Proposals for Engaging Patients and Healthcare Professionals in Risk Minimisation from an Analysis of Stakeholder Input to the EU Valproate Assessment Using the Novel Analysing Stakeholder Safety Engagement Tool (ASSET).

INTRODUCTION: Understanding the impact of regulatory actions for medicines and enablers/barriers for positive health outcomes is fundamental to effective risk minimisation measures (RMM). Therefore, the Impact Strategy of the European Union (EU) Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC) includes engagement with patient communities and healthcare professional (HCP) bodies regarding RMM. However, there is uncertainty on how best to obtain stakeholder input. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to (1) analyse stakeholder input at a public hearing and dedicated meeting for the 2017-18 EU procedure on valproate teratogenicity and (2) draw proposals for enhancing PRAC engagement. METHODS: For the content analysis, the novel 'Analysing Stakeholder Safety Engagement Tool' (ASSET) was developed with 21 themes in six domains (appropriateness, access, audience, compatibility, integrability, time), based on implementation theories. RESULTS: Stakeholders provided a wide range of RMM proposals, some beyond the regulatory remit. Patients and most HCPs converged remarkably, but there was some divergence among HCPs on the informed choice objective, the therapeutic place of valproate, the RMM appropriateness, and RMM delivery to HCPs and patients. Ethical aspects emerged as relevant for regulatory decision making, and crucial input gaps were identified from an RMM implementation perspective. Nine pilotable proposals for PRAC were made regarding: (A) Agreeing on appropriate RMM with stakeholders and catalysing healthcare leadership for implementation; (B) Building-up stakeholder input on all elements critical to RMM implementation guided by the ASSET; and (C) Collaborating with all stakeholders for monitoring implementation and evaluating RMM. CONCLUSIONS: New implementation theory-based approaches are promising for enhancing the valuable dialogue between regulators, patients and HCPs and achieving patient safety. EU PAS REGISTER NUMBER: EUPAS35947.

Karyotyping, is it worthwhile in transsexualism?

INTRODUCTION: Karyotyping is often performed in transsexual individuals. AIM: Quantification and characterization of karyotype findings and abnormalities in transsexual persons. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Karyotypes were listed both in male-to-female and in female-to-male transsexual persons. METHODS: The data were collected through a retrospective study. RESULTS: Karyotypes of 368 transsexual individuals (251 male-to-female, 117 female-to-male) are described. Normal findings were found in 97.55%. Prevalence of abnormal karyotypes was 3.19% among male-to-female, and 0.85% among female-to-male transsexuals. Nine karyotypes showed variations; Klinefelter syndrome was confirmed in three persons, whereas others displayed autosomal aberrations. CONCLUSION: Karyotyping is only of very limited information in the transsexual population.