Marco Villa
Current Organizations / Institutes
The organizations/institutes from the scholar's latest article
Research Subjects
Marco Villa has a total of 46 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:
- Adriano Decarli
Department of Clinical Sciences and Community Health, University of Milan, Milan, Italy
1 shared publication Alberto Zucchi
1 shared publicationAldo Bellini
1 shared publication- Andrea Arfè
Laboratory of Healthcare Research and Pharmacoepidemiology, Department of Statistics and Quantitative Methods, University of Milano-Bicocca, Via Bicocca degli Arcimboldi, 8, Edificio U7, 20126, Milan, Italy
1 shared publication - Anita Andreano
Epidemiology Unit, Agency for Health Protection of Milan, Milan, Italy
1 shared publication Antonio Crucitti
Unit of Statistical Analyses and Research Projects Azienda Sanitaria Locale della Provincia di Cremona Via San Sebastiano 14 26100 Cremona Italy
1 shared publication
Latest Publications
- 17 April 2014
- Vol. 38 (1) , 16-28
[A set of indicators to monitor the adherence to the guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer].
To present a set of indicators developed from six Local Health Authorities of the Lombardy Region to monitor the diagnostic and therapeutic pathway of breast cancer patients, applied to 2007-2009 incident cases. retrospective cohort study. all subjects with primary breast cancer, incident in the period 2007-2009, and collected by cancer registries of Milano 1, Bergamo, Cremona, Milano, Milano 2 and Monza-Brianza (5,320,272 inhabitants) were included. through the use of combined current health databases (health registry, hospitalizations, outpatient, pharmaceutical prescription and specific database for anticancer drugs), for each incident case 34 different indicators have been developed to measure the appropriateness of the procedures provided for diagnosis, treatment (surgical and medical) and follow-up. For each indicator, we analyzed the relationship with age, stage, deprivation index, type of treatment, volume of the specific procedure of the hospital where primary surgery was performed. Estimates were adjusted using multilevel regression models. 12,988 incident cases, without metastatic diseases and other cancers, were included in the cohort: 62% were localized to the breast, 33% to the axillary lymph-nodes, 3% metastatic ab initio, and 2% with unknown stage. Deviations from the expected value of different magnitude depending on the type of indicator were observed: the most important differences were detected for the follow-up indicators. There was, in fact, an excess of several procedures in the first year of follow-up: 75% of the cases performed a dosage of a tumor marker, 67% an ecography or a CT scan or an MR, and 37% a bone scan. On the other hand, the access to neoadjuvant and adjuvant treatments in older women was far below the expected values. the study presents data derived from a large cohort of population cases; the set of indicators was validated by a board of oncologists. The use of indicators calculated by linking the cancer registries (that provide staging) and administrative databases allows the assessment of compliance to the guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of tumours. This experience shows that it is possible to develop a methodology, shared with clinicians, to define indicators that measure the distance between guidelines and current clinical practice in order to decrease variability, to limit inappropriateness, and to reduce unnecessary diagnostic tests for patients (and, consequently, hospitals organizational overload). In order to be sustainable and equitable, a health care system must be able to ensure implementation of protocols/procedures based exclusively on the best available scientific evidences.
- 17 April 2014
- Vol. 38 (1) , 16-28
[A set of indicators to monitor the adherence to the guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer].
