Search

Objectives: Induction of labour (IOL), or starting labour artificially, can be a lifesaving intervention for pregnant women and their babies, and rates are rising significantly globally. As rates increase, it becomes increasingly important to fully evaluate all available data, especially that from low income settings where the potential benefits and harms are greater. The goal of this paper is to describe the datasets collected as part of the Induction with Foley OR Misoprostol (INFORM) Study, a randomised trial comparing two of the recommended methods of cervical ripening for labour induction, oral misoprostol and Foley catheter, in women being induced for hypertension in pregnancy, at two sites in India during 2013–15. Data description: This dataset includes comprehensive data on 602 women who underwent IOL for hypertensive disorders in pregnancy. Women were randomly assigned to cervical ripening with oral misoprostol or a transcervical Foley catheter in two government hospitals in India. The main dataset has 367 variables including monitoring during the induction of labour, medications administered, timing and mode of delivery, measures of neonatal morbidity and mortality, maternal mortality and morbidity, maternal satisfaction and health economic data. The dataset is anonymised and available on ReShare. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background There has been an increase in 'risk sharing' schemes for pharmaceuticals between healthcare institutions and pharmaceutical companies in Europe in recent years as an additional approach to provide continued comprehensive and equitable healthcare. There is though confusion surrounding the terminology as well as concerns with existing schemes. Methods Aliterature review was undertaken to identify existing schemes supplemented with additional internal documents or web-based references known to the authors. This was combined with the extensive knowledge of health authority personnel from 14 different countries and locations involved with these schemes. Results and discussion A large number of 'risk sharing' schemes with pharmaceuticals are in existence incorporating both financial-based models and performance-based/outcomes-based models. In view of this, a new logical definition is proposed. This is "risk sharing' schemes should be considered as agreements concluded by payers and pharmaceutical companies to diminish the impact on payers' budgets for new and existing schemes brought about by uncertainty and/or the need to work within finite budgets". There are a number of concerns with existing schemes. These include potentially high administration costs, lack of transparency, conflicts of interest, and whether health authorities will end up funding an appreciable proportion of a new drug's development costs. In addition, there is a paucity of published evaluations of existing schemes with pharmaceuticals. Conclusion We believe there are only a limited number of situations where 'risk sharing' schemes should be considered as well as factors that should be considered by payers in advance of implementation. This includes their objective, appropriateness, the availability of competent staff to fully evaluate proposed schemes as well as access to IT support. This also includes whether systematic evaluations have been built into proposed schemes.

