Benefits and harms of annual, biennial, or triennial breast cancer mammography screening for women at average risk of breast cancer: a systematic review for the European Commission Initiative on Breast Cancer (ECIBC).

BACKGROUND: Although mammography screening is recommended in most European countries, the balance between the benefits and harms of different screening intervals is still a matter of debate. This review informed the European Commission Initiative on Breast Cancer (BC) recommendations. METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library to identify RCTs, observational or modelling studies, comparing desirable (BC deaths averted, QALYs, BC stage, interval cancer) and undesirable (overdiagnosis, false positive related, radiation related) effects from annual, biennial, or triennial mammography screening in women of average risk for BC. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. RESULTS: We included one RCT, 13 observational, and 11 modelling studies. In women 50-69, annual compared to biennial screening may have small additional benefits but an important increase in false positive results; triennial compared to biennial screening may have smaller benefits while avoiding some harms. In younger women (aged 45-49), annual compared to biennial screening had a smaller gain in benefits and larger harms, showing a less favourable balance in this age group than in women 50-69. In women 70-74, there were fewer additional harms and similar benefits with shorter screening intervals. The overall certainty of the evidence for each of these comparisons was very low. CONCLUSIONS: In women of average BC risk, screening intervals have different trade-offs for each age group. The balance probably favours biennial screening in women 50-69. In younger women, annual screening may have a less favourable balance, while in women aged 70-74 years longer screening intervals may be more favourable.

Comparison of technical parameters and women's experience between self-compression and standard compression modes in mammography screening: a single-blind randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVES: We compared the compression force, breast thickness, and glandular dose, as well as the severity of discomfort and women's experience between the patient-assisted compression (PAC) and standard compression (SC) modes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a prospective randomized controlled study at Hospital del Mar in Barcelona, Spain. We included 448 asymptomatic women aged 50 to 69 years old, attending their screening round from December 2017 to December 2019. Mammograms included the two bilateral views. In each woman, one breast was studied with SC and the other with PAC. The mode used in each breast was selected following a randomized list. Compression force, breast thickness, and average glandular dose were obtained for each of the 1792 images. We also recorded the degree of discomfort and women's experience, after mammogram acquisitions, using a predefined survey. RESULTS: Higher compression forces were obtained with PAC than with SC (99.27 N vs 83.25 N, p < 0.001). Breast thickness mode (56.11 mm vs 57.52 mm, p = 0.015) and glandular dose (1.34 mGy vs 1.37 mGy, p = 0.018) were lower in PAC. The discomfort score was slightly higher with PAC (mean 3.94 vs 3.69, p = 0.042), but in the satisfaction survey, more women reported that PAC caused less discomfort. Additionally, 63.2% of women (289/448) preferred PAC. CONCLUSION: PAC achieved higher compression forces without impairing the other technical imaging parameters and enhanced women's experience of screening mammography. We believe there were no clinically significant differences in the severity of discomfort between the two modes. KEY POINTS: • Self-compression allows higher compression forces than the standard compression mode. • Self-compression does not affect technical imaging parameters. • Self-compression improved women's experience of screening mammography when standard compression was used on one breast and self-compression on the other.

