BACKGROUND: Financial toxicity, defined as both the objective financial burden and subjective financial distress from a cancer diagnosis and its treatment, is a topic of interest in the assessment of the quality of life of patients with cancer and their families. Current evidence implicates financial toxicity in psychosocial, economic and other harms, leading to suboptimal cancer outcomes along the entire trajectory of diagnosis, treatment, supportive care, survivorship and palliation. This paper presents the results of a virtual consensus, based on the evidence base to date, on the screening and management of financial toxicity in patients with and beyond cancer organized by the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) in 2022.
METHODS: A Delphi panel of 19 experts from 11 countries was convened taking into account multidisciplinarity, diversity in health system contexts and research relevance. The international panel of experts was divided into four working groups (WGs) to address questions relating to distinct thematic areas: patients with cancer at risk of financial toxicity; management of financial toxicity during the initial phase of treatment at the hospital/ambulatory settings; financial toxicity during the continuing phase and at end of life; and financial risk protection for survivors of cancer, and in cancer recurrence. After comprehensively reviewing the literature, statements were developed by the WGs and then presented to the entire panel for further discussion and amendment, and voting.
CONCLUSIONS: A total of 25 evidence-informed consensus statements were developed, which answer 13 questions on financial toxicity. They cover evidence summaries, practice recommendations/guiding statements and policy recommendations relevant across health systems. These consensus statements aim to provide a more comprehensive understanding of financial toxicity and guide clinicians globally in mitigating its impact, emphasizing the importance of further research, best practices and guidelines.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a consensus-based checklist that can be used as a minimum standard to appraise the comprehensiveness, transparency and consistency of cost-of-illness (COI) studies. This is important when, for instance, reviewing and assessing COI studies as part of a systematic review or when building an economic model.
METHODS: The development process of the consensus-based checklist involved six steps: (i) a scoping review, (ii) an assessment and comparison of the different checklists and their questions, (iii) the development of a (preliminary) checklist, (iv) expert interviews, (v) the finalization of the checklist, and (vi) the development of guidance statements explaining each question.
RESULTS: The result was a consensus-based checklist for the critical appraisal of COI studies, comprising seventeen main questions (and some additional subquestions) across three domains: (i) study characteristics; (ii) methodology and cost analysis; and (iii) results and reporting. Guidance statements were developed describing the purpose and meaning behind each question and listing examples of best practice. The following answer categories were suggested to be applied when answering the questions in the checklist: Yes, Partially, No, Not Applicable, or Unclear.
CONCLUSIONS: The consensus-based checklist for COI studies is a first step toward standardizing the critical appraisal of COI studies and is one that could be considered a minimum standard. The checklist can help to improve comprehensiveness, transparency and consistency in COI studies, to address heterogeneity, and to enable better comparability of methodological approaches across international studies.

OBJECTIVE: This study explored experts\' views on the development of a proposed checklist for cost-of-illness (COI) studies. It also investigated experts\' perspectives on the use of COI studies and quality/critical appraisal tools used for COI studies as well as their experiences with the use of these tools.
METHODS: Semi-structured, open-ended interviews were conducted with health economists and other experts working with COI studies and with experience of developing health economic guidelines or checklists. Participants were selected purposively using network and snowball sampling. A framework approach was applied for the thematic data analysis. Findings were reported narratively.
RESULTS: Twenty-one experts from eleven different countries were interviewed. COI studies were found to be relevant to estimate the overall burden of a disease, to draw attention to disease areas, to understand different cost components, to explain cost variability, to inform decision making, and to provide input for full economic evaluations. Experts reported a lack of a standardized critical appraisal tool for COI studies. Their experience related predominantly to guidelines and checklists designed for full economic evaluations to review and assess COI studies. The following themes emerged when discussing the checklist: (i) the need for a critical appraisal tool, (ii) format and practicality, (iii) assessing the questions, (iv) addressing subjectivity, and (v) guidance requirements.
CONCLUSIONS: The interviews provided relevant input for the development of a checklist for COI studies that could be used as a minimum standard and for international application. The interviews confirmed the important need for a checklist for the critical appraisal of COI studies.

