Assessment of 2021/22 influenza epidemic scenarios in Italy during SARS-CoV-2 outbreak.

Global mitigation strategies to tackle the threat posed by SARS-CoV-2 have produced a significant decrease of the severity of 2020/21 seasonal influenza, which might result in a reduced population natural immunity for the upcoming 2021/22 influenza season. To predict the spread of influenza virus in Italy and the impact of prevention and control measures, we present an age-structured Susceptible-Exposed-Infectious-Removed (SEIR) model including the role of social mixing patterns and the impact of age-stratified vaccination strategies and Non-Pharmaceutical Interventions (NPIs) such as school closures, partial lockdown, as well as the adoption of personal protective equipment and the practice of hand hygiene. We find that vaccination campaigns with standard coverage would produce a remarkable mitigation of the spread of the disease in moderate influenza seasons, making the adoption of NPIs unnecessary. However, in case of severe seasonal epidemics, a standard vaccination coverage would not be sufficiently effective in fighting the epidemic, thus implying that a combination with the adoption of NPIs is necessary to contain the disease. Alternatively, our results show that the enhancement of the vaccination coverage would reduce the need to adopt NPIs, thus limiting the economic and social impacts that NPIs might produce. Our results highlight the need to respond to the influenza epidemic by strengthening the vaccination coverage.

LEAP Virtual Visit Assessment (VIVA): a structured protocol for virtual visits for patients with heart failure.

AIMS: Telemedicine may be of benefit in patients with heart failure (HF), although virtual visits are often carried out on an ad hoc basis. Herein, we discuss a structured protocol that defines all the steps needed for virtual visits, LEAP Virtual Visit, which includes guides and support kits for clinicians and patients. METHODS: A working group of clinicians was established to develop a protocol for virtual visits. The virtual model for monitoring HF patients was based on measurement and sizing of patient flows, type of services, and critical organizational points. The process of virtual visits was broken down to identify the specific activities, players, roles, and support tools needed for implementation in daily practice. RESULTS: In the protocol developed, sections were included on patient eligibility, exams, supportive tools, and practical organizational aspects. IT requirements were also considered and the most widely used teleconference platforms were compared according to features that were considered to be priority for virtual visits. Protocols and support kits were developed, including guides for clinicians and patients, two questionnaires to assess the level of satisfaction, patient diary, disease awareness brochure, and template to monitor key performance indicators. The phases include an enrolment phase, document sharing phase, pre-evaluation phase, the virtual visit itself, and the post-visit phase. The protocol for the virtual visit was divided into 8 sequential steps to be carried out between the clinic and patient/caregiver. CONCLUSION: The protocol described can be expected to have a number of benefits for the patient, clinic, and healthcare structure.

Description and preliminary experience with Virtual Visit Assessment (ViVA) during the COVID-19 pandemic, a structured virtual management protocol for patients with multiple sclerosis.

In people with multiple sclerosis (PwMS), strict follow-up is essential. Telemedicine has the potential to overcome many of the difficulties in routine management. Herein, we present a structured protocol that can be used to remotely manage patients with MS, describing in detail the steps to be taken and exams needed at each stage. A working group was established which developed a tailored protocol that can be adapted to a variety of settings. The overall protocol consisted of 5 phases: enrolment, document sharing phase, pre-evaluation, virtual visit, and post-visit phase, which was divided into 14 individual steps. As of October 2020, 25 virtual visits have been carried out, all via Skype. The patient's caregiver was present during visits and had an active role. The average duration of the virtual visit was 24 min, and that of the pre-visit and post-visit were around 15 min each. Overall satisfaction as rated by physicians was considered high (8.0 ± 0.5). Using the system usability scale (SUS), patients also favorably rated the virtual visit (96.6 ± 6.1). In 20% of cases, the virtual visit was not sufficient to provide adequate information and an in-person clinical visit was recommended. The described protocol has the potential to provide benefits for the healthcare system as well as patients and their caregivers both during and beyond COVID-19 pandemic.

Next-Generation Sequencing in Clinical Practice: Is It a Cost-Saving Alternative to a Single-Gene Testing Approach?

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to compare the costs of a next-generation sequencing-based (NGS-based) panel testing strategy to those of a single-gene testing-based (SGT-based) strategy, considering different scenarios of clinical practice evolution. METHODS: Three Italian hospitals were analysed, and four different testing pathways (paths 1, 2, 3, and 4) were identified: two for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) patients and two for unresectable metastatic colon-rectal cancer (mCRC) patients. For each path, we explored four scenarios considering the current clinical practice and its expected evolution. The 16 testing cases (4 scenarios × 4 paths) were then compared in terms of differential costs between the NGS-based and SGT-based approaches considering personnel, consumables, equipment, and overhead costs. Break-even and sensitivity analyses were performed. Data gathering, aimed at identifying the hospital setup, was performed through a semi-structured questionnaire administered to the professionals involved in testing activities. RESULTS: The NGS-based strategy was found to be a cost-saving alternative to the SGT-based strategy in 15 of the 16 testing cases. The break-even threshold, the minimum number of patients required to make the NGS-based approach less costly than the SGT-based approach, varied across the testing cases depending on molecular alterations tested, techniques adopted, and specific costs. The analysis found the NGS-based approach to be less costly than the SGT-based approach in nine of the 16 testing cases at any volume of tests performed; in six cases, the NGS-based approach was found to be less costly above a threshold (and in one case, it was found to be always more expensive). Savings obtained using an NGS-based approach ranged from €30 to €1249 per patient; in the unique testing case where NGS was more costly, the additional cost per patient was €25. CONCLUSIONS: An NGS-based approach may be less costly than an SGT-based approach; also, generated savings increase with the number of patients and different molecular alterations tested.

Patterns of treatment and costs of intermediate and advanced hepatocellular carcinoma management in four Italian centers.

BACKGROUND: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a severe health condition associated with high hospitalizations and mortality rates, which also imposes a relevant economic burden. PURPOSE: The aim of the present survey is to investigate treatment strategies and related costs for HCC in the intermediate and advanced stages of the disease. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The survey was conducted in four Italian centers through structured interviews with physicians. Information regarding the stage of disease, treatments performed, and related health care resource consumption was included in the questionnaire. Direct health care cost per patient associated with the most relevant treatments such as sorafenib, transarterial chemoembolization (TACE), and transarterial radioembolization (TARE) was evaluated. RESULTS: Between 2013 and 2014, 285 patients with HCC were treated in the four participating centers; of these, 80 were in intermediate stage HCC (Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer Classification [BCLC] B), and 57 were in the advanced stage of the disease (BCLC C). In intermediate stage HCC, the most frequent first-line treatment was TACE (63%) followed by sorafenib (15%), radiofrequency ablation (14%), and TARE (1.3%). In the advanced stage of HCC, the most frequently used first-line therapy was sorafenib (56%), followed by best supportive care (21%), TACE (18%), and TARE (3.5%). The total costs of treatment per patient amounted to €12,214.54 with sorafenib, €13,418.49 with TACE, and €26,106.08 with TARE. Both in the intermediate and in the advanced stage of the disease, variability in treatment patterns among centers was observed. CONCLUSION: The present analysis raises for the first time the awareness of the overall costs incurred by the Italian National Healthcare System for different treatments used in intermediate and advanced HCC. Further investigations would be important to better understand the effective health care resource usage.