MICESE: a new method used for the formulation of key messages from the scientific community for the EU post 2020 Biodiversity Strategy

The European Union (EU) 2020 Biodiversity strategy will soon come to an end and may not have been as successful as envisioned. In the current context of the global biodiversity crisis, the European Commission, the research community, and broader society cannot risk another, likely ineffective, attempt by the EU to halt biodiversity loss after 2020. Through the development of the EU post 2020 Biodiversity Strategy, the scientific community of the ALTER-Net and EKLIPSE networks saw a unique opportunity to make a difference for biodiversity in Europe by better involving scientists, policy makers, and society. We developed an innovative, transparent, and collaborative process—called the multiphased, iterative, and consultative elicitation of scientific expertise (MICESE) method. This process allowed us to produce a set of 12 key messages developed by scientists for the EU to prioritize in the development of the new post 2020 biodiversity strategy. These key messages were structured according to their systemic value, scale, and nature. We provide insights and analyses of the new MICESE method before reflecting on how to improve the future involvement of scientists in science–policy interfaces

Screening av nye PFAS-stoffer 2018

This screening project has focused on the occurrence of conventional andemerging PFASs in terrestrial and marine environments, including the Arctic. Conventional PFASs were found to be wide-spread in the environment and for the first time in Norway reported in wolf, a top predator from the terrestrial environment.Otters living in close proximity to human settlements and preying on the marine food chain,are heavily contaminated with PFASs. Areas where ski-testing activitiesare common are a potential “hotspot” where PFASs can enter the food chain. The difference in PFAS-profile between the samples indicatesthat the diversity in samples are necessary to reveal the complete picture of PFASs in the environment

Handling a messy world: lessons learned when trying to make the ecosystem services concept operational

The concept of ecosystem services is widely used in the scientific literature and increasingly also in policy and practice. Nevertheless, operationalising the concept, i.e. putting it into practice, is still a challenge. We describe the approach of the EU-project OpenNESS (Operationalisation of Ecosystem Services and Natural Capital), which was created in response to this challenge to critically evaluate the concept when applied to real world problems at different scales and in different policy sectors. General requirements for operationalization, the relevance of conceptual frameworks and lessons learnt from 27 case study applications are synthesized in a set of guiding principles. We also briefly describe some integrative tools as developed in OpenNESS which support the implementation of the principles. The guiding principles are grouped under three major headlines: “Defining the problem and opening up the problem space”, “Considering ethical issues” and “Assessing alternative methods, tools and actions”. Real world problems are often “wicked” problems, which at first are seldom clear-cut and well-defined, but often rather complex and subject to differing interpretations and interests. We take account of that complexity and emphasise that there is not one simple and straightforward way to approach real world problems involving ecosystem services. The principles and tools presented are meant to provide some guidance for tackling this complexity by means of a transdisciplinary methodology that facilitates the operationalisation of the ecosystem services concept

The Network of Knowledge approach: improving the science and society dialogue on biodiversity and ecosystem services in Europe

The absence of a good interface between scientific and other knowledge holders and decision-makers in the area of biodiversity and ecosystem services has been recognised for a long time. Despite recent advancements, e.g. with the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), challenges remain, particularly concerning the timely provision of consolidated views from different knowledge domains. To address this challenge, a strong and flexible networking approach is needed across knowledge domains and institutions. Here, we report on a broad consultation process across Europe to develop a Network of Knowledge on biodiversity and ecosystem services (NoK), an approach aiming at (1) organising institutions and knowledge holders in an adaptable and responsive framework and (2) informing decision-makers with timely and accurate biodiversity knowledge. The consultation provided a critical analysis of the needs that should be addressed by a NoK and how it could complement existing European initiatives and institutions at the interface between policy and science. Among other functions, the NoK provides consolidated scientific views on contested topics, identification of research gaps to support relevant policies, and horizon scanning activities to anticipate emerging issues. The NoK includes a capacity building component on interfacing activities and contains mechanisms to ensure its credibility, relevance and legitimacy. Such a network would need to ensure credibility, relevance and legitimacy of its work by maximizing transparency and flexibility of processes, quality of outputs, the link to data and knowledge provision, the motivation of experts for getting involved and sound communication and capacity building

Clinical recommendations for dry powder inhaler use in the management of COPD in primary care

