Begleit- und Wirkungsforschung zur Hightech-Strategie : Ex-Post-Evaluierung der Fördermaßnahmen BioChance und BioChancePlus im Rahmen der Systemevaluierung

Der vorliegende Bericht stellt die Ergebnisse der Evaluation der BMBF-Fördermaßnahmen BioChance und BioChancePlus dar. Beide zielten als Vorläufer der Förderinitiative "KMUinnovativ: Biotechnologie" darauf ab, innovative und anspruchsvolle Forschungsvorhaben von kleinen und mittleren Unternehmen in der Biotechnologie zu ermöglichen. Die beiden Fördermaßnahmen unterschieden sich in Förderziel und Design: Während BioChance ab 1999 darauf abzielte, neu gegründete Firmen zu unterstützen, ging es in BioChancePlus ab 2003 darum, die weitere Entwicklung junger Biotechnologie- Unternehmen und deren risikoreichen Projekte voranzutreiben. Die vorliegende Analyse zeigt, dass BioChance und BioChancePlus eine angemessene Reaktion auf die Schwierigkeiten waren, mit denen die dedizierten Biotechnologie-Unternehmen in Deutschland in den Jahren 1999-2009 zu kämpfen hatten. Die Fördermaßnahmen wurden in ihrem Design jeweils adäquat weiterentwickelt und den Erfordernissen der Zielgruppe entsprechend angepasst. BioChance und BioChancePlus haben ihre Zielgruppen in hohem Maße erreicht: Von BioChance profitierten 15% der jungen Biotechnologiefirmen in Deutschland, der Nachfolger BioChancePlus erreichte 40% seiner Zielgruppe. Insgesamt erhielten 260 Unternehmen eine Zuwendung. 85% davon wurden nur einmal gefördert. Die öffentliche Förderung stellte eine wichtige, jedoch keineswegs die dominierende Finanzierungsquelle für die Unternehmen dar. So flossen im Zeitraum 2000-2009 rund 3 Mrd. Euro an VC-Investitionen in die Biotechnologie-Branche, während sich die öffentliche Förderung auf ca. 5% dieser Summe belief. Bei BioChance erhielten 17% der eingereichten Anträge eine Förderung, bei BioChancePlus waren es 29%. Insgesamt wurden durch die Maßnahme BioChance etwa 36 Millionen Euro und durch BioChancePlus 133 Millionen Euro an Fördergeldern gewährt

Arthroscopic Treatment of Acetabular Retroversion With Acetabuloplasty and Subspine Decompression: A Matched Comparison With Patients Undergoing Arthroscopic Treatment for Focal Pincer-Type Femoroacetabular Impingement.

BackgroundGlobal acetabular retroversion is classically treated with open reverse periacetabular osteotomy. Given the low morbidity and recent success associated with the arthroscopic treatment of femoroacetabular impingement (FAI), there may also be a role for arthroscopic treatment of acetabular retroversion. However, the safety and outcomes after hip arthroscopic surgery for retroversion need further study, and the effect of impingement from the anterior inferior iliac spine (subspine) in patients with retroversion is currently unknown.HypothesisArthroscopic treatment for global acetabular retroversion will be safe, and patients will have similar outcomes compared with a matched group undergoing arthroscopic treatment for focal pincer-type FAI.Study designCohort study; Level of evidence, 2.MethodsPatients undergoing hip arthroscopic surgery for symptomatic global acetabular retroversion were prospectively enrolled and compared with a matched group of patients undergoing arthroscopic surgery for focal pincer-type FAI. Both groups underwent the same arthroscopic treatment protocol. All patients were administered patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures, including the 12-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-12) Physical Component Summary (PCS) and a Mental Component Summary (MCS), modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS), and visual analog scale (VAS) for pain preoperatively and at 1 year postoperatively.ResultsThere were no differences in age, sex, or body mass index between 39 hips treated for global acetabular retroversion and 39 hips treated for focal pincer-type FAI. There were no major or minor complications in either group. Patients who underwent arthroscopic treatment for global acetabular retroversion demonstrated similar significant improvements in postoperative PRO scores (scores increased by 17 to 43 points) as patients who underwent arthroscopic treatment for focal pincer-type FAI. Patients treated for retroversion who also underwent subspine decompression had greater improvement than patients who did not undergo subspine decompression for the HOOS-Pain (33.7 ± 15.3 vs 22.5 ± 17.6, respectively; P = .046) and HOOS-Quality of Life (49.7 ± 18.8 vs 34.6 ± 22.0, respectively; P = .030) scores.ConclusionArthroscopic treatment for acetabular retroversion is safe and provides significant clinical improvement similar to arthroscopic treatment for pincer-type FAI. Patients with acetabular retroversion who also underwent arthroscopic subspine decompression demonstrated greater improvements in pain and quality of life outcomes than those who underwent arthroscopic treatment without subspine decompression

