Asian innovation in pharmaceutical and medical device industry - beyond tomorrow.

The Asian region has passed a long and rocky road during the past several decades to establish itself as the second leading regional biotech market globally. China has become the second largest pharmaceutical market while Japan holds a strong second position as the global hub for medical devices development and innovation. Pharmaceutical expenditure continues to outpace real GDP growth in most of these countries. The trend is likely to be continued for a decade ahead, driven by a myriad of factors ranging from aging populations, rapidly growing welfare and increased citizen expectations raising demand for novel medicines and technologies. Satisfaction of these unmet needs in terms of supply is coming from the large multinational companies in wealthier among these societies. Domestic born and largely state-owned manufacturing industries continue to play a crucial role in an array of middle-income countries. Global biotech hub of Singapore is hosting over 1.5 times more headquarters of large pharmaceutical companies than Beijing, Tokyo, Shanghai and Hong Kong combined together. Japanese Takeda, Astellas, Daiichi Sankyo and Otsuka and Chinese Sinopharm, Guangzhou Pharmaceuticals Corporation, SPH and Yunnan Baiyao are now enlisted in leading Top 25 pharmaceutical companies rankings as per their annual net revenues in 2020-2021. Global industry landscape is evolving with ever more Asian companies obtaining the sharp innovative competitiveness leading development of cutting-edge medical technologies. Asian societies demand for pharmaceuticals and medical services continue to be characterized with unmet needs and striving to increase supply capacities. Financial obstacles of affordability of life saving medicines to the ordinary citizens shall be gradually overcome with an array of reimbursement strategies and extended insurance coverage policies. Observing the broad landscape throughout Asian region, we may witness that optimism in terms of domestic real GDP growth and consecutive biotech industry forecasts remains firmly rooted in years to come. Biosimilars are not a focus of the paper.

Cost-effectiveness and resource allocation (CERA) 18 years of evolution: maturity of adulthood and promise beyond tomorrow.

Since its inception in 2003, Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation journal has come a long way over the past 18 years. Possibly much longer than many of its contemporaries in the blossoming science of health economics might have anticipated. Today, entering 2020 it celebrates the Age of Maturity. We believe that in the third decade of XXI century the interdisciplinary science of health economics, will rejuvenate and come back to us younger than ever from its early historical roots almost a century ago. The spreading of economic globalization in several distinctive ways, either led by multinational business corporations or newly emerged Asian leadership, or both, is likely to make challenges for contemporary health systems far more serious. The fourth industrial revolution (cyber physical systems and artificial intelligence technology) and accelerated innovation in the field of E-Health and digital health, will probably change the workflow in medical and health care, and inevitably transform the labour market in the upcoming decades. So, let us be up to the task. Let us provide academic centres, industry-sponsored pharmaceutical and medical device innovation hubs, and governing authorities alike, with a powerful forum for debate on cost-effective resource allocation in the years to come.

A clinical primer on intellectual disability.

Between 1% and 3% of persons in general population are estimated to have some degree of intellectual disability. A diagnosis of intellectual disability is based on clinical history, level of intellectual ability and level of adaptive function. Both, the intellectual and adaptive functioning are measured using individually administered standardized tests. More than 75% of persons who have intellectual disability have mild intellectual disability and an underlying specific etiology is less likely to be identified; whereas, in a small percentage of persons with severe intellectual disability, an underlying specific biologic cause is highly likely to be identified. Genetic abnormalities, inborn errors of metabolism and brain malformations are major categories of causes identified in severe to profound intellectual disability. The initial clinical presentation and recognition depends on the severity and underlying cause of intellectual disability. The etiology, severity, cognitive abilities, and adaptive function, vary among persons with intellectual disability and need consideration in developing a treatment plan. The physician plays an essential role in the evaluation, treatment of associated medical conditions and preventive care, and in facilitating and coordinating consultative services and community based care.

Cerebral palsy in children: a clinical overview.

Cerebral palsy (CP) is a disorder characterized by abnormal tone, posture and movement and clinically classified based on the predominant motor syndrome-spastic hemiplegia, spastic diplegia, spastic quadriplegia, and extrapyramidal or dyskinetic. The incidence of CP is 2-3 per 1,000 live births. Prematurity and low birthweight are important risk factors for CP; however, multiple other factors have been associated with an increased risk for CP, including maternal infections, and multiple gestation. In most cases of CP the initial injury to the brain occurs during early fetal brain development; intracerebral hemorrhage and periventricular leukomalacia are the main pathologic findings found in preterm infants who develop CP. The diagnosis of CP is primarily based on clinical findings. Early diagnosis is possible based on a combination of clinical history, use of standardized neuromotor assessment and findings on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI); however, in most clinical settings CP is more reliably recognized by 2 years of age. MRI scan is indicated to delineate the extent of brain lesions and to identify congenital brain malformations. Genetic tests and tests for inborn errors of metabolism are indicated based on clinical findings to identify specific disorders. Because CP is associated with multiple associated and secondary medical conditions, its management requires a multidisciplinary team approach. Most children with CP grow up to be productive adults.

Comparative financing analysis and political economy of noncommunicable diseases.

The pandemic of chronic non-communicable diseases (NCDs) poses substantial challenges to the health financing sustainability in high-income and low/middle income countries (LMICs). The aim of this review is to identify the bottle neck inefficiencies in NCDs attributable spending and propose sustainable health financing solutions. The World Health Organization (WHO) introduced the "best buy" concept to scale up the core intervention package against NCDs targeted for LMICs. Population- and individual-based NCD best buy interventions are projected at US$170 billion over 2011-2025. Appropriately designed health financing arrangements can be powerful enablers to scale up the NCD best buys. Rapidly developing emerging nations dominate the landscape of LMICs. Their capability and willingness to invest resources for eradicating NCDs could strengthen WHO outreach efforts in Asia, Africa, and Latin America, much beyond current capacities. There has been a declining trend in international donor aid intended to cope with NCDs over the past decade. There is also a serious misalignment of these resources with the actual needs of recipient countries. Globally, the momentum towards the financing of intersectoral actions is growing, and this presents a cost-effective solution. A budget discrepancy of 10:1 in WHO and multilateral agencies remains in donor aid in favour of communicable diseases compared to NCDs. LMICs are likely to remain a bottleneck of NCDs imposed financing sustainability challenge in the long-run. Catastrophic household health expenditure from out of pocket spending on NCDs could plunge almost 150 million people into poverty worldwide. This epidemiological burden coupled with population ageing presents an exceptionally serious sustainability challenge, even among the richest countries which are members of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Strategic and political leadership of WHO and multilateral agencies would likely play essential roles in the struggle that has just begun.