Explore the vast range of titles available.

High-quality randomised clinical trials testing moderately fractionated breast radiotherapy have clearly shown that local control and survival is at least as effective as with 2 Gy daily fractions with similar or reduced normal tissue toxicity. Fewer treatment visits are welcomed by patients and their families, and reduced fractions produce substantial savings for health-care systems. Implementation of hypofractionation, however, has moved at a slow pace. The oncology community have now reached an inflection point created by new evidence from the FAST-Forward five-fraction randomised trial and catalysed by the need for the global radiation oncology community to unite during the COVID-19 pandemic and rapidly rethink hypofractionation implementation. The aim of this paper is to support equity of access for all patients to receive evidence-based breast external beam radiotherapy and to facilitate the translation of new evidence into routine daily practice. The results from this European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology Advisory Committee in Radiation Oncology Practice consensus state that moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy can be offered to any patient for whole breast, chest wall (with or without reconstruction), and nodal volumes. Ultrafractionation (five fractions) can also be offered for non-nodal breast or chest wall (without reconstruction) radiotherapy either as standard of care or within a randomised trial or prospective cohort. The consensus is timely; not only is it a pragmatic framework for radiation oncologists, but it provides a measured proposal for the path forward to influence policy makers and empower patients to ensure equity of access to evidence-based radiotherapy.

[...]one recent study from Western Australia concluded that in 2010 the state population affected by a limited cohort of only 467 rare diseases represented 2% of the population but 10.5% of in‐patient hospital costs. [...]improved diagnostics and targeted therapeutics that keep these patients healthier and reduce their time in medical facilities would be highly beneficial. With the addition of new members, and in particular Japan in 2015, IRDiRC aims to capture data from specific geographic‐regulatory regions. [...]from 2017 onward, IRDiRC will be tracking approvals by the Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency (PMDA) in Japan and more globally as other significant regulatory jurisdictions are added to the Consortium. Every successful gene discovery will not only unlock a potential diagnostic opportunity, but also has the potential to contribute to preventive and therapeutic opportunities for the corresponding rare disease, enabling precision medicine approaches for this patient population. [...]genetic linkages to rare diseases are extremely important and have incredible potential for rare disease patients. Other IRDiRC Task Forces include: i) the International Consortium of Human Phenotype Terminologies, which provided the community with standards to achieve interoperability between databases by enabling the linkage of phenotype and genotype databases for rare diseases ; ii) the Patient‐Centered Outcome Measures Task Force, which made recommendations on methods to support the development of patient‐relevant outcome measures for rare diseases in order to improve the quality of future trials and to provide data of relevance to the patient community ; iii) the Small Population Clinical Trials Task Force, which produced recommendations for efficient and innovative clinical trial designs relevant to small populations, often the focus of rare disease clinical trials, using scientific advice from regulators ; and iv) the Data Mining and Repurposing Task Force, which identified opportunities to leverage the existing research and patient data to realize the full potential of data mining and drug repurposing.

National Immunization Technical Advisory Groups (NITAGs) provide independent, evidence-informed advice to assist their governments in immunization policy formation. However, many NITAGs face challenges in fulfilling their roles. Hence the many requests for formation of a network linking NITAGs together so they can learn from each other. To address this request, the Health Policy and Institutional Development (HPID) Center (a WHO Collaborating Center at the Agence de Médecine Préventive - AMP), in collaboration with WHO, organized a meeting in Veyrier-du-Lac, France, on 11 and 12 May 2016, to establish a Global NITAG Network (GNN). The meeting focused on two areas: the requirements for (a) the establishment of a global NITAG collaborative network; and (b) the global assessment/evaluation of the performance of NITAGs. 35 participants from 26 countries reviewed the proposed GNN framework documents and NITAG performance evaluation. Participants recommended that a GNN should be established, agreed on its governance, function, scope and a proposed work plan as well as setting a framework for NITAG evaluation.

There is currently no accepted classification of autosomal recessive cerebellar ataxias, a group of disorders characterized by important genetic heterogeneity and complex phenotypes. The objective of this task force was to build a consensus on the classification of autosomal recessive ataxias in order to develop a general approach to a patient presenting with ataxia, organize disorders according to clinical presentation, and define this field of research by identifying common pathogenic molecular mechanisms in these disorders. The work of this task force was based on a previously published systematic scoping review of the literature that identified autosomal recessive disorders characterized primarily by cerebellar motor dysfunction and cerebellar degeneration. The task force regrouped 12 international ataxia experts who decided on general orientation and specific issues. We identified 59 disorders that are classified as primary autosomal recessive cerebellar ataxias. For each of these disorders, we present geographical and ethnical specificities along with distinctive clinical and imagery features. These primary recessive ataxias were organized in a clinical and a pathophysiological classification, and we present a general clinical approach to the patient presenting with ataxia. We also identified a list of 48 complex multisystem disorders that are associated with ataxia and should be included in the differential diagnosis of autosomal recessive ataxias. This classification is the result of a consensus among a panel of international experts, and it promotes a unified understanding of autosomal recessive cerebellar disorders for clinicians and researchers.

