The experiences and perspectives of people with gout on urate self-monitoring.

INTRODUCTION: Gout management remains suboptimal despite safe and effective urate-lowering therapy. Self-monitoring of urate may improve gout management, however, the acceptability of urate self-monitoring by people with gout is unknown. The aim of this study was to explore the experiences of urate self-monitoring in people with gout. METHODS: Semistructured interviews were conducted with people taking urate-lowering therapy (N = 30) in a 12-month trial of urate self-monitoring in rural and urban Australia. Interviews covered the experience of monitoring and its effect on gout self-management. Deidentified transcripts were analysed thematically. RESULTS: Participants valued the ability to self-monitor and gain more understanding of urate control compared with the annual monitoring ordered by their doctors. Participants indicated that self-monitoring at home was easy, convenient and informed gout self-management behaviours such as dietary modifications, hydration, exercise and medication routines. Many participants self-monitored to understand urate concentration changes in response to feeling a gout flare was imminent or whether their behaviours, for example, alcohol intake, increased the risk of a gout flare. Urate concentrations were shared with doctors mainly when they were above target to seek management support, and this led to allopurinol dose increases in some cases. CONCLUSION: Urate self-monitoring was viewed by people with gout as convenient and useful for independent management of gout. They believed self-monitoring achieved better gout control with a less restricted lifestyle. Urate data was shared with doctors at the patient's discretion and helped inform clinical decisions, such as allopurinol dose changes. Further research on implementing urate self-monitoring in routine care would enable an evaluation of its impact on medication adherence and clinical outcomes, as well as inform gout management guidelines. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: One person with gout, who was not a participant, was involved in the study design by providing feedback and pilot testing the semistructured interview guide. In response to their feedback, subsequent modifications to the interview guide were made to improve the understandability of the questions from a patient perspective. No additional questions were suggested.

Best step-up treatments for children with uncontrolled asthma: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of individual participant data.

BACKGROUND: There is uncertainty about the best treatment option for children/adolescents with uncontrolled asthma despite inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and international guidelines make different recommendations. We evaluated the pharmacological treatments to reduce asthma exacerbations and symptoms in uncontrolled patients age <18 years on ICS. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, Web of Science, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Technology Appraisals, National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Technology Assessment series, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry, conference abstracts and internal clinical trial registers (1 July 2014 to 5 May 2023) for randomised controlled trials of participants age <18 years with uncontrolled asthma on any ICS dose alone at screening. Studies before July 2014 were retrieved from previous systematic reviews/contact with authors. Patients had to be randomised to any dose of ICS alone or combined with long-acting ß2-agonists (LABA) or combined with leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRA), LTRA alone, theophylline or placebo. Primary outcomes were exacerbation and asthma control. The interventions evaluated were ICS (low/medium/high dose), ICS+LABA, ICS+LTRA, LTRA alone, theophylline and placebo. RESULTS: Of the 4708 publications identified, 144 trials were eligible. Individual participant data were obtained from 29 trials and aggregate data were obtained from 19 trials. Compared with ICS Low, ICS Medium+LABA was associated with the lowest odds of exacerbation (OR 0.44, 95% credibility interval (95% CrI) 0.19-0.90) and with an increased forced expiratory volume in 1 s (mean difference 0.71, 95% CrI 0.35-1.06). Treatment with LTRA was the least preferred. No apparent differences were found for asthma control. CONCLUSIONS: Uncontrolled children/adolescents on low-dose ICS should be recommended a change to medium-dose ICS+LABA to reduce the risk for exacerbation and improve lung function.

Methodological considerations on estimating medication adherence from self-report, electronic monitoring and electronic healthcare databases using the TEOS framework.

