FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2015233462> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2015233462 endingPage "988" @default.
• W2015233462 startingPage "987" @default.
• W2015233462 abstract "We read with interest the article by Martino and colleagues published recently in Value in Health. Their study examines the relationship between the reporting of new and emerging health technologies uploaded onto the EuroScan database (from 2000 to 2009) and the burden of disease in 17 developed countries, most of them in Europe [[1]Martino O.I. Ward D.J. Packer C. et al.Innovation and the burden of disease: retrospective observational study of new and emerging health technologies reported by the EuroScan network from 2000 to 2009.Value Health. 2012; 15: 376-380Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (12) Google Scholar]. The motivation for their study is the ongoing greater use of disease burden measures in research and innovation priority setting and, in particular, horizon scanning or early awareness and alert activities. Thus, the authors chose 1479 individual indications corresponding to 1371 unique technologies (45% of them were drugs and 23% were devices) as the output measure for innovation. Overall, they suggest a weak association between innovation and disease burden in terms of disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs). Nonetheless, the article raised several issues but failed to cite some relevant articles published in the last 5 years in this field [2Stuckler D. King L. Robinson H. McKee M. WHO's budgetary allocations and burden of disease: a comparative analysis.Lancet. 2008; 372: 1563-1569Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (133) Google Scholar, 3Dorsey E.R. Thompson J.P. Carrasco M. et al.Financing of U.S. biomedical research and new drug approvals across therapeutic areas.PLoS One. 2009; 4: e7015Crossref PubMed Scopus (47) Google Scholar, 4Gillum L.A. Gouveia C. Dorsey E.R. et al.NIH disease funding levels and burden of disease.PLoS One. 2011; 6: e16837Crossref PubMed Scopus (144) Google Scholar, 5Luengo-Fernandez R. Leal J. Gray A.M. UK research expenditure on dementia, heart disease, stroke and cancer: are levels of spending related to disease burden?.Eur J Neurol. 2012; 19: 149-154Crossref PubMed Scopus (55) Google Scholar, 6Catalá-López F. García-Altés A. Alvarez-Martín E. et al.Burden of disease and economic evaluation of healthcare interventions: are we investigating what really matters?.BMC Health Serv Res. 2011; 11: 75Crossref PubMed Scopus (27) Google Scholar, 7Catalá-López F. García-Altés A. Alvarez-Martín E. et al.Does the development of new medicinal products in the European Union address global and regional health concerns?.Popul Health Metr. 2010; 8: 34Crossref PubMed Scopus (22) Google Scholar]. The authors argue that “[o]nly Lichtenberg used output measures of innovation and found a positive relationship [with disease burden] among developed countries (…) based primarily on pharmaceuticals launched; [and that] drugs currently on sale and relevant published articles were used as innovation outcomes in additional analyses, but these were limited to the United States and cancer, respectively” [[1]Martino O.I. Ward D.J. Packer C. et al.Innovation and the burden of disease: retrospective observational study of new and emerging health technologies reported by the EuroScan network from 2000 to 2009.Value Health. 2012; 15: 376-380Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (12) Google Scholar]. In this regard, the authors failed to cite a report (published in 2010) with some degree of overlap, in which we further discussed questions about the current extent of the dilemma in pharmaceutical innovation [7Catalá-López F. García-Altés A. Alvarez-Martín E. et al.Does the development of new medicinal products in the European Union address global and regional health concerns?.Popul Health Metr. 2010; 8: 34Crossref PubMed Scopus (22) Google Scholar, 8Catalá-López F. García-Altés A. Alvarez-Martín E. et al.New drug development.Lancet. 2011; 377: 902Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (3) Google Scholar]. In our work [[7]Catalá-López F. García-Altés A. Alvarez-Martín E. et al.Does the development of new medicinal products in the European Union address global and regional health concerns?.Popul Health Metr. 2010; 8: 34Crossref PubMed Scopus (22) Google Scholar], the full cohort of human-use drugs authorized by the European Medicines Agency (1995–2009) was evaluated. We particularly found that there was a positive correlation between DALYs and new drug development. Interestingly, the main disease categories in terms of the number of innovative drugs were cancer, infectious diseases, and blood and endocrine disorders (accounting for 47% of new molecules). Some conditions appeared to be neglected (related to the disease burden generated in the population) as in the case of neuropsychiatric disorders, cardiovascular diseases, respiratory diseases, and so on. Conversely, in the study by Martino and colleagues, the authors found that the main disease categories in terms of the number of innovative technologies were cancer, cardiovascular diseases, and neuropsychiatric disorders. Comparing our correlation coefficients with those obtained by Martino and colleagues, the magnitude of the association between DALYs and innovation was weaker in our study: correlation coefficients for developed high-income countries of 0.61 (P = 0.006) versus 0.72 (P < 0.001). There are, however, several important differences between studies. We studied drugs (new molecules and marketing authorizations), whereas Martino and colleagues studied technologies including devices and diagnostics as well. Our analyses focused only on the main indications matched with the categories of the disease classification system defined in the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study, whereas Martino and colleagues focused on all therapeutic indications for a technology (e.g., each of the multiple different indications for a monoclonal antibody were considered as equally significant), which may not always be representative of innovation. The authors correctly observe, as we