The results of this observational study confirm the effectiveness and tolerability of FCM when given in clinical routine practice alone or in combination with an ESA.

BackgroundGeneral practitioners (GPs) have an increasing role in referring patients with putative mutation in BRCA1/2 genes for genetics consultation and for long‐term follow‐up of mutation carriers.MethodsWe compared the expectations of the GPs’ role according to BRCA1/2 mutation carriers and to GPs themselves.ResultsOverall, 38% (58/152) of eligible GPs and 70% (176/252) of eligible patients were surveyed. Although 81% of GPs collected the family history, only 24% considered that they know criteria indicating genetics consultation and 39% sufficient knowledge of BRCA1/2 guidelines to answer patients’ questions. Twelve% of GPs were aware of the French national guidelines. Among unsatisfied patients, 40% felt that their GP was able to answer (moderately, sufficiently, or completely) specific questions about BRCA1/2 care as compared with 81% in satisfied patients. Only 33% of GPs reported being informed directly by the geneticist about the patients’ results. GPs’ main expectations for their role in BRCA1/2 carrier care were psychological support and informing relatives about screening (72% and 71%, respectively), which contrasts with the perceptions of patients, who mainly requested medical advice for BRCA1/2‐related care (51%).ConclusionThere is an important need for GP training and enhancing interactions between GPs and geneticists to improve the GP's role in BRCA1/2 screening and management.

In EOBC, we found significant differences in risk factors, phenotype and a higher incidence of BRCA1 mutations in Southern Europe as compared to North Africa. The worst prognosis previously reported for EOBC in North Africa is more likely due to a higher stage at diagnosis than to a more aggressive phenotype, since triple negative tumors are more common in Southern Europe and advanced tumors in North Africa.

Psoriasis is a chronic, immune-mediated, inflammatory skin disease that negatively impacts patients' health-related quality-of-life. Biologic medications have been developed and approved for the condition in recent years that have greatly improved patients' care; however, little is known about their comparative efficacy. Our research objective was to synthesize and compare the efficacy of two of these new biologic treatments, ustekinumab and adalimumab. METHODS: A literature review was conducted of randomized, controlled trials investigating the efficacy of ustekinumab (45 mg or 90 mg) and adalimumab (40mg) according to their approved FDA labels. As no head-to-head trials existed at the time of the study, a Bayesian network meta-analysis allowing for indirect comparisons was conducted on the ordered probit scale to evaluate comparative efficacy at a common week-12 time point based on the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 50, 75, 90, and 100 and the Physician's Global Assessment (PGA) 0/1. The primary analysis was based on the intent-to-treat populations, and sensitivity analysis was conducted using the ustekinumab dose appropriate for patients' body weight per the product label. RESULTS: Seven clinical trials representing over 4,000 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The metaanalysis showed that PASI 50, 75, 90, and 100 response rates at week 12 were 76%, 55%, 29%, and 10% for adalimumab; 89%, 73%, 47%, and 20% for ustekinumab 45 mg; and 91%, 76%, 51%, and 24% for ustekinumab 90 mg, respectively. PGA 0/1 response rates at week 12 were 58%, 64%, and 69% for adalimumab, ustekinumab 45 mg, and ustekinumab 90 mg, respectively. Weightbased sensitivity analysis showed similar results between adalimumab and ustekinumab but higher efficacy for ustekinumab 45 mg in pts ≤100kg compared with ustekinumab 90 mg in pts >100kg per the label. CONCLUSIONS: This network meta-analysis provides additional information about the comparative effectiveness of ustekinumab and adalimumab in treatment of moderate-tosevere PsO.

No abstract