AIMS: Measuring adherence to medication is complex due to the diversity of contexts in which medications are prescribed, dispensed and used. The Timelines-Events-Objectives-Sources (TEOS) framework outlined a process to operationalize adherence. We aimed to develop practical recommendations for quantification of medication adherence using self-report (SR), electronic monitoring (EM) and electronic healthcare databases (EHD) consistent with the TEOS framework for adherence operationalization. METHODS: An adherence methodology working group of the International Society for Medication Adherence (ESPACOMP) analysed implications of the process of medication adherence for all data sources and discussed considerations specific to SR, EM and EHD regarding the information available on the prescribing, dispensing, recommended and actual use timelines, the four events relevant for distinguishing the adherence phases, the study objectives commonly addressed with each type of data, and the potential sources of measurement error and quality criteria applicable. RESULTS: Four key implications for medication adherence measurement are common to all data sources: adherence is a comparison between two series of events (recommended and actual use); it refers to one or more specific medication(s); it applies to regular repeated events coinciding with known recommended dosing; and it requires separate measurement of the three adherence phases for a complete picture of patients' adherence. We propose recommendations deriving from these statements, and aspects to be considered in study design when measuring adherence with SR, EM and EHD using the TEOS framework. CONCLUSION: The quality of medication adherence estimates is the result of several design choices that may optimize the data available.

A framework for understanding sources of bias in medication adherence research.

The sources of bias in medication adherence research have not been comprehensively explored. We aimed to identify biases expected to affect adherence research and to develop a framework for mapping these onto the phases of adherence (initiation, implementation and discontinuation). A literature search was conducted, key papers were reviewed and a Catalogue of Bias was consulted. The specific biases related to adherence measurement and metrics were mapped onto the phases of adherence using a tabular matrix. Twenty-three biases were identified, of which 11 were specifically relevant to adherence measures and metrics. The mapping framework showed differences in the numbers and types of biases associated with each measure and metric while highlighting those common to many adherence study designs (e.g., unacceptability bias and apprehension bias). The framework will inform the design of adherence studies and the development of risk of bias tools for adherence research.

Psychometric Properties of an Adapted Stigma Scale and Experiences of Stigma Associated with HIV Pre-exposure Prophylaxis Use Among Men Who have Sex with Men: A Mixed Methods Study.

Stigma may influence the use of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP). However, there is an absence of robust measures for PrEP-related stigma. We describe an adaptation of a HIV stigma scale for use in PrEP users and experiences of PrEP users in Wales (UK) with regards to PrEP-related stigma. A mixed methods study was conducted where PrEP users completed questionnaire items about PrEP-related stigma and a subset were interviewed about their experiences of taking PrEP. We adapted items from the HIV stigma scale and assessed construct validity and internal consistency. We analysed interview data using a framework approach, with themes focussing on enacted and anticipated stigma in order to identify areas for scale refinement. Our measure had good psychometric properties but additional items may be useful (e.g. specific instances of enacted stigma, concerns around homonegativity). Further work is needed to develop this scale and validate it in a larger sample.

Between- and Within-Individual Sociodemographic and Psychological Determinants of PrEP Adherence Among Men Who have Sex with Men Prescribed a Daily PrEP Regimen in Wales.

We investigated the determinants of daily PrEP use and coverage of condomless anal sex (CAS) by PrEP among men who have sex with men in Wales, UK. We measured PrEP use by electronic monitors and CAS by secure online surveys. We defined PrEP use based on daily medication cap openings and coverage as CAS episodes preceded by ≥ 3 days of PrEP use and followed by ≥ 2 days of PrEP use. We included 57 participants (5463 observations). An STI diagnosis was associated with lower PrEP use but also lower PrEP coverage. Older adults had higher PrEP use. A belief that other PrEP users took PrEP as prescribed was associated with lower PrEP coverage. An STI diagnosis is an important cue for an intervention, reflecting episodes of high-risk sexual behaviour and low PrEP coverage. Other results provide a basis for the development of an evidence-informed intervention for promoting coverage of PrEP.