Acknowledgements The study sponsor was the General Practitioners Research Institute; data collection and analysis were performed by General Practitioners Research Institute. Boehringer Ingelheim was the funding and scientific partner. The members of the PIFotal study group would like to acknowledge Dr. Jaco Voorham from Data to Insights Research Solutions for his assistance with the statistical analyses, Dr Wilma Zijlema for her assistance with the review, drafting and editing of the paper, and Dr. Hans Wouters for his contribution to the project administration in the initial phase of the project. They would also like to thank all contributing researchers: Maria João Barbosa, Ana Margarida Cruz, Liliana Silva, Duarte Araújo, Eurico Silva, Daniel Castro, João Ramires, Ana Fernandes, Catarina Carvalho, Raquel Castro, Jerzy Zientek, Ewa Pasko, Witold Drzastwa, Tomasz Kachel, Kornelia Ciekalska, Krzysztof Wytrychowski, Bernard Panaszek, Krzysztof Kowal, Ebian Brill, Willemien Feenstra, Geert Struik, Hans Schuurman, Mariette van Oostrum, Hennie Holwerda Meekma, Boudewijn Dierick, George Amofa, Esther Kuipers, Lennard Ringnalda, Boris Tyndall, Mark Drenth, Peter Mast, Hilbert Talsma, Raoul Wolfs, Cobie Hoogeboom, Hanneke van Andel, Paul Stoutenberg, Nancy van de Laak, Tessa Hillaert, Laura Holtzer, Natascha Fehrmann, Anniek Makkinga – Maassen van den Brink, Annemarie Hilbink, Erik Feenstra, Murat Tek, Sabrina Burer, Jan van Ginkel, Rinze Boersma, Alyssa Bonger, Miguel Roman Rodriguez, Marina García Pardo, Alejandra Valero Suau, Laura López Velasco, Cecilia Amato, Francisco Palmer Simó, Alberto Abenza, Rosa Llull Vila, Bartolomé Llompart Van Belzen, Silvia Jimeno Martínez, Francesc Moranta Ribas, Margarita Perelló Oliver, Yolanda Gómez López, Patricia Ibañez Gómez, María Nieves Mendieta Lagos, Laura Bueno López, Virginia María Mirabal Sánchez, Ana Delia Rodríguez Delgado, Nils Fischer, Alicia González Sansó, Nayra Ramírez Mendoza, Valeria Gazzaneo, Paula Merced Guillama Rodríguez, Virginia Naranjo Guerrero, Jose Angel Suarez Caballero, Isidoro Souto Bethencourt, Juan R. Dominguez Beatell, Elena Vanesa Rojas Manrique, Maria Jose Sanz Orejas, Cary Perez Lorenzo, Jesús Antonio Pérez Jiménez, Silvia 480 Lara Afonso Trujillo, Bartolomé Dominguez Del Río Boada, Stavroula Papageorgakopoulou, Eleytheria Vakouti, Claire Gkatzoudi, Thodoris Krasanakis, Dimitris Kounalakis , Izoldi Bouloukaki , Nikolaos Tsakountakis, Emmanouela Chronaki, Katherine Mary Borg and Kamila Abutalieva for their time and efforts to perform the study measurements and complete patient inclusion, even in the challenging times of the pandemic. Finally, they would like to thank the participants who generously gave their time to participate in the study.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Sufficient inspiratory effort for a dry powder inhaler - do we have to measure it, or can we observe it? : Post hoc analysis of the PIFotal study.

Peer reviewedPostprin

Suboptimal Peak Inspiratory Flow and Critical Inhalation Errors are Associated with Higher COPD-Related Healthcare Costs

Purpose: To assess the relationship between suboptimal Peak Inspiratory Flow (sPIF), inhalation technique errors, and non-adherence, with Healthcare Resource Utilisation (HCRU) in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) patients receiving maintenance therapy via a Dry Powder Inhaler (DPI). Patients and methods: The cross-sectional, multi-country PIFotal study included 1434 COPD patients (≥40 years) using a DPI for maintenance therapy. PIF was measured with the In-Check DIAL G16, and sPIF was defined as a typical PIF lower than required for the device. Inhalation technique was assessed by standardised evaluation of video recordings and grouped into 10 steps. Patients completed the "Test of Adherence to Inhalers" questionnaire. HCRU was operationalised as COPD-related costs for primary healthcare, secondary healthcare, medication, and total COPD-related costs in a 1-year period. Results: Participants with sPIF had higher medication costs compared with those with optimal PIF (cost ratio [CR]: 1.07, 95% CI [1.01, 1.14]). Multiple inhalation technique errors were associated with increased HCRU. Specifically, "insufficient inspiratory effort" with higher secondary healthcare costs (CR: 2.20, 95% CI [1.37, 3.54]) and higher total COPD-related costs (CR: 1.16, 95% CI 1.03-1.31). "no breath-hold following the inhalation manoeuvre (<6 s)" with higher medication costs (CR: 1.08, 95% CI [1.02, 1.15]) and total COPD-related costs (CR 1.17, 95% CI [1.07, 1.28]), and "not breathing out calmly after inhalation" with higher medication costs (CR: 1.19, 95% CI [1.04, 1.37]). Non-adherence was not significantly associated with HCRU. Conclusion: sPIF and inhalation technique errors were associated with higher COPD-related healthcare utilisation and costs in COPD patients on DPI maintenance therapy