To present a set of indicators developed from six Local Health Authorities of the Lombardy Region to monitor the diagnostic and therapeutic pathway of breast cancer patients, applied to 2007-2009 incident cases. retrospective cohort study. all subjects with primary breast cancer, incident in the period 2007-2009, and collected by cancer registries of Milano 1, Bergamo, Cremona, Milano, Milano 2 and Monza-Brianza (5,320,272 inhabitants) were included. through the use of combined current health databases (health registry, hospitalizations, outpatient, pharmaceutical prescription and specific database for anticancer drugs), for each incident case 34 different indicators have been developed to measure the appropriateness of the procedures provided for diagnosis, treatment (surgical and medical) and follow-up. For each indicator, we analyzed the relationship with age, stage, deprivation index, type of treatment, volume of the specific procedure of the hospital where primary surgery was performed. Estimates were adjusted using multilevel regression models. 12,988 incident cases, without metastatic diseases and other cancers, were included in the cohort: 62% were localized to the breast, 33% to the axillary lymph-nodes, 3% metastatic ab initio, and 2% with unknown stage. Deviations from the expected value of different magnitude depending on the type of indicator were observed: the most important differences were detected for the follow-up indicators. There was, in fact, an excess of several procedures in the first year of follow-up: 75% of the cases performed a dosage of a tumor marker, 67% an ecography or a CT scan or an MR, and 37% a bone scan. On the other hand, the access to neoadjuvant and adjuvant treatments in older women was far below the expected values. the study presents data derived from a large cohort of population cases; the set of indicators was validated by a board of oncologists. The use of indicators calculated by linking the cancer registries (that provide staging) and administrative databases allows the assessment of compliance to the guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of tumours. This experience shows that it is possible to develop a methodology, shared with clinicians, to define indicators that measure the distance between guidelines and current clinical practice in order to decrease variability, to limit inappropriateness, and to reduce unnecessary diagnostic tests for patients (and, consequently, hospitals organizational overload). In order to be sustainable and equitable, a health care system must be able to ensure implementation of protocols/procedures based exclusively on the best available scientific evidences.
- Open Access
- 19 November 2013
- Published by Springer Nature in BMC Pediatrics
- Vol. 13 (1) , 192
Population-based analysis of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug use among children in four European countries in the SOS project: what size of data platforms and which study designs do we need to assess safety issues?
Background: Data on utilization patterns and safety of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in children are scarce. The purpose of this study was to investigate the utilization of NSAIDs among children in four European countries as part of the Safety Of non-Steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (SOS) project. Methods: We used longitudinal patient data from seven databases (GePaRD, IPCI, OSSIFF, Pedianet, PHARMO, SISR, and THIN) to calculate prevalence rates of NSAID use among children (0–18 years of age) from Germany, Italy, Netherlands, and United Kingdom. All databases contained a representative population sample and recorded demographics, diagnoses, and drug prescriptions. Prevalence rates of NSAID use were stratified by age, sex, and calendar time. The person-time of NSAID exposure was calculated by using the duration of the prescription supply. We calculated incidence rates for serious adverse events of interest. For these adverse events of interest, sample size calculations were conducted (alpha = 0.05; 1-beta = 0.8) to determine the amount of NSAID exposure time that would be required for safety studies in children. Results: The source population comprised 7.7 million children with a total of 29.6 million person-years of observation. Of those, 1.3 million children were exposed to at least one of 45 NSAIDs during observation time. Overall prevalence rates of NSAID use in children differed across countries, ranging from 4.4 (Italy) to 197 (Germany) per 1000 person-years in 2007. For Germany, United Kingdom, and Italian pediatricians, we observed high rates of NSAID use among children aged one to four years. For all four countries, NSAID use increased with older age categories for children older than 11. In this analysis, only for ibuprofen (the most frequently used NSAID), enough exposure was available to detect a weak association (relative risk of 2) between exposure and asthma exacerbation (the most common serious adverse event of interest). Conclusions: Patterns of NSAID use in children were heterogeneous across four European countries. The SOS project platform captures data on more than 1.3 million children who were exposed to NSAIDs. Even larger data platforms and the use of advanced versions of case-only study designs may be needed to conclusively assess the safety of these drugs in children.
- 19 November 2013
- Published by Springer Nature in BMC Pediatrics
- Vol. 13 (1) , 192
Open AccessPopulation-based analysis of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug use among children in four European countries in the SOS project: what size of data platforms and which study designs do we need to assess safety issues?