The SANAD II study of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of levetiracetam, zonisamide, or lamotrigine for newly diagnosed focal epilepsy: an open-label, non-inferiority, multicentre, phase 4, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Levetiracetam and zonisamide are licensed as monotherapy for patients with focal epilepsy, but there is uncertainty as to whether they should be recommended as first-line treatments because of insufficient evidence of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. We aimed to assess the long-term clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of levetiracetam and zonisamide compared with lamotrigine in people with newly diagnosed focal epilepsy. METHODS: This randomised, open-label, controlled trial compared levetiracetam and zonisamide with lamotrigine as first-line treatment for patients with newly diagnosed focal epilepsy. Adult and paediatric neurology services across the UK recruited participants aged 5 years or older (with no upper age limit) with two or more unprovoked focal seizures. Participants were randomly allocated (1:1:1) using a minimisation programme with a random element utilising factor to receive lamotrigine, levetiracetam, or zonisamide. Participants and investigators were not masked and were aware of treatment allocation. SANAD II was designed to assess non-inferiority of both levetiracetam and zonisamide to lamotrigine for the primary outcome of time to 12-month remission. Anti-seizure medications were taken orally and for participants aged 12 years or older the initial advised maintenance doses were lamotrigine 50 mg (morning) and 100 mg (evening), levetiracetam 500 mg twice per day, and zonisamide 100 mg twice per day. For children aged between 5 and 12 years the initial daily maintenance doses advised were lamotrigine 1·5 mg/kg twice per day, levetiracetam 20 mg/kg twice per day, and zonisamide 2·5 mg/kg twice per day. All participants were included in the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis. The per-protocol (PP) analysis excluded participants with major protocol deviations and those who were subsequently diagnosed as not having epilepsy. Safety analysis included all participants who received one dose of any study drug. The non-inferiority limit was a hazard ratio (HR) of 1·329, which equates to an absolute difference of 10%. A HR greater than 1 indicated that an event was more likely on lamotrigine. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, 30294119 (EudraCt number: 2012-001884-64). FINDINGS: 990 participants were recruited between May 2, 2013, and June 20, 2017, and followed up for a further 2 years. Patients were randomly assigned to receive lamotrigine (n=330), levetiracetam (n=332), or zonisamide (n=328). The ITT analysis included all participants and the PP analysis included 324 participants randomly assigned to lamotrigine, 320 participants randomly assigned to levetiracetam, and 315 participants randomly assigned to zonisamide. Levetiracetam did not meet the criteria for non-inferiority in the ITT analysis of time to 12-month remission versus lamotrigine (HR 1·18; 97·5% CI 0·95-1·47) but zonisamide did meet the criteria for non-inferiority in the ITT analysis versus lamotrigine (1·03; 0·83-1·28). The PP analysis showed that 12-month remission was superior with lamotrigine than both levetiracetam (HR 1·32 [97·5% CI 1·05 to 1·66]) and zonisamide (HR 1·37 [1·08-1·73]). There were 37 deaths during the trial. Adverse reactions were reported by 108 (33%) participants who started lamotrigine, 144 (44%) participants who started levetiracetam, and 146 (45%) participants who started zonisamide. Lamotrigine was superior in the cost-utility analysis, with a higher net health benefit of 1·403 QALYs (97·5% central range 1·319-1·458) compared with 1·222 (1·110-1·283) for levetiracetam and 1·232 (1·112, 1·307) for zonisamide at a cost-effectiveness threshold of £20 000 per QALY. Cost-effectiveness was based on differences between treatment groups in costs and QALYs. INTERPRETATION: These findings do not support the use of levetiracetam or zonisamide as first-line treatments for patients with focal epilepsy. Lamotrigine should remain a first-line treatment for patients with focal epilepsy and should be the standard treatment in future trials. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

