Understanding the gap between guidelines and influenza vaccination coverage in people with diabetes: a scoping review.

Background: Diabetes affects millions of people worldwide, making them more vulnerable to infections, including seasonal influenza. It is therefore particularly important for those suffering from diabetes to be vaccinated against influenza each year. However, influenza vaccination coverage remains low in this population. This review primarily aims to identify the determinants of influenza vaccination in people with diabetes (T1D or T2D). Secondly, it aims to assess main recommendations for influenza vaccination, vaccine effectiveness, vaccination coverage, and how education and pharmacists can encourage uptake of the vaccine in the diabetic population. Methods: A scoping review was conducted in January 2022 to systematically review evidence on influenza vaccination in people with diabetes using data from PubMed, Science Direct, and EM Premium with terms such as "Diabetes mellitus," "Immunization Programs," "Vaccination," and "Influenza Vaccines." Quality assessment and data extraction were independently conducted by two authors. Disagreements between the authors were resolved through discussion and consensus, and if necessary, by consulting a third author. Results: Of the 333 records identified, 55 studies met the eligibility criteria for inclusion in this review. Influenza vaccination was recommended for people ≥6 months. Despite effectiveness evidence showing a reduction in mortality and hospitalizations in people with diabetes vaccinated vs. non-vaccinated ones, very few studies reported a coverage rate ≥ 75%, which is WHO's target objective. Determinants such as advanced age, presence of comorbidities and healthcare givers' advice were associated with increased vaccination uptake. On the contrary, fear of adverse reactions and concerns about vaccine effectiveness were significant barriers. Finally, education and pharmacists' intervention played a key role in promoting vaccination and increasing vaccination uptake. Conclusion: Influenza vaccination coverage in people with diabetes remains low despite recommendations and evidence on vaccine effectiveness. Motivators and barriers as well as several socio-demographic and clinical factors have been identified to explain this trend. Efforts are now needed to increase the number of diabetics vaccinated against influenza, mainly through education and the involvement of healthcare givers.

Multiple criteria decision analysis for therapeutic innovations in a hemophilia care center: A pilot study of the organizational impact of innovation in hemophilia care management.

BACKGROUND: Several innovative drugs liable to lead to changes in healthcare organization are or soon will be available for the management of hemophilia. Analyzing their implementation can shed further light on healthcare decision-making, to anticipate changes and risk of breakdown in the patient's care pathway. METHODS: Multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA), based on ISPOR recommendations, was used to assess the organizational impact of innovation in hemophilia care management. The MCDA process designed for this specific context involved ten French experts in hemophilia care management (physicians, nurses, pharmacist, physiotherapist and psychologist) in the hemophilia care center of Chambéry, in the Rhône-Alpes Region of France. This pilot study involved seven steps: (i) defining the decision problem; (ii) selecting and structuring criteria; (iii) assessing the relative weight of each criterion with software-assisted simulation based on pairwise comparisons of different organizational change scenarios; (iv) measuring the performance of the selected innovations; (v) scoring alternatives; (vi) calculating aggregate scores; (vii) discussion. The endpoint was to determine the expected overall organizational impact on a 0-100 scale. RESULTS: Seven organizational criteria were selected. "Acceptability for patient/caregiver/association" was the most heavily weighted. Factor VIII by subcutaneous route obtained the highest aggregate score: i.e., low impact on care organization (88.8 out of 100). The innovation with strongest organizational impact was gene therapy (27.3 out of 100). CONCLUSION: This approach provided a useful support for discussion, integrating organizational aspects in the treatment decision-making process, at healthcare team level. The study needs repeating in a few years' time and in other hemophilia centers.

Assessment of Patient Reported Outcomes (PROs) in Outpatients Taking Oral Anticancer Drugs Included in the Real-Life Oncoral Program.

Background In previous studies, patient-reported outcomes (PROs) have been shown to improve survival in cancer patients. The aim of the present study was to assess symptoms potentially related to adverse events experienced by cancer outpatients treated by oral anticancer agents (OAAs) using PROs. Methods Between September 2018 and May 2019, outpatients starting OAAs were included in a 12-week follow-up to assess 15 symptoms listed in the National Cancer Institute PRO Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, using a 5-point scale of severity or frequency. Patients were requested to alert a referral nurse or pharmacist when they self-assessed high-level (level 3 or 4) symptoms. Results 407 questionnaires were completed by 63 patients in which 2333 symptoms were reported. Almost three-quarters (74.6%) reported at least one high-level symptom. The symptoms that were most commonly experienced were fatigue (>9 in 10 patients; 13.2% of symptoms declared), various psychological disorders (>9 in 10 patients; 28.6% of symptoms declared) and general pain (>8 in 10 patients; 9.4% of symptoms declared). Conclusion PROs are appropriate to detect potential adverse events in cancer outpatients treated by OAAs. This study is the first step for integrating the patient's perspective in a digital e-health device in routine oncology care.

Preparations of exploration of immediate hypersensitivity to antineoplastic agents: An oncology pharmacy perspective.

