Objectives: The potential of routine data for health technology assessment (HTA) in the United Kingdom was assessed.

Methods: Compiled were a comprehensive list of routine databases, their classification according to data characteristics, literature review on their current use, and their comparison with key topics identified as priorities for HTA.

Results: Two hundred seventy health-care databases for England or the English regions were identified. Twenty-four included data on both health technology and patient health state. Eleven found some published use in effectiveness evaluation. Of 140 prioritized health technologies, only 22 could be identified in routine databases.

Conclusions: Routine data are plentiful but of limited use in HTA. The data sets usually do not include the effect of treatments. Coding is inadequate, and confidentiality regulations will make matters worse. Both need urgent attention.

Malaria is the major cause of illness in Cameroon, responsible for 40 percent of medical consultations. For this reason, the Head of State along with his African Union peers in April 2000 and 2006 undertook to achieve universal access to malaria control interventions, including effective treatment (10;12). Uneven distribution of health services, especially in rural areas, and high poverty rates make health care and drugs inaccessible or unaffordable (14;16). Therefore, the World Health Organization recommends building comprehensive mechanisms grounded on relevant social and community organizations, including the private sector, to improve access to care for vulnerable populations (22;23). Accordingly, the strategic plan to fight malaria in Cameroon, endorsed by the National Committee to Roll Back Malaria, recommends home-based management of malaria (HMM) to improve access and reduce delays in treatment (12).

This review concludes that: a) the global burden of disease from non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (NIDDM) cannot be completely estimated at present; b) evidence for the efficacy of key elements of a package of care is still needed; c) generalizing the results of evaluations of costs or effectiveness across different populations is not straightforward; and d) for this complex intervention, the costs and effectiveness of intervention may be highly dependent on methods of organizing care. Addressing this information deficit represents an important task for researchers and health decision makers.

The physical phenomenon of nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) was first characterized almost forty years ago in 1946 by the simultaneous but independent experimental successes of American scientists Felix Bloch and Edward Purcell. Their discoveries prompted development of conventional NMR spectroscopy. a technique used to describe the molecular composition and behavior of chemical compounds. Twenty-five years later, in 1971, Damadian used NMR to demonstrate differences in the behavior of water in malignant and benign tissues, and he suggested that NMR possessed “many of the desirable features of an external probe for the detection of internal cancer” (7). In the same year, Lauterbur produced the first two-dimensional NMR image, a cross-sectional portrait of two tubes of water (25). The potential utility of this technique to medical imaging was obvious, and soon afterwards multiple researchers began development of clinical NMR imaging systems. The first human whole-body NMR scan was accomplished by 1977. Improvements in the scanning process and image quality continue with, as yet, no limits in sight. In this clinical context, NMR techniques have experienced a name change to the current prevailing appellation, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

This article describes and explains the impact of the National Health Service bureaucracy on the diffusion of medical technology in the United Kingdom. Through case studies of six medical technologies, the author demonstrates how health care authorities may exercise significant control by using the central financing system to dampen the general diffusion of technology. However, the United Kingdom has less control in specific cases due to the absence of a bureaucratic body to coordinate the evaluation and introduction of new technology.

This article argues that while health care and government authorities in the Netherlands in the last decades have attempted to rationalize the diffusion of medical technology, much work remains to be done. The authors contend that though a mix of direct government regulation and economic incentives will be needed, regulation by incentive is more effective than regulation by directive in achieving cost effective use of technology. Generally, bureaucratic structures provide only limited opportunities for tight control of the diffusion of medical technologies. The article offers possible future strategies for directing the adoption and use of medical technologies and stresses the importance of reliable infor mation culled from comprehensive technology assessments.

Canada comprises 10 provinces and 2 territories. The Constitution assigns responsibility for the provision of health services in the provinces to provincial governments. Over the past 5 years, provincial governments have identified technology assessment as a priority. This paper describes an initiative taken by the government of the province of Alberta to develop a health technology assessment program for that province.