The SANAD II study of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of valproate versus levetiracetam for newly diagnosed generalised and unclassifiable epilepsy: an open-label, non-inferiority, multicentre, phase 4, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Valproate is a first-line treatment for patients with newly diagnosed idiopathic generalised or difficult to classify epilepsy, but not for women of child-bearing potential because of teratogenicity. Levetiracetam is increasingly prescribed for these patient populations despite scarcity of evidence of clinical effectiveness or cost-effectiveness. We aimed to compare the long-term clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of levetiracetam compared with valproate in participants with newly diagnosed generalised or unclassifiable epilepsy. METHODS: We did an open-label, randomised controlled trial to compare levetiracetam with valproate as first-line treatment for patients with generalised or unclassified epilepsy. Adult and paediatric neurology services (69 centres overall) across the UK recruited participants aged 5 years or older (with no upper age limit) with two or more unprovoked generalised or unclassifiable seizures. Participants were randomly allocated (1:1) to receive either levetiracetam or valproate, using a minimisation programme with a random element utilising factors. Participants and investigators were aware of treatment allocation. For participants aged 12 years or older, the initial advised maintenance doses were 500 mg twice per day for levetiracetam and valproate, and for children aged 5-12 years, the initial daily maintenance doses advised were 25 mg/kg for valproate and 40 mg/kg for levetiracetam. All drugs were administered orally. SANAD II was designed to assess the non-inferiority of levetiracetam compared with valproate for the primary outcome time to 12-month remission. The non-inferiority limit was a hazard ratio (HR) of 1·314, which equates to an absolute difference of 10%. A HR greater than 1 indicated that an event was more likely on valproate. All participants were included in the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis. Per-protocol (PP) analyses excluded participants with major protocol deviations and those who were subsequently diagnosed as not having epilepsy. Safety analyses included all participants who received one dose of any study drug. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, 30294119 (EudraCt number: 2012-001884-64). FINDINGS: 520 participants were recruited between April 30, 2013, and Aug 2, 2016, and followed up for a further 2 years. 260 participants were randomly allocated to receive levetiracetam and 260 participants to receive valproate. The ITT analysis included all participants and the PP analysis included 255 participants randomly allocated to valproate and 254 randomly allocated to levetiracetam. Median age of participants was 13·9 years (range 5·0-94·4), 65% were male and 35% were female, 397 participants had generalised epilepsy, and 123 unclassified epilepsy. Levetiracetam did not meet the criteria for non-inferiority in the ITT analysis of time to 12-month remission (HR 1·19 [95% CI 0·96-1·47]); non-inferiority margin 1·314. The PP analysis showed that the 12-month remission was superior with valproate than with levetiracetam. There were two deaths, one in each group, that were unrelated to trial treatments. Adverse reactions were reported by 96 (37%) participants randomly assigned to valproate and 107 (42%) participants randomly assigned to levetiracetam. Levetiracetam was dominated by valproate in the cost-utility analysis, with a negative incremental net health benefit of -0·040 (95% central range -0·175 to 0·037) and a probability of 0·17 of being cost-effectiveness at a threshold of £20 000 per quality-adjusted life-year. Cost-effectiveness was based on differences between treatment groups in costs and quality-adjusted life-years. INTERPRETATION: Compared with valproate, levetiracetam was found to be neither clinically effective nor cost-effective. For girls and women of child-bearing potential, these results inform discussions about benefit and harm of avoiding valproate. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.

Choice of oral anticoagulant prescribed by general practices in Wales: Application of Dirichlet regression and linked data.

AIMS: There has been sustained growth in the prescribing of direct oral anticoagulants (OACs) in primary care in the UK. Given the different indications, properties and prices of OACs, variation between prescribers is expected; however, a high level of variation may be evidence of inappropriate or suboptimal prescribing. This study examined the variation in the relative use of OACs in primary care in Wales. METHODS: Data on total defined daily doses of all community-dispensed OACs in 2019 were linked at the GP practice level with disease registers, patient demographic data and GP and patient numbers. The relative use of each OAC, as a fraction of all OACs prescribed, was analysed using Dirichlet regression to quantify the association between prescribing patterns and practice and area-level characteristics. RESULTS: Across 417 GP practices, the mean (range) in the relative prescribing of warfarin was 37% (6%-64%), apixaban was 32% (2%-65%), rivaroxaban 23% (0%-66%), dabigatran 3% (0%-23%) and edoxaban 6% (0%-59%). Statistical modelling provided strong evidence that prescribing patterns are associated with a GP practice's health board and also their nearest major hospital. Compared to the null model, a model including health board resulted in a 15% fall in Akaike information criterion, increasing to 20% with the addition of nearest major hospital and 27% including further covariates. CONCLUSION: Systematic variation in OAC prescribing, by health board and based on nearest hospital, indicates that factors other than patient clinical characteristics and preferences may be influencing prescribing decisions.

Novel oral iron therapy for iron deficiency anaemia: How to value safety in a new drug?

