Peer support in adolescents and young adults with chronic or rare conditions in northern America and Europe: Targeted literature review.

PROBLEM: Adolescents and young adults with chronic or rare conditions face unique risks to their physical, social and emotional development. Research suggests that peer support improves their quality of life and reduces social isolation. However, there is a paucity of current information considering multiple intervention formats. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: A targeted literature review was conducted to identify peer support interventions and assess their feasibility, acceptability and efficacy for this population. Searches were conducted in MEDLINE, Embase and American Psychological Association PsycINFO for records reporting peer support interventions in young adults with chronic or rare conditions. Data were extracted from relevant publications and qualitatively evaluated. SAMPLE: Thirty studies were included, which assessed the use of peer support for young adults (aged 13-30 years) with chronic or rare conditions in Europe or North America. RESULTS: Peer support interventions had positive effects on social positivity, psychosocial development and medical outcomes, though significance was not always demonstrated. CONCLUSIONS: Peer support can enhance care for young adults with chronic or rare conditions. Current literature suggests that once-weekly virtual interventions are the most feasible and acceptable for patients, leading to multifaceted improvements in their well-being. IMPLICATIONS: This study is one of the first to discuss in-person, virtual and hybrid peer-based interventions for young adults with chronic and rare conditions. While all formats improved social, psychological and medical outcomes, virtual formats may be most accessible to participants. Interventions should be made available to this population, and guidelines for optimal implementation of peer support are needed.

Burden of respiratory syncytial virus in adults in the United Kingdom: A systematic literature review and gap analysis.

Despite the growing recognition of a potentially significant respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) disease burden in adults, relevant evidence in the United Kingdom (UK) is limited. This systematic literature review (SLR) aimed to identify the disease burden of RSV in UK adults, including certain high-risk subgroups and existing evidence gaps. Published studies (2011 onwards) reporting epidemiological, economic and clinical burden outcomes in UK adults (≥15 years) with RSV were identified from indexed databases, including MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane library. High-risk groups included elderly (≥65 years), immunocompromised, co-morbid and co-infected patients. Outcomes included RSV incidence/prevalence, mortality, clinical presentation and direct/indirect resource use/costs. Twenty-eight publications on 28 unique studies were identified, mostly in general/respiratory indicator (n = 17), elderly (n = 10) and immunocompromised (n = 6) cohorts. Main outcomes reported in the general/respiratory indicator cohort were RSV infection incidence (seasonal/annual: 0.09-17.9%/6.6-15.1%), mortality (8,482 deaths/season) and direct resource use (including mean general practitioner [GP] episodes/season: 487,247). Seasonal/annual incidence was 14.6-26.5%/0.7-16% in high-risk cohorts. Attributed to RSV in the elderly were 7,915 deaths/season and 175,070 mean GP episodes/season. Only two studies reported on co-morbid cohorts. Clinical burden outcomes were only reported in general and immunocompromised patients, and no evidence was found in any cohort on indirect economic burden or RSV complications. Evidence captured suggests that RSV may have a substantial burden in UK adults. However, available data were limited and highly heterogenous, with further studies needed to characterise the burden of RSV in adults and to validate our findings.

Sex-Specific Differences in Patients With Psoriatic Arthritis: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: A systematic review of published literature was conducted to collate evidence on sex-specific differences in clinical characteristics, disease activity, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in psoriatic arthritis (PsA), including response to treatment. METHODS: Searches of MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were performed in November 2020 for observational studies of adults with PsA reporting outcomes by sex (published from January 1, 2015, to November 13, 2020). In addition, hand searches of systematic literature reviews and (network) metaanalysis bibliographies were performed. Searches of ClinicalTrials.gov and congress abstracts from the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology, the American College of Rheumatology (ACR), and the American Academy of Dermatology (2019-2020) were also carried out. Eligible studies with 100 or more patients prespecified a comparison by sex and reported clinical characteristics and/or disease activity. Data extracted included patient characteristics, study design, baseline clinical characteristics, and disease activity results, including PROs. RESULTS: Database searching yielded 3283 unique records; 31 publications of 27 unique studies were included. The review found generally higher rates of peripheral disease in women, including higher tender joint counts. There was some evidence of more axial disease in men, plus greater skin disease burden. There were consistently no differences in Dermatology Life Quality Index scores, though across other PROs, women had worse scores, including pain and fatigue. Women had poorer responses to treatment, indicated by outcome measures such as ACR responses and minimal disease activity. CONCLUSION: This review indicates that important differences exist between the sexes in PsA. However, the limited evidence for this conclusion underlines the need for additional research in this area.