Time filter

Source Type

Le Touquet – Paris-Plage, France

Khayat D.,Salpetriere Hospital
Cancer | Year: 2012

The costs of cancer care are rising, and spending on expensive innovative anticancer agents is likely to come under scrutiny as health care payers are confronted by the challenge of resource limits in the face of infinite demand. Indirect costs account for the major part of total attributable costs of cancer and are dominated by the cost of mortality in individuals of working age (who therefore do not contribute to economic productivity). Although cancer is a leading cause of morbidity and premature mortality, in 2007, it was estimated that cancer accounted for only around 6% of the total health care costs in Europe. It is estimated that cancer drug costs constitute around 12% of total direct cancer costs and 5% of the costs of all drugs. Countries vary in their uptake of novel anticancer agents. However, even in France-a leading nation for the use of these agents-the costs of innovative anticancer drugs accounted for <0.6% of total health care expenditure in 2006. Population-level data suggest that novel therapies have contributed (together with advances in screening and other aspects of care) to improvements in survival from cancer. If this is the case, then the potential reduction in the associated indirect costs could exceed the direct costs associated with the uptake of innovative drug therapies. Further research is required to establish the costs and benefits of novel agents in routine practice. Copyright © 2011 American Cancer Society. Source

Georgoulias V.,University of Crete | Douillard J.-Y.,Center uducheau | Khayat D.,Salpetriere Hospital | Manegold C.,University of Heidelberg | And 7 more authors.
Clinical Lung Cancer | Year: 2013

We present the treatment rationale and study design of a multicenter, open-label, randomized, 2-arm, phase IIb study. Patients with stage IV or recurrent stage I to III non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) whose disease does not progress after 4 cycles of first-line platinum-based chemotherapy will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio to 1 of 2 study arms. Patients will receive the cancer vaccine Vx-001 + Montanide ISA51 VG (Seppic, Paris, France) adjuvant subcutaneously, at a dose of 2 mg, or placebo + Montanide ISA51 VG adjuvant subcutaneously. The vaccination protocol comprises 2 injections with the TYR-Vx001 or placebo (1 at day 0 and another at week 3) and 4 injections with the ARG-Vx001 or placebo, at weeks 6, 9, 12, and 15. After the treatment assessment at week 18, patients will receive the ARG-Vx001 or placebo every 12 weeks starting from week 27 until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, withdrawal of informed consent, or death. The primary end point of this study is the survival rate at 12 months. Secondary end points include time-to-event comparison of overall survival and comparison of time to treatment failure. Exploratory objectives include comparison of disease control rate after the end of subsequent second-line treatments, comparisons of vaccine immune responses, comparison of survival rate at 12 months in patients with vaccine-induced immune response detected after the second and sixth injections, identification of biomarkers on lymphocytes and on tumors, and comparison of safety and tolerability. © 2013 Elsevier Inc. Source

Vesperini V.,Montpellier University | Lukas C.,Montpellier University | Fautrel B.,Salpetriere Hospital | Le Loet X.,Bois Guillaume Hospital | And 2 more authors.
Arthritis Care and Research | Year: 2013

Objective. To investigate the initial response to treatment and risk of radiographic disease progression in current smokers (S), ex-smokers (EX), and nonsmokers (NS) in a prospective early arthritis cohort and to analyze the influence of smoking cessation on arthritis outcome. Methods. The ESPOIR cohort is a prospective cohort study monitoring clinical, biologic, and radiographic data for patients with inflammatory arthritis lasting 6 weeks to 6 months. We examined the influence of smoking status on disease presentation (baseline characteristics) and therapeutic response at 1 year. Risk of structural progression at 12 months, defined as change in the modified Sharp/van der Heijde score ≥1, was analyzed by multivariate regression adjusted for potential confounders (age, sex, joint erosion at inclusion, educational level, positivity for rheumatoid factor or anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide 2 antibodies, and shared HLA-DRB1 epitope). Results. A total of 813 patients were included; 641 (79%) fulfilled the 2010 American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) criteria for rheumatoid arthritis (RA). At inclusion, 138 (21.5%) were S patients, 168 (26.2%) were EX patients, and 335 (52.3%) were NS patients. Baseline acute-phase indicator values were significantly lower for S patients than EX and NS patients (mean ± SD erythrocyte sedimentation rate was 24.2 ± 18.2 mm/hour versus 33.4 ± 28.0 and 31.4 ± 25.0 [P = 0.02], respectively, and mean ± SD C-reactive protein level was 17.7 ± 28.0 mg/dl versus 28.5 ± 42.5 and 21.4 ± 29.0 [P = 0.01], respectively). Smoking status had no influence on Disease Activity Score in 28 joints, Health Assessment Questionnaire score, EULAR response, or use of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and biologic therapy in the first 12 months of followup (P > 0.05). The adjusted risk for structural disease progression was associated with active smokers (odds ratio 0.50 [95% confidence interval 0.27-0.93], P = 0.028). Sixteen patients had stopped smoking at 12 months, with no significant difference in observed outcomes from other patients. Conclusion. In this large prospective cohort of patients with early arthritis, smoking status had no significant effect on disease activity and disability but did reduce 1-year radiographic disease progression. The antiinflammatory role of nicotine may explain the lower systemic inflammation and structural disease progression in current smokers with early RA. Copyright © 2013 by the American College of Rheumatology. Source

