Clinical pharmacology facing the real-world setting: Pharmacovigilance, pharmacoepidemiology and the economic evaluation of drugs.

Traditionally, clinical pharmacology has focused its activities on drug-organism interaction, from an individual or collective perspective. Drug efficacy assessment by performing randomized clinical trials and analysis of drug use in clinical practice by carrying out drug utilization studies have also been other areas of interest. From now on, Clinical pharmacology should move from the analysis of the drug-individual interaction to the analysis of the drug-individual-society interaction. It should also analyze the clinical and economic consequences of the use of drugs in the conditions of normal clinical practice, beyond clinical trials. The current exponential technological development that facilitates the analysis of real-life data offers us a golden opportunity to move to all these other areas of interest. This review describes the role that clinical pharmacology has played at the beginning and during the evolution of pharmacovigilance, pharmacoepidemiology and economic drug evaluations in Spain. In addition, the challenges that clinical pharmacology is going to face in the following years in these three areas are going to be outlined too.

The Impact of Patient Support Programs in Europe: A Systematic Literature Review.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Patient support programs aim to provide solutions beyond the medication itself, by enhancing treatment adherence, improving clinical outcomes, elevating patient experience, and/or increasing quality of life. As patient support programs increasingly play an important role in assisting patients, numerous observational studies and pragmatic trials designed to evaluate their impact on healthcare have been conducted in recent years. This review aims to characterize these studies. METHODS: A systematic literature review, supplemented by a broad search of gray literature, was conducted following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) and Cochrane recommendations. Observational studies and pragmatic trials conducted in Europe to evaluate the impact of patient support programs, published in English or Spanish between 17/03/2010 and 17/03/2020, were reviewed. Two patient support program definitions were applied starting with Ganguli et al.'s broad approach, followed by the European Medicines Agency definition, narrowed to Marketing Authorization Holders organized systems and their medicines. The quality of publications was assessed using the STROBE (Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) statement 22-item checklist. RESULTS: Of the 49 identified studies following the Ganguli et al. definition, 20 studies met the European Medicines Agency definition and were reviewed. Patient support program impact was evaluated based on a wide range of methodologies: 70% assessed patient support program-related patient-reported outcomes, 55% reported clinical outcomes, and 25% reported economic impacts on health resources. Only 45% conducted a comparative analysis. Overall, 75% of the studies achieved their proposed objectives. CONCLUSIONS: The heterogeneity of the observational studies reviewed reflects the complexity of patient support programs that are built ad hoc for specific diseases, treatments, and patients. Results suggest that patient support programs play a key role in promoting treatment effectiveness, clinical outcomes, and satisfaction. However, there is a need for standardizing the definition of patient support programs and the methods to evaluate their impact.

Individual point-of-care trials: a new approach to incorporate patient's preferences into personalized pragmatic clinical trials.

Although Evidence-based medicine (EBM) and Patient-centered medicine (PCM) are often perceived as two conflicting paradigms that speak the language of populations and the language of individuals, respectively, both share the common objective of improving the care of individual patients. As physicians should not practice an EBM that is away from the individual patient nor a PCM that is not based on the best available evidence, it is crucial to connect and combine both movements, promoting the fruitful and natural interaction between research and care. Achieving such interaction requires developing new individual-patient centric research methods. In this commentary, we propose an innovative clinical research design oriented to personalize point-of-care trials-integrating clinical research and medical care-through the incorporation of individual patients' preferences to build personalized research protocols. Building on the framework of N-of-1 studies, in "individual point-of-care trials," each protocol could be personalized for each patient so that the therapeutic objectives, the outcome variables analyzed, and the (operationalization of the) compared interventions would be based not only on the clinical and biological characteristics of each patient but also on their individual preferences, goals, and values. If patient preferences are being progressively integrated into medical practice, it makes sense that they also are incorporated into clinical trials embedded in care delivery. The proposal to perform individual point of care trials may be an optimal way to combine EBM and PCM while preserving their foundational principles, and to ensure the connection between "personalized" and "personal" care.