have previously documented in cost-effectiveness research [[6]Catalá-López F. García-Altés A. Alvarez-Martín E. et al.Burden of disease and economic evaluation of healthcare interventions: are we investigating what really matters?.BMC Health Serv Res. 2011; 11: 75Crossref PubMed Scopus (27) Google Scholar], that disaggregating broader categories into specific diseases further weakened the association. We believe that the most important issue of Martino and colleagues' study, however, is that there is some reason to believe that more misclassification has occurred, particularly among “other” subcategories (e.g., “other cardiovascular diseases” and “other malignant neoplasms”) than in broader categories. We recognize that some arbitrary nature is involved in classifying technologies into specific disease conditions, and researchers may have classified them in a different way. They showed that nearly 40% (507 of 1371) of the specific disease indications accounting for the highest numbers of technologies were paradogically “unspecific” ones. As they mentioned, “other cardiovascular diseases” and “other malignant neoplasms” had the higher number of innovations (150 and 85, respectively), suggesting that “innovation is disproportionately strong in cancer and nonischemic heart disease.” In the GBD 1990 study [[9]Murray C.J.L. Lopez A. The Global Burden of Disease: A Comprehensive Assessment of Mortality and Disability from Diseases, Injuries and Risk Factors in 1990 and Projected to 2020. Harvard University Press, Boston1996Google Scholar], one of the most significant barriers to accurately determine the cause of disease burden was the widespread use of nonspecific cause of death codes, such as those for ill-defined cardiovascular, cancers, and injury codes. Recent articles [10Ahern R.M. Lozano R. Naghavi M. et al.Improving the public health utility of global cardiovascular mortality data: the rise of ischemic heart disease.Popul Health Metr. 2011; 9: 8Crossref PubMed Scopus (75) Google Scholar, 11Naghavi M. Makela S. Foreman K. et al.Algorithms for enhancing public health utility of national causes-of-death data.Popul Health Metr. 2010; 8: 9Crossref PubMed Scopus (292) Google Scholar] stress that garbage codes negatively impact the public health utility of cause-of-death data. Correction algorithms were applied in the GBD study to resolve problems of miscoding for cardiovascular diseases (mainly involving redistribution of deaths coded to heart failure, ventricular dysrhythmias, or ill-defined heart disease) or cancer (involving redistribution of deaths coded to secondary sites or ill-defined primary sites). Particularly, heart failure was not an underlying cause of death according to the GBD definition but rather an intermediate cause of death with a diverse range of possible underlying causes of death. Instead heart failure was classified under coronary heart disease. Similarly, cancer deaths coded for malignant neoplasms of other and unspecified sites including those whose point of origin cannot be determined and secondary and unspecified cancers were redistributed across the malignant neoplasm categories within each age-sex group [12Mathers C.D. Shibuya K. Boschi-Pinto C. et al.Global and regional estimates of cancer mortality and incidence by site, I: application of regional cancer survival model to estimate cancer mortality distribution by site.BMC Cancer. 2002; 2: 36Crossref PubMed Scopus (85) Google Scholar, 13Mathers C.D. Lopez A.D. Murray C.J.L. The burden of disease and mortality by condition: data, methods and results for 2001.in: Lopez A.D. Mathers C.D. Ezzati M. Global Burden of Disease and Risk Factors. Oxford University Press, New York2006Google Scholar, 14World Health OrganizationThe Global Burden of Disease: 2004 Update. World Health Organization, Geneva2008Google Scholar]. Therefore, miscoding and misclassification may have had a clear impact on their study findings at the level of specific diseases, and we believe that results should be viewed carefully. To demonstrate that in part, we present an alternative version of their Figure 2 excluding “other (nonspecific) conditions” (with a selection of highest ranking specific causes for reported technologies from Table 2 in the article), illustrating that there was no evidence in the data of a true correlation between DALYs and innovation for particular disease conditions (R2 linear = 0.06; correlation coefficient r = 0.24; P = 0.17) (Fig. 1). Finally, we strongly disagree with the authors' most surprising conclusion that “[t]he results do not support previous reports of a positive relationship between burden of disease and innovation, but accord with evidence of notable discrepancies among key groups.” Perhaps, Martino and colleagues may wish to reconsider their results and conclusions in light of all the above. Source of financial support: The authors have no other financial relationships to disclose. Innovation and the Burden of Disease: Retrospective Observational Study of New and Emerging Health Technologies Reported by the EuroScan Network from 2000 to 2009Value in HealthVol. 15Issue 2PreviewMedical innovation in developed countries has been linked to burden of disease, with more innovation in areas representing greater investment return. This study used horizon scanning or early awareness and alert activity as a novel measure of innovation to determine whether new and emerging health technologies reported by international horizon scanning agencies reflected diseases constituting the greatest burden. Full-Text PDF Open ArchiveInnovation and the Burden of Disease—Reply to Letter to the Editor by Catalá-López et alValue in HealthVol. 15Issue 6PreviewWe thank Catalá-López and colleagues [1] for their response to our article recently published in Value in Health and for drawing our attention to their own recent work on the burden of disease and drugs authorized by the European Medicines Agency between 1995 and 2009 [2,3], published outside the time frame of our main literature search. In addition, they cite other articles focused on research funding and expenditure in relation to disease burden [4–7]; however, this was not the focus of our study. Full-Text PDF Open Archive" @default.