BACKGROUND: Cancer patients are being exposed to antineoplastic drugs more frequently and for longer periods, resulting in a higher risk of hypersensitivity reactions. The aim of this study was to assess the pharmaceutical time and direct cost of drug allergy explorations following immediate hypersensitivity reactions to antineoplastic agents. METHODS: A micro-costing method was used to collect data on consumption of human and material resources for allergy exploration preparations. The monetisation was carried out on the basis of prices and hourly wage costs applied in 2018. The number and type of allergy explorations prepared by the pharmacy as well as nature of antineoplastic drugs tested, and the number of culprit drugs reintroductions were collected. RESULTS: Almost 1.5 h is required to realise allergy tests for one patient including pharmacist time for prescription analysis and pharmacy technician's time for tests preparation. The mean manufacturing cost of these tests is estimated at €62.87 (€57.82-65.49) per culprit drug for one patient. Programming patients according to culprit drugs tested allows rationalising healthcare provider time and increasing efficiency. From January 2010 to December 2018, 277 patients were tested and 490 allergy explorations were performed, corresponding to more than 5000 preparations. Mostly, the culprit drug could be reintroduced (n = 383, 78.2%) allowing patients to receive the best possible treatment. CONCLUSION: Management of hypersensitivity reactions is constantly progressing, as it contributes to improving patient care in oncology. This activity is time-consuming for the pharmacy team but allows patients with previous hypersensitivity reaction to continue effective treatment.

Organizational aspect in healthcare decision-making: a literature review.

BACKGROUND: Organizational aspect is rarely considered in healthcare. However, it is gradually seen as one of the key aspects of the decision-making process as well as clinical and economic dimensions. Our primary objective was to identify criteria already used to assess the organizational impact of medical innovations. Our secondary objective was to structure them into an inventory to support decision-makers to select the relevant criteria for their complex decision-making issues. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A search using the Medline database was conducted in June 2019. The records published between January, 1990 and December, 2018 were identified. The publications cited by the authors of the included articles and the websites of health technology assessment agencies, units or learned societies identified during the search were also consulted. The identified criteria were structured in an inventory. RESULTS: We selected 107 records of a wide range of evidence mostly published after the 2000s. We identified 636 criteria that we classified into five categories: people, task, structure, technology, and surroundings. CONCLUSION: Criteria selection is a crucial step in any multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA). This work is the first step in the development of a validated MCDA method to assess the organizational impact of medical innovations.

Assessment and diffusion of medical innovations in France: an overview.

Background: In France, a significant part of health expenditure is publicly funding. This put a heavy burden on society. In an economic context requiring tight control of public spending, it seems relevant to control the diffusion of medical innovations. That is why health technology assessment is subject to an increasing interest at national level for management and approval decisions. This article provides an overview of the assessment and diffusion of medical innovation in France. Method: The data are extracted from French authorities or organisations websites and documents and from French legislative texts. In addition, regarding discussion, a search in MEDLINE database was carried out. Results: An overview of the assessment and diffusion of medical innovation in France is given by presenting the different types of medical innovations according to French health system definition (I); introducing French authorities participating to health technology assessment and describe assessment procedures of medical innovations (II); and giving details about market access process of innovative health product in France (III). Key opportunities and challenges of medical innovation assessment and diffusion in France are discussed at the end of this article. Conclusion: In France, medical innovation is considered as a crucial component for quality of care and performance of healthcare system. The aim of health technology assessment is to promote a secure and timely access to innovation for patients. Nevertheless, it appears necessary to improve regulatory mechanisms.

[Evolution of reimbursement of high-cost anticancer drugs: Financial impact within a university hospital]. / Évolution du remboursement des anticancéreux inscrits sur la liste en sus : impact financier au sein d'un centre hospitalo-universitaire.

INTRODUCTION: In the context of health expenses control, reimbursement of high-cost medicines with a 'minor' or 'nonexistent' improvement in actual health benefit evaluated by the Haute Autorité de santé is revised by the decree of March 24, 2016 related to the procedure and terms of registration of high-cost pharmaceutical drugs. This study aims to set up the economic impact of this measure. METHOD: A six months retrospective study was conducted within a French university hospital from July 1, 2015 to December 31, 2015. For each injectable high-cost anticancer drug prescribed to a patient with cancer, the therapeutic indication, its status in relation to the marketing authorization and the associated improvement in actual health benefit were examined. The total costs of these treatments, the cost per type of indication and, in the case of marketing authorization indications, the cost per improvement in actual health benefit were evaluated considering that all drugs affected by the decree would be struck off. RESULTS: Over six months, 4416 high-cost injectable anticancer drugs were prescribed for a total cost of 4.2 million euros. The costs of drugs with a minor or nonexistent improvement in actual benefit and which comparator is not onerous amount 557,564 euros. DISCUSSION: The reform of modalities of inscription on the list of onerous drugs represents a significant additional cost for health institutions (1.1 million euros for our hospital) and raises the question of the accessibility to these treatments for cancer patients.