Factors associated with health status and exacerbations in COPD maintenance therapy with dry powder inhalers

Funding Information: J.K. reports grants, personal fees and non-financial support from AstraZeneca, GSK and Boehringer Ingelheim; grants and personal fees from Chiesi Pharmaceuticals and TEVA; grants from Mundipharma; personal fees from MSD and COVIS Pharma; and also holds 72.5% of shares in the General Practitioners Research Institute. H.W. has received grants from Boehringer Ingelheim, which is the financial and scientific partner of GPRI for the submitted study, and from AstraZeneca, Novartis and Chiesi for scientific projects in the area of COPD/asthma. S.B.-A. has received grants from TEVA, and personal fees from TEVA, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, GSK, Sanofi and Mylan. J.C.d.S. reports or personal fees from AstraZeneca, Bial, Boehringer Ingelheim, GSK, Medinfar, Mundipharma and Sanofi. B.C. received honorarium from GSK and Sanofi. J.v.C., L.D., I.v.G.-P., I.v.d.H., Y.J., M.K., B.M., K.S., N.S., M.H., B.M. and M.T.L. were employed by General Practitioners Research Institute (GPRI) at the time of the study. In the past three years (2019–2021), GPRI conducted investigator- and sponsor-initiated research funded by non-commercial organizations, academic institutes, and pharmaceutical companies (including AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GSK, Mundipharma, Novartis, and Teva). R.D. has received grants and personal fees from TEVA, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, GSK, Chiesi, Focus Care, and Glenmark. R.G. has received personal fees from AstraZeneca, GSK and Chiesi. E.D. holds 27.5% of shares in the General Practitioners Research Institute. M.G.P. receives grants from AstraZeneca, GSK and Boehringer Ingelheim. A.G. and A.d.l.H. are employees of Boehringer Ingelheim. F.L. received grants and personal fees from GSK, personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Menarini International, Novartis, Orion, and Trudell International, outside the submitted work. T.M. is an Assoicate Editor at npj Primary Care Respiratory Medicine. J.M. received grants from Boehringer Ingelheim, during the conduct of the study; and grants from AstraZeneca, Chiesi, Novartis, and GSK, outside the submitted work. D.P. reports grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Mylan, Novartis, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi Genzyme, Theravance and Zentiva (Sanofi Generics); grants from the British Lung Foundation, Respiratory Effectiveness Group, UK National Health Service, and AKL Research and Development Ltd; personal fees from Cipla, GlaxoSmithKline, Kyorin, Merck, Mundipharma, Airway Vista Secretariat, EPG Communication Holdings Ltd, FIECON Ltd, Fieldwork International, OM Pharma SA, PeerVoice, Phadia AB, Spirosure Inc, Strategic North Limited, Synapse Research Management Partners S.L., Talos Health Solutions, and WebMD Global LLC; non-financial support from Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation programme and Health Technology Assessment; stock/stock options from AKL Research and Development Ltd, which produces phytopharmaceuticals; owns 74% of the social enterprise Optimum Patient Care Ltd (Australia and UK) and 92.61% of Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute Pte Ltd (Singapore); and 5% shareholding in Timestamp, which develops adherence monitoring technology. M.R.-R. receives grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca and GSK; and personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Menarini, Mundipharma, Novartis, Pfizer, TEVA and BIAL. I.T. reports grants and personal fees from GSK, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Menarini, Novartis, Chiesi and Elpen. O.U. reports grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Edmond Pharma, Chiesi and GSK; grants from Edmond Pharma; and personal fees from Napp, Mundipharma, Sandoz, Takeda, Cipla, COVIS, Novartis, Mereobiopharma, Orion, and Menarini. S.B.-A. and T.M. are Associate Editors at npj Primary Care Respiratory Medicine, and I.T. is Editor in Chief. These authors were not involved in the journal’s review of, or decisions related to, this manuscript.Peer reviewedPublisher PD