Background: Data on utilization patterns and safety of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in children are scarce. The purpose of this study was to investigate the utilization of NSAIDs among children in four European countries as part of the Safety Of non-Steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (SOS) project. Methods: We used longitudinal patient data from seven databases (GePaRD, IPCI, OSSIFF, Pedianet, PHARMO, SISR, and THIN) to calculate prevalence rates of NSAID use among children (0–18 years of age) from Germany, Italy, Netherlands, and United Kingdom. All databases contained a representative population sample and recorded demographics, diagnoses, and drug prescriptions. Prevalence rates of NSAID use were stratified by age, sex, and calendar time. The person-time of NSAID exposure was calculated by using the duration of the prescription supply. We calculated incidence rates for serious adverse events of interest. For these adverse events of interest, sample size calculations were conducted (alpha = 0.05; 1-beta = 0.8) to determine the amount of NSAID exposure time that would be required for safety studies in children. Results: The source population comprised 7.7 million children with a total of 29.6 million person-years of observation. Of those, 1.3 million children were exposed to at least one of 45 NSAIDs during observation time. Overall prevalence rates of NSAID use in children differed across countries, ranging from 4.4 (Italy) to 197 (Germany) per 1000 person-years in 2007. For Germany, United Kingdom, and Italian pediatricians, we observed high rates of NSAID use among children aged one to four years. For all four countries, NSAID use increased with older age categories for children older than 11. In this analysis, only for ibuprofen (the most frequently used NSAID), enough exposure was available to detect a weak association (relative risk of 2) between exposure and asthma exacerbation (the most common serious adverse event of interest). Conclusions: Patterns of NSAID use in children were heterogeneous across four European countries. The SOS project platform captures data on more than 1.3 million children who were exposed to NSAIDs. Even larger data platforms and the use of advanced versions of case-only study designs may be needed to conclusively assess the safety of these drugs in children.
- Open Access
- 17 July 2013
- Published by Oxford University Press (OUP) in American Journal of Epidemiology
- Vol. 178 (7) , 1139-1145
Safety of MF59-Adjuvanted Influenza Vaccination in the Elderly: Results of a Comparative Study of MF59-Adjuvanted Vaccine Versus Nonadjuvanted Influenza Vaccine in Northern Italy
MF59-adjuvanted trivalent influenza vaccine (Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics, Siena, Italy) has been shown to be more effective than nonadjuvanted vaccine in the elderly population. Here we present results from a large-scale, observational, noninterventional, prospective postlicensure study that evaluated the safety of MF59-adjuvanted vaccine in elderly subjects aged 65 years or more. The study was performed in 5 northern Italian health districts during the 2006–2007, 2007–2008, and 2008–2009 influenza seasons. The choice of vaccine—either adjuvanted vaccine or a nonadjuvanted influenza vaccine—was determined by individual providers on the basis of local influenza vaccination policy. Hospitalizations for potential adverse events of special interest (AESIs) were identified from hospital databases and then reviewed against recognized case definitions to identify confirmed cases of AESI. Cumulative incidences were calculated for AESIs in predefined biologically plausible time windows, as well as in a 6-month window following vaccination. During the 3-year study period, 170,988 vaccine doses were administered to a total of 107,661 persons. Despite the large study size, cases of AESI resulting in hospitalization were rare, and risks of AESI were similar in both the MF59-adjuvanted and nonadjuvanted vaccination groups. In conclusion, similar safety profiles were observed for both nonadjuvanted and MF59-adjuvanted seasonal influenza vaccines in elderly recipients.
- 17 July 2013
- Published by Oxford University Press (OUP) in American Journal of Epidemiology
- Vol. 178 (7) , 1139-1145
Open AccessSafety of MF59-Adjuvanted Influenza Vaccination in the Elderly: Results of a Comparative Study of MF59-Adjuvanted Vaccine Versus Nonadjuvanted Influenza Vaccine in Northern Italy
MF59-adjuvanted trivalent influenza vaccine (Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics, Siena, Italy) has been shown to be more effective than nonadjuvanted vaccine in the elderly population. Here we present results from a large-scale, observational, noninterventional, prospective postlicensure study that evaluated the safety of MF59-adjuvanted vaccine in elderly subjects aged 65 years or more. The study was performed in 5 northern Italian health districts during the 2006–2007, 2007–2008, and 2008–2009 influenza seasons. The choice of vaccine—either adjuvanted vaccine or a nonadjuvanted influenza vaccine—was determined by individual providers on the basis of local influenza vaccination policy. Hospitalizations for potential adverse events of special interest (AESIs) were identified from hospital databases and then reviewed against recognized case definitions to identify confirmed cases of AESI. Cumulative incidences were calculated for AESIs in predefined biologically plausible time windows, as well as in a 6-month window following vaccination. During the 3-year study period, 170,988 vaccine doses were administered to a total of 107,661 persons. Despite the large study size, cases of AESI resulting in hospitalization were rare, and risks of AESI were similar in both the MF59-adjuvanted and nonadjuvanted vaccination groups. In conclusion, similar safety profiles were observed for both nonadjuvanted and MF59-adjuvanted seasonal influenza vaccines in elderly recipients.