Reck C.,University of Heidelberg | Noe D.,University of Heidelberg | Stefenelli U.,University of Heidelberg | Fuchs T.,University of Heidelberg | And 5 more authors.
Infant Mental Health Journal | Year: 2011

In healthy mother-infant dyads, interactions are characterized by a pattern of matching and mismatching interactive states with quick reparation of mismatches into matches. In contrast, dyads in which mothers have postpartum depression show impaired mother-infant interaction patterns over the first few months of the infant's life. The majority of studies that have examined such interaction patterns have drawn on community samples rather than on depressed inpatient samples of mothers who were in a state of current depression at the time of assessment. To date, no study has investigated specific microanalytic patterns of interactive coordination between depressed German mothers and their infants using the Face-to-Face Still-Face paradigm (FFSF). The primary goal of this study was to evaluate specific patterns of dyadic coordination and the capacity for repairing states of miscoordination in an inpatient sample of postpartum currently depressed mothers and their infants as compared with a healthy control group. A sample of 28 depressed inpatient German mothers and their infants (age range = 1-8 months, M age = 4.06 months) and 34 healthy dyads (range = 1-8 months, M age = 3.89 months) were videotaped while engaging in the FFSF. A focus was placed on the play and reunion episodes. Compared with healthy dyads, dyads with depressed mothers showed less coordination of positive matched states and longer latencies when repairing interactive mismatching states into positive matched states. Clinical implications are discussed. © 2011 Michigan Association for Infant Mental Health. Source

Baulac M.,Salpetriere Hospital | De Boer H.,Epilepsy Institute in the Netherlands | Elger C.,University of Bonn | Glynn M.,Epilepsy Ireland | And 7 more authors.
Epilepsia | Year: 2015

The European Forum on Epilepsy Research (ERF2013), which took place in Dublin, Ireland, on May 26-29, 2013, was designed to appraise epilepsy research priorities in Europe through consultation with clinical and basic scientists as well as representatives of lay organizations and health care providers. The ultimate goal was to provide a platform to improve the lives of persons with epilepsy by influencing the political agenda of the EU. The Forum highlighted the epidemiologic, medical, and social importance of epilepsy in Europe, and addressed three separate but closely related concepts. First, possibilities were explored as to how the stigma and social burden associated with epilepsy could be reduced through targeted initiatives at EU national and regional levels. Second, ways to ensure optimal standards of care throughout Europe were specifically discussed. Finally, a need for further funding in epilepsy research within the European Horizon 2020 funding programme was communicated to politicians and policymakers participating to the forum. Research topics discussed specifically included (1) epilepsy in the developing brain; (2) novel targets for innovative diagnostics and treatment of epilepsy; (3) what is required for prevention and cure of epilepsy; and (4) epilepsy and comorbidities, with a special focus on aging and mental health. This report provides a summary of recommendations that emerged at ERF2013 about how to (1) strengthen epilepsy research, (2) reduce the treatment gap, and (3) reduce the burden and stigma associated with epilepsy. Half of the 6 million European citizens with epilepsy feel stigmatized and experience social exclusion, stressing the need for funding trans-European awareness campaigns and monitoring their impact on stigma, in line with the global commitment of the European Commission and with the recommendations made in the 2011 Written Declaration on Epilepsy. Epilepsy care has high rates of misdiagnosis and considerable variability in organization and quality across European countries, translating into huge societal cost (0.2% GDP) and stressing the need for cost-effective programs of harmonization and optimization of epilepsy care throughout Europe. There is currently no cure or prevention for epilepsy, and 30% of affected persons are not controlled by current treatments, stressing the need for pursuing research efforts in the field within Horizon 2020. Priorities should include (1) development of innovative biomarkers and therapeutic targets and strategies, from gene and cell-based therapies to technologically advanced surgical treatment; (2) addressing issues raised by pediatric and aging populations, as well as by specific etiologies and comorbidities such as traumatic brain injury (TBI) and cognitive dysfunction, toward more personalized medicine and prevention; and (3) translational studies and clinical trials built upon well-established European consortia. © 2015 The Authors Epilepsia published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of International League Against Epilepsy. Source

Discover hidden collaborations