[Dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase deficiency screening for management of patients receiving a fluoropyrimidine: Results of two national practice surveys addressed to clinicians and biologists]. / Intérêts et limites de la recherche du déficit en dihydropyrimidine déshydrogénase dans le suivi des patients traités par fluoropyrimidines : résultats de deux enquêtes nationales de pratiques réalisées auprès des médecins et des biologistes.

Dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) deficiency is the main cause of early severe toxicities induced by fluoropyrimidines (FP). The French Group of Clinical Oncopharmacology (GPCO)-Unicancer and the French Pharmacogenetics Network (RNPGx) initiated two surveys, one addressed to oncologists, the other to biologists, in order to evaluate routine practices regarding DPD deficiency screening at national level, as well as compliance, motivations and obstacles for implementation of these tests. These anonymized online surveys were performed with the logistic assistance of the Francophone Federation of Digestive Oncology (FFCD) and the support of numerous medical and biological societies. The surveys were conducted in 2016-2017 before the creation of the French INCa/HAS expert panel, which contributed to the drafting of rules and recommendations for DPD deficiency screening published in December 2018. In all, 554 questionnaires from clinicians were analyzed (23% participation) and 35 from biologists. The main arguments raised by clinicians for justifying the limited practice of DPD deficiency screening were: the lack of recommendations from medical societies or Health Authorities, delays in obtaining results, and the lack of adequate reimbursement by the health insurance system. The goal of these surveys was to provide the French Health Authorities with an overview on nationwide DPD-deficiency screening practices and thus help to design recommendations for the standardization and improvement of the management and safety of cancer patients receiving FP-based chemotherapy.

Comparison of general practitioners and rheumatologists' prescription patterns for patients with knee osteoarthritis.

BACKGROUND: To compare the prescription modalities of general practitioners (GPs) and rheumatologists (RHs) for symptomatic knee osteoarthritis (OA) and to determine correlates with prescription of low-dose NSAIDs. METHODS: This observational, prospective, national survey was carried out among a national representative sample of GPs (n = 808) and RHs (n = 134). Each physician completed a medical questionnaire for the 2 most recent patients fulfilling the ACR criteria for knee OA. RESULTS: GPs and RHs included 1,570 and 251 patients, respectively. Mean pain level of the knee (on a VAS, 0-100 mm) was greater for GP patients than for RH patients (49.8 ± 16.3 vs. 46.2 ± 17.1 mm, respectively; p < 0.01). As compared with patients of RHs, those of GPs more frequently had another joint affected by OA: 71.2% vs. 63.7% (p < 0.0001) and more often had hypertension and diabetes mellitus (p < 0.05). As compared with RHs, GPs more frequently prescribed low-dose NSAIDs (p < 0.0001), oral NSAIDs (p < 0.05), and topical NSAIDs (p < 0.0001) but less frequently symptomatic slow-acting drugs for OA (p < 0.01). Moreover, GPs more frequently recommended rehabilitation (p < 0.01) and loss of weight (p < 0.0001). Logistic regression analysis revealed an association of low-dose NSAIDs prescription and prescription by GPs, prescription of topical NSAIDs, no prescription of oral NSAIDs or coxibs and no intra-articular injection of steroids. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified speciality-related variability in some aspects of the management of knee OA. The clinical profile of patients with knee OA differed between GPs and RHs.