D. J. Costa

Systems Medicine Approaches for the Definition of Complex Phenotypes in Chronic Diseases and Ageing. From Concept to Implementation and Policies

Chronic diseases are diseases of long duration and slow progression. Major NCDs (cardiovascular diseases, cancer, chronic respiratory diseases, diabetes, rheumatologic diseases and mental health) represent the predominant health problem of the Century. The prevention and control of NCDs are the priority of the World Health Organization 2008 Action Plan, the United Nations 2010 Resolution and the European Union 2010 Council. The novel trend for the management of NCDs is evolving towards integrative, holistic approaches. NCDs are intertwined with ageing. The European Innovation Partnership on Active and Healthy Ageing (EIP on AHA) has prioritised NCDs. To tackle them in their totality in order to reduce their burden and societal impact, it is proposed that NCDs should be considered as a single expression of disease with different risk factors and entities. An innovative integrated health system built around systems medicine and strategic partnerships is proposed to combat NCDs. It includes (i) understanding the social, economic, environmental, genetic determinants, as well as the molecular and cellular mechanisms underlying NCDs; (ii) primary care and practice-based interprofessional collaboration; (iii) carefully phenotyped patients; (iv) development of unbiased and accurate biomarkers for comorbidities, severity and follow up of patients; (v) socio-economic science; (vi) development of guidelines; (vii) training; and (viii) policy decisions. The results could be applicable to all countries and adapted to local needs, economy and health systems. This paper reviews the complexity of NCDs intertwined with ageing. It gives an overview of the problem and proposes two practical examples of systems medicine (MeDALL) applied to allergy and to NCD co-morbidities (MACVIA-LR, Reference Site of the European Innovation Partnership on Active and Healthy Ageing).

How representative are clinical study patients with allergic rhinitis in primary care

BACKGROUND Guidelines are the cornerstone of health care decision making and are based on the best available evidence, ideally large randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Although guidelines target typical patients, RCTs are often based on narrow inclusion and exclusion criteria. OBJECTIVES We explored to what extent typical patients, such as those consulting general practitioners for allergic rhinitis, differ from patients enrolled in RCTs. METHODS We conducted a prospective cohort study including all the consecutive patients with allergic rhinitis cared for by general practitioners in the Languedoc-Roussillon region of France within 2 weeks during the grass pollen season. We evaluated how the characteristics of these patients differed from those of patients included in the 4 largest placebo-controlled RCTs of persistent and intermittent allergic rhinitis. RESULTS Three hundred eleven patients seen by 48 general practitioners were enrolled in this study. Only 7.4% (95% CI, 4.5% to 10.3%) of the patients would have been enrolled in the RCTs. The primary reasons for this difference were as follows: diagnosis of allergy based on skin test results, serum specific IgE levels, or both (20.4%); severity of allergic rhinitis (11.5%); other chronic diseases (11.4%); history of sinusitis (10.4%); and asthma comorbidity (10.1%). A sensitivity analysis excluding contraception and the diagnosis of allergy showed that the percentage of representative patients increased to 20.2% (95% CI, 15.8% to 24.7%). CONCLUSION Only a small proportion of patients with allergic rhinitis seen in the primary care setting for allergic rhinitis would be eligible for RCTs. Thus guideline developers and health decision makers need to make careful judgments about the directness of the evidence from RCTs conducted in highly controlled settings.

Inhaled Corticosteroid/Long-Acting beta(2)-Agonist Combination Therapy for Asthma: Attitudes of Specialists in Europe

Background: As new combinations of inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) and long-acting β2-agonists (LABAs) become available for the treatment of asthma, it will be important to determine criteria against which they can be evaluated. The aim of this study was to assess which attributes of combination therapy physicians consider most important. Methods: Primary and secondary care asthma specialists (n = 32) were recruited for an expert Delphi process that was performed over three rounds to determine attributes perceived to be important in the selection of combination therapy. A pan-European survey was carried out to assess the attitudes, perceptions and prescribing behaviour of a larger population (n = 1,861) of physicians with a specialist interest in asthma treatment. Results: The expert Delphi panel (response rate 59.4%) agreed that the availability of a range of doses (88% agreement in the final round), the efficacy of the combination (81%) and the safety and tolerability of the therapy (81%) were important attributes of ICS/LABA combination treatment. The potency of the ICS (69%) and the speed of onset of the LABA (69%) were also prioritized. The results of the attitudinal survey (eligibility rate 54.1%) showed that the same factors were considered important in everyday clinical practice. Conclusions: These studies identified which attributes of an ICS/LABA treatment are considered most important by an expert panel and a broader group of physicians; further research is warranted to better understand the influences that drive physician opinions.

Living Lab MACVIA Maladies chroniques

La Presse Medicale - In Press.Proof corrected by the author Available online since jeudi 15 octobre 2015