Aims: Transvenous lead extraction is challenging, often requiring specialist equipment and prolonged hospital admission. A single tariff or itemized costs may be available for reimbursement. Due to limited data relating to the costs of transvenous extraction, it is unclear whether either form of reimbursement is adequate. We aim to describe accurately the total real-world costs of managing patients undergoing transvenous extraction at a single, large centre. We further aim to consider the additional costs of device reimplantation.Methods and Results: At a single UK extraction centre, a retrospective, patient level service line analysis was undertaken, during a complete financial year. Seventy-four patients required transvenous extraction (47 infected and 27 non-infected; 156 leads). Sixty-nine procedures (93%) were performed under general anaesthesia, with a median time in theatre of 95 min [interquartile range (IQR) 71-120]. Specialist extraction tools were required for 130 leads (83%). The median hospitalization duration was 3 days (IQR 1-8). The mean cost of extraction was £9228 (±4099); infected £10 727 (±4178) and non-infected £6619 (±2269). With the additional costs of device reimplantation, the overall mean cost rose to £17 574 (±12 882); infected £22 615 (±13 343) and non-infected £8801 (±5007). At the time of this study, the UK NHS tariff was £2530 for elective and £4764 for non-elective extraction, covering barely half of the real costs.Conclusion: We demonstrated a substantial difference between the real-world cost of extraction and the UK NHS tariff. Extracting centres should scrutinize their practice, including the timing of reimplantation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Plerixafor is an effective haematopoietic stem cell mobilising agent in candidates for autologous transplantation, including patients with myeloma and lymphoma. Here we compare 98 plerixafor recipients in the PHANTASTIC trial with 151 historic controls mobilised by conventional chemotherapy (each with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor, G-CSF). Seventy (71.4%) plerixafor-mobilised patients achieved the composite primary endpoint of ≥4 × 106 CD34+ cells kg−1 in ≤2 aphereses and no clinically significant neutropenia, compared to 48 (31.8%) historic controls ( P < 0.001), and this significant advantage was maintained in scenario analyses testing components of this composite endpoint. A patient-level cost analysis was undertaken for 249 patients, which included the cost of remobilising patients where initial mobilisation had failed. Combined mean treatment cost for plerixafor mobilised patients was £12,679 compared with £11,694 for historical controls. However, plerixafor produces an average saving of £3,828 per lymphoma patient but average cost increase by £5,245 per myeloma patient. The present data demonstrate cost-effectiveness for plerixafor as a first line mobilisation agent, certainly for lymphoma patients, where substantial resource savings and achievement of the primary endpoint are likely. J. Clin. Apheresis 31:434-442, 2016. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Payers are a major stakeholder in any considerations and initiatives concerning adaptive licensing of new medicinal products, also referred to as Medicines Adaptive Pathways to patients (MAPPs). Firstly, the scope and necessity of MAPPs need further scrutiny, especially with regard to the definition of unmet need. Conditional approval pathways already exist for new medicines for seriously debilitating or life-threatening diseases and only a limited number of new medicines are innovative. Secondly, MAPPs will result in new medicines on the market with limited evidence about their effectiveness and safety. Additional data are to be collected after approval. Consequently, adaptive pathways may increase the risk of exposing patients to ineffective or unsafe medicines. We have already seen medicines approved conventionally that subsequently proved ineffective or unsafe amongst a wider, more co-morbid population as well as medicines that could have been considered for approval under MAPPs but subsequently proved ineffective or unsafe in Phase III trials and were never licensed. Thirdly, MAPPs also put high demands on payers. Routine collection of patient level data is difficult with high transaction costs. It is not clear who will fund these. Other challenges for payers include shifts in the risk governance framework, implications for evaluation and HTA, increased complexity of setting prices, difficulty with ensuring equity in the allocation of resources, definition of responsibility and liability and implementation of stratified use. Exit strategies also need to be agreed in advance, including price reductions, rebates, or reimbursement withdrawals when price premiums are not justified. These issues and concerns will be discussed in detail including potential ways forward. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

All European countries face increasing challenges in the provision of equitable and comprehensive healthcare for their citizens in view of a number of factors. These include changing demographics and the continual launch of new premium priced medicines. The challenges are even more difficult among Central and Eastern European healthcare systems. Consequently, there is a need for countries to learn from each other to help address some of these challenges and to maintain sustainable systems. This was the basis of the 2-day conference, The Fifth International Conference: Challenges for Efficient Healthcare in Central and Eastern Europe, 9-10 October 2015, Belgrade, Serbia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Between 40,000 and 80,000 pregnant women die annually from pre-eclampsia and eclampsia. Although magnesium sulphate and anti-hypertensive therapies can reduce the morbidity and mortality associated with pre-eclampsia, the only cure comes with delivery. Prompt delivery of the baby, preferably by vaginal route, is vital in order to achieve good maternal and neonatal outcomes. Induction of labour is therefore a critical intervention in order to prevent morbidity to both mother and baby. Two low cost interventions - oral misoprostol tablets and transcervical Foley catheterization - are already used by some in low resource settings, but their relative risks and benefits are not known. The trial will compare the risks, benefits, and trade-offs in efficacy, safety, acceptability and cost of misoprostol and Foley catheter for induction in women with preeclampsia or uncontrolled hypertension. Methods/Design: A total of 602 women with an ongoing pregnancy with a live fetus requiring delivery because of pre-eclampsia or uncontrolled hypertension will be randomly assigned to labor induction with a transcervical Foley catheter or oral misoprostol 25 micrograms. Women will be recruited at two hospitals in Nagpur, India. The misoprostol group will receive oral misoprostol 25 microgram every 2 hours for a maximum of 12 doses or until active labor commences. The Foley group will undergo induction using a Foley catheter (silicone, size 18 F with 30 ml balloon) which will remain until active labor starts, the Foley catheter falls out, or 12 hours have elapsed. The primary outcome will be the attainment of vaginal delivery within 24 hours. Providers administering the treatment and those assessing the outcomes will not be blinded to group assignment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]