Does the patient-assisted compression mode affect the mammography quality? A within-woman randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: Evaluate the image quality of a mammography screening device using the patient-assisted compression (PAC) compared with the standard compression (SC) mode. METHODS: This prospective within-woman, randomized controlled trial was conducted between September 2017 and December 2019. Participants were asymptomatic women aged 50 to 69 years attending their second or subsequent screening mammography round. By random assignment, one breast underwent the SC and the other breast, the PAC. Image quality was evaluated as perfect, good, moderate, or inadequate (PGMI) on 10 criteria for the craniocaudal (CC) view and 8 criteria for the mediolateral oblique (MLO) view. Pearson's chi-square test, with Yates' correction if pertinent, was performed to compare image quality between compression modes. RESULTS: A total of 444 participants were included (mean [± standard deviation] age, 60 [± 4.9] years). There were no differences in the percentages of PGMI between the PAC and SC modes for the CC view (perfect, 37% [162/444] vs 37% [163/444]; good, 1% [5/444] vs 2% [9/444]; moderate, 62% [277/444] vs 61% [271/444]; inadequate, 0% vs 0.2% [1/444]; p = .88) or for the MLO view (perfect, 53% [237/444] vs 56% [247/444]; good, 22% [99/444] vs 22% [97/444]; moderate, 23% [102/444] vs 22% [98/444]; inadequate, 1% [6/444] vs 0.5% [2/444]; p = .72). No differences were found when we stratified by laterality or when analyzed by PGMI criteria. CONCLUSION: PAC does not seem to impair mammographic image quality. Future research should focus in a daily practice setting. KEY POINTS: No differences were found in the distribution of the PGMI classification, a tool for quality assessment, between patient-assisted compression and standard compression. Similar results were found on stratification of image quality by mammographic view and breast laterality for both types of compression. None of the PGMI criteria had significantly more errors in patient-assisted compression than in standard compression.

Mammographic features of benign breast lesions and risk of subsequent breast cancer in women attending breast cancer screening.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the mammographic features in women with benign breast disease (BBD) and the risk of subsequent breast cancer according to their mammographic findings. METHODS: We analyzed data from a Spanish cohort of women screened from 1995 to 2015 and followed up until December 2017 (median follow-up, 5.9 years). We included 10,650 women who had both histologically confirmed BBD and mammographic findings. We evaluated proliferative and nonproliferative BBD subtypes, and their mammographic features: architectural distortion, asymmetries, calcifications, masses, and multiple findings. The adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for breast cancer were estimated using a Cox proportional hazards model. We plotted the adjusted cumulative incidence curves. RESULTS: Calcifications were more frequent in proliferative disease with atypia (43.9%) than without atypia (36.8%) or nonproliferative disease (22.2%; p value < 0.05). Masses were more frequent in nonproliferative lesions (59.1%) than in proliferative lesions without atypia (35.1%) or with atypia (30.0%; p value < 0.05). Multiple findings and architectural distortion were more likely in proliferative disease (16.1% and 4.7%) than in nonproliferative disease (12.8% and 1.9%). Subsequent breast cancer occurred in 268 (2.5%) women. Compared with women who had masses, the highest risk of subsequent breast cancer was found in those with architectural distortions (aHR, 2.21; 95% CI, 1.16-4.22), followed by those with multiple findings (aHR, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.34-2.66), asymmetries (aHR, 1.66; 95% CI, 0.84-3.28), and calcifications (aHR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.21-2.12). CONCLUSION: BBD subtypes showed distinct mammographic findings. The risk of subsequent breast cancer was high in those who have shown architectural distortion, multiple findings, asymmetries, and calcifications than in women with masses. KEY POINTS: • The presence of mammographic findings in women attending breast cancer screening helps clinicians to assess women with benign breast disease (BBD). • Calcifications were frequent in BBDs with atypia, which are the ones with a high breast cancer risk, while masses were common in low-risk BBDs. • The excess risk of subsequent breast cancer in women with BBD was higher in those who showed architectural distortion compared to those with masses.

