in high-quality studies providing evidence on the effectiveness of commonly performed procedures in paediatric otolaryngology. We believe that now is the time to re-evaluate the care process. We aimed to analyse (1) the regional variation in incidence and referrals of adenoidectomies, tonsillectomies and ventilation tube insertions in children in the Netherlands between 2016 and 2019, (2) whether regional surgical rates, referral rates and in-hospital surgical rates were associated with one another, and (3) the hospital variation in healthcare costs, which indicates the utilisation of resources.Design Repeated cross-sectional analysis.Setting Four neighbouring Dutch provinces comprising 2.8 million inhabitants and 14 hospitals.Participants Children aged 0–15 years.Outcome measures We analysed variation in regional surgical rates and referral rates per 1000 inhabitants and in-hospital surgical rates per 1000 clinic visitors, adjusted for age and socioeconomic status. Furthermore, the relationships between referral rates, regional surgical rates and in-hospital surgical rates were estimated. Lastly, variation in resource utilisation between hospitals was estimated.Results Adenoidectomy rates differed sixfold between regions. Twofold differences were observed for adenotonsillectomy rates, ventilation tube insertion rates and referral rates. Referral rates were negatively associated with in-hospital surgical rates for adenotonsillectomies, but not for adenoidectomies and ventilation tube insertions. In-hospital surgical rates were positively associated with regional rates for adenoidectomies and adenotonsillectomies. Significant variation between hospitals was observed in costs for all resources.Conclusions We observed low variation in tonsillectomies and ventilation tube insertion and high variation in adenoidectomies. Indications for a tonsillectomy and ventilation tube insertion are well defined in Dutch guidelines, whereas this is not the case for an adenoidectomy. Lack of agreement on indications can be expected and high-quality effectiveness research is required to improve evidence-based guidelines on this topic.

BACKGROUND:Frameworks used in research impact evaluation studies vary widely and it remains unclear which methods are most appropriate for evaluating research impact in the field of surgical research. Therefore, we aimed to identify and review the methods used to assess the impact of surgical intervention trials on healthcare and to identify determinants for surgical impact. METHODS:We searched journal databases up to March 10, 2020 for papers assessing the impact of surgical effectiveness trials on healthcare. Two researchers independently screened the papers for eligibility and performed a Risk of Bias assessment. Characteristics of both impact papers and trial papers were summarized. Univariate analyses were performed to identify determinants for finding research impact, which was defined as a change in healthcare practice. RESULTS:Sixty-one impact assessments were performed in 37 included impact papers. Some surgical trial papers were evaluated in more than one impact paper, which provides a total of 38 evaluated trial papers. Most impact papers were published after 2010 (n = 29). Medical records (n = 10), administrative databases (n = 22), and physician's opinion through surveys (n = 5) were used for data collection. Those data were analyzed purely descriptively (n = 3), comparing data before and after publication (n = 29), or through time series analyses (n = 5). Significant healthcare impact was observed 49 times and more often in more recent publications. Having impact was positively associated with using medical records or administrative databases (ref.: surveys), a longer timeframe for impact evaluation and more months between the publication of the trial paper and the impact paper, data collection in North America (ref.: Europe), no economic evaluation of the intervention, finding no significant difference in surgical outcomes, and suggesting de-implementation in the original trial paper. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS:Research impact evaluation receives growing interest, but still a small number of impact papers per year was identified. The analysis showed that characteristics of both surgical trial papers and impact papers were associated with finding research impact. We advise to collect data from either medical records or administrative databases, with an evaluation time frame of at least 4 years since trial publication.

BackgroundThe extent to which people implement government-issued protective measures is critical in preventing further spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by coronavirus SARS-CoV-2. Our study aimed to describe the public belief in the effectiveness of protective measures, the reported implementation of these measures, and to identify communication channels used to acquire information on COVID-19 in European countries during the early stage of the pandemic.Methods and findingsAn online survey available in multiple languages was disseminated starting on March 19th, 2020. After five days, we computed descriptive statistics for countries with more than 500 respondents. Each day, we assessed enacted community containment measures by stage of stringency (I-IV). In total, 9,796 adults responded, of whom 8,611 resided in the Netherlands (stage III), 604 in Germany (stage III), and 581 in Italy (stage IV). To explore possible dynamics as containment strategies intensified, we also included 1,365 responses submitted during the following week. Participants indicated support for governmental measures related to avoiding social gatherings, selective closure of public places, and hand hygiene and respiratory measures (range for all measures: 95.0%-99.7%). Respondents from the Netherlands less frequently considered a complete social lockdown effective (59.2%), compared to respondents in Germany (76.6%) or Italy (87.2%). Italian residents applied enforced social distancing measures more frequently (range: 90.2%-99.3%, German and Dutch residents: 67.5%-97.0%) and self-initiated hygienic and social distancing behaviors (range: 36.3%-96.6%, German and Dutch residents: 28.3%-95.7%). Respondents reported being sufficiently informed about the outbreak and behaviors to avoid infection (range: 90.2%-91.1%). Information channels most commonly reported included television newspapers, official health websites, and social media. One week later, we observed no major differences in submitted responses.ConclusionsDuring the early stage of the COVID-19 pandemic, belief in the effectiveness of protective measures among survey respondents from three European countries was high and participants reported feeling sufficiently informed. In March 2020, implementation of measures differed between countries and were highest among respondents from Italy, who were subjected to the most stringent lockdown measures and greatest COVID-19 burden in Europe during this period.