Gender differences in hospital mortality and use of percutaneous coronary intervention in acute myocardial infarction : microsimulation analysis of the 1999 nationwide french hospitals database.

Background— Women with acute myocardial infarction have a higher hospital mortality rate than men. This difference has been ascribed to their older age, more frequent comorbidities, and less frequent use of revascularization. The aim of this study is to assess these factors in relation to excess mortality in women. Methods and Results— All hospital admissions in France with a discharge diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction were extracted from the national payment database. Logistic regression on mortality was performed for age, comorbidities, and coronary interventions. Nonparametric microsimulation models estimated the percutaneous coronary intervention and mortality rates that women would experience if they were "treated like men." Data were analyzed from 74 389 patients hospitalized with acute myocardial infarction, 30.0% of whom were women. Women were older (75 versus 63 years of age; Pacute myocardial infarction gender; revascularization; mortality;

Gender Differences in Hospital Mortality and Use of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Acute Myocardial Infarction. Microsimulation Analysis of the 1999 Nationwide French Hospitals Database

The difference in mortality rate between men and women with acute myocardial infarction is due largely to the different age structure of these populations. However, age-adjusted hospital mortality was higher for women and was associated with a lower rate of percutaneous coronary intervention. Simulations suggest that women would derive benefit from more frequent use of percutaneous coronary intervention, although these procedures appear less protective in women than in men

Non-Financial Conflicts of Interest in Academic Grant Evaluation: A Qualitative Study of Multiple Stakeholders in France

International audienceBACKGROUND: Peer review is the most widely used method for evaluating grant applications in clinical research. Criticisms of peer review include lack of equity, suspicion of biases, and conflicts of interest (CoI). CoIs raise questions of fairness, transparency, and trust in grant allocation. Few observational studies have assessed these issues. We report the results of a qualitative study on reviewers' and applicants' perceptions and experiences of CoIs in reviews of French academic grant applications. METHODOLOGY AND PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We designed a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews and direct observation. We asked members of assessment panels, external reviewers, and applicants to participate in semi-structured interviews. Two independent researchers conducted in-depth reviews and line-by-line coding of all transcribed interviews, which were also subjected to Tropes® software text analysis, to detect and qualify themes associated with CoIs. Most participants (73/98) spontaneously reported that non-financial CoIs predominated over financial CoIs. Non-financial CoIs mainly involved rivalry among disciplines, cronyism, and geographic and academic biases. However, none of the participants challenged the validity of peer review. Reviewers who felt they might be affected by CoIs said they reacted in a variety of ways: routine refusal to review, routine attempt to conduct an impartial review, or decision on a case-by-case basis. Multiple means of managing non-financial CoIs were suggested, including increased transparency throughout the review process, with public disclosure of non-financial CoIs, and careful selection of independent reviewers, including foreign experts and methodologists. CONCLUSIONS: Our study underscores the importance of considering non-financial CoIs when reviewing research grant applications, in addition to financial CoIs. Specific measures are needed to prevent a negative impact of non-financial CoIs on the fairness of resource allocation. Whether and how public disclosure of non-financial CoIs should be accomplished remains debatable

France: health system review

The Health Systems in Transition (HiT) series consists of country-based reviews that provide a detailed description of a health system and of reform and policy initiatives in progress or under development in a specific country. Each review is produced by country experts in collaboration with the Observatory’s staff. In order to facilitate comparisons between countries, reviews are based on a template, which is revised periodically. The template provides detailed guidelines and specific questions, definitions and examples needed to compile a report. HiTs seek to provide relevant information to support policy-makers and analysts in the development of health systems in Europe. They are building blocks that can be used to: • learn in detail about different approaches to the organization, financing and delivery of health services and the role of the main actors in health systems; • describe the institutional framework, process, content and implementation of health care reform programmes; • highlight challenges and areas that require more in-depth analysis; • provide a tool for the dissemination of information on health systems and the exchange of experiences of reform strategies between policy-makers and analysts in different countries; and • assist other researchers in more in-depth comparative health policy analysis. Compiling the reviews poses a number of methodological problems. In many countries, there is relatively little information available on the health system and the impact of reforms. Due to the lack of a uniform data source, quantitative data on health services are based on a number of different sources, including the World Health Organization (WHO) Regional Office for Europe’s European Health for All database, data from national statistical offices, Eurostat, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Health Data, data from the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank’s World Development Indicators and any other relevant sources considered useful by the authors. Data collection methods and definitions sometimes vary, but typically are consistent within each separate review. A standardized review has certain disadvantages because the financing and delivery of health care differ across countries. However, it also offers advantages because it raises similar issues and questions. HiTs can be used to inform policy-makers about experiences in other countries that may be relevant to their own national situations. They can also be used to inform comparative analysis of health systems. This series is an ongoing initiative and material is updated at regular intervals. Comments and suggestions for the further development and improvement of the HiT series are most welcome and can be sent to [email protected]. HiTs and HiT summaries are available on the Observatory’s web site (http://www.healthobservatory.eu)

Usability of German hospital administrative claims data for healthcare research: General assessment and use case of multiple myeloma in Munich university hospital in 2015–2017