AIMS: Novel oral iron supplements may be associated with a reduced incidence of adverse drug reactions compared to standard treatments of iron deficiency anaemia. The aim was to establish their value-based price under conditions of uncertainty surrounding their tolerability. METHODS: A discrete-time Markov model was developed to assess the value-based price of oral iron preparations based on their incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained from the perspective of the NHS in the UK. Primary and secondary care resource use and health state occupancy probabilities were estimated from routine electronic health records; and unit costs and health state utilities were derived from published sources. Patients were pre-menopausal women with iron deficiency anaemia who were prescribed oral iron supplementation between 2000 and 2014. RESULTS: The model reflecting current use of iron salts yielded a mean total cost to the NHS of £779, and 0.84 QALYs over 12 months. If a new iron preparation were to reduce the risk of adverse drug reactions by 30-40%, then its value-based price, based on a threshold of £20 000 per QALY, would be in the region of £10-£13 per month, or about 7-9 times the average price of basic iron salts. CONCLUSIONS: There are no adequate, direct comparisons of new oral iron supplements to ferrous iron salts, and therefore other approaches are needed to assess their value. Our modelling shows that they are potentially cost-effective at prices that are an order of magnitude higher than existing iron salts.

Experiences of men who have sex with men when initiating, implementing and persisting with HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis.

INTRODUCTION: HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) involves the use of antiretroviral medication in HIV-negative individuals considered to be at risk of acquiring HIV. It has been shown to prevent HIV and has been available in Wales since July 2017. Measuring and understanding adherence to PrEP is complex as it relies on the simultaneous understanding of both PrEP use and sexual activity. We aimed to understand the experiences of men who have sex with men (MSM) living in Wales initiating, implementing and persisting with HIV PrEP. METHODS: We conducted semistructured interviews with MSM PrEP users in Wales who participated in a cohort study of PrEP use and sexual behaviour. Following completion of the cohort study, participants were invited to take part in a semistructured interview about their experiences of taking PrEP. We aimed to include both individuals who had persisted with and discontinued PrEP during the study. The interview topic guide was informed by the ABC taxonomy for medication adherence and the theory of planned behaviour. We analysed our data using reflexive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Twenty-one participants were interviewed, five having discontinued PrEP during the cohort study. The developed themes focused on triggers for initiating PrEP, habitual behaviour, drivers for discontinuation and engagement with sexual health services. Stigma surrounding both PrEP and HIV permeated most topics, acting as a driver for initiating PrEP, an opportunity to reduce discrimination against people living with HIV, but also a concern around the perception of PrEP users. CONCLUSION: This is the first study to investigate PrEP-taking experiences incorporating established medication adherence taxonomy. We highlight key experiences regarding the initiation, implementation and persistence with PrEP and describe how taking PrEP may promote positive engagement with sexual health services. These findings may be useful for informing PrEP rollout programmes and need to be explored in other key populations. PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: PrEP users, in addition to PrEP providers and representatives of HIV advocacy and policy, were involved in developing the topic guide for this study.

A systematic review of economic evaluations of advanced therapy medicinal products.

AIMS: Advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs) represent a new category of medicinal products with a potential for transformative improvements in health outcomes but at exceptionally high prices. Routine adoption of ATMPs requires robust evidence of their cost-effectiveness. METHODS: A systematic literature review of economic evaluations of ATMPs, including gene therapies, somatic cell therapies and tissue-engineered products, was conducted. Literature was searched using MedLine, Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Register, the NHS Economic Evaluation Database and the grey literature of health technology assessment organisations with search terms relating to ATMPs and economic evaluations. Titles were screened independently by 2 reviewers. Articles deemed to meet the inclusion criteria were screened independently on abstract, and full texts reviewed. Study findings were appraised critically. RESULTS: 4514 articles were identified, of which 23 met the inclusion criteria. There was some evidence supporting the cost-effectiveness of: chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy axicabtagene-ciloleucel (Yescarta), embryonic neural stem cells, tumour infiltrating lymphocytes, in vitro expanded myoblast, autologous chondrocyte implantation, ex vivo gene therapy (Strimvelis) and voretigene neparvovec (Luxturna). However, estimates of cost-effectiveness were associated with significant uncertainty and high likelihood of bias, resulting from largely unknown long-term outcomes, a paucity of evidence on health state utilities and extensive modelling assumptions. CONCLUSION: There are critical limitations to the economic evidence for ATMPs, most notably in relation to evidence on the durability of treatment effect, and the reliability of opinion-based assumptions necessary when evidence is absent.

