Search

Background: The Sarcoma Policy Checklist was created by a multidisciplinary expert group to provide policymakers with priority areas to improve care for sarcoma patients.Main Body: This paper draws on this research, by looking more closely at how France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom are addressing each of these priority areas. It aims to highlight key gaps in research, policy and practice, as well as ongoing initiatives that may impact the future care of sarcoma patients in different European countries. A pragmatic review of the published and web-based literature was undertaken. Telephone interviews were conducted in each country with clinical and patient experts to substantiate findings. Research findings were discussed within the expert group and developed into five core policy recommendations. The five identified priority areas were: the development of designated and accredited centres of reference; more professional training; multidisciplinary care; greater incentives for research and innovation; and more rapid access to effective treatments. Most of the countries studied have ongoing initiatives addressing many of these priorities; however, many are in early stages of development, or require additional funding and resources.Conclusion: Gaps in access to quality care are particularly concerning in many of Europe's lower-resourced countries. Equitable access to information, clinical trials, innovative treatments and quality specialist care should be available to all sarcoma patients. Achieving this across Europe will require close collaboration between all stakeholders at both the national and European level. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: This study evaluated the humanistic burden on caregivers of patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) as the disease progresses.Methods: Data were drawn from a cross-sectional study of patients with aNSCLC and their caregivers conducted in France, Germany, and Italy between 2015 and 2016. Data were collected by medical chart review and patient and caregiver questionnaires. The EuroQol five-dimension three-level (EQ-5D-3L) was used to evaluate patient and caregiver health status. Caregivers also completed the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI) questionnaire and Zarit Burden Interview (ZBI).Results: The population for the analysis consisted of 427 caregivers (mean age 53.5 years; 72.6% female; 54.9% spouse; 36.2% in full-time employment) and 427 matched patients (mean age 66.2 years; 68.6% male). Most (69.5%) patients were receiving first-line therapy for advanced disease. Patients' caregivers provided a mean of 29.5 h of support per week. Significant differences in EQ-5D-3L scores were observed between caregivers of patients receiving first and later lines of therapy in France (0.87 vs. 0.78; p = 0.0055). Among employed caregivers, overall work impairment was considerable and ranged from 21.1% in Germany to 30.4% in France and 29.7% in Italy. Caregivers of patients receiving later lines of therapy in France rated their own health status as significantly worse than did those caring for patients receiving first-line therapy (82.7 vs. 72.9; p = 0.0039).Conclusions: Informal caregivers provided the majority of support for patients with advanced NSCLC and their caregiving activities impose a significant humanistic burden. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The aim of this study was to adapt the Systemic Sclerosis Quality of Life Questionnaire (SScQoL) into six European cultures and validate it as a common measure of quality of life in systemic sclerosis (SSc).Methods: This was a seven-country (Germany, France, Italy, Poland, Spain, Sweden and UK) cross-sectional study. A forward-backward translation process was used to adapt the English SScQoL into target languages. SScQoL was completed by patients with SSc, then data were validated against the Rasch model. To correct local response dependency, items were grouped into the following subscales: function, emotion, sleep, social and pain and reanalysed for fit to the model, unidimensionality and cross-cultural equivalence.Results: The adaptation of the SScQoL was seamless in all countries except Germany. Cross-cultural validation included 1080 patients with a mean age 58.0 years (SD 13.9) and 87% were women. Local dependency was evident in individual country data. Grouping items into testlets corrected the local dependency in most country specific data. Fit to the model, reliability and unidimensionality was achieved in six-country data after cross-cultural adjustment for Italy in the social subscale. The SScQoL was then calibrated into an interval level scale.Conclusion: The individual SScQoL items have translated well into five languages and overall, the scale maintained its construct validity, working well as a five-subscale questionnaire. Measures of quality of life in SSc can be directly compared across five countries (France, Poland Spain, Sweden and UK). Data from Italy are also comparable with the other five countries although require an adjustment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Most asthma patients have mild disease, although the burden of mild asthma is not well understood nor studied. Some evidence suggests that many patients with mild asthma experience suboptimal symptom control and exacerbations. This study characterizes the burden of illness and treatment patterns among patients with a confirmed diagnosis of mild asthma, defined as GINA Step 1 or Step 2, and residing in China, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Spain, the United Kingdom, or the United States.Methods: The Respiratory Disease-Specific Programme prospective cross-sectional survey was conducted with primary care and specialty physicians in each of the eight countries. Physician and patient surveys assessed demographic and clinical characteristics, frequency and timing of asthma symptoms, exacerbations, and rescue inhaler usage, the most recent FEV1% predicted, and healthcare utilization. GINA Step was determined by prescribed treatment regimen. GINA Step 1 patients were prescribed as-needed reliever medication and Step 2 required treatment with a low-dose inhaled corticosteroid, leukotriene receptor antagonist, or theophylline. Treatment adherence was assessed with the Morisky Medication Adherence scale, disease control with the Asthma Control Test, and work and activity impairments with the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment scale.Results: The sample included 1115 GINA Step 1 and 2 patients, with 53% classified as Step 2. Overall asthma control was suboptimal, with reports of nocturnal symptoms (40.6%), symptom worsening (10.5%), and rescue inhaler usage in the last 4 weeks (33.6%). 25% of patients were uncontrolled. The overall mean number of exacerbations in the last 12 months was 0.4, with a higher frequency of exacerbations in Step 2 patients who also experienced more exacerbations requiring treatment intensification, an emergency department visit, or hospitalization.Conclusion: Mild asthma imposes a substantial burden on patients, establishing the need for comprehensive management plans and ongoing support for treatment adherence.Funding: AstraZeneca. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Bevacizumab plus interferon-alpha2a (IFN) prolongs progression-free survival to >10 months, which is comparable with sunitinib as first-line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC). The two regimens have different tolerability profiles; therefore, costs for managing adverse events may be an important factor in selecting therapy.Methods: Costs of managing adverse events affecting patients with metastatic RCC eligible for treatment with bevacizumab plus IFN or sunitinib were evaluated using a linear decision analytical model. Management costs were calculated from the published incidence of adverse events and health-care costs for treating adverse events in the United Kingdom, Germany, France and Italy.Results: Adverse event management costs were higher for sunitinib than for bevacizumab plus IFN. The average cost per patient for the management of grade 3-4 adverse events was markedly lower with bevacizumab plus IFN compared with sunitinib in the United Kingdom (euro1475 vs euro804), Germany (euro1785 vs euro1367), France (euro2590 vs euro1618) and Italy (euro891 vs euro402). The main cost drivers were lymphopaenia, neutropaenia, thrombocytopaenia, leucopaenia and fatigue/asthaenia for sunitinib; and proteinuria, fatigue/asthaenia, bleeding, anaemia and gastrointestinal perforation for bevacizumab plus IFN.Conclusion: The costs of managing adverse events are lower for bevacizumab plus IFN than for sunitinib. The potential for cost savings should be considered when selecting treatments for RCC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Various actions have been taken during the last decade to increase the number of organs from deceased donors available for transplantation in Switzerland. This study provides an overview on key figures of the Swiss deceased organ donation and transplant activity between 2008 and 2017. In addition, it puts the evolution of the Swiss donation program's efficiency in relation to the situation in the neighboring countries.Methods: This study is an analysis of prospective registry data, covering the period from 1 January 2008 to 31 December 2017. It includes all actual deceased organ donors (ADD) in Switzerland. Donor data were extracted from the Swiss Organ Allocation System. The "donor conversion index" (DCI) methodology and data was used for the comparison of donation program efficiency in Switzerland, Germany, Austria, Italy and France.Results: During the study period there were 1116 ADD in Switzerland. The number of ADD per year increased from 91 in 2008 to 145 in 2017 (+ 59%). The reintroduction of the donation after cardiocirculatory death (DCD) program in 2011 resulted in the growth of annual percentages of DCD donors, reaching a maximum of 27% in 2017. The total number of organs transplanted from ADD was 3763 (3.4 ± 1.5 transplants per donor on average). Of these, 48% were kidneys (n = 1814), 24% livers (n = 903), 12% lungs (n = 445), 9% hearts (n = 352) and 7% pancreata or pancreatic islets (n = 249). The donation program efficiency assessment showed an increase of the Swiss DCI from 1.6% in 2008 to 2.7% in 2017 (+ 69%). The most prominent efficiency growth was observed between 2012 and 2017. Even though Swiss donation efficiency increased during the study period, it remained below the DCI of the French and Austrian donation programs.Conclusion: Swiss donation activity and efficiency grew during the last decade. The increased donation efficiency suggests that measures implemented so far were effective. The lower efficiency of the Swiss donation program, compared to the French and Austrian programs, may likely be explained by the lower consent rate in Switzerland. This issue should be addressed in order to achieve the goal of more organs available for transplantation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]