Comparative Analysis of Guideline Adherence between Germany and Austria by Using the Example of Uncomplicated Urinary Tract Infections.

BACKGROUND: Medical guidelines represent the evidence-based state of the art of their scientific field. They aim to guide decisions for physicians and patients about appropriate health care for specific clinical circumstances. However, guideline recommendations are often not adhered to in clinical practice. In particular, a large discrepancy exists regarding the treatment of uncomplicated urinary tract infections. To date, just a few studies addressed the potential reasons for these guideline violations. OBJECTIVES: This investigation aimed to identify and complement reasons for the nonadherence to guideline recommendations. METHODS: A survey amongst a total of 563 German and Austrian urologists identified physician- and patient-related factors contributing to this current state. RESULTS: The physician's personal experience, the lack of applicability to individual patients, and shortage of time were identified as crucial barriers for the physician. Patient-related barriers were poor experience with the antibiotic, fear of collateral damage, and inadequate information about the disease and its therapy. CONCLUSIONS: We suggest modifying guideline designs by including abstracts and flowcharts appropriate for daily use and separate patient instructions to improve guideline compliance. Furthermore, guideline authors should communicate updates in a timely and accessible manner. Presentations at scientific congresses increase visibility and enhance the dialogue with colleagues.

Real-World Evidence Data on Metastatic Renal-Cell Carcinoma Treatment in Austria: The RELACS Study.

BACKGROUND: Treatment decisions in routine clinical practice are based on reports of clinical trials, which represent highly selected populations. Limited studies reported real-world evidences representing routine clinical practices in patients with renal-cell carcinoma (RCC) in Europe. The aim of this retrospective, noninterventional chart review was to collect data on the treatment landscape for patients with advanced/metastatic RCC in routine clinical practice in a broader patient population in Austria. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with advanced/metastatic RCC receiving systemic treatment between June 2010 and June 2016 across 12 centers in Austria were included. Parameters were entered into an electronic case report form from the participating sites via the application Hermesoft electronic data capture system. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were the 2 primary end points. RESULTS: The median PFS and OS were 12 months and 44 months, respectively (first-line PFS was 14 months for pazopanib and 13 months for sunitinib; first-line OS was 44 months for pazopanib and 48 months for sunitinib). Factors influencing the OS were sex, with female patients at a significantly higher risk than male patients (hazard ratio = 1.719), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status > 0 increased the risk twice (hazard ratio = 2.048), and number of metastases > 3 before the first line doubled the risk compared to metastases (hazard ratio = 2.064). CONCLUSION: OS in this retrospective chart review was considerably longer than the previous reports in real-world patients, underlining the benefit of current RCC treatment options in routine clinical practice.