Search

Abstract Background A new class of antibody-based drug therapy with the potential for disease modification is now available for Alzheimer’s disease (AD). However, the complexity of drug eligibility, administration, cost, and safety of such disease modifying therapies (DMTs) necessitates adopting new treatment and care pathways. A working group was convened in Ireland to consider the implications of, and health system readiness for, DMTs for AD, and to describe a service model for the detection, diagnosis, and management of early AD in the Irish context, providing a template for similar small-medium sized healthcare systems. Methods A series of facilitated workshops with a multidisciplinary working group, including Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) members, were undertaken. This informed a series of recommendations for the implementation of new DMTs using an evidence-based conceptual framework for health system readiness based on [1] material resources and structures and [2] human and institutional relationships, values, and norms. Results We describe a hub-and-spoke model, which utilises the existing dementia care ecosystem as outlined in Ireland’s Model of Care for Dementia, with Regional Specialist Memory Services (RSMS) acting as central hubs and Memory Assessment and Support Services (MASS) functioning as spokes for less central areas. We provide criteria for DMT referral, eligibility, administration, and ongoing monitoring. Conclusions Healthcare systems worldwide are acknowledging the need for advanced clinical pathways for AD, driven by better diagnostics and the emergence of DMTs. Despite facing significant challenges in integrating DMTs into existing care models, the potential for overcoming challenges exists through increased funding, resources, and the development of a structured national treatment network, as proposed in Ireland’s Model of Care for Dementia. This approach offers a replicable blueprint for other healthcare systems with similar scale and complexity.

Abstract Background The European Union (EU) faces many health-related challenges. Burden of diseases information and the resulting trends over time are essential for health planning. This paper reports estimates of disease burden in the EU and individual 27 EU countries in 2019, and compares them with those in 2010. Methods We used the Global Burden of Disease 2019 study estimates and 95% uncertainty intervals for the whole EU and each country to evaluate age-standardised death, years of life lost (YLLs), years lived with disability (YLDs) and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) rates for Level 2 causes, as well as life expectancy and healthy life expectancy (HALE). Results In 2019, the age-standardised death and DALY rates in the EU were 465.8 deaths and 20,251.0 DALYs per 100,000 inhabitants, respectively. Between 2010 and 2019, there were significant decreases in age-standardised death and YLL rates across EU countries. However, YLD rates remained mainly unchanged. The largest decreases in age-standardised DALY rates were observed for “HIV/AIDS and sexually transmitted diseases” and “transport injuries” (each -19%). “Diabetes and kidney diseases” showed a significant increase for age-standardised DALY rates across the EU (3.5%). In addition, “mental disorders” showed an increasing age-standardised YLL rate (14.5%). Conclusions There was a clear trend towards improvement in the overall health status of the EU but with differences between countries. EU health policymakers need to address the burden of diseases, paying specific attention to causes such as mental disorders. There are many opportunities for mutual learning among otherwise similar countries with different patterns of disease.

Abstract Background Calculating the disease burden due to injury is complex, as it requires many methodological choices. Until now, an overview of the methodological design choices that have been made in burden of disease (BoD) studies in injury populations is not available. The aim of this systematic literature review was to identify existing injury BoD studies undertaken across Europe and to comprehensively review the methodological design choices and assumption parameters that have been made to calculate years of life lost (YLL) and years lived with disability (YLD) in these studies. Methods We searched EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane Central, Google Scholar, and Web of Science, and the grey literature supplemented by handsearching, for BoD studies. We included injury BoD studies that quantified the BoD expressed in YLL, YLD, and disability-adjusted life years (DALY) in countries within the European Region between early-1990 and mid-2021. Results We retrieved 2,914 results of which 48 performed an injury-specific BoD assessment. Single-country independent and Global Burden of Disease (GBD)-linked injury BoD studies were performed in 11 European countries. Approximately 79% of injury BoD studies reported the BoD by external cause-of-injury. Most independent studies used the incidence-based approach to calculate YLDs. About half of the injury disease burden studies applied disability weights (DWs) developed by the GBD study. Almost all independent injury studies have determined YLL using national life tables. Conclusions Considerable methodological variation across independent injury BoD assessments was observed; differences were mainly apparent in the design choices and assumption parameters towards injury YLD calculations, implementation of DWs, and the choice of life table for YLL calculations. Development and use of guidelines for performing and reporting of injury BoD studies is crucial to enhance transparency and comparability of injury BoD estimates across Europe and beyond.

Abstract Background Among community-dwelling older adults, frailty is highly prevalent and recognized as a major public health concern. To prevent frailty it is important to identify those at risk of becoming frail, but at present, no accepted screening procedure is available. Methods The screening process developed as part of the PERSSILAA project is a two-step screening pathway. First, older adults are asked to complete a self-screening questionnaire to assess their general health status and their level of decline on physical, cognitive and nutritional domains. Second, older adults who, according to step one, are at risk of becoming frail, are invited for a face-to-face assessment focusing on the domains in depth. We deployed the PERSSILAA screening procedure in primary care in the Netherlands. Results In total, baseline data were available for 3777 community-dwelling older adults (mean age 69.9 (SD ± 3.8)) who completed first step screening. Based on predefined cut-off scores, 16.8% of the sample were classified as frail (n = 634), 20.6% as pre-frail (n = 777), and 62.3% as robust (n = 2353). Frail subjects were referred back to their GP without going through the second step. Of the pre-frail older adults, 69.7% had evidence of functional decline on the physical domain, 67% were overweight or obese and 31.0% had evidence of cognitive decline. Conclusion Pre-frailty is common among community-dwelling older adults. The PERSSILAA screening approach is a multi-factor, two-step screening process, potentially useful for primary prevention to identify those at risk of frailty and who will benefit most from preventive strategies.