STRATEGI PENGEMBANGAN KAWASAN WISATA LIKUPANG KABUPATEN MINAHASA UTARA

This study aims to evaluate the condition of tourist areas in Likupang, to know the internal factors and external factors Likupang tourist location development and its strategies of development. The type of this research is descriptive qualitative. Selection of sample research used purposive sampling method. The data collections in this research are primary and secondary data. Primary data were collected through interviews, observations and discussions and documentation. The interview was based on the questionnaire. The discussion was conducted by conducting Focus Group Discussion (FGD) Activities. While secondary data collected from various agencies, among others, Central Bureau of Statistics and North Minahasa District Office. Data were analyzed using SWOT analysis and Development Strategy. The result of research shows that the development strategy of Likupang tourism area based on SWOT analysis result lies in position of Quadrant I which is located between external opportunity and internal strength where the result of analysis obtained by total score of IFAS (Internal Strategic Factor Summary Analysis) is 3,498 and EFAS (External Strategic Factor Summary Analysis) is 3,854. The research concludes that Likupang tourism area development strategy can be done by maintaining panorama and sustainability of beach and Marine Park and also trying to complete infrastructure facilities especially the availability of electricity, water and internet network. Further accelerate the construction of new connecting road from the airport to Likupang so as to shorten the distance and travel time and also set up tourist information center for tourists

Characteristics of clinical trials in rare vs. common diseases : A register-based Latvian study

Publisher Copyright: © 2018 Logviss et al. This is an open ccess article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and eproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.Background Conducting clinical studies in small populations may be very challenging; therefore quality of clinical evidence may differ between rare and non-rare disease therapies. Objective This register-based study aims to evaluate the characteristics of clinical trials in rare diseases conducted in Latvia and compare them with clinical trials in more common conditions. Methods The EU Clinical Trials Register (clinicaltrialsregister.eu) was used to identify interventional clinical trials related to rare diseases (n = 51) and to compose a control group of clinical trials in non-rare diseases (n = 102) for further comparison of the trial characteristics. Results We found no significant difference in the use of overall survival as a primary endpoint in clinical trials between rare and non-rare diseases (9.8% vs. 13.7%, respectively). However, clinical trials in rare diseases were less likely to be randomized controlled trials (62.7% vs. 83.3%). Rare and non-rare disease clinical trials varied in masking, with rare disease trials less likely to be double blind (45.1% vs. 63.7%). Active comparators were less frequently used in rare disease trials (36.4% vs. 58.8% of controlled trials). Clinical trials in rare diseases enrolled fewer participants than those in non-rare diseases: In Latvia (mean 18.3 vs. 40.2 subjects, respectively), in the European Economic Area (mean 181.0 vs. 626.9 subjects), and in the whole clinical trial (mean 335.8 vs. 1406.3 subjects). Although, we found no significant difference in trial duration between the groups (mean 38.3 vs. 36.4 months). Conclusions The current study confirms that clinical trials in rare diseases vary from those in non-rare conditions, with notable differences in enrollment, randomization, masking, and the use of active comparators. However, we found no significant difference in trial duration and the use of overall survival as a primary endpoint.publishersversionPeer reviewe

Predictors of orphan drug approval in the European Union

Objective: To encourage the development of drugs for rare diseases, orphan drug legislation has been introduced in the USA (1983) and in the EU (2000). Recent literature discusses factors that may influence the development of new orphan medicinal products in the EU. This study aims to identify predictors for successful marketing authorisation of potential orphan drugs in the EU. Methods: A comparison between randomly selected authorised and a matched sample of not-yet-authorised orphan drug designations has been performed. Determinants in the study included characteristics of the indication, of the product and of the sponsor. Data were collected from the public domain only. Results: Orphan drug approval was strongly associated with previous experience of the sponsor in obtaining approval for another orphan drug (OR=17.3, 95% CI=5.6-53.1). Furthermore, existing synthetic entities compared to biotechnology products tended to have a higher likelihood of reaching approval status (OR=3.9, 95% CI=0.9-16.6). Conclusion: This study showed that experience of a company in developing orphan drugs is an important predictor for subsequent authorisation of other orphan drugs. The same applies for existing (synthetic) molecules, for which much knowledge is available. Further research should be directed towards studying the quality of the clinical development program of those designated orphan medicinal products not reaching approval status

Developing and paying for medicines for orphan indications in oncology: utilitarian regulation vs equitable care?

