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.

Medical device assessment: scientific evidence examined by the French national agency for health - a descriptive study.

BACKGROUND: Scientific evidence supports decision-making on the use of implantable medical devices (IMDs) in clinical practice, but IMDs are thought to be far less investigated than drugs. In the USA, studies have shown that approval process of high-risk medical devices was often based on insufficiently robust studies, suggesting that evidence prior to marketing may not be adequate. This study aimed to ascertain level of evidence available for IMDs access to reimbursement in France. METHODS: The objective was to examine the scientific evidence used for IMDs assessment by the French National Authority for Health. We collected all public documents summarising supportive clinical data and opinions concerning IMDs issued in 2008. An opinion qualifies the expected benefit (EB) of the IMD assessed as sufficient or insufficient, and if sufficient, the level of improvement of the expected benefit (IEB) on a scale from major (level I) to no improvement (level V). For each opinion, the study with the highest level of evidence of efficacy data, and its design were collected, or, where no studies were available, any other data sources used to establish the opinion. RESULTS: One hundred and two opinions were analysed, with 72 reporting at least one study used for assessment (70.6%). When considering the study with the highest level of evidence: 34 were clinical non-comparative studies (47.2%); 29 were clinical comparative studies of which 25 randomised controlled trials (40.3%); 5 were meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials (6.9%); and 4 were systematic literature reviews (5.6%). The opinions were significantly different according to the study design (p < 0.001). The most frequent design for insufficient EB, IEB level V and IEB level IV was a non-comparative study (10/19, 52.6%; 15/24, 62.5%; and 8/15, 53.3%; respectively). For the 30 opinions with no supporting clinical study, 16 (53.3%) were based on an expert-based process, 9 (30.0%) were based on the conclusions of a previous opinion (all concluding IEB level V), and 5 (16.7%) reported no data (concluding insufficient EB for 4 and IEB level V for 1). CONCLUSIONS: This study confirmed that level of evidence of clinical evaluation of IMDs is low and needs to be improved.

Haemophilia in France: Modelisation of the Clinical Pathway for Patients.

Process-of-care studies participate in improving the efficiency of the care pathway for patient with haemophilia (CPPH) and rationalize the multidisciplinary management of patients. Our objective is to establish a current overview of the different actors involved in the management of patients with haemophilia and to provide an accurate description of the patient trajectory. This is a qualitative exploratory research based on interviews of the principal health professionals of four haemophilia services, between November 2019 and February 2020, in France. Mapping of the CPPH processes within the different institutions and/or services, as well as the rupture zones, were identified. Treatment delivery and biological analyses were carried out exclusively in healthcare institutions. The main liberal health professionals solicited were nurses, physiotherapists and general practitioner. Obstacles and barriers within the specialized service, with other hospital services and external hospital or private services, community health care providers et community environment and individual one was complex and multiples. Our research identified potential concerns that need to be addressed to improve future studies to identify influential elements. Similarly, other qualitative studies will have to be conducted on the perceptions and literacy of patients with haemophilia to develop a global interactive mapping of their trajectories.

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.

Patients' Perception of the Impact of Innovation on Hemophilia Care Management Organization: A Qualitative Study Protocol (INNOVHEMO Study).

BACKGROUND: New therapies provide a favorable evolution in the care management of persons with hemophilia. However, the impact of these new therapies on patient care organization remains to be determined. A qualitative study will be implemented to analyze patients' perception regarding the impact of innovation on the organization of their care management. Secondary objectives will include refining specific factors related to persons with hemophilia (barriers or facilitators, especially the place of treatment) to consider within an organizational impact analysis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Semi-structured individual interviews will be conducted via videoconferencing or by phone by two researchers using an interview guide. Participants will be recruited from the Rhône-Alpes region, in France. Physicians from two hemophilia treatment centers will identify eligible patients. Moreover, a call for volunteers will be launched by the Rhône-Alpes committee of the French hemophilia association. Interviews will be conducted with adult patients, adolescent patients or parents of a minor with hemophilia regularly treated prophylactically or on demand. Data analysis will be performed with NVivo® software. Each interview will be analyzed by two researchers using an inductive content analytic method. DISCUSSION: The INNOVHEMO study is an original study analyzing the way patients perceive the impact of an innovation on their care management organization. The resulting patient-specific factors, identified as barriers or facilitators, will need to be integrated into a more comprehensive analysis of the impact of innovation on care management organization.

Immunomodulatory drugs in multiple myeloma: Impact of the SCARMET (Self CARe and MEdication Toxicity) educational intervention on outpatients' knowledge to manage adverse effects.

Long-term multiple myeloma therapy by immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs) raises the question of management of adverse effects. The aim of this study is to assess the impact of an educational session for patients on the acquisition of knowledge to manage hematologic and thromboembolic adverse effects of IMiDs. In this prospective single-center study, patients attended an educational session with a hospital clinical pharmacist and a nurse. The primary endpoint was the patient's level of knowledge for the management of IMiDs adverse effects, assess with a dedicated questionnaire administered before the session then 1 and 6 months after. Assessment of knowledge was combined with self-assessment of certainty. The secondary endpoints were adherence and IMiD treatment satisfaction. 50 patients were included. Patient knowledge increased at 1 month (p<0.001) despite a loss of knowledge at 6 months (p<0.05). Six months after the educational intervention, the number of patients with skills considered satisfactory by the pharmacist and nurse increased (p<0.01). Most patients showed satisfactory adherence, with medication possession ratio ≥ 80%. The Self CARe and MEdication Toxicity (SCARMET) study highlighted the impact of multidisciplinary follow-up in multiple myeloma patients to improve knowledge of toxicity self-management.