Zobrazení zdroje stránky Martinussenkhan0392

Results The search strategy identified 278 studies, with 31 included in the final review after inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied. Retrospective cohorts (77%) and cross-sectional analyses (16%) were most frequently encountered. Sum Diagnosis Specific was the most common costing method (39%), followed by Regression (32%). Of the 31 studies analyzed, 35% included costs that would be included in a societal model. Costs were identified for various stages and complications related to HCV disease progression. Several studies included were determined to have a high (48%) or moderate risk (42%) of bias related to COI estimates. Conclusion Cost estimates for formal, informal, and non-health care services were identified in this review, but several challenges still exist in fully quantifying HCV burden. Future modeling studies including cost inputs should critically evaluate the risk of bias based on costing methods and data sources.Objectives The Orphan Drug Act extends exclusivity of branded drugs by 7 years for each rare disease approval. By extending market exclusivity, manufacturers can forestall generic competition. We determined the prevalence of drugs with multiple orphan approvals, the duration for which manufacturers are able to maintain exclusivity using this mechanism, and the budget impact of these additional exclusivity periods on US spending on orphan drugs. Methods We analyzed a retrospective cohort of US orphan drug approvals filed between 1983 and 2017. Drug costs throughout this time period were measured using IQVIA claims data. We estimated additional years of exclusivity per drug per orphan approval using mixed-effects negative binomial regression. The budget impact analyzed potential cost-savings for exclusivity periods greater than 7 years after the initial orphan approval based on potential price reductions from the introduction of biosimilar/generic competition. Results A total of 432 branded drugs were approved for 615 orphan indications, of which 108 had multiple indications. Market exclusivity, beyond the initial 7 years, increased by 4.7 years with two orphan approvals, and there were 3.1-, 2.7-, and 2.9-year extensions for three, four, and five approvals, respectively (p 10 years through the Orphan Drug Act, thereby delaying rare disease cohorts' access to generic/biosimilar equivalents.Individuals responsible for decision-making during critical incidents must wrestle with uncertainty, complexity, time pressure, and accountability. Critical incidents are defined as rare events where demand outstrips resources and where there are high stakes, uncertainty, and dynamic and ever-shifting elements that frustrate clear predictions. This paper argues that critical-incident decision-making is highly complex because many critical incidents have no such analogue, and thus there is no prior experience to draw upon. Further, while prescriptive models argue for a selection of a "best" outcome, rarely in critical incidents is there a "best" outcome and, instead, more likely a "least-worst" one. Most options are high risk, most will carry negative consequences, and many will be immutable and irreversible once committed to. This paper analyzes data collected from critical decision method interviews with members of the United States Armed Forces to explore the psychological processes of making (or not making) least-worst decisions in high-consequence situations. Specifically, and based on thematic analysis of interviews with those who have made least-worst decisions while serving as part of the Armed Forces, we identify a host of exogenous (external to the incident such as resources, political agendas) and endogenous factors (features of the incident itself-size, scale, duration) that affect the decision-making process. These factors have, to date, not been factored into theoretical models of how high-stakes decisions are made under conditions of uncertainty.Background The Value-Based Health Care concept defines patient value as patient-relevant outcomes divided by costs. The aim of the present study was to assess the development of systemic treatment costs over the years compared with changes in overall survival (OS) at the level of a diagnosis of stage IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). [https://www.selleckchem.com/products/nocodazole.html Oncodazole] Methods All patients diagnosed (in 2008-2014) with stage IV NSCLC and treated with systemic treatment in six Dutch large teaching hospitals (Santeon network) were included. We collected data on OS and amounts of drug units (milligrams) for every drug in the applied systemic cancer treatments, until death. These amounts were multiplied by Dutch unit costs (Euros/mg) expressed in 2018 Euros to construct total drug costs per line of treatment per patient. Costs for day care visits were added for drugs requiring parenteral administration. Results Data were collected from 1214 patients. Median OS and mean total drug costs showed no significant variation over the years (p = 0.437 and p = 0.693, respectively). Mean total drug costs per 1 year of survival ranged from €20,665 to €26,438 during the period under study. Costs for first-line systemic treatment were significantly higher in 2011-2014 compared with 2008-2010. Conclusion This study shows that overall drug costs were stable over the years, despite a relative increase in first-line treatment costs. Median OS remained at around 8 months from year to year. These trend data are very relevant as background for the assessment of costs and achieved outcomes in the more recent years.Background Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is probably the main drawback of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG). Herein, we critically discuss the issue and report the results of the first international consensus conference held in Montpellier, France, during June 2019. Methods Fifty international bariatric experts from 25 countries convened for 2 days for interactive discussions, and to formulate the most relevant questions by electronically submitting 55 preliminary questions to panelists. Following the meeting, a final drafted questionnaire comprised of 41 questions was sent to all experts via e-mail. Results Forty-six experts responded (92%). Esophago-gastro-duodenoscopy was considered mandatory before (92%) and after (78%) surgery. No consensus was achieved as to time intervals after surgery and the role of specialized tests for GERD. Higher degrees of erosive esophagitis (94%) and Barrett's esophagus (96%) were viewed as contra-indications for LSG. Roux-en-Y gastric bypass was recommended in postoperative patients with uncontrolled GERD and insufficient (84%) or sufficient (76%) weight loss and Barrett's esophagus (78%).