The rising costs of health care and interest in the evaluation of health services and systems have sparked an increased need for technology assessment. A variety of available methods of assessment are described in the Institute of Medicine's book Assessing Medical Technologies (1). Although such methods as the randomized controlled trial (RCT) are widely accepted and used, obtaining information by such methods often takes a considerable amount of time, expense, and sophistication in study design. These costs suggest that a broader range of methods for collecting information about health care technologies should be considered. A vast resource of data collected on patients, ranging from a provider's practice records to national data sets, might be useful for technology assessment if it could be properly appraised.

We compared patient ratings of the desirability of anxiety health states with measures of psychological distress and functional status and investigated how these ratings predicted treatment by primary care and mental health clinicians. As expected, associations between desirability ratings and psychological and physical health status were low to moderate. Persons who rated their current anxiety health state as more desirable received fewer mental health referrals and were statistically more likely to receive a prescription for psychotropic medication. Simple ratings of health state desirability may help clinicians evaluate patients' views of their health status and discuss potential treatment options.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to describe the current regulatory environment in Greece to evaluate the potential introduction of health technology assessment (HTA) for medicinal products for human use.

Methods: Data sources consist of national legislation on pricing and reimbursement of health technologies to identify the potential need of establishing HTA and its relevant structure.

Results: The pricing procedure regarding medicinal products for human use is based on an external reference pricing mechanism which considers the average of the three lowest Euorpean Union prices. Currently, a formal HTA procedure has not been applied in Greece, and the only prerequisite used for the reimbursement of medicinal products for human use is their inclusion in the Positive Reimbursement List. To restrict pharmaceutical expenditure, a variety of measures—such as clawback mechanisms, rebates, monthly budget caps per physician, generics penetration targeting—have been imposed, aiming mainly to regulate the price level rather than control the introduction of medicinal products for human use in the Greek pharmaceutical market.

Conclusions: Greece has the opportunity to rapidly build capacity, implement, and take advantage of the application of HTA mechanisms by clearly defining the goals, scope, systems, context, stakeholders, and methods that will be involved in the local HTA processes, taking into account the country's established e-prescription system and the recently adapted legislative framework.

The treatment of End-Stage Renal Disease (ESRD) is one of the most widely debated topics in contemporary medicine. The high cost of the most usual treatment, hemodialysis, has been and still is the topic for numerous discussions concerning priorities in health care on the one hand, and various medical, psychological, and ethical problems of life “on the machine” on the other hand. The other treatment of ESRD, kidney transplantation, raises other, no less complicated questions such as the limits of medical experimentation, ownership of one's body, the donation of organs, organ procurement and allocation, and the definition of life and death. As Fox and Swazey put it “The importance of hemodialysis and human organ transplantation lies as much in their social and cultural significance as in their medical and surgical value” (27,376).

This paper indicates that certain economic evaluation methods (cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses) may yield inconsistent results. Along with the lack of formal grounding of these methods in economic “first principles,” this finding suggests the possible benefit of greater reliance on the more formally developed method of cost-benefit analysis.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of rituximab and tocilizumab compared with adalimumab, etanercept, and infliximab, in patients with rheumatoid arthritis not responding to first-line treatment, and to compare the efficacy and safety of rituximab versus tocilizumab in patients not responding to anti-tumor necrosis factor α (anti-TNF) therapy.

Methods: A literature search of randomized controlled trials, controlled clinical trials, and systematic reviews was performed to evaluate efficacy and safety of rituximab and tocilizumab.

Results: Twenty-four RCTs were included in this systematic review with 6,357 participants; 3,450 treated with biological DMARD and 2,907 with standard care. In patients not responding to first-line treatment, rituximab shows lower response rate in at least 50 percent improvement in the American College of Rheumatology criteria (ACR50) and ACR70 compared with etanercept, at 6 months of follow-up. Tocilizumab shows higher ACR70 response rate compared with infliximab, at the same follow-up time. Other results showed no significant differences. Indirect comparisons between rituximab and tocilizumab in patients not responding for at least one anti-TNF, shows higher ACR20 response rate for tocilizumab at 6 months of follow-up. Regarding safety, adalimumab and etanercept were associated with significant fewer withdrawals due to adverse events compared with infliximab.

Conclusions: Considering efficacy, safety, and the availability of 3 anti-TNFs in the National Medicines Formulary (adalimumab, etanercept, and infliximab), it seems appropriate to remove infliximab from the coverage, and introduce tocilizumab for patients not responding for at least one anti-TNF.

