'Relative consent' or 'presumed consent'? Organ donation attitudes and behaviour

Legislation, in the form of presumed consent, has been argued to boost organ donation but most evidence disregards the practice of seeking relative’s consent, which can either ‘veto’ donation decisions, or ‘legitimize them’, by removing any possible conflict with the donor’s family. We study the effect of presumed consent alongside family consent on individu- als’ willingness to donate (WTD) one’s own and relatives’ organs, and on actual organ donation behaviours. Using data from 28 European countries for the period 2002–2010, we found that presumed consent (PC) policies are associated with increased willingness to donate organs, but this effect was attenuated once internal family discussions on organ donation were controlled for. Our findings indicate that relative’s consent acts as a veto of donation intentions and attenuates the effect of regulation on actual donations. More specifically, PC increases WTD one’s own and relatives’ organs in countries where no family consent is required. Consistently, we find that family consent attenuates the influence of regulatory environment on actual donations. The effect is driven by the influence of family discussions which increased WTD, and in combination with presumed consent translated into higher organ donation rates

Balloon dilatation and stenting for aortic coarctation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background—There is no systematic assessment of available evidence on effectiveness and comparative effectiveness of balloon dilatation and stenting for aortic coarctation. Methods and Results—We systematically searched 4 online databases to identify and select relevant studies of balloon dilatation and stenting for aortic coarctation based on a priori criteria (PROSPERO 2014:CRD42014014418). We quantitatively synthesized results for each intervention from single-arm studies and obtained pooled estimates for relative effectiveness from pairwise and network meta-analysis of comparative studies. Our primary analysis included 15 stenting (423 participants) and 12 balloon dilatation studies (361 participants), including patients ≥10 years of age. Post-treatment blood pressure gradient reduction to ≤20 and ≤10 mm Hg was achieved in 89.5% (95% confidence interval, 83.7–95.3) and 66.5% (44.1–88.9%) of patients undergoing balloon dilatation, and in 99.5% (97.5–100.0%) and 93.8% (88.5–99.1%) of patients undergoing stenting, respectively. Odds of achieving ≤20 mm Hg were lower with balloon dilatation as compared with stenting (odds ratio, 0.105 [0.010–0.886]). Thirty-day survival rates were comparable. Numerically more patients undergoing balloon dilatation experienced severe complications during admission (6.4% [2.6–10.2%]) compared with stenting (2.6% [0.5–4.7%]). This was supported by meta-analysis of head-to-head studies (odds ratio, 9.617 [2.654–34.845]) and network meta-analysis (odds ratio, 16.23, 95% credible interval: 4.27–62.77) in a secondary analysis in patients ≥1 month of age, including 57 stenting (3397 participants) and 62 balloon dilatation studies (4331 participants). Conclusions—Despite the limitations of the evidence base consisting predominantly of single-arm studies, our review indicates that stenting achieves superior immediate relief of a relevant pressure gradient compared with balloon dilatation

Methods used in the selection of instruments for outcomes included in core outcome sets have improved since the publication of the COSMIN/COMET guideline

Objectives: Once a core outcome set (COS) has been defined, it is important to achieve consensus on how these outcomes should be measured. The aims of this systematic review were to gain insight into the methods used to select outcome measurement instruments and to determine whether methods have improved following the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN)/Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) guideline publication. Study Design and Setting: Eligible articles, which were identified from the annual COMET systematic review, concerned any COS development studies that provided a recommendation on how to measure the outcomes included in the COS. Data were extracted on the methods used to select outcome measurement instruments in accordance with the COSMIN/COMET guideline. Results: Of the 118 studies included in the review, 48% used more than one source of information when finding outcome measurement instruments, and 74% performed some form of quality assessment of the measurement instruments. Twenty-three studies recommended one single instrument for each core outcome included in the COS. Clinical experts and public representatives were involved in selecting instruments in 62% and 28% of studies, respectively. Conclusion: Methods used to select outcome measurement instruments have improved since the publication of the COSMIN/COMET guideline. Going forward, COS developers should ensure that recommended outcome measurement instruments have sufficient content validity. In addition, COS developers should recommend one instrument for each core outcome to contribute to the overarching goal of uniformity in outcome reporting