Greater occipital nerve block for chronic migraine patients: A meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Greater occipital nerve block (GONB) is a minimally invasive procedure frequently used in patients with chronic migraine (CM); however, the quality of the evidence supporting its use is still unknown. Therefore, we aimed to conduct a systematic review, meta-analysis and quality assessment of GONB local anaesthetics combined or not with corticosteroids to prevent CM. METHODS: We searched Medline, Scopus and Web of Science up to October 2020. We included randomized control trials (RCT) and observational studies assessing GONB without language restrictions. Two researchers selected the studies, extracted the data and evaluated the risk of bias independently. The primary outcomes measured to assess efficacy were the change from baseline in the intensity and frequency of headache in the intervention group compared to placebo at a onetime point. We performed a meta-analysis with random effect models, and we evaluated random errors with trial sequential analysis (TSA). We assessed the risk of bias (ROB) with the ROB2 tool and the certainty of the evidence with GRADE. RESULTS: We identified 2864 studies in the databases and included three RCTs for quantitative synthesis. Most ROB assessments were 'high risk' or 'some concerns'. GONB reduced the intensity of headaches at the end of the first month (MD: -1.35, 95% CI: -2.12 to -0.59) and the second month (MD: -2.10, CI 95%: -2.94 to -1.26) as well as the frequency of headaches (first month: MD: -4.45 days, 95% CI: -6.56 to -2.34 days; second month: MD: -5.49, 95% CI -8.94 to -2.03 days). Corticosteroids did not show a significant decrease in the frequency of headaches during the first month of treatment (MD: -1.1 days, 95% CI: -4.1 to 1.8, p = .45). Included trials reported similar adverse events between groups. The exploratory TSA showed inconclusive results. Overall, the quality of the evidence was very low because of the substantial risk of bias and imprecision. CONCLUSION: The limited evidence available shows that GONB with local anaesthetics could reduce headache frequency and intensity compared to placebo, while adding corticosteroids did not show additional benefits. GONB was safe with a similar number of minor adverse events. However, our confidence in these estimates is very low since the evidence is based on a few trials, with a small sample size and a significant risk of bias. In addition, the exploratory TSA was inconclusive, so we need larger and specific trials.

Recommendations from the European Commission Initiative on Breast Cancer for multigene testing to guide the use of adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with early breast cancer, hormone receptor positive, HER-2 negative.

BACKGROUND: Predicting the risk of recurrence and response to chemotherapy in women with early breast cancer is crucial to optimise adjuvant treatment. Despite the common practice of using multigene tests to predict recurrence, existing recommendations are inconsistent. Our aim was to formulate healthcare recommendations for the question "Should multigene tests be used in women who have early invasive breast cancer, hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative, to guide the use of adjuvant chemotherapy?" METHODS: The European Commission Initiative on Breast Cancer (ECIBC) Guidelines Development Group (GDG), a multidisciplinary guideline panel including experts and three patients, developed recommendations informed by systematic reviews of the evidence. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Evidence to Decision frameworks were used. Four multigene tests were evaluated: the 21-gene recurrence score (21-RS), the 70-gene signature (70-GS), the PAM50 risk of recurrence score (PAM50-RORS), and the 12-gene molecular score (12-MS). RESULTS: Five studies (2 marker-based design RCTs, two treatment interaction design RCTs and 1 pooled individual data analysis from observational studies) were included; no eligible studies on PAM50-RORS or 12-MS were identified and the GDG did not formulate recommendations for these tests. CONCLUSIONS: The ECIBC GDG suggests the use of the 21-RS for lymph node-negative women (conditional recommendation, very low certainty of evidence), recognising that benefits are probably larger in women at high risk of recurrence based on clinical characteristics. The ECIBC GDG suggests the use of the 70-GS for women at high clinical risk (conditional recommendation, low certainty of evidence), and recommends not using 70-GS in women at low clinical risk (strong recommendation, low certainty of evidence).

Efficacy and safety of dupilumab for moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis: A systematic review for the EAACI biologicals guidelines.

This systematic review evaluates the efficacy, safety and economic impact of dupilumab compared to standard of care for uncontrolled moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD). Pubmed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library were searched for RCTs and health economic evaluations. Critical and important AD-related outcomes were considered. The risk of bias and the certainty of the evidence were assessed using GRADE. Seven RCTs including 1845 subjects >12 years treated with dupilumab 16 to 52 weeks were evaluated. For adults, there is high certainty that dupilumab decreases SCORAD (MD -30,72; 95% CI -34,65% to -26,79%) and EASI-75 (RR 3.09; 95% CI 2.45 to 3.89), pruritus (RR 2.96; 95% CI 2.37 to 3.70), rescue medication (RR 3.46; 95% CI 2.79 to 4.30), sleep disturbance (MD -7.29; 95% CI -8.23 to -6.35) and anxiety/depression (MD -3.08; 95% CI -4.41 to -1.75) and improves quality of life (MD -4.80; 95% CI -5.55 to -4.06). The efficacy for adolescents is similar. Dupilumab-related adverse events (AEs) slightly increase (low certainty). The evidence for dupilumab-related serious AE is uncertain. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio ranged from 28 500 £ (low certainty) to 124 541 US$ (moderate certainty). More data on long-term safety are needed both for children and for adults, together with more efficacy data in the paediatric population. Registration: PROSPERO (CRD42020153645).

