A cluster randomized trial to measure the impact on nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug and proton pump inhibitor prescribing in Italy of distributing cost-free paracetamol to osteoarthritic patients.

BACKGROUND: Paracetamol is recommended as first-line treatment for pain control in osteoarthritis because it has fewer side effects than do other therapeutic options, including nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). Prescribing proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) as gastric bleeding prophylaxis in chronic NSAID users is also common, although not recommended. In Italy, paracetamol is not reimbursed by the National Health System. The aim of this trial was to test whether the availability to osteoarthritis patients of free paracetamol would decrease their use of NSAIDs and, as a secondary objective, whether opioid and PPI consumption would also decrease. METHODS: Eight general practitioners (GPs) (59 patients) were randomized to usual care and 8 (58 patients) to the experimental arm, where prescribed paracetamol was directly distributed for free by the local hospital. After 6 months, paracetamol was also available for free in the control arm. The main outcome was the pre/post difference in average NSAID and PPI consumption. Differences between experimental and control arms in pre/post differences are reported, as registered by the drug prescription information system. RESULTS: Average NSAID consumption decreased non-significantly, from 6.79 to 2.16 defined daily dose (DDD) in the experimental arm and from 3.19 to 2.97 DDD in the control group (p = 0.067). No changes were observed for PPIs (from 11.27 to 14.65 DDD and from 9.74 to 12.58 DDD in experimental and control arms, respectively, p = 0.788) or opioids (from 1.61 to 1.14 DDD and from 1.41 to 1.56 DDD in experimental and control arms, respectively, p = 0.419). When the intervention was extended to the control arm, no decrease in NSAID consumption was observed (from 2.46 to 2.43 DDD, p = 0.521). CONCLUSIONS: Removing small economic barriers had small or no effect on the appropriateness of opioid or PPI prescribing to patients with osteoarthritis; a reduction in NSAID consumption cannot be ruled out. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02691754 (Approved February 24, 2016).

Hadrontherapy for cancer. An overview of HTA reports and ongoing studies

Introduction: There is growing interest in the use of both proton beam therapy (PBT) and carbon ion radiation therapy (CIRT), which are types of hadrontherapy. Although neither are new technologies they have been subject to assessment by several Health Technology Assessment (HTA) agencies over the past years. The main claimed benefit of PBT and CIRT is a reduction in toxicity compared to conventional radiation therapy, resulting in fewer harms and a lower risk of induced secondary malignancies. Such an advantage would be particularly relevant to children and young adults. Sizeable hadrontherapy centres expansion is underway worldwide, while evidence supporting claims of superiority over conventional radiation therapy is thought to be currently insufficient. Objectives: The report is aimed at presenting the state of the art of clinical research in both PBT and CIRT, by summarising the evidence findings from most recent and uptodate HTA reports and by providing a description of all currently ongoing clinical studies. Methods: The search for HTA reports was carried out on 3 databases to identify reports published between January 2011 and June 2019. The quality of the identified reports was assessed using the AMSTAR instrument. The search for ongoing studies was carried out on four public registers in July 2019. All identified ongoing studies were included. Results: The overview of available evidence for PBT is drawn from five HTA reports on a total of 16 oncology indications, including 295 primary studies of any study design. One HTA report also included eight guidelines. All included HTA reports concluded that the quality of research is low and that there is insufficient evidence to support the claimed benefits of PBT. Seventytwo non-comparative ongoing studies and 25 comparative ongoing studies were identified. Seventeen were randomized controlled studies comparing Proton Beam Therapy with current practice. The search for HTA reports assessing the use of CIRT in oncology identified five reports, two of which were up to date and of good quality reporting data from primary studies. The largest report identified 56 studies on 13 indications, but only 27 studies (including only one randomised trial) could be included in a qualitative synthesis, providing no evidence of differences in efficacy and safety of CIRT compared to photontherapy. The other report focused on the effects of CIRT on chordomas and chondrosarcomas, highlighting the heterogeneity and inconsistency of available data mostly coming from low-quality studies. Thirtyseven ongoing studies were identified, 5 of which were RCT versus conventional treatment and 32 were single-arm studies. Table A summarises the findings, by clinical indication, from the included HTA reports and from the overview of ongoing clinical research. The Table reports the current level of certainty on superiority of PBT or CIRT compared to photon radiation therapy and the likelihood that future research results would resolve current uncertainty. Conclusions. Despite the growing number of studies being published and the growing number of PBT and/or CIRT centres opening or at a planning stage, there is persistent uncertainty on the added clinical benefit of hadrontherapy treatments over conventional radiation therapy. Clinical research currently underway may not contribute to solve this uncertainty. There is a lack of agreement on the appropriate study design to assess the effects of hadrontherapies and lack of coordination between centres in the production of joint research protocols to generate the necessary evidence. This has led to the production of numerous small, poorly designed and reported studies. These shortcomings might confine the use of PBT and CIRT to experimental treatments and require that patients willing to undergo PBT or CIRT be fully informed of the risks and uncertainties of the outcomes.