Challenges in ensuring global access to COVID-19 vaccines: production, affordability, allocation, and deployment

The COVID-19 pandemic is unlikely to end until there is global roll-out of vaccines that protect against severe disease and preferably drive herd immunity. Regulators in numerous countries have authorised or approved COVID-19 vaccines for human use, with more expected to be licensed in 2021. Yet having licensed vaccines is not enough to achieve global control of COVID-19: they also need to be produced at scale, priced affordably, allocated globally so that they are available where needed, and widely deployed in local communities. In this Health Policy paper, we review potential challenges to success in each of these dimensions and discuss policy implications. To guide our review, we developed a dashboard to highlight key characteristics of 26 leading vaccine candidates, including efficacy levels, dosing regimens, storage requirements, prices, production capacities in 2021, and stocks reserved for low-income and middle-income countries. We use a traffic-light system to signal the potential contributions of each candidate to achieving global vaccine immunity, highlighting important trade-offs that policy makers need to consider when developing and implementing vaccination programmes. Although specific datapoints are subject to change as the pandemic response progresses, the dashboard will continue to provide a useful lens through which to analyse the key issues affecting the use of COVID-19 vaccines. We also present original data from a 32-country survey (n=26 758) on potential acceptance of COVID-19 vaccines, conducted from October to December, 2020. Vaccine acceptance was highest in Vietnam (98%), India (91%), China (91%), Denmark (87%), and South Korea (87%), and lowest in Serbia (38%), Croatia (41%), France (44%), Lebanon (44%), and Paraguay (51%)

Communication of anticancer drug benefits and related uncertainties to patients and clinicians: document analysis of regulated information on prescription drugs in Europe

Objective To evaluate the frequency with which relevant and accurate information about the benefits and related uncertainties of anticancer drugs are communicated to patients and clinicians in regulated information sources in Europe. Design Document content analysis. Setting European Medicines Agency. Participants Anticancer drugs granted a first marketing authorisation by the European Medicines Agency, 2017-19. Main outcome measures Whether written information on a product addressed patients’ commonly asked questions about: who and what the drug is used for; how the drug was studied; types of drug benefit expected; and the extent of weak, uncertain, or missing evidence for drug benefits. Information on drug benefits in written sources for clinicians (summaries of product characteristics), patients (patient information leaflets), and the public (public summaries) was compared with information reported in regulatory assessment documents (European public assessment reports). Results 29 anticancer drugs that received a first marketing authorisation for 32 separate cancer indications in 2017-19 were included. General information about the drug (including information on approved indications and how the drug works) was frequently reported across regulated information sources aimed at both clinicians and patients. Nearly all summaries of product characteristics communicated full information to clinicians about the number and design of the main studies, the control arm (if any), study sample size, and primary measures of drug benefit. None of the patient information leaflets communicated information to patients about how drugs were studied. 31 (97%) summaries of product characteristics and 25 (78%) public summaries contained information about drug benefits that was accurate and consistent with information in regulatory assessment documents. The presence or absence of evidence that a drug extended survival was reported in 23 (72%) summaries of product characteristics and four (13%) public summaries. None of the patient information leaflets communicated information about the drug benefits that patients might expect based on study findings. Scientific concerns about the reliability of evidence on drug benefits, which were raised by European regulatory assessors for almost all drugs in the study sample, were rarely communicated to clinicians, patients, or the public. Conclusions The findings of this study highlight the need to improve the communication of the benefits and related uncertainties of anticancer drugs in regulated information sources in Europe to support evidence informed decision making by patients and their clinicians

The use of nonrandomized evidence to estimate treatment effects in health technology assessment

Health technology assessment (HTA) is increasingly informed by non-randomised studies but there is limited guidance from HTA bodies on expectations around evidence quality and study conduct. We developed recommendations to support the appropriate use of such evidence based on a pragmatic literature review and a workshop involving 16 experts from 8 countries as part of the European Union’s Horizon-2020 IMPACT-HTA programme (work package 6). To ensure HTA processes remain rigorous and robust, HTA bodies should demand clear, extensive, and structured reporting of non-randomised studies, including an in-depth assessment of the risk of bias. In recognition of the additional uncertainty imparted by non-randomised designs in estimates of treatment effects, HTA bodies should strengthen early scientific advice and engage in collaborative efforts to improve use of real-world data