Efficacy and safety of treatment with omalizumab for chronic spontaneous urticaria: A systematic review for the EAACI Biologicals Guidelines.

This systematic review evaluates the efficacy and safety of omalizumab for chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU). PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched for RCTs. Critical and important CSU-related outcomes were considered. The risk of bias and the certainty of the evidence were assessed using GRADE. Ten RCTs including 1620 subjects aged 12 to 75 years old treated with omalizumab for 16 to 40 weeks were evaluated. Omalizumab 150 mg does not result in clinically meaningful improvement (high certainty) of the urticaria activity score (UAS)7 (mean difference (MD) -5; 95%CI -7.75 to -2.25), and the itch severity score (ISS)7 (MD -2.15; 95% CI -3.2 to -1.1) does not increase (moderate certainty) quality of life (QoL) (Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI); MD -2.01; 95%CI -3.22 to -0.81) and decreases (moderate certainty) rescue medication use (MD -1.68; 95%CI -2.95 to -0.4). Omalizumab 300 mg results in clinically meaningful improvements (moderate certainty) of the UAS7 (MD -11.05; 95%CI -12.87 to -9.24), the ISS7 (MD -4.45; 95%CI -5.39 to -3.51), and QoL (high certainty) (DLQI; MD -4.03; 95% CI -5.56 to -2.5) and decreases (moderate certainty) rescue medication use (MD -2.04; 95%CI -3.19 to -0.88) and drug-related serious AEs (RR 0.77; 95%CI 0.20 to 2.91).

Breast density, benign breast disease, and risk of breast cancer over time.

OBJECTIVES: Assessing the combined effect of mammographic density and benign breast disease is of utmost importance to design personalized screening strategies. METHODS: We analyzed individual-level data from 294,943 women aged 50-69 years with at least one mammographic screening participation in any of four areas of the Spanish Breast Cancer Screening Program from 1995 to 2015, and followed up until 2017. We used partly conditional Cox models to assess the association between benign breast disease, breast density, and the risk of breast cancer. RESULTS: During a median follow-up of 8.0 years, 3697 (1.25%) women had a breast cancer diagnosis and 5941 (2.01%) had a benign breast disease. More than half of screened women had scattered fibroglandular density (55.0%). The risk of breast cancer independently increased with the presence of benign breast disease and with the increase in breast density (p for interaction = 0.84). Women with benign breast disease and extremely dense breasts had a threefold elevated risk of breast cancer compared with those with scattered fibroglandular density and without benign breast disease (hazard ratio [HR] = 3.07; 95%CI = 2.01-4.68). Heterogeneous density and benign breast disease was associated with nearly a 2.5 elevated risk (HR = 2.48; 95%CI = 1.66-3.70). Those with extremely dense breast without a benign breast disease had a 2.27 increased risk (95%CI = 2.07-2.49). CONCLUSIONS: Women with benign breast disease had an elevated risk for over 15 years independently of their breast density category. Women with benign breast disease and dense breasts are at high risk for future breast cancer. KEY POINTS: • Benign breast disease and breast density were independently associated with breast cancer. • Women with benign breast disease had an elevated risk for up to 15 years independently of their mammographic density category.

Preoperative breast magnetic resonance imaging in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ: a systematic review for the European Commission Initiative on Breast Cancer (ECIBC).

