A manifesto for cardiovascular imaging: addressing the human factor.

Our use of modern cardiovascular imaging tools has not kept pace with their technological development. Diagnostic errors are common but seldom investigated systematically. Rather than more impressive pictures, our main goal should be more precise tests of function which we select because their appropriate use has therapeutic implications which in turn have a beneficial impact on morbidity or mortality. We should practise analytical thinking, use checklists to avoid diagnostic pitfalls, and apply strategies that will reduce biases and avoid overdiagnosis. We should develop normative databases, so that we can apply diagnostic algorithms that take account of variations with age and risk factors and that allow us to calculate pre-test probability and report the post-test probability of disease. We should report the imprecision of a test, or its confidence limits, so that reference change values can be considered in daily clinical practice. We should develop decision support tools to improve the quality and interpretation of diagnostic imaging, so that we choose the single best test irrespective of modality. New imaging tools should be evaluated rigorously, so that their diagnostic performance is established before they are widely disseminated; this should be a shared responsibility of manufacturers with clinicians, leading to cost-effective implementation. Trials should evaluate diagnostic strategies against independent reference criteria. We should exploit advances in machine learning to analyse digital data sets and identify those features that best predict prognosis or responses to treatment. Addressing these human factors will reap benefit for patients, while technological advances continue unpredictably.

Reproducibility of echocardiographic assessment of 2D-derived longitudinal strain parameters in a population-based study (the STANISLAS Cohort study).

Global peak systolic longitudinal strain (PLS) derived from speckle tracking echocardiography (STE) is a widely used left ventricular deformation parameter. Modern ultrasound systems with improved temporal resolution and new software now allow automated multilayer analysis; however, there is limited evidence regarding its reproducibility. We performed intra- and inter-observer analyses within a population-based cohort study using conventional quantitative strain analysis (GE Healthcare). Fifty patients (49 ± 14 years) were randomly selected among the fourth visit of the STANISLAS Cohort. Multilayer PLS (transmural, subendocardial, and subepicardial), and strain rate (peak systolic, early and late diastolic) were evaluated. Peak systolic shortening (PSS) and early positive systolic strain (EPS) were calculated, as well as post-systolic index (PSI) and pre-stretch index (PST), two additional strain-derived parameters. Intra-observer intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were >0.75 for all analyzed parameters. The mean relative intra-observer differences were <5% for all considered parameters, and their 1.96 SDs were <15% for multilayer PLS, strain rate and PSS, but not for EPS, PSI and PST. Inter-observer ICCs were >0.70 (the majority being >0.80). The mean relative inter-observer differences were <7.5% for all considered parameters, with 1.96 SDs of relative differences being <21% for multilayer PLS, strain rate and PSS, but not for EPS, PSI and PST. In this population-based study, in subjects without or with a limited number of cardiovascular risk factors and no previous cardiovascular events, deformation parameters were found to be highly reproducible, except for EPS, PSI and PST, which showed moderately higher variability. Quantitative strain analysis appears to be an effective clinical and research tool, providing insights regarding longitudinal deformation using a simple three-step post-processing procedure.

Medical specialists' attitudes to prescribing biosimilars.

PURPOSE: Biosimilars are a cost-effective alternative to biologics that could improve patients' access to expensive biological medicines. Currently, there are little data on doctors' perceptions of biosimilars and in what situations they are comfortable prescribing biosimilars. In this study, we investigated medical specialists' perceptions of biosimilars and the factors associated with the acceptance of biosimilars. METHODS: A national sample of 110 of 327 medical specialists working in the areas of rheumatology, dermatology, gastroenterology, oncology and haematology completed an online questionnaire examining attitudes towards prescribing biosimilars, indication extrapolation and switching patients to a biosimilar. RESULTS: Most specialists held positive views of biosimilars, with between 54 and 74% confident in the safety, efficacy, manufacturing and pharmacovigilance of biosimilars. Seventy-one percent of specialists agreed that they would prescribe biosimilars for all or some conditions meeting relevant clinical criteria. Specialists were less confident about indication extrapolation and switching patients from an existing biologic. Acceptance of biosimilars was significantly associated with a lower perceived time to explain a biosimilar to a patient and lower number of weekly patient appointments. The most common situations that they would not prescribe a biosimilar was where there was a lack of clinical data supporting efficacy (32%), or evidence of adverse effects (17%). CONCLUSIONS: Medical specialists held generally positive attitudes towards biosimilars but were less confident in indication extrapolation and switching patients from a biologic. Providing clinicians with guidance on how to explain biosimilars to patients and written patient material may help overcome some of the barriers to the use of biosimilars. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Clinical evaluation of cardiovascular devices: principles, problems, and proposals for European regulatory reform. Report of a policy conference of the European Society of Cardiology.

The European Commission announced in 2008 that a fundamental revision of the medical device directives is being considered in order to clarify and strengthen the current legal framework. The system for testing and approving devices in Europe was established >20 years ago as a 'New Approach' to a previously little-regulated industry. It is recognized by many that the regulatory system has not kept pace with technological advances and changing patterns of medical practice. New legislation will be drafted during 2011, but medical experts have been little involved in this important process. This context makes it an opportune time for a professional association to advise from both clinical and academic perspectives about changes which should be made to improve the safety and efficacy of devices used in clinical practice and to develop more appropriate systems for their clinical evaluation and post-marketing surveillance. This report summarizes how medical devices are regulated and it reviews some serious clinical problems that have occurred with cardiovascular devices. Finally, it presents the main recommendations from a Policy Conference on the Clinical Evaluation of Cardiovascular Devices that was held at the European Heart House in January 2011.