Informes de posicionamiento terapéutico: experiencia en España en el periodo 2013-2019 / Therapeutic positioning reports: Experience in Spain during the period 2013-2019

OBJETIVO: Describir las características de los informes de posicionamiento terapéutico (IPT) publicados en España en el periodo 2013-2019. Diseño y fuente de datos: Revisión sistemática de todos los IPT publicados en la página web de la Agencia Española de Medicamentos y Productos Sanitarios (AEMPS). Selección de estudios: Se incluyeron todos los IPT realizados desde mayo de 2013, hasta marzo de 2019. Extracción de datos: Las principales variables recogidas fueron los grupos terapéuticos evaluados, el número de IPT, el tiempo de elaboración, la existencia de restricciones a las indicaciones autorizadas y la información sobre la eficiencia. RESULTADOS: En el periodo evaluado se realizaron 214 IPT, con un tiempo medio de elaboración de 8,8 meses, casi tres veces el objetivo de 3 meses planteado inicialmente. El 57% de los IPT establecieron restricciones de uso respecto a las indicaciones de sus fichas técnicas. El 26% de los IPT hicieron referencia a la existencia de datos económicos, aunque ninguno incluyó detalles sobre la eficiencia. Se actualizaron el 10% de los IPT. CONCLUSIONES: Para que los IPT puedan cumplir su objetivo de mejorar la eficiencia del proceso de evaluación y la coherencia en las decisiones sobre precio, reembolso y financiación de medicamentos por parte del SNS es preciso que se cumplan los plazos establecidos para su publicación, se incorpore sistemáticamente información sobre la eficiencia de los fármacos y se actualicen los informes con la nueva información generada

OBJECTIVE: Describe the characteristics of the therapeutic positioning reports (TPRs) published in Spain in the period 2013-2019. Design and data source: Systematic review of all TPRs published in the website of the Spanish Agency of Medicines and Health Products (AEMPS). Selection of studies: All TPRs published since May 2013, until March 2019 Data extraction: The main variables collected were the therapeutic groups assessed, the number of TPRs, the time of elaboration, the existence of restrictions versus the authorized indications and the information on the efficiency of medicines. RESULTS: During the period under review, 214 TPRs were carried out, with an average production time of 8.8 months, almost three times the objective of 3-month initially set. 57% of the TPRs established restrictions of use with respect to the approved indications. 26% of TPRs referred to the existence of economic data, although none included details on the efficiency. 10% of TPRs were updated. CONCLUSIONS: For TPRs to meet their objective of improving the efficiency of the assessment process and the consistency in the decisions on price, reimbursement and financing of medicines by the SNS, the deadlines established for publication must be met, incorporating systematically information on the efficiency of the drugs and including periodic updates with the new information generated

How to assess the value of low-value care.

BACKGROUND: Many of the strategies designed to reduce "low-value care" have been implemented without a consensus on the definition of the term "value". Most "low value care" lists are based on the comparative effectiveness of the interventions. MAIN TEXT: Defining the value of an intervention based on its effectiveness may generate an inefficient use of resources, as a very effective intervention is not necessarily an efficient intervention, and a low effective intervention is not always an inefficient intervention. The cost-effectiveness plane may help to differentiate between high and low value care interventions. Reducing low value care should include three complementary strategies: eliminating ineffective interventions that entail a cost; eliminating interventions whose cost is higher and whose effectiveness is lower than that of other options (quadrant IV); and eliminating interventions whose incremental or decremental cost-effectiveness is unacceptable in quadrants I and III, respectively. Defining low-value care according to the efficiency of the interventions, ideally at the level of subgroups and individuals, will contribute to develop true value-based health care systems. CONCLUSION: Cost-effectiveness rather than effectiveness should be the main criterion to assess the value of health care services and interventions. Payment-for-value strategies should be based on the definition of high and low value provided by the cost-effectiveness plane.

Some reflections on the use of inappropriate comparators in CEA.

Although the choice of the comparator is one of the aspects with a highest effect on the results of cost-effectiveness analyses, it is one of the less debated issues in international methodological guidelines. The inclusion of an inappropriate comparator may introduce biases on the outcomes and the recommendations of an economic analysis. Although the rules for cost-effectiveness analyses of sets of mutually exclusive alternatives have been widely described in the literature, in practice, they are hardly ever applied. In addition, there are many cases where the efficiency of the standard of care has never been assessed; or where the standard of care has demonstrated to be cost-effective with respect to a non-efficient option. In all these cases the comparator may lie outside the efficiency frontier, so the result of the CEA may be biased. Through some hypothetical examples, the paper shows how the complementary use of an independent reference may help to identify potential inappropriate comparators and inefficient use of resources.

