Search

The development of disease‐modifying therapies (DMTs) for Alzheimer's disease (AD) has progressed over the last decade, and the first‐ever therapies with potential to slow the progression of disease are approved in the United States. AD DMTs could provide life‐changing opportunities for people living with this disease, as well as for their caregivers. They could also ease some of the immense societal and economic burden of dementia. However, AD DMTs also come with major challenges due to the large unmet medical need, high prevalence of AD, new costs related to diagnosis, treatment and monitoring, and uncertainty in the therapies' actual clinical value. This perspective article discusses, from the broad perspective of various health systems and stakeholders, how we can overcome these challenges and improve society's readiness for AD DMTs. We propose that innovative payment models such as performance‐based payments, in combination with learning healthcare systems, could be the way forward to enable timely patient access to treatments, improve accuracy of cost‐effectiveness evaluations and overcome budgetary barriers. Other important considerations include the need for identification of key drivers of patient value, the relevance of different economic perspectives (i.e. healthcare vs. societal) and ethical questions in terms of treatment eligibility criteria. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Results: Embedded pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs) are set in routine health care, have broad eligibility criteria, and use routinely collected electronic data. Many consider them a breakthrough innovation in clinical research and a necessary step in clinical trial development. To identify barriers and success factors, we reviewed published embedded PCTs and interviewed 30 researchers and clinical leaders in 7 US delivery systems. Literature: We searched PubMed, the Cochrane library, and clinicaltrials.gov for studies reporting embedded PCTs. We identified 108 embedded PCTs published in the last 10 years. The included studies had a median of 5540 randomized patients, addressed a variety of diseases, and practice settings covering a broad range of interventions. Eighty‐one used cluster randomization. The median cost per patient was $97 in the 64 trials for which it was possible to obtain cost data. Interviews: Delivery systems required research studies to align with operational priorities, existing information technology capabilities, and standard quality improvement procedures. Barriers that were identified included research governance, requirements for processes that were incompatible with clinical operations, and unrecoverable costs. Conclusions: Embedding PCTs in delivery systems can provide generalizable knowledge that is directly applicable to practice settings at much lower cost than conventional trials. Successful embedding trials require accommodating delivery systems' needs and priorities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Periodontal scaling procedures commonly require some kind of anesthesia. From the patient's perspective, the choice of anesthetic method is a trade-off between the degree of anesthesia and accepting the side effects. The present study evaluates the preferences for a navel non-injection anesthetic product (a gel, containing lidocaine 25 mg/g plus prilocaine 25 mg/g and thermosetting agents) versus injection anesthesia (lidocaine 2% adrenaline) in conjunction with scaling and/or root planing (SRP). Methods: In a multicenter, crossover, randomized, open study patients were asked, after they had experienced both products, if they preferred anesthetic gel or injection anesthesia. In addition, the adequacy of anesthesia and occurrence of post-procedure problems were assessed. The patients were also asked about their willingness to return if they were offered anesthetic gel at their next visit and their maximum willingness to pay (WTP) for this option. Results: One-hundred seventy (170) patients at eight centers in Belgium were included in the study. There were 157 per protocol (PP) patients. A vast majority of the PP patients (70%) preferred the anesthetic gel to injection anesthesia (22%). The most common reason was less post-procedure numbness. Eighty percent (80%) of the patients expressed satisfactory anesthesia with the gel and 96% with injection anesthesia (P <0.001). Post-procedure problems were significantly less with the gel than with injection (P <0.001): numbness 15% versus 66%, unpleasant sensations such as soreness and pain 44% versus 63%, and problems connected with daily activities 19% versus 69%. The majority of patients (60%) who preferred gel were also willing to pay for it. A conservative estimate of the median WTP was $10.00. Furthermore, anesthetic gel would make almost every second patient (45%) more or much more willing to return for the next treatment. Conclusions: The data suggest that a somewhat less profound anesthesia with gel is clearly preferred by the patients because of the low incidence of post-procedure problems as compared to conventional injection anesthesia. The median WTP is likely in excess of the acquisition cost of the product, which indicates a favorable cost-benefit ratio for the individual patient. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this article, we discuss under what conditions an estimated cost per statistical life saved can be interpreted as an implied lifevalue. Furthermore, we state optimality conditions with respect to variation in implied lifevalues. The cost-effectiveness, together with references, are presented for 165 lifesaving interventions in Sweden. The cost-effectiveness of interventions has been found in publicly available analyses, or in some cases been calculated by us. Several of these interventions produce net savings for society. The most expensive interventions cost several hundred million SEK, or more, per life saved. To improve the comparability of the interventions, certain criteria have been used to standardize the estimates. Still, dissimilaritiesin the calculation of implied life values remain and the quality of the original data is in some cases uncertain. Despite this and the fact that the interventions are not a representative sample, it is nevertheless possible to conclude that implied life values vary greatly both within and between different sectors of the Swedish society, muchin the same manner as in current U.S. analyses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the context of pharmaceutical care, policy-makers repeatedly face the challenge of balancing patient access to effective medicines with affordability and rising costs. With the aim of guiding the health policy discourse towards questions that are important to actual and potential patients, this study investigates a broad range of regulatory measures, spanning marketing authorization to generic substitution and resulting price levels in a sample of 16 European health systems (Austria, Belgium, Denmark, England, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Scotland, Spain and Sweden). All countries employ a mix of regulatory mechanisms to contain pharmaceutical expenditure and ensure quality and efficiency in pharmaceutical care, albeit with varying configurations and rigour. This variation also influences the extent of publicly financed pharmaceutical costs. Overall, observed differences in pharmaceutical expenditure should be interpreted in conjunction with the differing volume and composition of consumption and price levels, as well as dispensation practices and their impact on measurement of pharmaceutical costs. No definitive evidence has yet been produced on the effects of different cost-containment measures on patient outcomes. Depending on the foremost policy concerns in each country, different levers will have to be used to enable the delivery of appropriate care at affordable prices., (World Health Organization 2016 (acting as the host organization for, and secretariat of, the European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies).)