METHODS: Lead Investigators from countries formally involved in the EAS FHSC by mid-May 2018 were invited to provide a brief report on FH status in their countries, including available information, programmes, initiatives, and management.
RESULTS: 63 countries provided reports. Data on FH prevalence are lacking in most countries. Where available, data tend to align with recent estimates, suggesting a higher frequency than that traditionally considered. Low rates of FH detection are reported across all regions. National registries and education programmes to improve FH awareness/knowledge are a recognised priority, but funding is often lacking. In most countries, diagnosis primarily relies on the Dutch Lipid Clinics Network criteria. Although available in many countries, genetic testing is not widely implemented (frequent cost issues). There are only a few national official government programmes for FH. Under-treatment is an issue. FH therapy is not universally reimbursed. PCSK9-inhibitors are available in ∼2/3 countries. Lipoprotein-apheresis is offered in ∼60% countries, although access is limited.
CONCLUSIONS: FH is a recognised public health concern. Management varies widely across countries, with overall suboptimal identification and under-treatment. Efforts and initiatives to improve FH knowledge and management are underway, including development of national registries, but support, particularly from health authorities, and better funding are greatly needed.
METHODS: Six key sections were chosen: (1) high-risk localized and locally advanced prostate cancer, (2) oligometastatic prostate cancer, (3) castration-naïve prostate cancer, (4) castrate resistant prostate cancer, (5) use of osteoclast-targeted therapy and (6) global access to prostate cancer drugs. There were 101 consensus questions, consisting of 91 questions from APCCC 2017 and 10 new questions from MyAPCCC 2018, selected and modified by the steering committee; of which, 23 questions were assessed in both ideal world and real-world settings. A panel of 22 experts, comprising of 11 urologists and 11 oncologists, voted on 101 predefined questions anonymously. Final voting results were compared with the APCCC 2017 outcomes.
RESULTS: Most voting results from the MyAPCCC 2018 were consistent with the APCCC 2017 outcomes. No consensus was achieved for controversial topics with little level I evidence, such as management of oligometastatic disease. No consensus was reached on using high-cost drugs in castration-naïve or castration-resistant metastatic prostate cancer in real-world settings. All panellists recommended using generic drugs when available.
CONCLUSIONS: The MyAPCCC 2018 voting results reflect the management of advanced prostate cancer in a middle-income country in a real-world setting. These results may serve as a guide for local clinical practices and highlight the financial challenges in modern healthcare.
METHODS AND RESULTS: From January to March 2015, we conducted focus group discussions with 30 Japanese retirees who live in Kuala Lumpur and Ipoh. Guided by the social-ecological model, we discovered seven pertinent themes: 'language barriers','healthcare decisions', 'medical check-ups','healthcare insurance', 'nursing and palliative care', 'trust and distrust of healthcare services', and 'word-of-mouth information'.
DISCUSSION: We identified seven pertinent issues related to healthcare services among Japanese retirees in Malaysia, of which four are especially important. These issues are explained as integrated themes within the social-ecological model. Language barriers prohibit them from having difficulty accessing to healthcare in Malaysia, but lack of will to improve their language skills exist among them. For that reason, they rely heavily on word-of-mouth information when seeking for healthcare. As a consequence, some develop feelings of trust and distrust of healthcare services. In addition, we have identified the needs for provide nursing and palliative care among Japanese retirees in Malaysia.
CONCLUSION: Based on the magnitude of the discussion, we concluded that there are four crucial healthcare issues among Japanese retirees; 'language barriers', 'trust and distrust of healthcare services', 'word-of-mouth information' and 'nursing and palliative care'. We propose that further dialogue by healthcare stakeholders should be carried out to improve further the healthcare service provisions for Japanese retirees in Malaysia.