El médico frente a la COVID-19: lecciones de una pandemia / The doctor and COVID-19: lessons from a pandemic

Aparte de su enorme impacto sanitario y económico, la pandemia de COVID-19 ha modificado la forma de practicar la medicina y la educación médica. Es probable que dicho efecto acelere la transformación que están experimentando ambas actividades. El presente trabajo, escrito en el momento más álgido de la crisis, plantea algunas reflexiones sobre cuatro temas: 1) la publicación de noticias falsas y sensacionalistas; 2) los riesgos de la toma de decisiones médicas no basadas en evidencias; 3) las implicaciones bioéticas cuando no hay suficientes recursos para todos, y 4) los posibles efectos de la crisis en la enseñanza de la medicina. Esta crisis debería servir a médicos, docentes y estudiantes de medicina para extraer conclusiones y estar mejor preparados para el futuro. En primer lugar, es esencial mantener un pensamiento crítico que proteja contra la «infodemia». Además, no deberían rebajarse, sino mantener íntegros, los estándares científicos y éticos aprendidos en la facultad. Por último, debe recordarse que, en una pandemia tan devastadora como la actual, aparte de la medicina científica, la que se practica con el cerebro, debe ejercerse también esa otra medicina que se practica con el corazón

Apart from its enormous health and economic impact, the COVID-19 pandemic has changed the way of practicing medicine and medical education. It is likely that this effect may accelerate the transformation that both activities are experiencing. The present article, written at the peak of the crisis, sets out some thoughts on four topics: 1) the publication of false and sensationalist news; 2) the risks of taking medical decisions not based on the evidence; 3) the bioethical implications when there are sufficient resources available for everybody and; 4) the possible effects of the crisis on the teaching of medicine. This crisis should enable doctors, teachers and, students of medicine to draw conclusions and be better prepared for the future. Firstly, it is essential to maintain critical thinking that may protect against the ‘infodemic’. Furthermore, the scientific and ethical standards learned in the faculty, should not be forgotten. Lastly, it should be remembered that, in a devastating pandemic like the current one, apart from scientific medicine, which is practised with the brain, the other medicine that is practiced with the heart must also be practiced

Patient-physician discrepancy in the perception of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases: rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis and psoriasis. A qualitative systematic review of the literature.

INTRODUCTION: Recommendations on chronic diseases management emphasise the need to consider patient perspectives and shared decision-making. Discrepancies between patients and physicians' perspectives on treatment objectives, disease activity, preferences and treatment have been described for immune-mediate inflammatory diseases. These differences could result on patient dissatisfaction and negatively affect outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To describe the degree of patient-physician discrepancy in three chronic immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (rheumatoid arthritis [RA], psoriatic arthritis [PsA] and psoriasis [Ps]), identifying the main areas of discrepancy and possible predictor factors. METHODS: Qualitative systematic review of the available literature on patient and physician discrepancies in the management of RA, PsA and Ps. The search was performed in international (Medline/PubMed, Cochrane Library, ISI-WOK) and Spanish electronic databases (MEDES, IBECS), including papers published from April 1, 2008 to April 1, 2018, in English or Spanish, and conducted in European or North American populations. Study quality was assessed by the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine criteria. RESULTS: A total of 21 studies were included (13 RA; 3 PsA; 4 Ps; 1 RA, Ps, and Axial Spondyloarthritis). A significant and heterogeneous degree of discrepancy between patients and physicians was found, regarding disease activity, treatment, clinical expectations, remission concept, and patient-physician relationship. In RA and PsA, studies were mainly focused on the evaluation of disease activity, which is perceived as higher from the patient's than the physician's perspective, with the discrepancy determined by factors such as patient's perception of pain and fatigue. In Ps, studies were focused on treatment satisfaction and patient-physician relationship, showing a lower degree of discrepancy in the satisfaction regarding these aspects. CONCLUSIONS: There is a significant degree of patient-physician discrepancy regarding the management of RA, PA, and Ps, what can have a major impact on shared decision-making. Future research may help to show whether interventions considering discrepancy improve shared decision-making.

[Therapeutic positioning reports: Experience in Spain during the period 2013-2019]. / Informes de posicionamiento terapéutico: experiencia en España en el periodo 2013-2019.

