Overcoming fragmentation of health research in Europe: lessons from COVID-19

Surgical Lip Cancer Reconstruction in the COVID-19 Era: Are Free Flaps or Loco-Regional Flaps Better?

Lip carcinoma is one of the most frequent conditions affecting the general population. It is among the ten most common neoplasms, but despite advances in research and therapy, its prognosis has not improved in a significant way in the past few years, making it a challenge in the medical research field and in surgical treatment. This study was conducted with the aim of evaluating the available reconstructive surgical options for the treatment of lip carcinomas in order to define which could be the most appropriate technique to achieve satisfying aesthetic and functional outcomes considering hospital resources in the COVID-19 era. Seventeen patients were included in this retrospective study, which took place between January 2019 and April 2021. There were two groups: seven patients who underwent a radial forearm free flap and ten who underwent locoregional flaps. The statistical analysis was performed to evaluate four different endpoints. Surgical length, ICU stay, and hospitalization time were minor for locoregional flaps. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups when considering post-operative complications. Locoregional flaps have a more aesthetically pleasing result, but from a functional point of view, the results can be superimposable. Both techniques are associated with adequate speech, mouth opening, sealing, and symmetry. Given the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the healthcare system, locoregional flaps have been proven to be a good surgical option in the reconstruction of lip defects both in terms of aesthetics and functional outcome.

Authorization of COVID-19 clinical trials: lessons from 2 years of experience of a national competent authority

The COVID-19 pandemic was immediately marked by strong clinical research activity. The French national competent authority presents the data on request for authorization during the first 2 years of COVID-19 pandemic to inform discussions on future clinical research issues. Applications for authorization of interventional COVID-19 trials submitted between March 2020 and February 2022 were analysed. Trials on medicinal products were classified according to market authorization status, mechanism of action of the investigational product, target population and clinical context. In 2 years, 208 clinical trials were submitted. 75% were authorized, 3% refused, 22% withdrawn by the sponsor. Among medicinal products trials, 6% were adaptative, 28% included outpatients and 2% were focused on post COVID-19 symptoms. Vaccines were evaluated in 9% of trials, antivirals in 38% and immunomodulators in 35%; 63% of antiviral and 60% of immunomodulation trials included a drug with a marketing authorization in another indication. The dynamics of authorization prove the involvement of stakeholders but also illustrates the risk of dispersion of research efforts and the risk of decorrelation between trials and the epidemic evolution. The high rate of withdrawal of applications could be explained by changes in the sanitary context and by the dropping of some therapeutic approaches. Most of clinical trials evaluate drugs authorized in another indication and assessment procedures by authorities have to mitigate between the knowledge of safety profile of those drugs and the uncertainty in a new clinical context with rapidly evolving knowledge. COVID-19 experience should now support future evolution in clinical research practices.

Aesthetic Surgery Practice Resumption in the United Kingdom During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Background

The global COVID-19 pandemic has significantly impacted all aspects of healthcare, including the delivery of elective aesthetic surgery practice. We carried out a national, prospective data collection of the first aesthetic plastic surgery procedures carried out during the COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom.

Objectives

Our aim was to explore the challenges aesthetic practice is facing and to identify if any problems or complications arose from carrying out aesthetic procedures during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Methods

Over a 6-week period from June 15 ^th-August 2 ^nd, 2020, data was collected using a proforma for aesthetic plastic surgery cases. All patients had outcomes recorded for the audit period of 14 days post-surgery.

Results

Our results demonstrated that none of the 371 patients audited whom underwent aesthetic surgical procedures developed any symptoms of COVID-19-related illness and none required treatment for any subsequent respiratory illness.

Conclusions

We found no COVID-19–related cases or complications in a cohort of patients who underwent elective aesthetic procedures under strict screening and infection control protocols in the early resumption of elective service.

The MULTI-ACT model: the path forward for participatory and anticipatory governance in health research and care

The COVID-19 pandemic has unmasked even more clearly the need for research and care to form a unique and interdependent ecosystem, a concept which has emerged in recent years. In fact, to address urgent and unexpected missions such as "fighting all together the COVID-19 pandemic", the importance of multi-stakeholder collaboration, mission-oriented governance and flexibility has been demonstrated with great efficacy. This calls for a policy integration strategy and implementation of responsible research and innovation principles in health, promoting an effective cooperation between science and society towards a shared mission. This article describes the MULTI-ACT framework and discusses how its innovative approach, encompassing governance criteria, patient engagement and multidisciplinary impact assessment, represents a holistic management model for structuring responsible research and innovation participatory governance in brain conditions research.

Mapping European research networks providing health data: results from the InfAct Joint Action on health information

Background

Research networks offer multidisciplinary expertise and promote information exchange between researchers across Europe. They are essential for the European Union’s (EU) health information system as providers of health information and data. The aim of this mapping exercise was to identify and analyze EU research networks in terms of health data collection methods, quality assessment, availability and accessibility procedures.

Methods

A web-based search was performed to identify EU research networks that are not part of international organizations (e.g., WHO-Europe, OECD) and are involved in collection of data for health monitoring or health system performance assessment. General characteristics of the research networks (e.g., data sources, representativeness), quality assessment procedures, availability and accessibility of health data were collected through an ad hoc extraction form.

Results

Fifty-seven research networks, representative at national, international or regional level, were identified. In these networks, data are mainly collected through administrative sources, health surveys and cohort studies. Over 70% of networks provide information on quality assessment of their data collection procedures. Most networks share macrodata through articles and reports, while microdata are available from ten networks. A request for data access is required by 14 networks, of which three apply a financial charge. Few networks share data with other research networks (8/49) or specify the metadata-reporting standards used for data description (9/49).