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of preoperative MRI in the management of Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). METHODS: We searched the PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases to identify randomised clinical trials (RCTs) or cohort studies assessing the impact of preoperative breast MRI in surgical outcomes, treatment change or loco-regional recurrence. We provided pooled estimates for odds ratios (OR), relative risks (RR) and proportions and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. RESULTS: We included 3 RCTs and 23 observational cohorts, corresponding to 20,415 patients. For initial breast-conserving surgery (BCS), the RCTs showed that MRI may result in little to no difference (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.00) (low certainty); observational studies showed that MRI may have no difference in the odds of re-operation after BCS (OR 0.96; 95% CI 0.36 to 2.61) (low certainty); and uncertain evidence from RCTs suggests little to no difference with respect to total mastectomy rate (RR 0.91; 95% CI 0.65 to 1.27) (very low certainty). We also found that MRI may change the initial treatment plans in 17% (95% CI 12 to 24%) of cases, but with little to no effect on locoregional recurrence (aHR = 1.18; 95% CI 0.79 to 1.76) (very low certainty). CONCLUSION: We found evidence of low to very low certainty which may suggest there is no improvement of surgical outcomes with pre-operative MRI assessment of women with DCIS lesions. There is a need for large rigorously conducted RCTs to evaluate the role of preoperative MRI in this population. KEY POINTS: • Evidence of low to very low certainty may suggest there is no improvement in surgical outcomes with pre-operative MRI. • There is a need for large rigorously conducted RCTs evaluating the role of preoperative MRI to improve treatment planning for DCIS.

Effect of an information leaflet on breast cancer screening participation: A cluster randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of an information leaflet about the risk-benefit balance of breast cancer screening on women's participation. METHODS: This cluster randomized controlled trial was conducted within a population-based breast cancer screening program and included women from the catchment areas of two hospitals in Barcelona, Spain. We evaluated women aged 50-69 years invited to screening between September 2019 and January 2020. The intervention group received an information leaflet on the benefits and harms of mammography screening. The control group received the usual invitation letter. The clusters consisted of the processing days of the invitation letter, assigned to the intervention with a simple random allocation scheme. We compared the participation rate at the individual level between groups, stratified by hospital and by per-protocol and intention-to-treat analyses. RESULTS: We included 11,119 women (137 clusters): 5416 in the intervention group (66 clusters) and 5703 in the control group (71 clusters). A total of 36% (1964/5393) of the women in the intervention group and 37% (2135/5694) of those in the control group attended screening, respectively. Overall, we found no differences in participation among groups (difference in participation - 1.1%; 95%CI; - 2.9 to 0.7%). In a hospital attending a population with a low socioeconomic status, attendance was lower in the intervention group (- 1.4, 95%CI: - 5.7% to - 0.03%). CONCLUSIONS: Overall participation in our program was unaffected by a new information leaflet on the risk-benefit balance of breast cancer screening. However, participation was lower in certain populations with lower socioeconomic status TRIAL REGISTRATION: Trial registration number ISRCTN13848929 .

Efficacy and safety of treatment with dupilumab for severe asthma: A systematic review of the EAACI guidelines-Recommendations on the use of biologicals in severe asthma.

Dupilumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody against interleukin-4 receptor α, is approved as add-on maintenance treatment for inadequately controlled type 2 severe asthma. This systematic review evaluated the efficacy, safety and economic impact of dupilumab compared to standard of care for uncontrolled severe asthma. PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library were searched for RCTs and health economic evaluations. Critical and important asthma-related outcomes were evaluated. The risk of bias and the certainty of the evidence were assessed using GRADE. Three RCTs including 2735 subjects >12 years old and 24-52 weeks of follow-up were included. Dupilumab reduced with high certainty severe asthma exacerbations (Incidence rate ratio 0.51; 95% CI 0.45-0.59) and the percentage use of oral corticosteroid use (mean difference (MD) -28.2 mg/d; 95% CI -40.7 to -15.7). Asthma control (ACQ-5), quality of life (AQLQ) and rescue medication use [puffs/d] improved, without reaching the minimal important clinical difference: ACQ-5 MD -0.28 (95% CI -0.39 to -0.17); AQLQ MD +0.28 (95% CI 0.20-0.37); and rescue medication MD -0.35 (95% CI -0.73 to +0.02). FEV1 increased (MD +0.15; 95% CI +0.11 to +0.18) (moderate certainty). There was an increased rate of dupilumab-related adverse events (AEs) (moderate certainty) and of drug-related serious AEs (low certainty). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of dupilumab versus standard therapy was 464 000$/QALY (moderate certainty). More data on long-term safety are needed both for children and for adults, together with more efficacy data in the paediatric population.