Herpes zoster (HZ) is a debilitating viral infection causing a dermatomal vesicular rash. Many known risk factors exist in India and adults >50 years of age may be especially susceptible to HZ. However, HZ is not a notifiable disease in India and data on incidence and disease burden is lacking. An Expert Consensus Group meeting was conducted with experts from relevant specialties to discuss HZ disease, its local epidemiology, and suggestions for implementing HZ vaccination in the Indian healthcare system. Currently, there is lack of patient awareness, poor reporting practices and general negligence in the treatment of the disease. HZ patients generally approach their general physicians or specialists for diagnosis, which is usually based on patient history and clinical symptoms. Recombinant zoster vaccine (RZV) has >90% efficacy and is recommended in adults ≥50 years of age to prevent HZ in the United States. Despite RZV being approved for use, it is not yet available in India. India has a growing elderly population with known risk factors for HZ like immunosuppression, and co-morbidities like diabetes and cardiovascular disease. This indicates the need for a targeted immunization program in India. Meeting also emphasized adult vaccine availability and accessibility in the country.

OBJECTIVE: Determine the long-term health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL), work limitation, physical activity, health/economic cost and disease burden of traumatic ACL and/or meniscal injury. Findings will inform OPTIKNEE evidence-based consensus recommendations.
METHODS: Random-effects meta-analysis evaluated HRQoL (SF-36/SF-12/VR-12 Physical Component Scores (PCS) and Mental Component Scores (MCS), EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D)) stratified by time postinjury, and pooled mean differences (95% CI) between ACL-injured and uninjured controls. Other outcomes were synthesised descriptively. Risk-of-bias (RoB) and certainty of evidence (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) were assessed.
METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, SPORTDiscus, CINAHL searched inception: 22 November 2021.
UNASSIGNED: Studies reporting HRQoL, work limitations, physical activity levels, health/economic costs or disease burden, ≥2 years post-ACL and/or meniscal injury.
RESULTS: Fifty studies were included (10 high-RoB, 28 susceptible-to-some-bias and 12 low-RoB). Meta-analysis (27 studies, very low certainty of evidence) estimated a pooled mean (95% CI) PCS of 52.4 (51.4 to 53.4) and MCS of 54.0 (53.0 to 55.0) 2-14 years post-ACL injury. Pooled PCS scores were worse >10 years (50.8 (48.7 to 52.9)) compared with 2-5 years (53.9 (53.1 to 54.7)) postinjury. Excluding high-RoB studies, PCS scores were worse in ACL-injured compared with uninjured controls (-1.5 (-2.9 to -0.1)). Six studies (low certainty of evidence) informed a pooled EQ-5D score of 0.83 (0.81 to 0.84). Some individuals experienced prolonged work absenteeism and modified activities ≥2 years post-ACL injury. ACL injury was associated with significant direct and indirect costs, and early ACL reconstruction may be less cost-effective than rehabilitation. Only three studies evaluated meniscal injury outcomes (all evaluated HRQoL).
CONCLUSIONS: There is a very-low certainty of evidence that PCS scores ≥2 years post-ACL injury are worse than uninjured controls and decline over time, whereas MCS scores remain high. ACL injury can result in prolonged work absenteeism and high health/economic costs. Further studies are needed to determine the long-term burden of traumatic meniscal injury.

The literature regarding clinical olfaction, olfactory loss, and olfactory dysfunction has expanded rapidly over the past two decades, with an exponential rise in the past year. There is substantial variability in the quality of this literature and a need to consolidate and critically review the evidence. It is with that aim that we have gathered experts from around the world to produce this International Consensus on Allergy and Rhinology: Olfaction (ICAR:O).
Using previously described methodology, specific topics were developed relating to olfaction. Each topic was assigned a literature review, evidence-based review, or evidence-based review with recommendations format as dictated by available evidence and scope within the ICAR:O document. Following iterative reviews of each topic, the ICAR:O document was integrated and reviewed by all authors for final consensus.
The ICAR:O document reviews nearly 100 separate topics within the realm of olfaction, including diagnosis, epidemiology, disease burden, diagnosis, testing, etiology, treatment, and associated pathologies.
This critical review of the existing clinical olfaction literature provides much needed insight and clarity into the evaluation, diagnosis, and treatment of patients with olfactory dysfunction, while also clearly delineating gaps in our knowledge and evidence base that we should investigate further.

Meningococcal disease is highly transmissible, life-threatening and leaves significant sequelae in survivors. Every year, India, which has a plethora of risk factors for meningococcal disease, reports around 3000 endemic cases. However, the overall disease burden and serogroup distribution are unknown, creating a setting of general disease negligence and unawareness. Vaccination with quadrivalent meningococcal conjugate vaccine A, C, W, and Y is only recommended for high-risk children, and there is no overall guidance for meningococcal serogroup B (MenB) vaccination. MenB vaccines, which recently have been licensed in many countries but not in India, have significantly aided the fight against meningococcal disease. However, these MenB vaccines are not available in India. An Expert Consensus Group meeting was held with leading meningococcal disease experts to better understand the current disease epidemiology, particularly serogroup B, the prevalence gaps, and feasible ways to bridge them. The proceedings are presented in this paper.