Recent experience with COVID-19 has reminded us of the importance of scientific progress in enabling pharmaceutical innovation. Developing novel therapies is a highly risky but rewarding process: it not only produces innovative drugs, but also valuable scientific knowledge that benefits the community of innovators. This paper examines whether the existing reward system for pharmaceutical research and development (R&D) leads to socially optimal levels of scientific knowledge generation and sharing, with a particular focus on the value of failures in the pharmaceutical R&D efforts. We first outline a conceptual approach based on the idea that pharmaceutical R&D efforts produce both medicines and scientific knowledge, and illustrate this with some examples of how failures may generate information beneficial to concurrent and subsequent R&D efforts. We then summarize the relatively small literature on failures in pharmaceutical R&D and their impact on R&D decision making. Lastly, we discuss several market-based and nonmarket-based policy approaches that can address potential shortcomings in the current reward system which may lead to suboptimal R&D and knowledge sharing.

There has been tremendous technological innovation in the healthcare sector, but it has also raised serious ethical and social concerns. The COVID-19 pandemic has only magnified these existing challenges. Hence, addressing these challenges becomes imperative in the “new normal.” In this context, this article uses a narrative synthesis approach to discuss the linkages of health technology, innovation, and policy to identify the challenges of this complex interaction by applying the principles of pragmatism and historicity to the existing literature. Moreover, the existing scientific mechanisms in the form of health technology assessment (HTA) and responsible innovation in health (RIH) are described to address these challenges. Using inductive epistemology, the linkages between HTA and RIH within a health innovation ecosystem framework are discussed for the future application of an integrated approach to address societal challenges. The proposed integrated approach of HTA and RIH is a work in progress and conceptualized as transdisciplinary, flexible, and adaptive, which is expected to facilitate future discussion, research, and policy action.

Objectives: This investigation was undertaken to study the costs of a Case Method Learning (CML) -supported lipid-lowering strategy in secondary prevention of coronary artery disease (CAD) in primary care.

Methods: This prospective randomized controlled trial in primary care with an additional external specialist control group in Södertälje, Stockholm County, Sweden, included 255 consecutive patients with CAD. Guidelines were mailed to all general practitioners (GPs; n=54) and presented at a common lecture. GPs who were randomized to the intervention group participated in recurrent CML dialogues at their primary health-care centers during a 2-year period. A locally well-known cardiologist served as a facilitator. Assessment of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol was performed at baseline and after 2 years. Analysis according to intention-to-treat—intervention and control groups (n=88)—was based on group affiliation at baseline. The marginal cost of lipid lowering comprised increased cost of lipid-lowering drugs in the intervention group compared with the primary care control group, cost of attendance of the GP's in the intervention group, and cost of time for preparation, travel, and seminars of the facilitator. Costs are as of 2002 with an exchange rate 1 US$=9.5 SEK (Swedish Crowns).

Results: Patients in the primary care intervention group had their LDL cholesterol reduced by 0.5 (confidence interval [CI], 0.1–0.9) mmol/L compared with the primary care control group (p<.05). No change occurred in controls. LDL cholesterol in the external specialist control group decreased by 0.6 (CI, 0.4–0.8) mmol/L. The cost of the educational intervention represented only 2 percent of the drug cost. The cost of lipid lowering in the intervention group, including the cost of the educational intervention, was actually lower than that of patients treated at the specialist clinic—106 US$ per mmol decrease in LDL cholesterol in the intervention group and 153 US$ per mmol decrease in LDL cholesterol in the specialist group. EuroQol 5D Index, which gives an estimate of global health-related quality of life, was 0.80 (CI, 0.75–0.85) in the present cohort.

Conclusions: The additional cost of CML was only 2 percent of the drug cost. Assuming the same gain in life expectancy per millimole decrease in LDL cholesterol as in the 4S-study gives a cost per gained quality-adjusted life year of US$ 24,000. This finding indicates that the CML-supported lipid-lowering strategy is cost-effective. The low cost of CML in primary care should probably warrant its use in the improvement of the quality of care in other major chronic diseases.