Managing access to advanced therapy medicinal products: Challenges for NHS Wales.

Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products (ATMPs), which include gene, somatic cell therapies and tissue-engineered medicines, have the potential to transform current care pathways by offering durable and potentially curative outcomes. However, they are exceptionally expensive, with prices exceeding £1m per patient in some cases. With an expectation that a large number of ATMPs will soon gain marketing authorisation (global market is estimated to reach £9bn to £14bn by 2025), healthcare payers and providers face a number of challenges to facilitate patient access to this new category of medicines. This viewpoint reflects on the experience of introducing ATMPs into the National Health Service in Wales where £1 in every £200 spent on medicines (2019/2020) is expected to be on ATMPs for just 20 patients. Evidence to date makes it apparent that decisions regarding clinical and cost-effectiveness and the scale of the budget impact of implementing ATMPs create both financial and health service risks. Consequently, there are significant policy implications. A critical examination is made of the approaches taken for the health technology assessment and appraisal of ATMPs, the methods of payment and service impacts of these medicines, and the approach taken to horizon scanning and subsequent modelling of the financial impact over the next 10 years.

TEOS: A framework for constructing operational definitions of medication adherence based on Timelines-Events-Objectives-Sources.

AIMS: Managing adherence to medications is a priority for health systems worldwide. Adherence research is accumulating, yet the quality of the evidence is reduced by various methodological limitations. In particular, the heterogeneity and low accuracy of adherence measures have been highlighted in many literature reviews. Recent consensus-based guidelines advise on best practices in defining adherence (ABC) and reporting of empirical studies (EMERGE). While these guidelines highlight the importance of operational definitions in adherence measurement, such definitions are rarely included in study reports. To support researchers in their measurement decisions, we developed a structured approach to formulate operational definitions of adherence. METHODS: A group of adherence and research methodology experts used theoretical, methodological and practical considerations to examine the process of applying adherence definitions to various research settings, questions and data sources. Consensus was reached through iterative review of discussion summaries and framework versions. RESULTS: We introduce TEOS, a four-component framework to guide the operationalization of adherence concepts: (1) describe treatment as four simultaneous interdependent timelines (recommended and actual use, conditional on prescribing and dispensing); (2) locate four key events along these timelines to delimit the three ABC phases (first and last recommended use, first and last actual use); (3) revisit study objectives and design to fine-tune research questions and assess measurement validity and reliability needs, and (4) select data sources (e.g., electronic monitoring, self-report, electronic healthcare databases) that best address measurement needs. CONCLUSION: Using the TEOS framework when designing research and reporting explicitly on these components can improve measurement quality.

Content of Health Economics Analysis Plans (HEAPs) for Trial-Based Economic Evaluations: Expert Delphi Consensus Survey.

OBJECTIVES: Health economics analysis plans (HEAPs) currently lack consistency, with uncertainty surrounding appropriate content. We aimed to develop a list of essential items that should be included in HEAPs for economic evaluations conducted alongside randomized trials. METHODS: A list of potential items for inclusion was developed by examining existing HEAPs. An electronic Delphi survey was conducted among professional health economists. Respondents were asked to rate potential items from 1 (least important) to 9 (most important), suggest additional items, and comment on proposed items (round 1). A second survey (round 2) was emailed to participants, including the participant's own scores from round 1 along with summary results from the whole panel; participants were asked to rerate each item. Consensus criteria for inclusion in the final list were predefined as >70% of participants rating an item 7-9 and <15% rating it 1-3 after round 2. A final item selection meeting was held to scrutinize the results and adjudicate on items lacking consensus. RESULTS: 62 participants completed round 1 of the survey. The initial list included 72 potential items; all 72 were carried forward to round 2, and no new items were added. 48 round 1 respondents (77.4%) completed round 2 and reached consensus on 53 items. At the final meeting, the expert panel (n = 9) agreed that 58 items should be included in the essential list, moved 9 items to an optional list, and dropped 5 items. CONCLUSIONS: Via expert consensus opinion, this study identified 58 items that are considered essential in a HEAP.

