Radboud Universitair Medisch Centrum

The aim of this study is to explore patients with persistent somatic symptoms and functional disorders’ (PSS/FD) experiences of and preferences for multidisciplinary care across Europe. A further aim is to compare the experiences of and preferences for multidisciplinary care of patients to those of healthcare professionals (HCPs) in the Netherlands.

Cross-sectional online survey.

Patients with PSS/FD from across Europe (Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Poland) and HCPs working in the care for PSS/FD across all levels of care in the Netherlands.

Outcome measures for both patients and HCPs related to experiences of multidisciplinary care, communication between professionals and patients, as well as the main point of contact for patients.

600 patients responded (Germany: n=198; Italy: n=174; Netherlands: n=137; Poland; n=91), and 152 HCPs responded from the Netherlands. Compared with the other countries, patients from the Netherlands generally received less multidisciplinary care, from fewer disciplines. Regarding most variables related to interprofessional communication, patients in Italy rated their experience significantly better than in most other countries. Generally, patients preferred either their general practitioner (GP) or a medical specialist as their main point of contact, and not mental health professionals. In contrast, HCPs preferred mental health professionals as the main point of patient contact, followed by GPs. In all variables, patients in the Netherlands rated interprofessional communication significantly lower than HCPs in the Netherlands did.

Patients have different experiences of interdisciplinary communication, also reporting lower-quality communication than HCPs, though differences are seen between countries. Future studies should look at the reasons for this and how this can lead to improved care for PSS/FD.

Despite limited beneficial evidence, mechanical circulatory support (MCS) is commonly used in patients with acute myocardial infarction-related cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS). In this Dutch registry, we investigated MCS usage, associated patient characteristics and clinical outcomes.

This real-world, multicentre registry included CS patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention between 2017 and 2021 in 14 Dutch hospitals. The impact on clinical outcomes was analysed after 1:1 average propensity-score (aPS) matching.

This AMI-CS registry included 2217 patients with a mean age of 66.4 (±12.3) years and predominantly male (72.8%, n=1613). MCS was deployed in 516 patients (23.3%), of which the intra-aortic balloon pump was used most frequently (n=253, 49.0%). Impella was used in 94 patients (18.2%), extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in 68 patients (13.2%) and 95 patients (18.4%) received multiple devices. Patients receiving MCS were younger (64.2 vs 67.0, p<0.01), presented with lower mean arterial pressures (74.7 vs 78.4 mm Hg, p<0.01), higher heart rates (88.3 vs 81.7 beats per minute, p<0.01) and higher initial lactate levels (6.4 vs 5.4 mmol/L, p<0.01). The percentage of resuscitated patients was comparable among MCS and non-MCS patients (38.6% vs 42.2%, p=0.17). The 30-day mortality rate was higher in MCS patients (55.0% vs 34.7%, p<0.01). After aPS-matching (n=970), 30-day mortality remained higher for MCS patients (53.8% vs 44.7%, p<0.01), with an associated OR of 1.44 (95% CI 1.12 to 1.85, p<0.01).

Despite limited evidence, MCS was used in a fourth of all AMI-CS patients. MCS usage was associated with an increased 30-day mortality in this real-world setting, even after propensity-matching.

PROpel met its primary endpoint showing statistically significant improvement in radiographic progression-free survival with olaparib plus abiraterone versus placebo plus abiraterone in patients with first-line metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) unselected by homologous recombination repair mutation (HRRm) status, with benefit observed in all prespecified subgroups. Here we report the final prespecified overall survival analysis.

This was a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial done at 126 centres in 17 countries worldwide. Patients with mCRPC aged at least 18 years, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-1, a life expectancy of at least 6 months, with no previous systemic treatment for mCRPC and unselected by HRRm status were randomly assigned (1:1) centrally by means of an interactive voice response system-interactive web response system to abiraterone acetate (orally, 1000 mg once daily) plus prednisone or prednisolone with either olaparib (orally, 300 mg twice daily) or placebo. The patients, the investigator, and study centre staff were masked to drug allocation. Stratification factors were site of metastases and previous docetaxel at metastatic hormone-sensitive cancer stage. Radiographic progression-free survival was the primary endpoint and overall survival was a key secondary endpoint with alpha-control (alpha-threshold at prespecified final analysis: 0·0377 [two-sided]), evaluated in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was evaluated in all patients who received at least one dose of a study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03732820, and is completed and no longer recruiting.

Between Oct 31, 2018 and March 11, 2020, 1103 patients were screened, of whom 399 were randomly assigned to olaparib plus abiraterone and 397 to placebo plus abiraterone. Median follow-up for overall survival in patients with censored data was 36·6 months (IQR 34·1-40·3) for olaparib plus abiraterone and 36·5 months (33·8-40·3) for placebo plus abiraterone. Median overall survival was 42·1 months (95% CI 38·4-not reached) with olaparib plus abiraterone and 34·7 months (31·0-39·3) with placebo plus abiraterone (hazard ratio 0·81, 95% CI 0·67-1·00; p=0·054). The most common grade 3-4 adverse event was anaemia reported in 64 (16%) of 398 patients in the olaparib plus abiraterone and 13 (3%) of 396 patients in the placebo plus abiraterone group. Serious adverse events were reported in 161 (40%) in the olaparib plus abiraterone group and 126 (32%) in the placebo plus abiraterone group. One death in the placebo plus abiraterone group, from interstitial lung disease, was considered treatment related.

Overall survival was not significantly different between treatment groups at this final prespecified analysis.

Supported by AstraZeneca and Merck Sharp & Dohme.