Efficacy and safety of treatment with biologicals (benralizumab, dupilumab, mepolizumab, omalizumab and reslizumab) for severe eosinophilic asthma. A systematic review for the EAACI Guidelines - recommendations on the use of biologicals in severe asthma.

Five biologicals have been approved for severe eosinophilic asthma, a well-recognized phenotype. Systematic reviews (SR) evaluated the efficacy and safety of benralizumab, dupilumab, mepolizumab, omalizumab and reslizumab (alphabetical order) compared to standard of care for severe eosinophilic asthma. PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library were searched to identify RCTs and health economic evaluations, published in English. Critical and important asthma-related outcomes were evaluated for each of the biologicals. The risk of bias and the certainty of the evidence were assessed using GRADE. 19 RCTs (three RCTs for benralizumab, three RCTs for dupilumab, three RCTs for mepolizumab, five RCTs for omalizumab and five RCTs for reslizumab), including subjects 12 to 75 years old (except for omalizumab including also subjects 6-11 years old), ranging from 12 to 56 weeks were evaluated. All biologicals reduce exacerbation rates with high certainty of evidence: benralizumab incidence rate ratio (IRR) 0.53 (95% CI 0.39 to 0.72), dupilumab (IRR) 0.43 (95% CI 0.32 to 0.59), mepolizumab IRR 0.49 (95% CI 0.38 to 0.66), omalizumab (IRR) 0.56 (95% CI 0.40 to 0.77) and reslizumab (IRR) 0.46 (95% CI 0.37 to 0.58). Benralizumab, dupilumab and mepolizumab reduce the daily dose of oral corticosteroids (OCS) with high certainty of evidence. All evaluated biologicals probably improve asthma control, QoL and FEV1 , without reaching the minimal important difference (moderate certainty). Benralizumab, mepolizumab and reslizumab slightly increase drug-related adverse events (AE) and drug-related serious AE (low to very low certainty of evidence). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per quality-adjusted life year value is above the willingness to pay threshold for all biologicals (moderate certainty). Potential savings are driven by decrease in hospitalizations, emergency and primary care visits. There is high certainty that all approved biologicals reduce the rate of severe asthma exacerbations and for benralizumab, dupilumab and mepolizumab for reducing OCS. There is moderate certainty for improving asthma control, QoL, FEV1 . More data on long-term safety are needed together with more efficacy data in the paediatric population.

Efficacy and safety of treatment with biologicals (benralizumab, dupilumab and omalizumab) for severe allergic asthma: A systematic review for the EAACI Guidelines - recommendations on the use of biologicals in severe asthma.