What should patients do if they miss a dose? A systematic review of patient information leaflets and summaries of product characteristics.

PURPOSE: Medicines regulatory authorities advise that patient information leaflets (PILs) should provide specific advice on what actions to take if one or more doses are missed. We aimed to assess the content in this regard, of PILs and Summaries of Product Characteristics (SmPCs) of prescription only medicines (POMs) marketed in the UK. METHODS: PILs and SmPCs were accessed via the electronic Medicines Compendium. The following terms were used in the advanced search facility: miss(ed), omit(ted), adhere(d), delay(ed), forgot, forget, lapse. Identified documents were screened for instructions on missed doses which were categorised according to level of specificity, and cross-referenced to the National Patient Safety Agency (NPSA) grading of risk of harm from omitted and delayed medicines. Any supporting clinical or pharmacological evidence was identified from SmPCs. RESULTS: Two thousand two hundred eighty-four documents were identified from 7248 PILs and SmPCs relating to 1501 POMs. Seven hundred eighty-three (52%) POMs had SmPCs or PILs with no instructions on missed doses; 487 POMs (32%) included non-specific advice (e.g. "take as soon as possible"); 138 (9%) provided specific instructions; and 93 (6%) referred patients to seek medical advice. SmPCs for only 13/138 (9%) of those which included specific instructions provided any supporting clinical or pharmacological evidence. Instructions were absent for several medicines where the NPSA assessed that dose omissions may result in significant risk of harm. CONCLUSIONS: Advice on missed doses is generally inadequate. Pharmaceutical companies and regulatory authorities should produce clear and concise instructions on what patients should do if they miss doses, with supporting evidence where necessary.

Is there a role for natural desiccated thyroid in the treatment of levothyroxine unresponsive hypothyroidism? Results from a consecutive case series.

INTRODUCTION: Some levothyroxine unresponsive individuals with hypothyroidism are prescribed a natural desiccated thyroid (NDT) preparation such as Armour Thyroid® or ERFA Thyroid® . These contain a mixture of levothyroxine and liothyronine in a fixed ratio. We evaluated the response to NDT in individuals at a single endocrine centre in terms of how the change from levothyroxine to NDT impacted on their lives in relation to quality of life (QOL) and thyroid symptoms. METHODS: The ThyPRO39 (thyroid symptomatology) and EQ-5D-5L-related QoL/EQ5D5L (generic QOL) questionnaires were administered to 31 consecutive patients who had been initiated on NDT, before initiating treatment/6 months later. RESULTS: There were 28 women and 3 men. The dose range of NDT was 60-180 mg daily. Age range was 26-77 years with length of time since diagnosis with hypothyroidism ranging from 2 to 40 years. One person discontinued the NDT because of lack of response; two because of cardiac symptoms. EQ-5D-5L utility increased from a mean (SD) of 0.214 (0.338) at baseline, to 0.606 (0.248) after 6 months; corresponding to a difference of 0.392 (95% CI 0.241-0.542), t = 6.82, P < .001. EQ-VAS scores increased from 33.4 (17.2) to 71.1 (17.5), a difference of 37.7 (95% CI 25.2-50.2), t = -4.9, P < .001. ThyPRO scores showed consistent fall across all domains with the composite QoL-impact Score improving from 68.3 (95% CI 60.9-75.7) to 25.2 (95% CI 18.7-31.7), a difference of 43.1 (95% CI 33-53.2) (t = 5.6, P < .001). CONCLUSION: Significant symptomatic benefit and improvement in QOL was experienced by people with a history of levothyroxine unresponsive hypothyroidism treated with NDT, suggesting the need for further evaluation of NDT in this context.

