Behavior of various adsorbates on metal substrates quarterly progress report no. 3, 1 dec. 1964 - 28 feb. 1965

Vacuum breakdown studies - surface kinetics of adsorbed layers by field emission, sputtering of metallic surfaces, and electron interactions with adsorbed layers on metallic surface

Feasibility study of a clinically-integrated randomized trial of modifications to radical prostatectomy

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Numerous technical modifications to radical prostatectomy have been proposed. Such modifications are likely to lead to only slight improvements in outcomes. Although small differences would be worthwhile, an appropriately powered randomized trial would need to be very large, and thus of doubtful feasibility given the expense, complexity and regulatory burden of contemporary clinical trials. We have proposed a novel methodology, the clinically-integrated randomized trial, which dramatically streamlines trial procedures in order to reduce the marginal cost of an additional patient towards zero. We aimed to determine the feasibility of implementing such a trial for radical prostatectomy.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Patients undergoing radical prostatectomy as initial treatment for prostate cancer were randomized in a factorial design to involvement of the fascia during placement of the anastomotic sutures, urethral irrigation, both or neither. Endpoint data were obtained from routine clinical documentation. Accrual and compliance rates were monitored to determine the feasibility of the trial.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>From a total of 260 eligible patients, 154 (59%) consented; 56 patients declined to participate, 20 were not approached on recommendation of the treating surgeon, and 30 were not approached for logistical reasons. Although recording by surgeons of the procedure used was incomplete (~80%), compliance with randomization was excellent when it was recorded, with only 6% of procedures inconsistent with allocation. Outcomes data was received from 71% of patients at one year. This improved to 83% as the trial progressed.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>A clinically-integrated randomized trial was conducted at low cost, with excellent accrual, and acceptable compliance with treatment allocation and outcomes reporting. This demonstrates the feasibility of the methodology. Improved methods to ensure documentation of surgical procedures would be required before wider implementation.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>ClinicalTrials.gov <a href="http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00928850">NCT00928850</a></p

The Implementation of Managed Entry Agreements in Central and Eastern Europe : Findings and Implications

Funding Information: In Bosnia and Herzegovina, both The Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Republic of Srpska, also have special funds and budgets in place for the financing of expensive medicines, which are innovative and under patent. Similar earmarked funds are available in Scotland (the New Medicines Fund funded by the Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme [PPRS] rebates) [35] and England (the Cancer Drugs Fund) [36]. However, support for such earmarked funds is mixed. While they facilitate access, critics raised issues about fairness towards other disease areas and patient groups that are not eligible for special funding [3, 39]. Further, the views of a Patient and Clinician Engagement meeting in Scotland [37] and the end-of-life criteria in England [38] offer opportunities for special considerations affecting medicines for end-of-life and very rare conditions to be taken into account in the health technology assessment process. Funding Information: The authors would like to acknowledge Dr. Jan Jones from the Scottish Medicines Consortium, Scotland, for contributing to the discussion with information on Scotland, Drs. Lyudmila Bezmelnitsyna and Anastasia Isaeva for contributing to data collection in Russia and Dr. Kate?ina Podrazilov? from SZP ?R for providing information on the Czech Republic. Alessandra Ferrario was a Research Officer at the LSE Health at the time this research was conducted. She is now a postdoctoral Research Fellow at the Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, USA. Email: [email protected] No sources of funding were used for this study. The authors declare they have no conflicts of interest. However, Di?na Ar?ja, Maria Dimitrova, Jurij F?rst, Ieva Grei?i?t?-Kuprijanov, Iris Hoxha, Arianit Jakupi, Erki Laidm?e, Vanda Markovic-Pekovic, Dmitry Meshkov, Guenka Petrova, Maciej Pomorski and Patricia Vella Bonanno work directly for national health authorities or are advisers to them. Alessandra Ferrario, Tomasz Bochenek, Ileana Mardare, Dominik Tomek, Luka Voncina, Alan Haycox, Panos Kanavos,?Olga L?blov?, and Brian Godman are academics and independent researchers also working with national and regional health authorities and others to improve the quality and efficiency of prescribing, and Tarik Catic, D?vid Dank?,and Tanja Novakovic are involved with pharmaceutical, pharmacoeconomics and outcomes research groups in their countries. Olga L?blov? has also carried out remunerated consultancy activities for A&R Partners, Baxter AG and Instytut Arcana and Ileana Mardare has signed a consulting contract with Ewopharma A.G. Romania. The content of the paper and the conclusions are those of each author and may not necessarily reflect those of any organisation that employs them. Publisher Copyright: © 2017, The Author(s).Background: Managed entry agreements (MEAs) are a set of instruments to facilitate access to new medicines. This study surveyed the implementation of MEAs in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) where limited comparative information is currently available. Method: We conducted a survey on the implementation of MEAs in CEE between January and March 2017. Results: Sixteen countries participated in this study. Across five countries with available data on the number of different MEA instruments implemented, the most common MEAs implemented were confidential discounts (n = 495, 73%), followed by paybacks (n = 92, 14%), price-volume agreements (n = 37, 5%), free doses (n = 25, 4%), bundle and other agreements (n = 19, 3%), and payment by result (n = 10, >1%). Across seven countries with data on MEAs by therapeutic group, the highest number of brand names associated with one or more MEA instruments belonged to the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC)-L group, antineoplastic and immunomodulating agents (n = 201, 31%). The second most frequent therapeutic group for MEA implementation was ATC-A, alimentary tract and metabolism (n = 87, 13%), followed by medicines for neurological conditions (n = 83, 13%). Conclusions: Experience in implementing MEAs varied substantially across the region and there is considerable scope for greater transparency, sharing experiences and mutual learning. European citizens, authorities and industry should ask themselves whether, within publicly funded health systems, confidential discounts can still be tolerated, particularly when it is not clear which country and party they are really benefiting. Furthermore, if MEAs are to improve access, countries should establish clear objectives for their implementation and a monitoring framework to measure their performance, as well as the burden of implementation.publishersversionPeer reviewe