Hemodynamic changes during physiological and pharmacological stress testing in patients with heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Although disease etiologies differ, heart failure patients with preserved and reduced ejection fraction (HFpEF and HFrEF, respectively) both present with clinical symptoms when under stress and impaired exercise capacity. The extent to which the adaptation of heart rate (HR), stroke volume (SV), and cardiac output (CO) under stress conditions is altered can be quantified by stress testing in conjunction with imaging methods and may help to detect the diminishment in a patient’s condition early. The aim of this meta-analysis was to quantify hemodynamic changes during physiological and pharmacological stress testing in patients with HF. A systematic literature search (PROSPERO 2020:CRD42020161212) in MEDLINE was conducted to assess hemodynamic changes under dynamic and pharmacological stress testing at different stress intensities in HFpEF and HFrEF patients. Pooled mean changes were estimated using a random effects model. Altogether, 140 study arms with 7,248 exercise tests were analyzed. High-intensity dynamic stress testing represented 73% of these data (70 study arms with 5,318 exercise tests), where: HR increased by 45.69 bpm (95% CI 44.51–46.88; I2 = 98.4%), SV by 13.49 ml (95% CI 6.87–20.10; I2 = 68.5%), and CO by 3.41 L/min (95% CI 2.86–3.95; I2 = 86.3%). No significant differences between HFrEF and HFpEF groups were found. Despite the limited availability of comparative studies, these reference values can help to estimate the expected hemodynamic responses in patients with HF. No differences in chronotropic reactions, changes in SV, or CO were found between HFrEF and HFpEF. When compared to healthy individuals, exercise tolerance, as well as associated HR and CO changes under moderate-high dynamic stress, was substantially impaired in both HF groups. This may contribute to a better disease understanding, future study planning, and patient-specific predictive models. Systematic Review Registration: [https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/], identifier [CRD42020161212]

Infographic. How does exercise treatment compare with antihypertensive medications?

High systolic blood pressure (SBP) remains the major cause of premature death globally despite advances in pharmacological treatment.1 2 The global direct medical costs associated with hypertension treatment are estimated at $370 billion/year worldwide, with the healthcare savings from effective management of this condition projected at about$100 billion/year.3 Unfortunately, relatively little attention is given to non-pharmacological strategies, including structured exercise interventions. A recent network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in the BJSM4 aimed to compare the effects of exercise interventions and medications on SBP. We highlight the key findings of this network meta-analysis that are particularly relevant for clinical practice and health policy.Sin financiación12.022 JCR (2019) Q1, 1/85 Sport Sciences3.712 SJR (2019) Q1, 48/2754 Medicine (miscellaneous), 1/284 Orthopedics and Sports Medicine, 1/207 Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation, 2/125 Sports ScienceNo data IDR 2019UE

Accessing dementia care in Brazil: an analysis of case vignettes

Background and Objectives Despite the rapid increase in the number of people living with dementia in Brazil, dementia care is limited. This study describes how people living with dementia and their carers access care, treatment, and support, and identifies what characteristics are likely to enable or prevent access. Research Design and Methods We created 10 vignettes to illustrate fictitious but realistic scenarios involving people living with dementia in Brazil. The vignettes explore a combination of socioeconomic and demographic variables. They were completed using an in-depth desk review of the dementia care landscape in Brazil; a Strengths, Opportunities, Weaknesses, and Threats (SWOT) analysis of the desk review; and expert knowledge. The analysis focused on identifying common sources of service provision, barriers of access to care and support, and specific issues experienced by some population groups. Findings Access to a dementia diagnosis, care, and support for people living with dementia in Brazil is limited. Demographic and socio-economic circumstances play a role in determining the type of services to which a person might have access. Poor knowledge about dementia, lack of capacity in the health system, and lack of formal long-term care support are among the identified barriers to accessing timely diagnosis, care, and support in the country. Discussion and Implications Understanding the barriers and facilitators of access to diagnosis, treatment, and support for people with dementia and families with different demographic and socioeconomic characteristics is crucial for designing dementia policies that are context-specific and responsive to the care needs of different socioeconomic groups in Brazil