Medical and surgical co-management - A strategy of improving the quality and outcomes of perioperative care.

With the increase of ageing population, rates of chronic diseases and complex medical conditions, the management of high-risk surgical patients is likely to become a great concern in most countries. Considering all these factors, it is certainly rational and intuitive that internists should be included into a collaborative model of medical and surgical co-management, where their multi-potentiality and synthesis capacity require them to coordinate the multidisciplinary team and to be the leading agent of change. In this regard, our aim was to present the official position and approach of the Working Group on Professional Issues and Quality of Care of the European Federation of Internal Medicine (EFIM), for implementation of this strategy of care, encouraging internists to assume an important role and to provide continuity of multidisciplinary care, from the decision to operate through to rehabilitation and recovery. Moving from the traditional model of medical care of the surgical patients to the co-management model, from a reactive simple consultation to a new pro-active continued service, may optimize the quality and perioperative care, improving the survival, shortening hospital stays, replacing the old strategy of late and complication treatment to an early and preventive one.

Rationalizing the introduction and use of pharmaceutical products: The role of managed entry agreements in Central and Eastern European countries.

This paper aims to provide an overview of the rationalization strategies for the introduction and use of pharmaceuticals, focusing on the role of managed entry agreements (MEA) in Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries, namely Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Croatia, Hungary, Poland and Romania. We developed a conceptual framework on MEAs that was used as the basis for a standardized assessment questionnaire sent to country experts to capture their perceptions on their countries' rationalization strategies and MEAs. Our study shows that the main role of MEAs and other related policies embedded in the health care system is to limit the budget impact of drugs in all examined 6 countries. Uncertainty about outcomes and appropriate utilization seem to be of lower priority. Finance-based MEAs are used by all countries. Performance-based MEAs are scarce and used to a limited extent by Hungary and Poland. The overall transparency of the existence and details of MEAs is limited. Expansion of the use and increased transparency of MEAs is recommended. Still, the informational infrastructure and competencies in implementing MEA's need to be developed further.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Treatment for Metastatic Renal Carcinoma in Romania.

Rationale: In recent years, the cost of several treatment options for renal cancer have been supported by the Romanian healthcare system for both first- and second-line therapies. First-line alternatives through real-life efficacy and amplitude of adverse reactions may influence the efficacy and costs of patients treated with second-line treatment. Objective: Estimation of the cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit ratio for first-line treatment alternatives: Sunitinib and Pazopanib from the payer's perspective in the Romanian healthcare system. Methods and Results: We developed a Markov model to calculate the cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit ratio for 2 cohorts of patients using the results from the COMPARZ study for efficacy (progression-free survival, general survivability and quality of life) and safety and costs from national hospital databases. For an estimated population of 800 patients, Pazopanib has a quantified benefit of 7.19 years in progression-free survival, 11.71 life years gained and 8.97 years of quality-adjusted life-years compared to Sunitinib. The analysis is limited by the accuracy of the national data used and the transposition of general data on efficacy and safety at the local level.

Conducting systematic reviews of economic evaluations.

BACKGROUND: In 2012, a working group was established to review and enhance the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) guidance for conducting systematic review of evidence from economic evaluations addressing a question(s) about health intervention cost-effectiveness. OBJECTIVES: The objective is to present the outcomes of the working group. METHODS: The group conducted three activities to inform the new guidance: review of literature on the utility/futility of systematic reviews of economic evaluations and consideration of its implications for updating the existing methodology; assessment of the critical appraisal tool in the existing guidance against criteria that promotes validity in economic evaluation research and two other commonly used tools; and a workshop. RESULTS: The debate in the literature on the limitations/value of systematic review of economic evidence cautions that systematic reviews of economic evaluation evidence are unlikely to generate one size fits all answers to questions about the cost-effectiveness of interventions and their comparators. Informed by this finding, the working group adjusted the framing of the objectives definition in the existing JBI methodology. The shift is away from defining the objective as to determine one cost-effectiveness measure toward summarizing study estimates of cost-effectiveness and informed by consideration of the included study characteristics (patient, setting, intervention component, etc.), identifying conditions conducive to lowering costs and maximizing health benefits. The existing critical appraisal tool was included in the new guidance. The new guidance includes the recommendation that a tool designed specifically for the purpose of appraising model-based studies be used together with the generic appraisal tool for economic evaluations assessment to evaluate model-based evaluations. The guidance produced by the group offers reviewers guidance for each step of the systematic review process, which are the same steps followed in JBI reviews of other types of evidence. DISCUSSION: The updated JBI guidance will be useful for researchers wanting to synthesize evidence about economic questions, either as stand-alone reviews or part of comprehensive or mixed method evidence reviews. Although the updated methodology produced by the work of the working group has improved the JBI guidance for systematic reviews of economic evaluations, there are areas where further work is required. These include adjusting the critical appraisal tool to separate out questions addressing intervention cost and effectiveness measurement; providing more explicit guidance for assessing generalizability of findings; and offering a more robust method for evidence synthesis that facilitates achieving the more ambitious review objectives.