Explore the vast range of titles available.

The contribution of psychological disorders to the burden of skin disease has been poorly explored, and this is a large-scale study to ascertain the association between depression, anxiety, and suicidal ideation with various dermatological diagnoses. This international multicenter observational cross-sectional study was conducted in 13 European countries. In each dermatology clinic, 250 consecutive adult out-patients were recruited to complete a questionnaire, reporting socio-demographic information, negative life events, and suicidal ideation; depression and anxiety were assessed with the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. A clinical examination was performed. A control group was recruited among hospital employees. There were 4,994 participants––3,635 patients and 1,359 controls. Clinical depression was present in 10.1% patients (controls 4.3%, odds ratio (OR) 2.40 (1.67–3.47)). Clinical anxiety was present in 17.2% (controls 11.1%, OR 2.18 (1.68–2.82)). Suicidal ideation was reported by 12.7% of all patients (controls 8.3%, OR 1.94 (1.33–2.82)). For individual diagnoses, only patients with psoriasis had significant association with suicidal ideation. The association with depression and anxiety was highest for patients with psoriasis, atopic dermatitis, hand eczema, and leg ulcers. These results identify a major additional burden of skin disease and have important clinical implications.

Aim Electronic formats (ePROs) of paper-based patientreported outcomes (PROs) should be validated before they can be reliably used. This review aimed to examine studies investigating measurement equivalence between ePROs and their paper originals to identify methodologies used and to determine the extent of such validation. Methods Three databases (OvidSP, Web of Science and PubMed) were searched using a set of keywords. Results were examined for compliance with inclusion criteria. Articles or abstracts that directly compared screen-based electronic versions of PROs with their validated paperbased originals, with regard to their measurement equivalence, were included. Publications were excluded if the only instruments reported were stand-alone visual analogue scales or interactive voice response formats. Papers published before 2007 were excluded, as a previous metaanalysis examined papers published before this time. Results Fifty-five studies investigating 79 instruments met the inclusion criteria. 53 % of the 79 instruments studied were condition specific. Several instruments, such as the SF-36, were reported in more than one publication. The most frequently reported formats for ePROs were Web-based versions. In 78 % of the publications, there was evidence of equivalence or comparability between the two formats as judged by study authors. Of the 30 publications that provided preference data, 87 % found that overall participants preferred the electronic format. Conclusions When examining equivalence between paper and electronic versions of PROs, formats are usually judged by authors to be equivalent. Participants prefer electronic formats. This literature review gives encouragement to the further widespread development and use of ePROs.

ObjectiveThis study aimed to measure the impact of COVID-19 on the quality of life (QoL) of survivors and their partners and family members.Design and settingA prospective cross-sectional global online survey using social media.ParticipantsPatients with COVID-19 and partners or family members (age ≥18 years).InterventionOnline survey from June to August 2020.Main outcome measureThe EuroQol group five dimensions three level (EQ-5D-3L) to measure the QoL of survivors of COVID-19, and the Family Reported Outcome Measure (FROM-16) to assess the impact on their partner/family member’s QoL.ResultsThe survey was completed by 735 COVID-19 survivors (mean age=48 years; females=563) at a mean of 12.8 weeks after diagnosis and by 571 partners and 164 family members (n=735; mean age=47 years; females=246) from Europe (50.6%), North America (38.5%) and rest of the world (10.9%). The EQ-5D mean score for COVID-19 survivors was 8.65 (SD=1.9, median=9; range=6–14). 81.1% (596/735) reported pain and discomfort, 79.5% (584/735) problems with usual activities, 68.7% (505/735) anxiety and depression and 56.2% (413/735) problems with mobility. Hospitalised survivors (20.1%, n=148) and survivors with existing health conditions (30.9%, n=227) reported significantly more problems with mobility and usual activities (p<0.05), with hospitalised also experiencing more impact on self-care (p≤0.001). Among 735 partners and family members, the mean FROM-16 score (maximum score=highest impact =32) was 15 (median=15, range=0-32). 93.6% (688/735) reported being worried, 81.7% (601/735) frustrated, 78.4% (676/735) sad, 83.3% (612/735) reported impact on their family activities, 68.9% (507/735) on sleep and 68.1% (500/735) on their sex life.ConclusionCOVID-19 survivors reported a major persisting impact on their physical and psychosocial health. The lives of their partners and other family members were also severely affected. There is a need for a holistic support system sensitive to the needs of COVID-19 survivors and their family members who experience a major ‘secondary burden’.