Evaluation of range of motion restriction within the hip joint

In Total Hip Arthroplasty, determining the impingement free range of motion requirement is a complex task. This is because in the native hip, motion is restricted by both impingement as well as soft tissue restraint. The aim of this study is to determine a range of motion benchmark which can identify motions which are at risk from impingement and those which are constrained due to soft tissue. Two experimental methodologies were used to determine motions which were limited by impingement and those motions which were limited by both impingement and soft tissue restraint. By comparing these two experimental results, motions which were limited by impingement were able to be separated from those motions which were limited by soft tissue restraint. The results show motions in extension as well as flexion combined with adduction are limited by soft tissue restraint. Motions in flexion, flexion combined with abduction and adduction are at risk from osseous impingement. Consequently, these motions represent where the maximum likely damage will occur in femoroacetabular impingement or at most risk of prosthetic impingement in Total Hip Arthroplasty

Soft tissue damage after minimally invasive THA: A comparison of 5 approaches

Methods 5 surgeons each performed a total hip arthroplasty on 5 fresh frozen cadaver hips, using either a MIS anterior, MIS anterolateral, MIS 2-incision, MIS posterior, or lateral transgluteal approach. Postoperatively, the hips were dissected and muscle damage color-stained. We measured proportional muscle damage relative to the midsubstance cross-sectional surface area (MCSA) using computerized color detection. The integrity of external rotator muscles, nerves, and ligaments was assessed by direct observation. Results None of the other MIS approaches resulted in less gluteus medius muscle damage than the lateral transgluteal approach. However, the MIS anterior approach completely preserved the gluteus medius muscle in 4 cases while partial damage occurred in 1 case. Furthermore, the superior gluteal nerve was transected in 4 cases after a MIS anterolateral approach and in 1 after the lateral transgluteal approach. The lateral femoral cutaneous nerve was transected once after both the MIS anterior approach and the MIS 2-incision approach. Interpretation The MIS anterior approach may preserve the gluteus medius muscle during total hip arthroplasty, but with a risk of damaging the lateral femoral cutaneous nerv

Whole body MR imaging in ankylosing spondylitis: a descriptive pilot study in patients with suspected early and active confirmed ankylosing spondylitis

BACKGROUND: Ankylosing spondylitis is a chronic inflammatory rheumatic disorder which usually begins in early adulthood. The diagnosis is often delayed by many years. MR imaging has become the preferred imaging method for detection of early inflammation of the axial skeleton in ankylosing spondylitis. The goal of this study was to assess the frequency and distribution of abnormalities on whole body MR imaging in patients with suspected early ankylosing spondylitis and with active confirmed ankylosing spondylitis. METHODS: Ten patients with suspected early ankylosing spondylitis and ten patients with confirmed ankylosing spondylitis were enrolled. On an 18-channel MR system, coronal and sagittal T1 weighted and STIR sequences were acquired covering the entire spine, sacrum, anterior chest wall, shoulder girdle, and pelvis. The total examination time was 30 minutes. RESULTS: In both groups inflammatory lesions of the lower thoracic spine were frequent (number of patients with suspected early/confirmed ankylosing spondylitis: 7/9). In confirmed ankylosing spondylitis the upper thoracic spine (3/6) and the lumbar spine (4/8) were more commonly involved. The inferior iliac quadrant of the sacroiliac joints was frequently altered in both groups (8/8). The superior iliac (2/5), inferior sacral (6/10) and superior sacral (3/6) quadrants were more frequently affected in confirmed ankylosing spondylitis. Abnormalities of the manubriosternal joint (2/4), the sternoclavicular joints (1/2) and hip joint effusion (4/3) were also seen. CONCLUSION: In both suspected early ankylosing spondylitis and confirmed ankylosing spondylitis, whole body MR examinations frequently demonstrate inflammatory lesions outside the sacroiliac joints. These lesions are similarly distributed but occur less frequently in suspected early compared to confirmed ankylosing spondylitis. Due to the small sample size in this pilot study these results need to be confirmed in larger studies with this emerging technique