The effects of improving the mesothelioma surveillance network on sensitivity, timeliness in reporting and asbestos exposure assessment.

BACKGROUND: In Italy, Mesothelioma Registries (MRs) have been established by law for the epidemiological surveillance of occupational cancers. MRs collect information about asbestos exposure of incident cases, through interviews. In the Emilia-Romagna region, MR was implemented in 1996 and extended its network of health professionals who report suspected mesothelioma in 2001 and 2007. OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated the impact of the extension of the network on MR sensitivity and timeliness. METHODS: Mesothelioma cases were analysed in three subsequent periods: 1996-2001 (before any network extension), 2002-2007 (after first extension) and 2008-2014 (after second extension). Sensitivity was evaluated by the proportion of cases directly reported by the network out of the total number of incident cases; reporting and interview timeliness were assessed by median times between diagnosis and, respectively, reporting and interview. Pleural mesothelioma reporting timeliness was also evaluated by use of quantile regression models, stratified by diagnostic certainty and adjusted by sex and age. RESULTS: Sensitivity increased from 79.4% (1996-2001), to 89.0% (2002-2007) and to 91.4% (2008-2013). For mesothelioma with diagnostic certainty, we recorded considerably reduced reporting times from the 50th percentile on, whereas for uncertain mesothelioma relevant reductions were observed also in the lower percentiles. A reduced time to interview was observed too, which was more significant for uncertain cases. The proportion of patients directly interviewed increased from 33.5% (1996-2001), to 39.1% (2002-2007), to 49.5% (2008-2014). CONCLUSIONS: The extended network improved the MR sensitivity and allowed shorter reporting and interview times and more frequent patient interviews, thus improving accuracy of exposure definition.

Out-of-pocket costs for cancer survivors between 5 and 10 years from diagnosis: an Italian population-based study.

PURPOSE: To illustrate the out-of-pocket (OOP) costs incurred by a population-based group of patients from 5 to 10 years since their cancer diagnosis in a country with a nationwide public health system. METHODS: Interviews on OOP costs to a sample of 5-10 year prevalent cases randomly extracted from four population-based cancer registries (CRs), two in the north and two in the south of Italy. The patients' general practitioners (GPs) gave assurance about the patient's physical and psychological condition for the interview. A zero-inflated negative binomial model was used to analyze OOP cost determinants. RESULTS: Two hundred six cancer patients were interviewed (48 % of the original sample). On average, a patient in the north spent €69 monthly, against €244 in the south. The main differences are for transport, room, and board (TRB) to reach the hospital and/or the cancer specialist (north €0; south €119). Everywhere, OOP costs without TRB costs were higher for patients with a low quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the limited participation, our study sample's characteristics are similar to those of the Italian cancer prevalence population, allowing us to generalize the results. The higher OOP costs in the south may be due to the scarcity of oncologic structures, obliging patients to seek assistance far from their residence. Implications for cancer survivors Cancer survivors need descriptive studies to show realistic data about their status. Future Italian and European descriptive studies on cancer survivorship should be based on population CRs and involve GPs in order to approach the patient at best.

[Evaluation of the cancer co-pay fee exemption data source (048 code) to estimate cancer incidence]. / Valutazione del flusso delle esenzioni ticket per neoplasia (codice 048) per stimare l'incidenza dei tumori.

OBJECTIVES: to assess whether the data source of cancer exemption ticket (code 048) correctly estimate the cancer incidence produced by Cancer registries (CR). DESIGN: comparison between incidence estimates produced by cancer exemptions ticket and cases registered by CR. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: six CRs provided incidence data for one year in the five-year period from 2007 to 2011 and for the previous five years, the exemptions provided for the same year and for the previous five years. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: incidence distribution by gender, age and tumour site, exemptions 048/incident cancers ratio, and trend estimates. RESULTS: out of 14,586 patients with 048 exemption, a first group was present in the CR database in the same reference year (No. 8,015) and a second group in the previous 6 months (No. 1,696). Of the remaining 4,875, only 2,771 were prevalent cases and 2,104 were manually re-valued: 514 non-cancer; 710 non-malignant/noninfiltrating tumours, 250 non-residents, 532 unknown, and 98 lost at CR. The exemption/ tumours ratio was 32%in males and 37% in females. Out of 27,632 cancer patients in CR, only 29% had a 048 exemption. Among linked cases, there is a case-mix problem: the exemptions overestimated the weight of some cancer sites (breast, prostate), but underestimate the weight of other sites (stomach, liver, lung) and the burden of tumours in the elderly.The trend estimated from the exemptions underestimates the true incidence of tumours and presents fluctuations, because of local administrative and organisational issues. CONCLUSIONS: the 048 codes are an accessory source for CRs, but when used as single flow they are not able to estimate the true incidence of tumours and, therefore, do not provide useful information on cancer trends.