SEOM clinical guideline on unknown primary cancer (2017)

Cancer of unknown primary site is a histologically confirmed cancer that manifests in advanced stage, with no identifiable primary site following standard diagnostic procedures. Patients are initially categorized based on the findings of the initial biopsy: adenocarcinoma, squamous-cell carcinoma, neuroendocrine carcinoma, and poorly differentiated carcinoma. Appropriate patient management requires understanding several clinical and pathological features that aid in identifying several subsets of patients with more responsive tumors

A multi-stakeholder multicriteria decision analysis for the reimbursement of orphan drugs (FinMHU-MCDA study)

Background: Patient access to orphan medicinal products (OMPs) is limited and varies between countries, reimbursement decisions on OMPs are complex, and there is a need for more transparent processes to know which criteria should be considered to inform these decisions. This study aimed to determine the most relevant criteria for the reimbursement of OMPs in Spain, from a multi-stakeholder perspective, and using multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA). Methods: An MCDA was developed in 3 phases and included 28 stakeholders closely related to the field of rare diseases (6 physicians, 5 hospital pharmacists, 7 health economists, 4 patient representatives and 6 members from national and regional health authorities). Initially [phase A], a bibliographic review was conducted to identify the potential reimbursement criteria. Then, a reduced advisory board (8 members) proposed, selected, and defined the final list of criteria that could be relevant for reimbursement. A discrete choice experiment (DCE) [phase B] was developed to determine the relevance and relative importance weight of such criteria according to the stakeholders’ preferences by choosing between pairs of hypothetical financing scenarios. A multinomial logit model was fitted to analyze the DCE responses. Finally [phase C], the advisory board review the results using a deliberative process. Results: Thirteen criteria were selected, related to 4 dimensions: patient population, disease, treatment, and economic evaluation. Nine criteria were deemed relevant for decision-making and associated with a higher relative importance: Health-related quality of life (HRQL) (23.53%), treatment efficacy (14.64%), availability of treatment alternatives (13.51%), disease severity (12.62%), avoided costs (11.21%), age of target population (7.75%), safety (seriousness of adverse events) (4.72%), quality of evidence (3.82%) and size of target population (3.12%). The remaining criteria had a < 3% relative importance: economic burden of disease (2.50%), cost of treatment (1.73%), cost-effectiveness (0.83%) and safety (frequency of adverse events) (0.03%). Conclusion: The reimbursement of OMPs in Spain should be determined by its effect on patient’s HRQL, the extent of its therapeutic benefit from efficacy and the availability of other therapeutic options. Furthermore, the severity of the rare disease should also influence the decision along with the potential of the treatment to avoid associated costs

Effectiveness and safety of first-generation protease inhibitors in clinical practice: Hepatitis C virus patients with advanced fibrosis

AIM: To evaluates the effectiveness and safety of the first generation, NS3/4A protease inhibitors (PIs) in clinical practice against chronic C virus, especially in patients with advanced fibrosis. METHODS: Prospective study and non-experimental analysis of a multicentre cohort of 38 Spanish hospitals that includes patients with chronic hepatitis C genotype 1, treatment-nai¨ve (TN) or treatment-experienced (TE), who underwent triple therapy with the first generation NS3/4A protease inhibitors, boceprevir (BOC) and telaprevir (TVR), in combination with pegylated interferon and ribavirin. The patients were treatment in routine practice settings. Data on the study population and on adverse clinical and virologic effects were compiled during the treatment period and during follow up. RESULTS: One thousand and fifty seven patients were included, 405 (38%) were treated with BOC and 652 (62%) with TVR. Of this total, 30% (n = 319) were TN and the remaining were TE: 28% (n = 298) relapsers, 12% (n = 123) partial responders (PR), 25% (n = 260) null-responders (NR) and for 5% (n = 57) with prior response unknown. The rate of sustained virologic response (SVR) by intention-to-treatment (ITT) was greater in those treated with TVR (65%) than in those treated with BOC (52%) (P < 0.0001), whereas by modified intention-to-treatment (mITT) no were found significant differences. By degree of fibrosis, 56% of patients were F4 and the highest SVR rates were recorded in the non-F4 patients, both TN and TE. In the analysis by groups, the TN patients treated with TVR by ITT showed a higher SVR (P = 0.005). However, by mITT there were no significant differences between BOC and TVR. In the multivariate analysis by mITT, the significant SVR factors were relapsers, IL28B CC and non-F4; the type of treatment (BOC or TVR) was not significant. The lowest SVR values were presented by the F4-NR patients, treated with BOC (46%) or with TVR (45%). 28% of the patients interrupted the treatment, mainly by non-viral response (51%): this outcome was more frequent in the TE than in the TN patients (57% vs 40%, P = 0.01). With respect to severe haematological disorders, neutropaenia was more likely to affect the patients treated with BOC (33% vs 20%, P = 0.0001), and thrombocytopaenia and anaemia, the F4 patients (P = 0.000, P = 0.025, respectively). CONCLUSION: In a real clinical practice setting with a high proportion of patients with advanced fibrosis, effectiveness of first-generation PIs was high except for NR patients, with similar SVR rates being achieved by BOC and TVR

