[A set of indicators to monitor the adherence to the guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer]. / Indicatori per il monitoraggio dei percorsi diagnostico-terapeutici del tumore della mammella.

OBJECTIVES: to present a set of indicators developed from six Local Health Authorities of the Lombardy Region to monitor the diagnostic and therapeutic pathway of breast cancer patients, applied to 2007-2009 incident cases. DESIGN: retrospective cohort study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: all subjects with primary breast cancer, incident in the period 2007-2009, and collected by cancer registries of Milano 1, Bergamo, Cremona, Milano, Milano 2 and Monza-Brianza (5,320,272 inhabitants) were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: through the use of combined current health databases (health registry, hospitalizations, outpatient, pharmaceutical prescription and specific database for anticancer drugs), for each incident case 34 different indicators have been developed to measure the appropriateness of the procedures provided for diagnosis, treatment (surgical and medical) and follow-up. For each indicator, we analyzed the relationship with age, stage, deprivation index, type of treatment, volume of the specific procedure of the hospital where primary surgery was performed. Estimates were adjusted using multilevel regression models. RESULTS: 12,988 incident cases, without metastatic diseases and other cancers, were included in the cohort: 62% were localized to the breast, 33% to the axillary lymph-nodes, 3% metastatic ab initio, and 2% with unknown stage. Deviations from the expected value of different magnitude depending on the type of indicator were observed: the most important differences were detected for the follow-up indicators. There was, in fact, an excess of several procedures in the first year of follow-up: 75% of the cases performed a dosage of a tumor marker, 67% an ecography or a CT scan or an MR, and 37% a bone scan. On the other hand, the access to neoadjuvant and adjuvant treatments in older women was far below the expected values. CONCLUSIONS: the study presents data derived from a large cohort of population cases; the set of indicators was validated by a board of oncologists. The use of indicators calculated by linking the cancer registries (that provide staging) and administrative databases allows the assessment of compliance to the guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of tumours. This experience shows that it is possible to develop a methodology, shared with clinicians, to define indicators that measure the distance between guidelines and current clinical practice in order to decrease variability, to limit inappropriateness, and to reduce unnecessary diagnostic tests for patients (and, consequently, hospitals organizational overload). In order to be sustainable and equitable, a health care system must be able to ensure implementation of protocols/procedures based exclusively on the best available scientific evidences.

Population-based analysis of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug use among children in four European countries in the SOS project: what size of data platforms and which study designs do we need to assess safety issues?

BACKGROUND: Data on utilization patterns and safety of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in children are scarce. The purpose of this study was to investigate the utilization of NSAIDs among children in four European countries as part of the Safety Of non-Steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (SOS) project. METHODS: We used longitudinal patient data from seven databases (GePaRD, IPCI, OSSIFF, Pedianet, PHARMO, SISR, and THIN) to calculate prevalence rates of NSAID use among children (0-18 years of age) from Germany, Italy, Netherlands, and United Kingdom. All databases contained a representative population sample and recorded demographics, diagnoses, and drug prescriptions. Prevalence rates of NSAID use were stratified by age, sex, and calendar time. The person-time of NSAID exposure was calculated by using the duration of the prescription supply. We calculated incidence rates for serious adverse events of interest. For these adverse events of interest, sample size calculations were conducted (alpha = 0.05; 1-beta = 0.8) to determine the amount of NSAID exposure time that would be required for safety studies in children. RESULTS: The source population comprised 7.7 million children with a total of 29.6 million person-years of observation. Of those, 1.3 million children were exposed to at least one of 45 NSAIDs during observation time. Overall prevalence rates of NSAID use in children differed across countries, ranging from 4.4 (Italy) to 197 (Germany) per 1000 person-years in 2007. For Germany, United Kingdom, and Italian pediatricians, we observed high rates of NSAID use among children aged one to four years. For all four countries, NSAID use increased with older age categories for children older than 11. In this analysis, only for ibuprofen (the most frequently used NSAID), enough exposure was available to detect a weak association (relative risk of 2) between exposure and asthma exacerbation (the most common serious adverse event of interest). CONCLUSIONS: Patterns of NSAID use in children were heterogeneous across four European countries. The SOS project platform captures data on more than 1.3 million children who were exposed to NSAIDs. Even larger data platforms and the use of advanced versions of case-only study designs may be needed to conclusively assess the safety of these drugs in children.

Risk of ischemic stroke and the use of individual non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: A multi-country European database study within the SOS Project.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: A multi-country European study using data from six healthcare databases from four countries was performed to evaluate in a large study population (>32 million) the risk of ischemic stroke (IS) associated with individual NSAIDs and to assess the impact of risk factors of IS and co-medication. METHODS: Case-control study nested in a cohort of new NSAID users. For each case, up to 100 sex- and age-matched controls were selected and confounder-adjusted odds ratios for current use of individual NSAIDs compared to past use calculated. RESULTS: 49,170 cases of IS were observed among 4,593,778 new NSAID users. Use of coxibs (odds ratio 1.08, 95%-confidence interval 1.02-1.15) and use of traditional NSAIDs (1.16, 1.12-1.19) were associated with an increased risk of IS. Among 32 individual NSAIDs evaluated, the highest significant risk of IS was observed for ketorolac (1.46, 1.19-1.78), but significantly increased risks (in decreasing order) were also found for diclofenac, indomethacin, rofecoxib, ibuprofen, nimesulide, diclofenac with misoprostol, and piroxicam. IS risk associated with NSAID use was generally higher in persons of younger age, males, and those with a prior history of IS. CONCLUSIONS: Risk of IS differs between individual NSAIDs and appears to be higher in patients with a prior history of IS or transient ischemic attack (TIA), in younger or male patients. Co-medication with aspirin, other antiplatelets or anticoagulants might mitigate this risk. The small to moderate observed risk increase (by 13-46%) associated with NSAIDs use represents a public health concern due to widespread NSAID usage.