Conclusions

Improving health information and availability of high quality data is a priority in Europe. Research networks could play a major role in tackling health data and information inequalities by enhancing quality, availability, and accessibility of health data and data sharing across European networks.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13690-021-00766-2.

The European Health Union: European Union's Concern about Health for All. Concepts, Definition, and Scenarios

The COVID-19 pandemic brought visibility and intensified the discussions on the European Union's (EU) health mandate. The proposals of the European Commission (EC) to move towards a European Health Union (EHU) can be seen as a starting point towards more integration in health. However, the definition of what the EHU will look like is not clear. This paper searches to find a common definition, and/or features for this EHU through a systematic literature review performed in May 2021. "European Union's concern about health for all" is suggested as a definition. The main drivers identified to develop an EHU are: surveillance and monitoring, crisis preparedness, funding, political will, vision of public health expenditures, population's awareness and interest, and global health. Based on these findings, five scenarios were developed: making a full move towards supranational action; improving efficiency in the actual framework; more coordination but no real change; in a full intergovernmentalism direction; and fragmentation of the EU. The scenarios show that the development of a EHU is possible inside the current legal framework. However, it will rely on increased coordination and has a focus on cross-border health threats. Any development will be strongly linked to political choices from Member States.

Identifying common enablers and barriers in European health information systems

European countries possess unique health information systems (HISs) and face similar health system challenges. Investigating common enablers and barriers across Europe pinpoint where HISs need improvements to address these challenges. This study aims to identify common enablers and barriers for optimal functioning of HISs across the European Union and associated countries, and to interpret what this means for the further development of HISs in Europe. A qualitative thematic analysis was carried out based on nine countries HISs assessments. Two main observations are made. Firstly, regardless of the differences between HISs, each HIS had its strengths and weaknesses and often the same barriers and enablers arose. Secondly, barriers were identified in all HIS areas. The five most important barriers are (i) fragmentation of data sources, limited accessibility, use and re-use of data, (ii) barriers in the implementation of EHR-systems, (iii) governance issues related to unclear responsibilities, discontinuous financing and weak intra- and inter-sectorial collaboration, (iv) legal gaps and General Data Protection Regulation (mis)interpretation, and (v) limited skilled staff. The enablers identified in this study lead to potential solutions to address these. Solutions can be implemented by national initiatives, but there is considerable added value in a joint European approach. Several international initiatives provide opportunities to improve HISs, but these need to be strengthened and better geared towards tackling the identified barriers.

Overcoming gaps: regional collaborative to optimize capacity management and predict length of stay of patients admitted with COVID-19

Objective

Ensuring an efficient response to COVID-19 requires a degree of inter-system coordination and capacity management coupled with an accurate assessment of hospital utilization including length of stay (LOS). We aimed to establish optimal practices in inter-system data sharing and LOS modeling to support patient care and regional hospital operations.

Materials and Methods

We completed a retrospective observational study of patients admitted with COVID-19 followed by 12-week prospective validation, involving 36 hospitals covering the upper Midwest. We developed a method for sharing de-identified patient data across systems for analysis. From this, we compared 3 approaches, generalized linear model (GLM) and random forest (RF), and aggregated system level averages to identify features associated with LOS. We compared model performance by area under the ROC curve (AUROC).

Results

A total of 2068 patients were included and used for model derivation and 597 patients for validation. LOS overall had a median of 5.0 days and mean of 8.2 days. Consistent predictors of LOS included age, critical illness, oxygen requirement, weight loss, and nursing home admission. In the validation cohort, the RF model (AUROC 0.890) and GLM model (AUROC 0.864) achieved good to excellent prediction of LOS, but only marginally better than system averages in practice.

Conclusion

Regional sharing of patient data allowed for effective prediction of LOS across systems; however, this only provided marginal improvement over hospital averages at the aggregate level. A federated approach of sharing aggregated system capacity and average LOS will likely allow for effective capacity management at the regional level.

Safety of major reconstructive surgery during the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom and Ireland - multicentre national cohort study

Background

The safety of surgery during and after the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is paramount. Early reports of excessive perioperative mortality in COVID-positive patients promoted the widespread avoidance of operations. However, cancelling or delaying operations for cancer, trauma, or functional restitution has resulted in increased morbidity and mortality.

Methods

A national multicentre cohort study of all major reconstructive operations carried out over a 12-week period of the ‘COVID-19 surge’ in the United Kingdom and Ireland was performed. Primary outcome was 30-day mortality and secondary outcome measures were major complications (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥3) and COVID-19 status of patients and healthcare professionals before and after surgery.

Results

A total of 418 patients underwent major reconstructive surgery with a mean operating time of 7.5 hours and 12 days’ inpatient stay. Cancer (59.8%) and trauma (29.4%) were the most common indications. COVID-19 infection was present in 4.5% of patients. The 30-day post-operative mortality was 0.2%, reflecting the death of one patient who was COVID-negative. Overall complication rate was 20.8%. COVID status did not correlate with major or minor complications. Eight healthcare professionals developed post-operative COVID-19 infection, seven of which occurred within the first three weeks.

Conclusions

Major reconstructive operations performed during the COVID-19 crisis have been mostly urgent cases involving all surgical specialties. This cohort is a surrogate for all major operations across all surgical specialties. Patient safety and surgical outcomes have been the same as in the pre-COVID era. With adequate precautions, major reconstructive surgery is safe for patients and staff. This study helps counsel patients of COVID-19 risks in the perioperative period.