Purpose Outcome-based pricing models which consider domains of value not previously considered in healthcare, such as societal outcomes, are of increasing interest for healthcare systems. Societal outcomes can include family-reported outcome measures (FROMs), which measure the impact of disease upon the patient’s family members. The FROM-16 is a generic and easy-to-use family quality of life tool, but it has never been used in the context of patients undergoing advanced therapy medicinal product (ATMP) treatment. The use of potentially curative ATMPs is limited due their high cost and the low number of eligible patients. Using the FROM-16 to collect the impact on family of disease and treatment in ATMP patients may demonstrate additional value created by an ATMP intervention and strengthen the case for its use. Methods This feasibility study aimed to test the validity of the FROM-16 in family members of ATMP patients as a prelude for its use in ATMP value estimation. Patients and family members ( n  = 24) were recruited from ATMP treatment centres in England and Wales. Family members completed the FROM-16 and were invited to a short debriefing interview. Results The FROM-16 showed high validity demonstrated by strong internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.917) and intraclass correlation (0.803, 95%). Interviews identified that whilst the FROM-16 covered most areas of quality-of-life impact experienced by the participants, some explained that they also experienced other impacts upon their personal health and future outlook. Conclusion This feasibility study provides evidence that the FROM-16 could be used as part of a structured systematic approach to measure family quality of life impact in ATMP patients.

This study's aim was to determine the relationship between Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) scores and a Global Question (GQ) concerning patients' views of the overall impairment of their skin-related quality of life (QoL), and to express this relationship by identifying bands of DLQI scores equivalent to each GQ descriptor. A DLQI questionnaire and the GQ were mailed to 3834 adult general dermatology outpatients. There were 1993 (52%) responses: male 841; female 1152. Mean DLQI score=4.86 (range 0–30, standard deviation (SD)=5.83). Mean GQ score=1.22 (range 0–4, SD=1.20). The mean, mode, and median of the GQ scores for each DLQI score were used to devise several sets of bands of DLQI scores, and κ coefficients of agreement calculated. The set proposed for adoption is: DLQI scores 0–1=no effect on patient's life (GQ=0, n=754); DLQI scores 2–5=small effect on patient's life (GQ=1, n=611); DLQI scores 6–10=moderate effect on patient's life (GQ=2, n=327); DLQI scores 11–20=very large effect on patient's life (GQ=3, n=242); DLQI scores 21–30=extremely large effect on patient's life (GQ=4, n=59); κ coefficient 0.489. Banding of the DLQI will aid the clinical interpretation of an individual's DLQI score and allow DLQI scores to inform clinical decisions.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to identify, compare and evaluate regulatory requirements for the biosimilar development and review processes in BRICS-TM (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, Turkey, Mexico) countries with mature regulatory systems of Australia, Canada, Singapore and Switzerland. It is hoped that this benchmark study provides an opportunity for BRICS-TM agencies to identify the key areas for improvement in their regulatory processes. Materials and Methods: A semi-quantitative questionnaire was developed covering the different criteria used in biosimilar development and registration process. Eleven regulatory agencies from BRICS-TM and ACSS (Australia, Canada, Switzerland and Singapore) countries were invited to take part in this study. Data processing and analysis was carried out using descriptive statistics for quantitative data and content analysis to generate themes for qualitative data. Results and Discussions: Nine of the 11 regulatory agencies recruited for the study completed the questionnaire. China and Singapore did not meet the deadline due to lack of resources. The organisational structure of BRICS-TM agencies revealed support from external assessors by most of these agencies in comparison with ACSS agencies. There was absence of reliance approach and participation in harmonisation activities across most BRICS-TM agencies. Despite alignment over biosimilarity, the mandate for in vivo non-clinical studies and additional local clinical studies in some of the BRICS-TM countries illustrates a lack of effective implementation of a step-wise approach. Adopting flexible regulatory standards in the sourcing of a RBP (Reference Biologic Product) by BRICS-TM similar to ACSS, will facilitate cost-effective development of biosimilar products. Conclusions: Comparative assessment of the biosimilar regulatory framework of BRICS-TM with ACSS agencies reveals the scope for enhancing efficiency of the regulatory approval process. To achieve this, BRICS-TM agencies should consider relying on reference agencies for alternative review mechanisms such as abridged or verification models, streamlined processes for providing scientific advice to developers and for waiving local clinical studies in-lieu of advanced scientific data.