Risk of acute myocardial infarction during use of individual NSAIDs: A nested case-control study from the SOS project.

BACKGROUND: Use of selective COX-2 non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (coxibs) has been associated with an increased risk of acute myocardial infarction (AMI). However, the risk of AMI has only been studied for very few NSAIDs that are frequently used. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the risk of AMI for individual NSAIDs. METHODS: A nested case-control study was performed from a cohort of new NSAID users ≥18 years (1999-2011) matching cases to a maximum of 100 controls on database, sex, age, and calendar time. Data were retrieved from six healthcare databases. Adjusted odds ratios (ORs) of current use of individual NSAIDs compared to past use were estimated per database. Pooling was done by two-stage pooling using a random effects model (ORmeta) and by one-stage pooling (ORpool). RESULTS: Among 8.5 million new NSAID users, 79,553 AMI cases were identified. The risk was elevated for current use of ketorolac (ORmeta 2.06;95%CI 1.83-2.32, ORpool 1.80; 1.49-2.18) followed, in descending order of point estimate, by indometacin, etoricoxib, rofecoxib, diclofenac, fixed combination of diclofenac with misoprostol, piroxicam, ibuprofen, naproxen, celecoxib, meloxicam, nimesulide and ketoprofen (ORmeta 1.12; 1.03-1.22, ORpool 1.00;0.86-1.16). Higher doses showed higher risk estimates than lower doses. CONCLUSIONS: The relative risk estimates of AMI differed slightly between 28 individual NSAIDs. The relative risk was highest for ketorolac and was correlated with COX-2 potency, but not restricted to coxibs.

Indicators based on registers and administrative data for breast cancer: routine evaluation of oncologic care pathway can be implemented.

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Assuring the best standards of care - in a sustainable way - in chronic diseases as breast cancer is nowadays an important challenge for any health system. The aim of this study was to present the methodology used to define a set of quality indicators, computable from administrative data for the pathway of care of breast cancer, and its application at a population level. METHOD: The cohort of 2007-2009 incident cases of breast cancer was identified through a network of six cancer registers in Northern Italy. Cases of sarcoma and lymphoma, patients with multiple primary cancers and those metastatic at diagnosis were excluded; 9614 women were retained for the analysis. For each indicator, the sub-cohort of women eligible for the diagnostic/therapeutic procedures was identified and calculations were performed through record linkage between the cohort and sources of health information. Data on potential available confounders or prognostic factors were also collected. RESULTS: For a few indicators, such as cyto-histological assessment before surgery (62%) and intensive follow-up (79%), deviation from recommendations was evident. Younger patients (≤50 years) more frequently needed a short term re-intervention, while older patients less frequently underwent reconstructive surgery and received palliative care. Several indicators had a great variability across hospitals. In some cases, this heterogeneity appeared to be related to the hospital size, with high-volume hospitals being more compliant to guidelines. CONCLUSION: It is possible to evaluate the quality of cancer care delivered in clinical practice in recent years, in order to implement interventions aimed to improve adherence to international standards of care.

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and risk of heart failure in four European countries: nested case-control study.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the cardiovascular safety of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and estimate the risk of hospital admission for heart failure with use of individual NSAIDs. DESIGN: Nested case-control study. SETTING: Five population based healthcare databases from four European countries (the Netherlands, Italy, Germany, and the United Kingdom). PARTICIPANTS: Adult individuals (age ≥18 years) who started NSAID treatment in 2000-10. Overall, 92 163 hospital admissions for heart failure were identified and matched with 8 246 403 controls (matched via risk set sampling according to age, sex, year of cohort entry). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Association between risk of hospital admission for heart failure and use of 27 individual NSAIDs, including 23 traditional NSAIDs and four selective COX 2 inhibitors. Associations were assessed by multivariable conditional logistic regression models. The dose-response relation between NSAID use and heart failure risk was also assessed. RESULTS: Current use of any NSAID (use in preceding 14 days) was found to be associated with a 19% increase of risk of hospital admission for heart failure (adjusted odds ratio 1.19; 95% confidence interval 1.17 to 1.22), compared with past use of any NSAIDs (use >183 days in the past). Risk of admission for heart failure increased for seven traditional NSAIDs (diclofenac, ibuprofen, indomethacin, ketorolac, naproxen, nimesulide, and piroxicam) and two COX 2 inhibitors (etoricoxib and rofecoxib). Odds ratios ranged from 1.16 (95% confidence interval 1.07 to 1.27) for naproxen to 1.83 (1.66 to 2.02) for ketorolac. Risk of heart failure doubled for diclofenac, etoricoxib, indomethacin, piroxicam, and rofecoxib used at very high doses (≥2 defined daily dose equivalents), although some confidence intervals were wide. Even medium doses (0.9-1.2 defined daily dose equivalents) of indomethacin and etoricoxib were associated with increased risk. There was no evidence that celecoxib increased the risk of admission for heart failure at commonly used doses. CONCLUSIONS: The risk of hospital admission for heart failure associated with current use of NSAIDs appears to vary between individual NSAIDs, and this effect is dose dependent. This risk is associated with the use of a large number of individual NSAIDs reported by this study, which could help to inform both clinicians and health regulators.