International survey of acute stroke imaging used to make revascularization treatment decisions.

BACKGROUND: To assess the differences across continental regions in terms of stroke imaging obtained for making acute revascularization therapy decisions, and to identify obstacles to participating in randomized trials involving multimodal imaging. METHODS: STroke Imaging Repository (STIR) and Virtual International Stroke Trials Archive (VISTA)-Imaging circulated an online survey through its website, through the websites of national professional societies from multiple countries as well as through email distribution lists from STIR and the above mentioned societies. RESULTS: We received responses from 223 centers (2 from Africa, 38 from Asia, 10 from Australia, 101 from Europe, 4 from Middle East, 55 from North America, 13 from South America). In combination, the sites surveyed administered acute revascularization therapy to a total of 25,326 acute stroke patients in 2012. Seventy-three percent of these patients received intravenous (i.v.) tissue plasminogen activator (tPA), and 27%, endovascular therapy. Vascular imaging was routinely obtained in 79% (152/193) of sites for endovascular therapy decisions, and also as part of standard IV tPA treatment decisions at 46% (92/198) of sites. Modality, availability and use of acute vascular and perfusion imaging before revascularization varied substantially between geographical areas. The main obstacles to participate in randomized trials involving multimodal imaging included: mainly insufficient research support and staff (50%, 79/158) and infrequent use of multimodal imaging (27%, 43/158) . CONCLUSION: There were significant variations among sites and geographical areas in terms of stroke imaging work-up used tomake decisions both for intravenous and endovascular revascularization. Clinical trials using advanced imaging as a selection tool for acute revascularization therapy should address the need for additional resources and technical support, and take into consideration the lack of routine use of such techniques in trial planning.

The forced adoption of a fast-track appraisal process for a breast cancer treatment in UK

Trastuzumab (Herceptin ®, Roche) is approved in UK for the treatment of the metastatic breast cancer since 2001. As of 2005, concomitantly with the publication of 3 studies that showed it produces a 50% reduction of the recurrence rates of breast cancer, trastuzumab started to be prescribed in the earlt adjuvant treatrnent of this disease. Und June 2006, trastuzumab did not have both: 1) regulatory approval and 2) NICE [National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence] recommendation for the use in early stages of breast cancer. During the period until June 2006, the trastuzumab use in those patients was not reimbursed and because the cost of trastuzumab is equal with the yearly UK average income, most of patients could not self fund their treatrnent. Before the publication of the final NICE guidance, the new data of trastuzumab in early breast cancer raised enormous patient and professional interest and expectations. A great volume of public and professional pressure was generated to transcend a system by which Primary Care Trusts can reimburse a treatment only after a formal guidance was issued. This paper draw on a case study depicting and analyzing the process by which regulatory approval and NICE recommendations were achieved in a record time and how trastuzumab became a standard treatment on early adjuvant breast cancer. According to the data we gathered in this work we were witnessing one of the fastest processes of adoption of a health care technology since the creation of NICE, in 1999. This study addresses the following research question: How and why does the adoption pattern of trastuzumab differ from the rational decision-making model of the reimbursement process in UK? [Author, p. 4]