No abstract

No abstract

Extending to the south from central Europe into the Mediterranean Sea, the region of the Balkans includes the countries of Albania,

А series of European Union (EU) political decisions have made rare diseases one of the cornerstones of the common European health policy. Adopted in 2009, Council Recommendation on an action in the field of rare diseases aimed to serve as a policy-making guideline. However, the implementation report, which followed it, neither performed detailed cross-country comparison, nor assessed the impact of the policies. Areas covered: A 10-indicator set was elaborated to structure the review and to describe rare disease activities in 14 Eastern European countries. Expert commentary: Taking into account all indicators, EU member states outperform candidate and potential candidate countries in terms of rare disease policy planning and implementation. Hungary is the top performer, followed by Bulgaria and Czech Republic. Non-EU countries form the bottom tier, with Serbia being the best ranked among them. While EU adhesion is a major facilitator for planning and adopting rare disease policies, local stakeholders are the triggering factor for their successful implementation. European reference networks are likely to be the future of rare disease activities in the EU. They need to synchronize and closely collaborate with all important EU projects in the field of rare diseases if they are to achieve their objectives.

BackgroundStrong growth of interdisciplinary sciences might find exceptional example in academic health economics. We decided to observe the quantitative output in this science since the beginning of the twenty-first century.MethodsElectronic search of the published literature was conducted in four different databases: one medical database—MEDLINE/PubMed, two general databases—Scopus/Elsevier and Web of Science (WoS), and one specialized health economic database—NHS Economic Evaluation Database (EED). The applied combination of key words was carefully chosen to cover the most commonly used terms in titles of publications dealing with conceptual areas of health economics. All bibliographic units were taken into account.ResultsWithin the time horizon from January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2016, without language or limitations on bibliographic unit types, we identified an output ranging approximately from 60,345 to 88,246 records with applied search strategy in MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus/Elsevier, and WoS. In NHS EED, we detected 14,761 records of economic evaluations of health interventions during the period in which database was maintained and regularly updated. With slightly more than one-third of the identified records, USA clearly dominates in this field. United Kingdom takes a strong second place with about 12% of identified records. Consistently, USA and UK universities are the most frequent among the top 15 affiliations/organizations of the authors of the identified records. Authors from Harvard University contributed to the largest number of the identified records.ConclusionThere is a clear evidence of both the upward stream of blossoming in health economics publications and its acceleration. Based on this bibliographic data set, it is difficult to distinguish the actual impact growth of this output provided dominantly by academia with modest contribution by pharmaceutical/medicinal device industry and diverse national government-based agencies. Further insight into the citation track record of these individual publications could provide helpful upgrade and a perspective on ongoing development.