• W2015233462 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2015233462 creator A5050215170 @default.
• W2015233462 creator A5083244502 @default.
• W2015233462 creator A5090613276 @default.
• W2015233462 date "2012-09-01" @default.
• W2015233462 modified "2023-10-01" @default.
• W2015233462 title "Evaluating New Health Technologies and Disease Burden in Developed Countries" @default.
• W2015233462 cites W1583327662 @default.
• W2015233462 cites W1758814283 @default.
• W2015233462 cites W1844247008 @default.
• W2015233462 cites W1971816555 @default.
• W2015233462 cites W1974362865 @default.
• W2015233462 cites W1986799651 @default.
• W2015233462 cites W2005743411 @default.
• W2015233462 cites W2029149928 @default.
• W2015233462 cites W2064926813 @default.
• W2015233462 cites W2076982028 @default.
• W2015233462 cites W2099899053 @default.
• W2015233462 cites W2117987173 @default.
• W2015233462 cites W2129751281 @default.
• W2015233462 cites W2144687820 @default.
• W2015233462 cites W3137127818 @default.
• W2015233462 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2012.04.009" @default.
• W2015233462 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22999152" @default.
• W2015233462 hasPublicationYear "2012" @default.
• W2015233462 type Work @default.
• W2015233462 sameAs 2015233462 @default.
• W2015233462 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2015233462 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2015233462 hasAuthorship W2015233462A5050215170 @default.
• W2015233462 hasAuthorship W2015233462A5083244502 @default.
• W2015233462 hasAuthorship W2015233462A5090613276 @default.
• W2015233462 hasBestOaLocation W20152334621 @default.
• W2015233462 hasConcept C112930515 @default.
• W2015233462 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W2015233462 hasConcept C144133560 @default.
• W2015233462 hasConcept C2779134260 @default.
• W2015233462 hasConcept C2780664029 @default.
• W2015233462 hasConcept C3020448403 @default.
• W2015233462 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2015233462 hasConcept C99454951 @default.
• W2015233462 hasConceptScore W2015233462C112930515 @default.
• W2015233462 hasConceptScore W2015233462C126322002 @default.
• W2015233462 hasConceptScore W2015233462C144133560 @default.
• W2015233462 hasConceptScore W2015233462C2779134260 @default.
• W2015233462 hasConceptScore W2015233462C2780664029 @default.
• W2015233462 hasConceptScore W2015233462C3020448403 @default.
• W2015233462 hasConceptScore W2015233462C71924100 @default.
• W2015233462 hasConceptScore W2015233462C99454951 @default.
• W2015233462 hasIssue "6" @default.
• W2015233462 hasLocation W20152334621 @default.
• W2015233462 hasLocation W20152334622 @default.
• W2015233462 hasOpenAccess W2015233462 @default.
• W2015233462 hasPrimaryLocation W20152334621 @default.
• W2015233462 hasRelatedWork W2009120897 @default.
• W2015233462 hasRelatedWork W2071508989 @default.
• W2015233462 hasRelatedWork W2085601487 @default.
• W2015233462 hasRelatedWork W2111979425 @default.
• W2015233462 hasRelatedWork W2168320128 @default.
• W2015233462 hasRelatedWork W2279587347 @default.
• W2015233462 hasRelatedWork W2391461139 @default.
• W2015233462 hasRelatedWork W2504202048 @default.
• W2015233462 hasRelatedWork W2551703908 @default.
• W2015233462 hasRelatedWork W4210655555 @default.
• W2015233462 hasVolume "15" @default.
• W2015233462 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2015233462 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2015233462 magId "2015233462" @default.
• W2015233462 workType "article" @default.