ESE audit on management of Adult Growth Hormone Deficiency in clinical practice.

Guidelines recommend adults with pituitary disease in whom GH therapy is contemplated, to be tested for GH deficiency (AGHD); however, clinical practice is not uniform. AIMS: 1) To record current practice of AGHD management throughout Europe and benchmark it against guidelines; 2) To evaluate educational status of healthcare professionals about AGHD. DESIGN: On-line survey in endocrine centres throughout Europe. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Endocrinologists voluntarily completed an electronic questionnaire regarding AGHD patients diagnosed or treated in 2017-2018. RESULTS: Twenty-eight centres from 17 European countries participated, including 2139 AGHD patients, 28% of childhood-onset GHD. Aetiology was most frequently non-functioning pituitary adenoma (26%), craniopharyngioma (13%) and genetic/congenital mid-line malformations (13%). Diagnosis of GHD was confirmed by a stimulation test in 52% (GHRH+arginine, 45%; insulin-tolerance, 42%, glucagon, 6%; GHRH alone and clonidine tests, 7%); in the remaining, ≥3 pituitary deficiencies and low serum IGF-I were diagnostic. Initial GH dose was lower in older patients, but only women <26 years were prescribed a higher dose than men; dose titration was based on normal serum IGF-I, tolerance and side-effects. In one country, AGHD treatment was not approved. Full public reimbursement was not available in four countries and only in childhood-onset GHD in another. AGHD awareness was low among non-endocrine professionals and healthcare administrators. Postgraduate AGHD curriculum training deserves being improved. CONCLUSION: Despite guideline recommendations, GH replacement in AGHD is still not available or reimbursed in all European countries. Knowledge among professionals and health administrators needs improvement to optimize care of adults with GHD.

Use of medicinal plants by health professionals in Mexico.

ETHNOPHARMACOLOGICAL RELEVANCE: The use of medicinal plants in Mexico has been documented since pre-Hispanic times. Nevertheless, the level of use of medicinal plants by health professionals in Mexico remains to be explored. AIM OF THE STUDY: To evaluate the use, acceptance and prescription of medicinal plants by health professionals in 9 of the states of Mexico. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Direct and indirect interviews, regarding the use and acceptance of medicinal plants, with health professionals (n=1614), including nurses, physicians, pharmacists, and odontologists from nine states in Mexico were performed from January 2015 to July 2016. The interviews were analyzed with the factor the informant consensus (FIC). RESULTS: The information obtained indicated that 46% of those interviewed feel patients should not use medicinal plants as an alternative therapy. Moreover, 54% of health professionals, and 49% of the physicians have used medicinal plants as an alternative therapy for several diseases. Twenty eight percent of health professionals, and 26% of the physicians, have recommended or prescribed medicinal plants to their patients, whereas 73% of health professionals were in agreement with receiving academic information regarding the use and prescription of medicinal plants. A total of 77 plant species used for medicinal purposes, belonging to 40 botanical families were reported by the interviewed. The results of the FIC showed that the categories of diseases of the digestive system (FIC=0.901) and diseases of the respiratory system (FIC=0.898) had the greatest agreement. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that medicinal plants are used for primary health care in Mexico by health professionals.

Cost of clinical management of acromegaly in Spain.

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND: The cost of the therapeutic management of acromegaly depends on the selection of resources used, surgery and/or pharmacological treatment, by the specialist responsible for treatment, related to the characteristics of the patient and tumour. The objective of this work is to evaluate these costs for an illness that is rare but that is associated with a high morbidity in the context of routine clinical practice. METHODS: This was an epidemiological, prospective, naturalistic, multicentre study in Spain, in which 38 endocrinologists participated. Adult patients with acromegaly and a pituitary microadenoma or macroadenoma were included in the study. Patients were assigned, according to first-line treatment, to the following two groups: surgery first-line group (surgery in the 6 months before inclusion or during the follow-up period) and pharmaceutical first-line group (treatment with somatostatin analogues [SAs] for at least 6 months and with or without surgery after starting treatment with SAs). Data were collected during routine visits made during a follow-up period of 2 years. All resources were estimated at 2009 prices (€) and adjusted according to the Spanish consumer price index in 2010. RESULTS: Seventy-four patients were included, the majority of them with macroadenoma (70%). Eighty-eight percent of patients were treated surgically (76% as a first-line treatment), while 12% of patients received only SAs. Treatment with SAs was used at some point in the study by 85% of patients. The mean annual total cost of acromegaly is €9668 per patient (€9223 for the surgery group and €11,054 for the pharmaceutical group). Seventy-one percent of the direct cost of the disease corresponds to treatment with SAs. The cost of a patient treated only with surgery is €2501 on an annual basis, versus €9745 for a patient receiving only pharmacological treatment. In cases where a combination of both types of treatment is required, the annual total cost ranges from €10,866 to €12,364. CONCLUSION: The annual direct cost per patients of acromegaly in Spain is €9668. Even though surgery is the preferred option for treatment for a great number of patients, SAs must be added to the treatment regimen of the majority of such patients. The costs associated with this treatment are greater than the cost of treatment with SAs alone.