How Were Conflicts of Interest Handled?

Conflicts of interest were potentially great but they were minimized by the great conviction from both Doctors and Health Ministry that something had to be done to improve data on perinatal health. To decrease the number of hospitals where deliveries took place, to concentrate doctors, nurses and equipment, to define staff and to acquire equipment and to train nurses and paediatricians was the way. One the point of view of cost-effectiveness, centralization of expensive technologies, and development of expertise concentrating cases in a same centre - Surgery, VLBW, etc- and lowering mortality rates and get better outcomes were clear health gains. In 1989 after the political decision of closing small maternities the committee return to villages and cities to explain to political local power and people, the decision, which kind of care they will have in the future, why and expected gains. Level I hospitals and Health Centers stop to have deliveries; Health Centers were given a great responsibility: the follow up of the most part of the normal pregnancies by GP. There was no economic pressure because the National Health Service is free, there are no economic incentives for obstetrical or neonatal care, hospitals are financed through ICD, hospital level is defined according to both delivery and newborn care. In 1989 the rule was “No results can be obtained without the interested and responsible participation of all – institutions and people”. At that time the emphasis was on training. There are geographic influences on regionalization for example for islands and inner and far geographic areas. Also we would like to emphasize the influence of demographics on regionalization. As birth rate continues to decrease the hospitals left open 20 years ago with more than 1500 deliveries have to be closed now because the number of deliveries decreased. It was much more difficult and unacceptable to close some few maternities now than 20 years ago. All the difference was that at that time reasons were explained and now it was a Minister order. Other fearful events are the opening of private hospitals, the lowering gross national income, the economic difficulties and financial problems.

Economic Evaluation of Ticagrelor for Secondary Prevention Following Acute Coronary Syndromes

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: To estimate the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of ticagrelor in the treatment of patients with acute coronary syndromes (unstable angina or myocardial infarction with or without ST-segment elevation), including patients treated medically and those undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass grafting. METHODS: A short-term decision tree and a long-term Markov model were used to simulate the evolution of patients' life-cycles. Clinical effectiveness data were collected from the PLATO trial and resource use data were obtained from the Hospital de Santa Marta database, disease-related group legislation and the literature. RESULTS: Ticagrelor provides increases of 0.1276 life years and 0.1106 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) per patient. From a societal perspective these clinical gains entail an increase in expenditure of €610. Thus the incremental cost per life year saved is €4780 and the incremental cost per QALY is €5517. CONCLUSIONS: The simulation results show that ticagrelor reduces events compared to clopidogrel. The costs of ticagrelor are partially offset by lower costs arising from events prevented. The use of ticagrelor in clinical practice is therefore cost-effective compared to generic clopidogrel.