Long-term outcome of patients with newly diagnosed chronic myeloid leukemia: a randomized comparison of stem cell transplantation with drug treatment.

Tyrosine kinase inhibitors represent today's treatment of choice in chronic myeloid leukemia (CML). Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) is regarded as salvage therapy. This prospective randomized CML-study IIIA recruited 669 patients with newly diagnosed CML between July 1997 and January 2004 from 143 centers. Of these, 427 patients were considered eligible for HSCT and were randomized by availability of a matched family donor between primary HSCT (group A; N=166 patients) and best available drug treatment (group B; N=261). Primary end point was long-term survival. Survival probabilities were not different between groups A and B (10-year survival: 0.76 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.69-0.82) vs 0.69 (95% CI: 0.61-0.76)), but influenced by disease and transplant risk. Patients with a low transplant risk showed superior survival compared with patients with high- (P<0.001) and non-high-risk disease (P=0.047) in group B; after entering blast crisis, survival was not different with or without HSCT. Significantly more patients in group A were in molecular remission (56% vs 39%; P=0.005) and free of drug treatment (56% vs 6%; P<0.001). Differences in symptoms and Karnofsky score were not significant. In the era of tyrosine kinase inhibitors, HSCT remains a valid option when both disease and transplant risk are considered

Towards standardized measurement of adverse events in spine surgery: conceptual model and pilot evaluation

BACKGROUND: Independent of efficacy, information on safety of surgical procedures is essential for informed choices. We seek to develop standardized methodology for describing the safety of spinal operations and apply these methods to study lumbar surgery. We present a conceptual model for evaluating the safety of spine surgery and describe development of tools to measure principal components of this model: (1) specifying outcome by explicit criteria for adverse event definition, mode of ascertainment, cause, severity, or preventability, and (2) quantitatively measuring predictors such as patient factors, comorbidity, severity of degenerative spine disease, and invasiveness of spine surgery. METHODS: We created operational definitions for 176 adverse occurrences and established multiple mechanisms for reporting them. We developed new methods to quantify the severity of adverse occurrences, degeneration of lumbar spine, and invasiveness of spinal procedures. Using kappa statistics and intra-class correlation coefficients, we assessed agreement for the following: four reviewers independently coding etiology, preventability, and severity for 141 adverse occurrences, two observers coding lumbar spine degenerative changes in 10 selected cases, and two researchers coding invasiveness of surgery for 50 initial cases. RESULTS: During the first six months of prospective surveillance, rigorous daily medical record reviews identified 92.6% of the adverse occurrences we recorded, and voluntary reports by providers identified 38.5% (surgeons reported 18.3%, inpatient rounding team reported 23.1%, and conferences discussed 6.1%). Trained observers had fair agreement in classifying etiology of 141 adverse occurrences into 18 categories (kappa = 0.35), but agreement was substantial (kappa ≥ 0.61) for 4 specific categories: technical error, failure in communication, systems failure, and no error. Preventability assessment had moderate agreement (mean weighted kappa = 0.44). Adverse occurrence severity rating had fair agreement (mean weighted kappa = 0.33) when using a scale based on the JCAHO Sentinel Event Policy, but agreement was substantial for severity ratings on a new 11-point numerical severity scale (ICC = 0.74). There was excellent inter-rater agreement for a lumbar degenerative disease severity score (ICC = 0.98) and an index of surgery invasiveness (ICC = 0.99). CONCLUSION: Composite measures of disease severity and surgery invasiveness may allow development of risk-adjusted predictive models for adverse events in spine surgery. Standard measures of adverse events and risk adjustment may also facilitate post-marketing surveillance of spinal devices, effectiveness research, and quality improvement