Bariatric patients may face specific clinical problems after surgery, and multidisciplinary long-term follow-up is usually provided in specialized centers. However, physicians, obstetricians, dieticians, nurses, clinical pharmacists, midwives, and physical therapists not specifically trained in bariatric medicine may encounter post-bariatric patients with specific problems in their professional activity. This creates a growing need for dissemination of first level knowledge in the management of bariatric patients. Therefore, the Obesity Management Task Force (OMTF) of the European Association for the Study of Obesity (EASO) decided to produce and disseminate a document containing practical recommendations for the management of post-bariatric patients. The list of practical recommendations included in the EASO/OMTF document is reported in this brief communication.

Going back to normal is not enough. A revamp is required. Going back to normal is not enough. A revamp is required.

BackgroundPatient-centeredness is a characteristic of high-quality medical care and requires engaging community members in health systems’ decision-making. One key patient engagement strategy is patient, family, and community advisory boards/councils (PFACs), yet the evidence to guide PFACs is lacking. Systematic reviews on patient engagement may benefit from patient input, but feasibility is unclear.MethodsA team of physicians, researchers, and a PFAC member conducted a systematic review to examine the impact of PFACs on health systems and describe optimal strategies for PFAC conduct. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Scopus, and Social Science Citation Index from inception through September 2016, as well as pre-identified websites. Two reviewers independently screened and abstracted data from studies, then assessed randomized studies for risk of bias and observational studies for quality using standardized measures. We performed a realist synthesis—which asks what works, for whom, under what circumstances—of abstracted data via 12 monthly meetings between investigators and two feedback sessions with a hospital-based PFAC.ResultsEighteen articles describing 16 studies met study criteria. Randomized studies demonstrated moderate to high risk of bias and observational studies demonstrated poor to fair quality. Studies engaged patients at multiple levels of the health care system and suggested that in-person deliberation with health system leadership was most effective. Studies involving patient engagement in research focused on increasing study participation. PFAC recruitment was by nomination (n = 11) or not described (n = 5). No common measure of patient, family, or community engagement was identified. Realist synthesis was enriched by feedback from PFAC members.DiscussionPFACs engage communities through individual projects but evidence of their impact on outcomes is lacking. A paucity of randomized controlled trials or high-quality observational studies guide strategies for engagement through PFACs. Standardized measurement tools for engagement are needed. Strategies for PFAC recruitment should be investigated and reported. PFAC members can feasibly contribute to systematic reviews.Registration and Funding SourceA protocol for record eligibility was developed a priori and was registered in the PROSPERO database of systematic reviews (registration number CRD42016052817). The Department of Veterans Affairs’ Office of Academic Affiliations, through the National Clinician Scholars Program, funded this study.

Abstract In the face of the complexities of problem-solving , experts are gaining centrality in policymaking (Weiss, 1979). At the same time, they are increasingly challenged in their legitimacy, which is not only technical but also political. Challenges to the legitimacy of experts suggest that other types of legitimacy are important for policymaking. Issues of legitimacy are particularly important for sound policymaking when the authority of experts and the value of evidence are contested and when the debate over policy solutions is particularly conflictual and ideological. In this paper, I use three exploratory cases of the use of expertise in education policy in Italy to show how policymakers design different advisory committees to enhance different types of legitimacy (epistemic, bureaucratic, and political). The findings suggest that while policymakers design advisory committees primarily to meet their legitimacy needs, the legitimacy of a decision requires different types of sources to generate consent and to allow for the impact of expertise.

Context: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Safety and Innovation Act has recently relaxed conflict-of-interest rules for FDA advisory committee members, but concerns remain about the influence of members' financial relationships on the FDA's drug approval process. Using a large newly available data set, this study carefully examined the relationship between the financial interests of FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) advisory committee members and whether members voted in a way favorable to these interests. Methods: The study used a data set of voting behavior and reported financial interests of 1,379 FDA advisory committee members who voted in CDER committee meetings that were convened during the 15-year period of 1997-2011. Data on 1,168 questions and 15,739 question-votes from 379 meetings were used in the analyses. Multivariable logit models were used to estimate the relationship between committee members' financial interests and their voting behavior. Findings: Individuals with financial interests solely in the sponsoring firm were more likely to vote in favor of the sponsor than members with no financial ties (OR = 1.49, p = 0.03). Members with interests in both the sponsoring firm and its competitors were no more likely to vote in favor of the sponsor than those with no financial ties to any potentially affected firm (OR = 1.16, p = 0.48). Members who served on advisory boards solely for the sponsor were significantly more likely to vote in favor of the sponsor (OR = 4.97, p = 0.005). Conclusions: There appears to be a pro-sponsor voting bias among advisory committee members who have exclusive financial relationships with the sponsoring firm but not among members who have nonexclusive financial relationships (ie, those with ties to both the sponsor and its competitors). These findings point to important heterogeneities in financial ties and suggest that policymakers will need to be nuanced in their management of financial relationships of FDA advisory committee members.

Letter to the Editor