Treat to target (T2T) is a strategy of adjusting treatment until a target is reached. An international task force recommended T2T for juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) treatment. Implementing T2T in a standard and reliable way in clinical practice requires agreement on critical elements of (1) target setting, (2) T2T strategy, (3) identifying barriers to implementation, and (4) patient eligibility. A consensus conference was held among Pediatric Rheumatology Care and Outcomes Improvement Network (PR-COIN) stakeholders to inform a statement of understanding regarding the PR-COIN approach to T2T.
PR-COIN stakeholders including 16 healthcare providers and 4 parents were invited to form a voting panel. Using the nominal group technique, 2 rounds of voting were held to address the above 4 areas to select the top 10 responses by rank order.
Incorporation of patient goals ranked most important when setting a treatment target. Shared decision making (SDM), tracking measurable outcomes, and adjusting treatment to achieve goals were voted as the top elements of a T2T strategy. Workflow considerations, and provider buy-in were identified as key barriers to T2T implementation. Patients with JIA who had poor prognostic factors and were at risk for high disease burden were leading candidates for a T2T approach.
This consensus conference identified the importance of incorporating patient goals as part of target setting and of the influence of patient stakeholder involvement in drafting treatment recommendations. The network approach to T2T will be modified to address the above findings, including solicitation of patient goals, optimizing SDM, and better workflow integration.

UNASSIGNED: Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a chronic inflammatory, non-communicable, and relapsing skin disease that affects all age groups. There is a dearth of literature that reports the disease burden, and epidemiology and highlights unmet needs in the diagnosis and management of AD in India.
UNASSIGNED: A total of ten specialists including dermatologists, pediatric dermatologists, and pediatricians with more than ten years of experience and practicing in different parts of India served as the expert panel during the virtual meet conducted on January 24, 2021. A questionnaire comprising 32 questions on different aspects of AD management was categorized among different sections: burden of disease (five questions), age of onset and prevalence (five questions), etiology and pathogenesis (six questions), diagnosis and severity of the disease (seven questions), and treatment (nine questions). Consensus was defined when agreement was provided by ≥90% of the experts.
UNASSIGNED: Considering the profound impact AD has on the quality of life (QoL) of patients, the expert panel recommended patient counseling while moderate to severe cases of AD need a prompt referral to a specialist. The panel did not recommend any specific diagnostic and severity criteria as a standard due to the inherent limitations associated with every criterion. The role of environment and changing lifestyle in addition to genetic and familial risk factors for AD was also considered. The panel unanimously recommended to conduct a countrywide, multicenter survey/study to estimate the true prevalence of AD in India. Further, the experts recommended to follow proper treatment protocols and to perform longitudinal monitoring for understanding corticosteroid treatment associated side effects.
UNASSIGNED: This guidance focuses on identifying the unmet gaps and provides practical recommendations for improving QoL, diagnosis, prognosis, and overall management of patients with AD in India.

BACKGROUND: Optimising the care of individuals with cancer without imposing significant financial burden related to their anticancer treatment is becoming increasingly difficult. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) has recommended clinicians discuss costs of cancer care with patients to enhance shared decision-making. We sought information to guide oncologists\' discussions with patients about these costs.
METHODS: We searched Medline, EMBASE and clinical practice guideline databases from January 2009 to 1 June 2019 for recommendations about discussing the costs of care and financial burden. Guideline quality was assessed with the AGREE-II instrument.
RESULTS: Twenty-seven guidelines met our eligibility criteria, including 16 from ASCO (59%). 21 of 27 (78%) guidelines included recommendations about discussion or consideration of treatment costs when prescribing, with information about actual costs in four (15%). Recognition of the risk of financial burden or financial toxicity was described in 81% (22/27) of guidelines. However, only nine guidelines (33%) included information about managing the financial burden.
CONCLUSIONS: Current clinical practice guidelines have little information to guide physician-patient discussions about costs of anticancer treatment and management of financial burden. This limits patients\' ability to control costs of treatment, and for the healthcare team to reduce the incidence and severity of financial burden. Current guidelines recommend clinician awareness of price variability and high costs of treatment. Clinicians are recommended to explore cost concerns and address financial worries, especially in high risk groups. Future guidelines should include advice on facilitating cost transparency discussions, with provision of cost information and resources.