Allergic asthma is a frequent asthma phenotype. Both IgE and type 2 cytokines are increased, with some degree of overlap with other phenotypes. Systematic reviews assessed the efficacy and safety of benralizumab, dupilumab and omalizumab (alphabetical order) vs standard of care for patients with uncontrolled severe allergic asthma. PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library were searched to identify RCTs and health economic evaluations, published in English. Critical and important asthma-related outcomes were evaluated. The risk of bias and the certainty of the evidence were assessed using GRADE. All three biologicals reduced with high certainty the annualized asthma exacerbation rate: benralizumab incidence rate ratios (IRR) 0.63 (95% CI 0.50 - 0.81); dupilumab IRR 0.58 (95%CI 0.47 - 0.73); and omalizumab IRR 0.56 (95%CI 0.42 - 0.73). Benralizumab and dupilumab improved asthma control with high certainty and omalizumab with moderate certainty; however, none reached the minimal important difference (MID). Both benralizumab and omalizumab improved QoL with high certainty, but only omalizumab reached the MID. Omalizumab enabled ICS dose reduction with high certainty. Benralizumab and omalizumab showed an increase in drug-related adverse events (AEs) with low to moderate certainty. All three biologicals had moderate certainty for an ICER/QALY value above the willingness to pay threshold. There was high certainty that in children 6-12 years old omalizumab decreased the annualized exacerbation rate [IRR 0.57 (95%CI 0.45-0.72)], improved QoL [relative risk 1.43 (95%CI 1.12 -1.83)], reduced ICS [mean difference (MD) -0.45 (95% CI -0.58 to -0.32)] and rescue medication use [ MD -0.41 (95%CI -0.66 to -0.15)].

A systematic review and quality assessment of individualised breast cancer risk prediction models.

BACKGROUND: Individualised breast cancer risk prediction models may be key for planning risk-based screening approaches. Our aim was to conduct a systematic review and quality assessment of these models addressed to women in the general population. METHODS: We followed the Cochrane Collaboration methods searching in Medline, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library databases up to February 2018. We included studies reporting a model to estimate the individualised risk of breast cancer in women in the general population. Study quality was assessed by two independent reviewers. Results are narratively summarised. RESULTS: We included 24 studies out of the 2976 citations initially retrieved. Twenty studies were based on four models, the Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool (BCRAT), the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC), the Rosner & Colditz model, and the International Breast Cancer Intervention Study (IBIS), whereas four studies addressed other original models. Four of the studies included genetic information. The quality of the studies was moderate with some limitations in the discriminative power and data inputs. A maximum AUROC value of 0.71 was reported in the study conducted in a screening context. CONCLUSION: Individualised risk prediction models are promising tools for implementing risk-based screening policies. However, it is a challenge to recommend any of them since they need further improvement in their quality and discriminatory capacity.

Cost-Effectiveness of the Screening for the Primary Prevention of Fragility Hip Fracture in Spain Using FRAX®.

To assess the cost-effectiveness of the primary prevention of fragility hip fractures through opportunistic risk-based screening using FRAX® among women aged 70 to 89 years, and the subsequent treatment with alendronate in women at high-risk, from the Spanish national health system perspective. We performed a discrete-event simulation model. Women were categorized in low, intermediate and high-risk of fragility hip fracture through screening based on the FRAX® risk assessment tool score (Spanish version). Low-risk women received lifestyle recommendations whereas the high-risk group was assigned to alendronate treatment. For women at intermediate-risk, treatment decision was based on a recalculated score considering bone mineral density (BMD). The cost-effectiveness analysis tested six scenarios defined by different FRAX® cut-off values assessing the incremental costs per averted fracture in 20 years. Deterministic sensitivity analysis was performed. We included a random sample of 5146 women obtained from a Spanish cohort of women referred for BMD. The most cost-effective intervention had an Incremental Cost-effectiveness Ratio (ICER) of 57,390 € per averted hip fracture and consisted of using the FRAX® score without BMD and treating women with a score higher than 5%. The ICER exceeded the acceptability threshold of 25,000 € in all the scenarios. Sensitivity analysis based on time to fracture, treatment efficacy, adherence to treatment and cost of dependence resulted in ICERs ranging from 39,216 € to 254,400 €. An ICER of 24,970 € was obtained when alendronate cost was reduced to 1.13 € per month. The use of FRAX® as screening tool followed by alendronate treatment is not cost-effective in senior women in Spain. Other primary preventions strategies are advisable.

Reference values for oxygen saturation from sea level to the highest human habitation in the Andes in acclimatised persons.