The Role of Prevention in Reducing the Economic Impact of ME/CFS in Europe: A Report from the Socioeconomics Working Group of the European Network on ME/CFS (EUROMENE).

This report addresses the extent to which there may be scope for preventive programmes for Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS), and, if so, what economic benefits may accrue from the implementation of such programmes. We consider the economic case for prevention programmes, whether there is scope for preventive programmes for ME/CFS, and what are the health and economic benefits to be derived from the implementation of such programmes. We conclude that there is little scope for primary prevention programmes, given that ME/CFS is attributable to a combination of host and environmental risk factors, with host factors appearing to be most prominent, and that there are few identified modifiable risk factors that could be the focus of such programmes. The exception is in the use of agricultural chemicals, particularly organophosphates, where there is scope for intervention, and where Europe-wide programmes of health education to encourage safe use would be beneficial. There is a need for more research on risk factors for ME/CFS to establish a basis for the development of primary prevention programmes, particularly in respect of occupational risk factors. Secondary prevention offers the greatest scope for intervention, to minimise diagnostic delays associated with prolonged illness, increased severity, and increased costs.

Perceptions of European ME/CFS Experts Concerning Knowledge and Understanding of ME/CFS among Primary Care Physicians in Europe: A Report from the European ME/CFS Research Network (EUROMENE).

Background and Objectives: We have conducted a survey of academic and clinical experts who are participants in the European ME/CFS Research Network (EUROMENE) to elicit perceptions of general practitioner (GP) knowledge and understanding of myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) and suggestions as to how this could be improved. Materials and Methods: A questionnaire was sent to all national representatives and members of the EUROMENE Core Group and Management Committee. Survey responses were collated and then summarized based on the numbers and percentages of respondents selecting each response option, while weighted average responses were calculated for questions with numerical value response options. Free text responses were analysed using thematic analysis. Results: Overall there were 23 responses to the survey from participants across 19 different European countries, with a 95% country-level response rate. Serious concerns were expressed about GPs' knowledge and understanding of ME/CFS, and, it was felt, about 60% of patients with ME/CFS went undiagnosed as a result. The vast majority of GPs were perceived to lack confidence in either diagnosing or managing the condition. Disbelief, and misleading illness attributions, were perceived to be widespread, and the unavailability of specialist centres to which GPs could refer patients and seek advice and support was frequently commented upon. There was widespread support for more training on ME/CFS at both undergraduate and postgraduate levels. Conclusion: The results of this survey are consistent with the existing scientific literature. ME/CFS experts report that lack of knowledge and understanding of ME/CFS among GPs is a major cause of missed and delayed diagnoses, which renders problematic attempts to determine the incidence and prevalence of the disease, and to measure its economic impact. It also contributes to the burden of disease through mismanagement in its early stages.

A Literature Review of GP Knowledge and Understanding of ME/CFS: A Report from the Socioeconomic Working Group of the European Network on ME/CFS (EUROMENE).

Background and Objectives: The socioeconomic working group of the European myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) Research Network (EUROMENE) has conducted a review of the literature pertaining to GPs' knowledge and understanding of ME/CFS; Materials and Methods: A MEDLINE search was carried out. The papers identified were reviewed following the synthesis without meta-analysis (SWiM) methodology, and were classified according to the focus of the enquiry (patients, GPs, database and medical record studies, evaluation of a training programme, and overview papers), and whether they were quantitative or qualitative in nature; Results: Thirty-three papers were identified in the MEDLINE search. The quantitative surveys of GPs demonstrated that a third to a half of all GPs did not accept ME/CFS as a genuine clinical entity and, even when they did, they lacked confidence in diagnosing or managing it. It should be noted, though, that these papers were mostly from the United Kingdom. Patient surveys indicated that a similar proportion of patients was dissatisfied with the primary medical care they had received. These findings were consistent with the findings of the qualitative studies that were examined, and have changed little over several decades; Conclusions: Disbelief and lack of knowledge and understanding of ME/CFS among GPs is widespread, and the resultant diagnostic delays constitute a risk factor for severe and prolonged disease. Failure to diagnose ME/CFS renders problematic attempts to determine its prevalence, and hence its economic impact.