OBJECTIVE: Describe the characteristics of the therapeutic positioning reports (TPRs) published in Spain in the period 2013-2019. DESIGN AND DATA SOURCE: Systematic review of all TPRs published in the website of the Spanish Agency of Medicines and Health Products (AEMPS). SELECTION OF STUDIES: All TPRs published since May 2013, until March 2019 DATA EXTRACTION: The main variables collected were the therapeutic groups assessed, the number of TPRs, the time of elaboration, the existence of restrictions versus the authorized indications and the information on the efficiency of medicines. RESULTS: During the period under review, 214 TPRs were carried out, with an average production time of 8.8 months, almost three times the objective of 3-month initially set. 57% of the TPRs established restrictions of use with respect to the approved indications. 26% of TPRs referred to the existence of economic data, although none included details on the efficiency. 10% of TPRs were updated. CONCLUSIONS: For TPRs to meet their objective of improving the efficiency of the assessment process and the consistency in the decisions on price, reimbursement and financing of medicines by the SNS, the deadlines established for publication must be met, incorporating systematically information on the efficiency of the drugs and including periodic updates with the new information generated.

¿Qué es una intervención sanitaria eficiente en España en 2020? / What is an efficient health intervention in Spain in 2020?

Hace más de 15 años que en Gaceta Sanitaria se publicó el artículo titulado «¿Qué es una tecnología sanitaria eficiente en España?». El creciente interés por fijar el precio de las nuevas tecnologías en función del valor que estas proporcionan a los sistemas de salud y la experiencia acumulada por los países de nuestro entorno hacen oportuno revisar qué es una intervención sanitaria eficiente en España en el año 2020. El análisis de coste-efectividad sigue siendo el método de referencia para maximizar los resultados en salud de la sociedad con los recursos disponibles. La interpretación de sus resultados requiere establecer unos valores de referencia que sirvan de guía sobre lo que constituye un valor razonable para el sistema sanitario. Los umbrales de eficiencia deben ser flexibles y dinámicos, y actualizarse periódicamente. Su aplicación debe estar basada en la gradualidad y la transparencia, considerando, además, otros factores que reflejen las preferencias sociales. Aunque la fijación de los umbrales corresponde a los decisores políticos, en España puede ser razonable utilizar unos valores de referencia como punto de partida que podrían estar comprendidos entre los 25.000 y los 60.000 euros por año de vida ajustado por calidad. No obstante, en la actualidad, más que la determinación de las cifras exactas de dicho umbral, la cuestión clave es si el Sistema Nacional de Salud está preparado y dispuesto a implantar un modelo de pago basado en el valor, que contribuya a lograr la gradualidad en las decisiones de financiación y, sobre todo, a mejorar la previsibilidad, la consistencia y la transparencia del proceso

Fifteen years ago, Gaceta Sanitaria published the article entitled "What is an efficient health technology in Spain?" The growing interest in setting the price of new technologies based on the value they provide to health systems and the experience accumulated by the countries in our environment make it opportune to review what constitutes an efficient health intervention in Spain in 2020. Cost-effectiveness analysis continues to be the reference method to maximize social health outcomes with the available resources. The interpretation of its results requires establishing reference values that serve as a guide on what constitutes a reasonable value for the health care system. Efficiency thresholds must be flexible and dynamic, and they need to be updated periodically. Its application should be based on and transparency, and consider other factors that reflect social preferences. Although setting thresholds is down to political decision-makers, in Spain it could be reasonable to use thresholds of 25,000 and 60,000 Euros per QALY. However, currently, in addition to determining exact figures for the threshold, the key question is whether the Spanish National Health System is able and willing to implement a payment model based on value, towards achieving gradual financing decisions and, above all, to improve the predictability, consistency and transparency of the process

What Matters Most to Patients and Rheumatologists? A Discrete Choice Experiment in Rheumatoid Arthritis.

INTRODUCTION: To determine patient and rheumatologist preferences for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treatment attributes in Spain and to evaluate their attitude towards shared decision-making (SDM). METHODS: Observational, descriptive, exploratory and cross-sectional study based on a discrete choice experiment (DCE). To identify the attributes and their levels, a literature review and two focus groups (patients [P] = 5; rheumatologists [R] = 4) were undertaken. Seven attributes with 2-4 levels were presented in eight scenarios. Attribute utility and relative importance (RI) were assessed using a conditional logit model. Patient preferences for SDM were assessed using an ad hoc questionnaire. RESULTS: Ninety rheumatologists [52.2% women; mean years of experience 18.1 (SD: 9.0); seeing an average of 24.4 RA patients/week (SD: 15.3)] and 137 RA patients [mean age: 47.5 years (SD: 10.7); 84.0% women; mean time since diagnosis of RA: 14.2 years (SD: 11.8) and time in treatment: 13.2 years (SD: 11.2), mean HAQ score 1.2 (SD: 0.7)] participated in the study. In terms of RI, rheumatologists and RA patients viewed: time with optimal QoL: R: 23.41%/P: 35.05%; substantial symptom improvement: R: 13.15%/P: 3.62%; time to onset of treatment action: R: 16.24%/P: 13.56%; severe adverse events: R: 10.89%/P: 11.20%; mild adverse events: R: 4.16%/P: 0.91%; mode of administration: R: 25.23%/P: 25.00%; and added cost: R: 6.93%/P: 10.66%. Nearly 73% of RA patients were involved in treatment decision-making to a greater or lesser extent; however, 27.4% did not participate at all. CONCLUSION: Both for rheumatologists and patients, the top three decision-making drivers are time with optimal quality, treatment mode of administration and time to onset of action, although in different ranking order. Patients were willing to be more involved in the treatment decision-making process.

