| 1. |
- Hedman, Linnea, et al.
(författare)
-
Receiving support to quit smoking and quit attempts among smokers with and without smoking related diseases : Findings from the EUREST-PLUS ITC Europe Surveys
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Tobacco Induced Diseases. - Heraklion : European Publishing. - 1617-9625. ; 16
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- INTRODUCTION Having a chronic disease either caused or worsened by tobacco smoking does not always translate into quitting smoking. Although smoking cessation is one of the most cost-effective medical interventions, it remains poorly implemented in healthcare settings. The aim was to examine whether smokers with chronic and respiratory diseases were more likely to receive support to quit smoking by a healthcare provider or make a quit attempt than smokers without these diseases.METHODS This population-based study included a sample of 6011 adult smokers in six European countries. The participants were interviewed face-to-face and asked questions on sociodemographic characteristics, current diagnoses for chronic diseases, healthcare visits in the last 12 months and, if so, whether they had received any support to quit smoking. Questions on smoking behavior included nicotine dependence, motivation to quit smoking and quit attempts in the last 12 months. The results are presented as weighted percentages with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and as adjusted odds ratios with 95% CI based on logistic regression analyses.RESULTS Smokers with chronic respiratory disease, those aged 55 years and older, as well as those with one or more chronic diseases were more likely to receive smoking cessation advice from a healthcare professional. Making a quit attempt in the last year was related to younger age, high educational level, higher motivation to quit, lower nicotine dependence and having received advice to quit from a healthcare professional but not with having chronic diseases. There were significant differences between countries with smokers in Romania consistently reporting more support to quit as well as quit attempts.CONCLUSIONS Although smokers with respiratory disease did indeed receive smoking cessation support more often than smokers without disease, many smokers did not receive any advice or support to quit during a healthcare visit.
|
|
| 2. |
- Janssens, Rosanne, et al.
(författare)
-
How can patient preferences be used and communicated in the regulatory evaluation of medicinal products? : Findings and recommendations from IMI PREFER and call to action
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Frontiers in Pharmacology. - : Frontiers Media S.A.. - 1663-9812. ; 14
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objective: Patients have unique insights and are (in-)directly affected by each decision taken throughout the life cycle of medicinal products. Patient preference studies (PPS) assess what matters most to patients, how much, and what trade-offs patients are willing to make. IMI PREFER was a six-year European public-private partnership under the Innovative Medicines Initiative that developed recommendations on how to assess and use PPS in medical product decision-making, including in the regulatory evaluation of medicinal products. This paper aims to summarize findings and recommendations from IMI PREFER regarding i) PPS applications in regulatory evaluation, ii) when and how to consult with regulators on PPS, iii) how to reflect PPS in regulatory communication and iv) barriers and open questions for PPS in regulatory decision-making.Methods: PREFER performed six literature reviews, 143 interviews and eight focus group discussions with regulators, patient representatives, industry representatives, Health Technology Assessment bodies, payers, academics, and clincians between October 2016 and May 2022.Results: i) With respect to PPS applications, prior to the conduct of clinical trials of medicinal products, PPS could inform regulators' understanding of patients' unmet needs and relevant endpoints during horizon scanning activities and scientific advice. During the evaluation of a marketing authorization application, PPS could inform: a) the assessment of whether a product meets an unmet need, b) whether patient-relevant clinical trial endpoints and outcomes were studied, c) the understanding of patient-relevant effect sizes and acceptable trade-offs, and d) the identification of key (un-)favorable effects and uncertainties. ii) With respect to consulting with regulators on PPS, PPS researchers should ideally have early discussions with regulators (e.g., during scientific advice) on the PPS design and research questions. iii) Regarding external PPS communication, PPS could be reflected in the assessment report and product information (e.g., the European Public Assessment Report and the Summary of Product Characteristics). iv) Barriers relevant to the use of PPS in regulatory evaluation include a lack of PPS use cases and demonstrated impact on regulatory decision-making, and need for (financial) incentives, guidance and quality criteria for implementing PPS results in regulatory decision-making. Open questions concerning regulatory PPS use include: a) should a product independent broad approach to the design of PPS be taken and/or a product-specific one, b) who should optimally be financing, designing, conducting, and coordinating PPS, c) when (within and/or outside clinical trials) to perform PPS, and d) how can PPS use best be operationalized in regulatory decisions.Conclusion: PPS have high potential to inform regulators on key unmet needs, endpoints, benefits, and risks that matter most to patients and their acceptable trade-offs. Regulatory guidelines, templates and checklists, together with incentives are needed to foster structural and transparent PPS submission and evaluation in regulatory decision-making. More PPS case studies should be conducted and submitted for regulatory assessment to enable regulatory discussion and increase regulators' experience with PPS implementation and communication in regulatory evaluations.
|
|