OBJECTIVES: To assess the usability of German hospital administrative claims data (GHACD) to determine inpatient management patterns, healthcare resource utilization, and quality-of-care in patients with multiple myeloma (PwMM). METHODS: Based on German tertiary hospital’s claims data (2015–2017), PwMM aged >18 years were included if they had an International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, code of C90.0 or received anti-MM therapy. Subgroup analysis was performed on stem cell transplantation (SCT) patients. RESULTS: Of 230 PwMM, 59.1% were men; 56.1% were aged ≥65 years. Hypertension and infections were present in 50% and 67.0%, respectively. Seventy percent of PwMM received combination therapy. Innovative drugs such as bortezomib and lenalidomide were given to 36.1% and 10.9% of the patients, respectively. Mean number of admissions and mean hospitalization length/patient were 3.69 (standard deviation (SD) 2.71 (1–16)) and 12.52 (SD 9.55 (1–68.5)) days, respectively. In-hospital mortality was recorded in 12.2%. Seventy-two percent of SCT patients (n = 88) were aged ≤65 years, 22.7% required second transplantation, and 89.8% received platelet transfusion at a mean of 1.42(SD 0.63 (1–3)). CONCLUSION: GHACD provided relevant information essential for healthcare studies about PwMM from routine care settings. Data fundamental for quality-of-care assessment were also captured

Mapping research activity on mental health disorders in Europe: study protocol for the Mapping_NCD project

Background: Mental health disorders (MHDs) constitute a large and growing disease burden in Europe, although they typically receive less attention and research funding than other non-communicable diseases (NCDs). This study protocol describes a methodology for the mapping of MHD research in Europe as part of Mapping_NCD, a 2-year project funded by the European Commission which seeks to map European research funding and impact for five NCDs in order to identify potential gaps, overlaps, synergies and opportunities, and to develop evidence-based policies for future research. Methods: The project aims to develop a multi-focal view of the MHD research landscape across the 28 European Union Member States, plus Iceland, Norway and Switzerland, through a survey of European funding entities, analysis of research initiatives undertaken in the public, voluntary/not-for-profit and commercial sectors, and expert interviews to contextualize the gathered data. The impact of MHD research will be explored using bibliometric analyses of scientific publications, clinical guidelines and newspaper stories reporting on research initiatives. Finally, these research inputs and outputs will be considered in light of various metrics that have been proposed to inform priorities for the allocation of research funds, including burden of disease, treatment gaps and cost of illness. Discussion: Given the growing burden of MHDs, a clear and broad view of the current state of MHD research is needed to ensure that limited resources are directed to evidence-based priority areas. MHDs pose a particular challenge in mapping the research landscape due to their complex nature, high co-morbidity and varying diagnostic criteria. Undertaking such an effort across 31 countries is further challenged by differences in data collection, healthcare systems, reimbursement rates and clinical practices, as well as cultural and socioeconomic diversity. Using multiple methods to explore the spectrum of MHD research funding activity across Europe, this project aims to develop a broad, high-level perspective to inform priority setting for future research

Impact of comprehensive geriatric assessment on survival, function, and nutritional status in elderly patients with head and neck cancer: protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled trial (EGeSOR)

BACKGROUND: Survival is poorer in elderly patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinomas [HNSCCs] than in younger patients. Possible explanations include a contribution of co-morbidities to mortality, frequent refusal of standard therapy, and the use of suboptimal treatments due to concern about toxicities. The Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment [CGA] is a multidimensional assessment of general health that can help to customise treatment and follow-up plans. The CGA has been proven effective in several health settings but has not been evaluated in randomised studies of patients with cancer. Our aim here was to assess the impact of the CGA on overall survival, function, and nutritional status of elderly patients with HNSCC. METHODS/DESIGN: EGeSOR is an open-label, multicentre, randomised, controlled, parallel-group trial in patients aged 70 years or older and receiving standard care for HNSCC. The intervention includes four components: the CGA conducted by a geriatrician before cancer treatment, participation of the same geriatrician in cancer treatment selection, a standardised geriatric therapeutic intervention designed by the same geriatrician; and geriatric follow-up for 24 months. The primary endpoint, assessed after 6 months, is a composite criterion including death, functional impairment [Activities of Daily Living score decrease ≥2], and weight loss ≥10%. Secondary endpoints include progression-free survival, unscheduled admissions, quality of life, treatment toxicities, costs, and completion of the planned cancer treatment. A centralised online system is used to perform 1:1 randomisation with a minimisation algorithm for centre, age, T and N stages, and tumour site [oral, oropharyngeal, hypopharyngeal, or laryngeal]. The estimated sample size is 704 patients, who are being recruited by 14 centres in 9 French cities. DISCUSSION: EGeSOR is the first randomised trial of the CGA in elderly cancer patients. We expect the CGA to have direct clinical benefits on the management of elderly patients with HNSCC. If this expectation is fulfilled, the trial may lead to modifications of the management model for elderly patients with cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Trial registration: NCT0202506

Divergent COVID-19 vaccine policies: policy mapping of ten European countries

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the fragmented nature of governmental policy decisions in Europe. However, the extent to which COVID-19 vaccination policies differed between European countries remains unclear. Here, we mapped the COVID-19 vaccination policies that were in effect in January 2022 as well as booster regulations in April 2022 in Austria, Denmark, England, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, and Spain. Methods: National public health and health policy experts from these ten European nations developed and completed an electronic questionnaire. The questionnaire included a series of questions that addressed six critical components of vaccine implementation, including (1) authorization, (2) prioritization, (3) procurement and distribution, (4) data collection, (5) administration, and (6) mandate requirements. Results: Our findings revealed significant variations in COVID-19 vaccination policies across Europe. We observed critical differences in COVID-19 vaccine formulations authorized for use, as well as the specific groups that were provided with priority access. We also identified discrepancies in how vaccination-related data were recorded in each country and what vaccination requirements were implemented. Conclusion: Each of the ten European nations surveyed in this study reported different COVID-19 vaccination policies. These differences complicated efforts to provide a coordinated pandemic response. These findings might alert policymakers in Europe of the need to coordinate their efforts to avoid fostering divergent and socially disruptive policies