Economic Evaluation for Pricing and Reimbursement of New Drugs in Spain: Fable or Desideratum?

BACKGROUND: The economic evaluation of healthcare technologies has become in many countries a basic tool for reimbursement, pricing and purchasing decisions. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this article is to examine the institutional, legal, and political factors that have impeded the application of economic evaluation and the criterion of efficiency in the process of pricing and reimbursement of new medicines in Spain. METHODS: Narrative description of the current institutional framework for the use of economic evaluation in pricing and reimbursement in Spain, legal and policy framework in the field of evaluation of new medicines, and stakeholder initiatives and policies related to the use of economic evaluation outside of the pricing and reimbursement process. RESULTS: Spain has an institutional framework created and established over the last years that could have facilitated a formal use of economic evaluation in the process of pricing and reimbursement. Nevertheless, the real use of economic evaluation at the central or regional level is still unknown, although application of the efficiency criterion, linking to cost-effectiveness, has been clearly required by Spanish laws and regulations at the national level. We highlight a certain degree of moral hazard from the central government that is not directly responsible for the budget impact of reimbursement and pricing decisions. There are currently a number of ongoing initiatives in the field of economic evaluation by various agents, but they remain uncoordinated. CONCLUSIONS: Poor governance at the highest level of decision making is the main reason for the lack of interest in economic evaluation. A profound political change, supported by transparency and accountability, is required before the criterion of efficiency can be fully considered in the process of pricing and reimbursement of new medicines in Spain.

[What is an efficient health intervention in Spain in 2020?] / ¿Qué es una intervención sanitaria eficiente en España en 2020?

Fifteen years ago, Gaceta Sanitaria published the article entitled "What is an efficient health technology in Spain?" The growing interest in setting the price of new technologies based on the value they provide to health systems and the experience accumulated by the countries in our environment make it opportune to review what constitutes an efficient health intervention in Spain in 2020. Cost-effectiveness analysis continues to be the reference method to maximize social health outcomes with the available resources. The interpretation of its results requires establishing reference values that serve as a guide on what constitutes a reasonable value for the health care system. Efficiency thresholds must be flexible and dynamic, and they need to be updated periodically. Its application should be based on and transparency, and consider other factors that reflect social preferences. Although setting thresholds is down to political decision-makers, in Spain it could be reasonable to use thresholds of 25,000 and 60,000 Euros per QALY. However, currently, in addition to determining exact figures for the threshold, the key question is whether the Spanish National Health System is able and willing to implement a payment model based on value, towards achieving gradual financing decisions and, above all, to improve the predictability, consistency and transparency of the process.

Patient Decision Aid (PDA) for Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis Reduces Decisional Conflict and Improves Readiness for Treatment Decision Making.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to develop and assess the effectiveness of a patient decision aid (PDA) to support treatment decision making in Spanish patients with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who fail to achieve the therapeutic goal with the current disease-modifying antirheumatic treatment strategy. METHODS: The PDA was developed in accordance with the International Patient Decision Aids Standards recommendations. A steering group led the project. Three literature reviews and two focus groups were performed to develop the PDA prototype. To check its comprehensibility, acceptability, and feasibility, alpha-testing was performed using the Decision Support Acceptability Scale (DSAS). Beta-testing was conducted to assess preliminary evidence of PDA efficacy using the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS) before and after PDA use. Readiness was evaluated using the Preparation for Decision Making Scale (PDMS). RESULTS: The PDA included (1) a brief description of RA, (2) treatment information, and (3) a values clarification section. Alpha-testing revealed that most patients considered that the information was presented in a good or excellent way and it could help clarify their values and facilitate treatment decision making. Most rheumatologists agreed that the PDA was easy to understand, to use, and allowed them to reach a shared decision. Beta-testing showed that PDA significantly reduced overall patients' decisional conflict [33.2 (DE: 21.4) vs 24.6 (23.5); p < 0.001] and prepared the patient for decision making [PDMS: 67.5 (21.0)]. CONCLUSIONS: We developed a PDA for Spanish patients with moderate-to-severe RA that reduces patients' decisional conflict and increases their readiness for decision making. The use of this PDA in routine clinical practice may improve the quality of the decision-making process and the quality of the choices made.