ObjectiveTo assign clinical meanings to the Family Reported Outcome Measure (FROM-16) scores through the development of score bands using the anchor-based approach.Design and settingA cross-sectional online study recruited participants through UK-based patient support groups, research support platforms (HealthWise Wales, Autism Research Centre-Cambridge University database, Join Dementia Research) and through social service departments in Wales.ParticipantsFamily members/partners (aged ≥18 years) of patients with different health conditions.InterventionFamily members/partners of patients completed the FROM-16 questionnaire and a Global Question (GQ).Main outcome measureVarious FROM-16 band sets were devised as a result of mapping of mean, median and mode of the GQ scores to FROM-16 total score, and receiver operating characteristic-area under the curve cut-off values. The band set with the best agreement with GQ based on weighted kappa was selected.ResultsA total of 4413 family members/partners (male=1533, 34.7%; female=2858, 64.8%; Prefer not to say=16, 0.4%; other=6, 0.14%) of people with a health condition (male=1994, 45.2%; female=2400, 54.4%; Prefer not to say=12, 0.3%; other=7, 0.16%) completed the online survey: mean FROM-16 score=15.02 (range 0–32, SD=8.08), mean GQ score=2.32 (range 0–4, SD=1.08). The proposed FROM-16 score bandings are: 0–1=no effect on the quality of life of family member; 2–8=small effect on family member; 9–16=moderate effect on family member; 17–25=very large effect on family member; 26–32=extremely large effect on family member (weighted kappa=0.60).ConclusionThe FROM-16 score descriptor bands provide new information to clinicians about interpreting scores and score changes, allowing better-informed treatment decisions for patients and their families. The score banding of FROM-16, along with a short administration time, demonstrates its potential to support holistic clinical practice.

Introduction: In the last few decades, there has been a rapid development in cancer therapies and improved detection strategies, hence the death rates caused by cancer have decreased. However, it has been reported that cardiovascular disease has become the second leading cause of long-term morbidity and fatality among cancer survivors. Cardiotoxicity from anticancer drugs affects the heart’s function and structure and can occur during any stage of the cancer treatments, which leads to the development of cardiovascular disease. Objectives: To investigate the association between anticancer drugs for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and cardiotoxicity as to whether: different classes of anticancer drugs demonstrate different cardiotoxicity potentials; different dosages of the same drug in initial treatment affect the degree of cardiotoxicity; and accumulated dosage and/or duration of treatments affect the degree of cardiotoxicity. Methods: This systematic review included studies involving patients over 18 years old with NSCLC and excluded studies in which patients’ treatments involve radiotherapy only. Electronic databases and registers including Cochrane Library, National Cancer Institute (NCI) Database, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov and the European Union Clinical Trials Register were systematically searched from the earliest available date up until November 2020. A full version protocol of this systematic review (CRD42020191760) had been published on PROSPERO. Results: A total of 1785 records were identified using specific search terms through the databases and registers; 74 eligible studies were included for data extraction. Based on data extracted from the included studies, anticancer drugs for NSCLC that are associated with cardiovascular events include bevacizumab, carboplatin, cisplatin, crizotinib, docetaxel, erlotinib, gemcitabine and paclitaxel. Hypertension was the most reported cardiotoxicity as 30 studies documented this cardiovascular adverse event. Other reported treatment-related cardiotoxicities include arrhythmias, atrial fibrillation, bradycardia, cardiac arrest, cardiac failure, coronary artery disease, heart failure, ischemia, left ventricular dysfunction, myocardial infarction, palpitations, and tachycardia. Conclusion: The findings of this systematic review have provided a better understanding of the possible association between cardiotoxicities and anticancer drugs for NSCLC. Whilst variation is observed across different drug classes, the lack of information available on cardiac monitoring can result in underestimation of this association. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020191760 , identifier PROSPERO CRD42020191760.