Despite ‘orphan drug' legislation, bringing new medicines for rare diseases to market and securing funding for their provision is sometimes both costly and problematic, even in the case of medicines for very rare ‘ultra orphan' oncological indications. In this paper difficulties surrounding the introduction of a new treatment for osteosarcoma exemplify the challenges that innovators can face. The implications of current policy debate on ‘value-based' medicines pricing in Europe, North America and elsewhere are also explored in the context of sustaining research into and facilitating cancer patient access to medicines for low-prevalence indications. Tensions exist between utilitarian strategies aimed at optimising the welfare of the majority in the society and minority-interest-focused approaches to equitable care provision. Current regulatory and pricing strategies should be revisited with the objective of facilitating fair and timely drug supply to patients without sacrificing safety or overall affordability. Failures effectively to tackle the problems considered here could undermine public interests in developing better therapies for cancer patients

Ten years of marketing approvals of anticancer drugs in Europe: regulatory policy and guidance documents need to find a balance between different pressures

Despite important progress in understanding the molecular factors underlying the development of cancer and the improvement in response rates with new drugs, long-term survival is still disappointing for most common solid tumours. This might be because very little of the modest gain for patients is the result of the new compounds discovered and marketed recently. An assessment of the regulatory agencies' performance may suggest improvements. The present analysis summarizes and evaluates the type of studies and end points used by the EMEA to approve new anticancer drugs, and discusses the application of current regulations. This report is based on the information available on the EMEA web site. We identified current regulatory requirements for anticancer drugs promulgated by the agency and retrieved them in the relevant directory; information about empirical evidence supporting the approval of drugs for solid cancers through the centralised procedure were retrieved from the European Public Assessment Report (EPAR). We surveyed documents for drug applications and later extensions from January 1995, when EMEA was set up, to December 2004. We identified 14 anticancer drugs for 27 different indications (14 new applications and 13 extensions). Overall, 48 clinical studies were used as the basis for approval; randomised comparative (clinical) trial (RCT) and Response Rate were the study design and end points most frequently adopted (respectively, 25 out of 48 and 30 out of 48). In 13 cases, the EPAR explicitly reported differences between arms in terms of survival: the range was 0–3.7 months, and the mean and median differences were 1.5 and 1.2 months. The majority of studies (13 out of 27, 48%) involved the evaluation of complete and/or partial tumour responses, with regard to the end points supporting the 27 indications. Despite the recommendations of the current EMEA guidance documents, new anticancer agents are still often approved on the basis of small single arm trials that do not allow any assessment of an ‘acceptable and extensively documented toxicity profile' and of end points such as response rate, time to progression or progression-free survival which at best can be considered indicators of anticancer activity and are not ‘justified surrogate markers for clinical benefit'. Anticipating an earlier than ideal point along the drug approval path and the use of not fully validated surrogate end points in nonrandomised trials looks like a dangerous shortcut that might jeopardise consumers' health, leading to unsafe and ineffective drugs being marketed and prescribed. The present Note for Guidance for new anticancer agents needs revising. Drugs must be rapidly released for patients who need them but not be at the expense of adequate knowledge about the real benefit of the drugs

Forecasting drug utilization and expenditure in a metropolitan health region

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>New pharmacological therapies are challenging the healthcare systems, and there is an increasing need to assess their therapeutic value in relation to existing alternatives as well as their potential budget impact. Consequently, new models to introduce drugs in healthcare are urgently needed. In the metropolitan health region of Stockholm, Sweden, a model has been developed including early warning (horizon scanning), forecasting of drug utilization and expenditure, critical drug evaluation as well as structured programs for the introduction and follow-up of new drugs. The aim of this paper is to present the forecasting model and the predicted growth in all therapeutic areas in 2010 and 2011.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Linear regression analysis was applied to aggregate sales data on hospital sales and dispensed drugs in ambulatory care, including both reimbursed expenditure and patient co-payment. The linear regression was applied on each pharmacological group based on four observations 2006-2009, and the crude predictions estimated for the coming two years 2010-2011. The crude predictions were then adjusted for factors likely to increase or decrease future utilization and expenditure, such as patent expiries, new drugs to be launched or new guidelines from national bodies or the regional Drug and Therapeutics Committee. The assessment included a close collaboration with clinical, clinical pharmacological and pharmaceutical experts from the regional Drug and Therapeutics Committee.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The annual increase in total expenditure for prescription and hospital drugs was predicted to be 2.0% in 2010 and 4.0% in 2011. Expenditures will increase in most therapeutic areas, but most predominantly for antineoplastic and immune modulating agents as well as drugs for the nervous system, infectious diseases, and blood and blood-forming organs.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The utilisation and expenditure of drugs is difficult to forecast due to uncertainties about the rate of adoption of new medicines and various ongoing healthcare reforms and activities to improve the quality and efficiency of prescribing. Nevertheless, we believe our model will be valuable as an early warning system to start developing guidance for new drugs including systems to monitor their effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness in clinical practice.</p

Risk sharing arrangements for pharmaceuticals: potential considerations and recommendations for European payers

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>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.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>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.</p> <p>Results and discussion</p> <p>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 "<it>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</it>". 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.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>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.</p