El médico frente a la COVID-19: lecciones de una pandemia / The doctor and COVID-19: lessons from a pandemic

Aparte de su enorme impacto sanitario y económico, la pandemia de COVID-19 ha modificado la forma de practicar la medicina y la educación médica. Es probable que dicho efecto acelere la transformación que están experimentando ambas actividades. El presente trabajo, escrito en el momento más álgido de la crisis, plantea algunas reflexiones sobre cuatro temas: 1) la publicación de noticias falsas y sensacionalistas; 2) los riesgos de la toma de decisiones médicas no basadas en evidencias; 3) las implicaciones bioéticas cuando no hay suficientes recursos para todos, y 4) los posibles efectos de la crisis en la enseñanza de la medicina. Esta crisis debería servir a médicos, docentes y estudiantes de medicina para extraer conclusiones y estar mejor preparados para el futuro. En primer lugar, es esencial mantener un pensamiento crítico que proteja contra la «infodemia». Además, no deberían rebajarse, sino mantener íntegros, los estándares científicos y éticos aprendidos en la facultad. Por último, debe recordarse que, en una pandemia tan devastadora como la actual, aparte de la medicina científica, la que se practica con el cerebro, debe ejercerse también esa otra medicina que se practica con el corazón

Apart from its enormous health and economic impact, the COVID-19 pandemic has changed the way of practicing medicine and medical education. It is likely that this effect may accelerate the transformation that both activities are experiencing. The present article, written at the peak of the crisis, sets out some thoughts on four topics: 1) the publication of false and sensationalist news; 2) the risks of taking medical decisions not based on the evidence; 3) the bioethical implications when there are sufficient resources available for everybody and; 4) the possible effects of the crisis on the teaching of medicine. This crisis should enable doctors, teachers and, students of medicine to draw conclusions and be better prepared for the future. Firstly, it is essential to maintain critical thinking that may protect against the 'infodemic'. Furthermore, the scientific and ethical standards learned in the faculty, should not be forgotten. Lastly, it should be remembered that, in a devastating pandemic like the current one, apart from scientific medicine, which is practised with the brain, the other medicine that is practiced with the heart must also be practiced

Treat-To-Target and Treat-To-Budget in Rheumatoid Arthritis: Measuring the Value of Individual Therapeutic Interventions.

Treat-to-target (T2T) and dose tapering after obtaining the therapeutic objective (called "treat-to-budget"-T2B-in this Commentary) are the two most commonly used therapeutic strategies in rheumatoid arthritis. In theory, both strategies could add value to the healthcare system, although they are focused on different objectives: T2T strategy improves outcomes but increases short-term costs, while the cost savings obtained through T2B are associated with higher relapse rates. The systematic implementation of both strategies must be founded on solid evidence of their effectiveness and efficiency. However, the level of evidence between guidelines and individual studies is inconsistent for both strategies and the number and the quality of cost-effectiveness analyses is scarce. Raising the level of evidence requires a move from generalization to individualization by conducting randomized clinical trials that assess each of the many strategies that fall under the umbrella of the overall T2T and T2B concepts. In addition, such studies should consider the therapeutic goals and impact of the disease from the perspective of individual patients, which is only possible by promoting shared decision-making. FUNDING: Lilly Spain.

Should clinically meaningful outcomes in cancer be based on individual survival rather than median overall survival?

AIM: To assess whether the use of median overall survival to define clinically meaningful outcomes in the area of oncology could yield different decisions compared with those obtained with a more realistic measure such as individual survival. METHODS: Two scenarios that offered equivalent health gains/money spent were presented: 'median overall survival' scenario (new treatment provided small clinical benefits for the average population) and 'individual survival'scenario (new treatment provided substantial clinical benefits for a small percentage of the patients and no benefits for the rest). Responses from both scenarios were compared. RESULTS: Responses between the two scenarios were different for oncologists, healthcare policy makers and patients (p < 0.05). 'Individual survival' scenario obtained higher percentage of positive answers compared with 'median overall survival'. CONCLUSION: Expressing the benefits of new oncologic treatments in terms of 'individual survival' may yield to different healthcare decisions compared with the widely used median overall survival.