Oxygen saturation, measured by pulse oximetry (SpO2), is a vital clinical measure. Our descriptive, cross-sectional study describes SpO2 measurements from 6289 healthy subjects from age 1 to 80 years at 15 locations from sea level up to the highest permanent human habitation. Oxygen saturation measurements are illustrated as percentiles. As altitude increased, SpO2 decreased, especially at altitudes above 2500 m. The increase in altitude had a significant impact on SpO2 measurements for all age groups. Our data provide a reference range for expected SpO2 measurements in people from 1 to 80 years from sea level to the highest city in the world.

Intensive follow-up for women with breast cancer: review of clinical, economic and patient's preference domains through evidence to decision framework.

BACKGROUND: Women treated for breast cancer are followed-up for monitoring of treatment effectiveness and for detecting recurrences at an early stage. The type of follow-up received may affect women's reassurance and impact on their quality of life. Anxiety and depression among women with breast cancer has been described, but little is known about how the intensity of the follow-up can affect women's psychological status. This study was undertaken to evaluate the effects of intensive vs. less-intensive follow-up on different health outcomes, to determine what are women's preferences and values regarding the follow-up received, and also assess the costs of these different types of follow-up. METHODS: A systematic review following standard Cochrane Collaboration methods was carried out to assess the efficacy of intensive follow-up versus non-intensive follow-up in breast cancer patients. Two additional reviews on women's preferences and economic evidence were also carried out. The search was performed up to January 2016 in: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PDQ, McMaster Health Systems Evidence, CENTRAL, and NHS EED (through The Cochrane Library). The quality of evidence was assessed by GRADE (for quantitative studies) and CerQUAL (for qualitative studies). Several outcomes including mortality, breast cancer recurrences, quality of life, and patient satisfaction were evaluated. RESULTS: Six randomised trials (corresponding to 3534 women) were included for the evaluation of health outcomes; three studies were included for women's values and preferences and four for an economic assessment. There is moderate certainty of evidence showing that intensive follow-up, including more frequent diagnostic tests or visits, does not have effects on 5- or 10-year overall mortality and recurrences in women with breast cancer, compared with less intensive follow-up. Regarding women's preferences and values, there was important variability among studies and within studies (low confidence due to risk of bias and inconsistency). Furthermore, intensive follow-up, as opposed to less intensive follow-up, is not likely to be cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: Less intensive follow-up appears to be justified and can be recommended over intensive follow-up. Resources could thus be mobilised to other aspects of breast cancer care, or other areas of healthcare.

Analysis of participant satisfaction in the Barcelona colorectal cancer screening programme: Positive evaluation of the community pharmacy. / Análisis de la satisfacción de los participantes en el Programa de detección precoz de cáncer colorrectal de Barcelona: valoración positiva de la farmacia comunitaria.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Population-based bowel screening programmes with faecal occult blood (FOB) tests need to achieve high uptake rates and offer quality services. We invited participants in the Barcelona Programme to complete a satisfaction survey, in order to explore factors influencing uptake and respondents' opinion and satisfaction with each step of the screening process. MATERIAL AND METHOD: Telephone survey using an ad hoc questionnaire (see annex) administered to a final sample of 1189 people: 310 non-participants in the programme (NoP), 553 participants with a negative test result (PNeg), and 326 participants with a positive result (PPos). RESULTS: High scores were obtained for the clarity of the information provided by the programme (mean 8.9 on a scale 0-10), and for the accessibility and attention at the pharmacy as well as its role as the point for collection and return of FOB test cards (mean >9.3). Aspects that were not so highly rated were: preparation for the colonoscopy (41.6% reported quite a lot or a lot of discomfort), and to a lesser extent telephone accessibility (27.1% reported some difficulties). Participants also expressed concern about receiving a positive test result by telephone (78.9% reported some concern). CONCLUSIONS: Respondents' opinion of the programme was positive overall, and supports the pharmacy as the point for distributing and collecting FOB test cards, as well as the role of the pharmacist in the context of the programme. Some aspects of the screening process will be reviewed in order to improve participant satisfaction and eventually increase uptake.