Purpose The Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) and the European Quality of Life-5 Dimension (EQ-5D) are separate measures that may be used to gather health-related quality of life (HRQoL) information from patients. The EQ-5D is a generic measure from which health utility estimates can be derived, whereas the DLQI is a specialty-specific measure to assess HRQoL. To reduce the burden of multiple measures being administered and to enable a more disease-specific calculation of health utility estimates, we explored an established mathematical technique known as ordinal logistic regression (OLR) to develop an appropriate model to map DLQI data to EQ-5D-based health utility estimates. Methods Retrospective data from 4010 patients were randomly divided five times into two groups for the derivation and testing of the mapping model. Split-half cross-validation was utilized resulting in a total of ten ordinal logistic regression models for each of the five EQ-5D dimensions against age, sex, and all ten items of the DLQI. Using Monte Carlo simulation, predicted health utility estimates were derived and compared against those observed. This method was repeated for both OLR and a previously tested mapping methodology based on linear regression. Results The model was shown to be highly predictive and its repeated fitting demonstrated a stable model using OLR as well as linear regression. The mean differences between OLR-predicted health utility estimates and observed health utility estimates ranged from 0.0024 to 0.0239 across the ten modeling exercises, with an average overall difference of 0.0120 (a 1.6% underestimate, not of clinical importance). Conclusions This modeling framework developed in this study will enable researchers to calculate EQ-5D health utility estimates from a specialty-specific study population, reducing patient and economic burden.

Background: The West Africa Health Organization launched the West Africa Medicines Regulatory Harmonization Project (WA-MRH) in 2017 with the overarching objective to improve the availability of high-quality, safe and effective medicines and vaccines by the 15 countries in the Economic Community of West African States region. Although this project has made significant progress towards the realisation of its goals, challenges still remain. The aims of this study were to evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of the WA-MRH, examine what challenges are being encountered and identify strategies that would strengthen the process for realising the initiative’s goals. Methods: The Process Effectiveness and Efficiency Rating (PEER) questionnaire was used to collect data from assessors representing the seven active NMRAs in the joint assessment procedure that identified the benefits, challenges and recommendations for improving the performance of the WA-MRH project. Results: The benefits of the joint assessment procedure include time savings to manufacturers resulting from submitting one dossier and the same response package to multiple countries resulting in access to the multiple African markets within the same timeframe. Additionally, some of the NMRAs have been able to strengthen their technical capacity as a result of this initiative. Key challenges to the project include the lack of a robust information technology system that would enable dossier tracking and constraints in human resources needed to support dossier submissions and the assessment process. Conclusion: This study identified the strengths of the WA-MRH initiative as well as strategies for improvement and achievement of its objectives. The centralised submission of a dossier and its tracking is key to the regulatory assessment process. This research has demonstrated that amongst other considerations, a robust information technology system, coupled with the necessary human resource capacity would greatly enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of the WA-MRH initiative.