From Medicineworld.org: More U.S. Lives Could Be Saved By Ensuring Access To Existing Medical Treatments
Cancer blog: I manage the cancer blog with lots of help and support form other bloggers. Through this cancer blog my friends and I try to bring stories of hope for patients with cancer. The cancer blog often republishes important blog posts from other cancer related blogs at Medicineworld.org. If you are searching for a blog that covers wide variety of cancer topics, this may be the one for you.
Breast cancer blog: Breast cancer blog is run by Emily and other bloggers and they bring you the latest stories, news and events that are related to breast cancer. Increasing awareness about breast cancer among women and in the general population is the main goal of this breast cancer blog.
Lung cancer blog: Lung cancer blog is managed by Scott with the help of other bloggers. Through this blog Scott and his friends constantly remind the readers about the dangers of smoking. It's a never-ending struggle against this miserable disease with which a social stigma of smoking is associated.
Colon cancer blog: Colon cancer blog is run by Sue and other bloggers. Sue brings a personal touch to the colon cancer blog since her mother died of colon cancer few years ago. She writes about stories, research news and advances in treatment related to colon cancer.
Prostate cancer blog: Prostate cancer is the most common cancer among American men. American Cancer Society estimates that over 230,000 new cases of prostate cancer occur in the United state every year. This important blog about prostate cancer is run by Mark and other bloggers. This blog brings news, stories, and other personal observations related to prostate cancer.
Medicineworld.org publishes a diabetes watch blog and this blog is run by JoAnn other bloggers. This diabetes watch blog brings you the latest in the field of diabetes. This includes personal stories, advances in diagnosis and treatment, and other observations about diabetes. Improving awareness about diabetes is an important mission of this group.
More U.S. Lives Could Be Saved By Ensuring Access To Existing Medical Treatments
"For every dollar Congress gives the National Institutes of Health to develop blockbuster therapys, it spends only one penny to ensure that Americans actually receive them," said Steven H. Woolf, M.D., professor and director of research in VCU's Department of Family Medicine and a member of the National Academy of Sciences' Institute of Medicine. "This reflects, in part, a misperception that the improved drugs, procedures and the like will improve health outcomes, and that does happen. But the health improvement would be far greater if we worried less about making incremental improvements on existing therapys and more on the system barriers that impede Americans from receiving those therapys correctly." The study was coauthored by Robert E. Johnson, Ph.D., an associate professor in VCU's Department of Biostatistics.
Woolf and Johnson, whose study appears in the Dec. 6 issue of the Annals of Family Medicine, said a mathematical construct proves the point. They used two case studies -- one involving statins and the other antiplatelet drugs -- to show that the billions of dollars spent on new generation drugs saved fewer lives and prevented fewer strokes than if the existing drugs had been taken by all patients who could benefit. They cited reports that Americans receive only half of recommended health care services and that disparities in care are worse for minorities and disenfranchised patients.
The study poses a contrast between efficacy, or how well a therapy works, and what they call the "fidelity of health care." Independent of the efficacy, fidelity is the extent to which the health care system provides patients the precise interventions they need, delivered properly, precisely when they need them.
Woolf illustrated the concept with an example of a theoretical disease that claims 100,000 lives a year. If a drug is available that reduces the mortality rate from that disease by 20 percent, it has the potential to save 20,000 lives each year. But if only 60 percent of eligible patients receive the drug, only 12,000 deaths will be averted. Closing the gap in care - making it available to 100 percent of eligible patients - would save 8,000 additional lives. To save 8,000 additional lives by making a better drug and without closing the gap in care - delivering the better drug to only 60 percent of eligible patients - the drug's lowering of mortality would have to be increased from 20 percent to 33 percent. Woolf calls this the "break-even point" and notes that it is an unrealistic goal for a number of therapys. The study shows that the billions invested in statins and clot-busting drugs failed to reach the break-even point, thus saving fewer lives than if gaps in care had been rectified.
For example, getting aspirin to all eligible patients would have prevented more strokes than were prevented by developing more potent and more expensive antiplatelet drugs, Woolf said. In another example, Woolf and Johnson estimate that for every heart attack death prevented by the development of the new statin, Crestor, seven deaths would have been prevented by sticking with older, less potent statins but adopting simple reminder systems such as post-it notes on the front of charts that would alert clinicians when patients need cholesterol-lowering treatment.
"Society's huge investment in technological innovations that only modestly improve efficacy, by consuming resources needed for improved delivery of care, may cost more lives than it saves," they wrote. "The misalignment of priorities is driven partly by the commercial interests of industry and by the public's appetite for technological breakthroughs, but health outcomes ultimately suffer." The authors discuss the relevance of this concept at a time when the nation is struggling with the escalating costs of health care and unsatisfactory performance on quality.
"Health, economic and moral arguments make the case for spending less on technological advances and more on improving systems for delivering care," he said.
Source: Virginia Commonwealth University
Did you know?
More lives could be saved in the United States by spending less money on making medical therapys better and more on getting existing therapys to the patients who need them, as per a studypublished by a Virginia Commonwealth University family medicine and public health physician.
Medicineworld.org: More U.S. Lives Could Be Saved By Ensuring Access To Existing Medical Treatments
The contents of this web page are protected. Legal action may follow for reproduction of materials without permission.