Seguimiento de las guías españolas para el manejo del asma por el médico de atención primaria: un estudio observacional ambispectivo

Objetivo Evaluar el grado de seguimiento de las recomendaciones de las versiones de la Guía española para el manejo del asma (GEMA 2009 y 2015) y su repercusión en el control de la enfermedad. Material y métodos Estudio observacional y ambispectivo realizado entre septiembre del 2015 y abril del 2016, en el que participaron 314 médicos de atención primaria y 2.864 pacientes. Resultados Utilizando datos retrospectivos, 81 de los 314 médicos (25, 8% [IC del 95%, 21, 3 a 30, 9]) comunicaron seguir las recomendaciones de la GEMA 2009. Al inicio del estudio, 88 de los 314 médicos (28, 0% [IC del 95%, 23, 4 a 33, 2]) seguían las recomendaciones de la GEMA 2015. El tener un asma mal controlada (OR 0, 19, IC del 95%, 0, 13 a 0, 28) y presentar un asma persistente grave al inicio del estudio (OR 0, 20, IC del 95%, 0, 12 a 0, 34) se asociaron negativamente con tener un asma bien controlada al final del seguimiento. Por el contrario, el seguimiento de las recomendaciones de la GEMA 2015 se asoció de manera positiva con una mayor posibilidad de que el paciente tuviera un asma bien controlada al final del periodo de seguimiento (OR 1, 70, IC del 95%, 1, 40 a 2, 06). Conclusiones El escaso seguimiento de las guías clínicas para el manejo del asma constituye un problema común entre los médicos de atención primaria. Un seguimiento de estas guías se asocia con un control mejor del asma. Existe la necesidad de actuaciones que puedan mejorar el seguimiento por parte de los médicos de atención primaria de las guías para el manejo del asma. Objective: To assess the degree of compliance with the recommendations of the 2009 and 2015 versions of the Spanish guidelines for managing asthma (Guía Española para el Manejo del Asma [GEMA]) and the effect of this compliance on controlling the disease. Material and methods: We conducted an observational ambispective study between September 2015 and April 2016 in which 314 primary care physicians and 2864 patients participated. Results: Using retrospective data, we found that 81 of the 314 physicians (25.8%; 95% CI 21.3–30.9) stated that they complied with the GEMA2009 recommendations. At the start of the study, 88 of the 314 physicians (28.0%; 95% CI 23.4–33.2) complied with the GEMA2015 recommendations. Poorly controlled asthma (OR, 0.19; 95% CI 0.13–0.28) and persistent severe asthma at the start of the study (OR, 0.20; 95% CI 0.12–0.34) were negatively associated with having well-controlled asthma by the end of the follow-up. In contrast, compliance with the GEMA2015 recommendations was positively associated with a greater likelihood that the patient would have well-controlled asthma by the end of the follow-up (OR, 1.70; 95% CI 1.40–2.06). Conclusions: Low compliance with the clinical guidelines for managing asthma is a common problem among primary care physicians. Compliance with these guidelines is associated with better asthma control. Actions need to be taken to improve primary care physician compliance with the asthma management guidelines