BackgroundNew drugs are generally claimed to represent a therapeutic innovation. However, scientific evidence of a substantial clinical advantage is often lacking. This may be the result of using inadequate control groups or surrogate outcomes only in the clinical trials. In view of this, EVITA was developed as a user-friendly transparent tool for the early evaluation of the additional therapeutic value of a new drug.MethodsEVITA does not evaluate a new compound per se but in an approved indication in comparison with existing therapeutic strategies. Placebo as a comparator is accepted only in the absence of an established therapy or if employed in an add-on strategy on top. The evaluation attributes rating points to the drug in question, taking into consideration both therapeutic benefit and risk profile. The compound scores positive points for superiority in efficiency and/or adverse effects as demonstrated in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), whilst negative points are awarded for inferiority and/or an unfavorable risk profile. The evaluation follows an algorithm considering the clinical relevance of the outcomes, the strength of the therapeutic effect and the number of RCTs performed. Categories for therapeutic aim and disease severity, although essential parts of the EVITA assessment, are attributed but do not influence the EVITA score which is presented as a color-coded bar graph. In case the available data were unsuitable for an EVITA calculation, a traffic-type yield sign is assigned instead to criticize such practice. The results are presented online http://www.evita-report.de together with all RCTs considered as well as the reasons for excluding a given RCT from the evaluation. This allows for immediate revision in response to justified criticism and simplifies the inclusion of new data.ResultsAs examples, four compounds which received approval within the last years were evaluated for one of their clinical indications: lenalidomide, pioglitazone, bupropion and zoledronic acid. Only the first achieved an EVITA score above zero indicating therapeutic advantage.ConclusionsThe strength of EVITA appears to lie in its speedy assessment of the potential therapeutic advantage of a new drug for a given indication. At the same time, this approach draws attention to the typical deficits of data used for drug approval. EVITA is not intended to replace classical health technology assessment reports but rather serves as a screening tool in the sense of horizon scanning.

In this article we address the question of why postmenopausal women undergo hormone therapy. Thirty-five women aged 46 to 75 years living in Bremen (Germany) and taking postmenopausal hormones for at least 12 months were interviewed. Following Fritz Schütze, the interviews were analyzed according to a reconstructive analytical procedure. Five different types of users were identified. They differed from each other in terms of their reasons for using hormones, their expectations of this type of therapy, and their personal habits and circumstances, including an integrity-preserving attitude, a performance-oriented attitude, a searching attitude, a faith-in-medicine attitude, and a benefit-generalizing attitude. The interviews show that there is a need for target-oriented counseling, taking into account the individual attitudes toward menopause and postmenopausal hormone therapy.

No abstract

Background: Recent guidelines for the management of hypertension focus on treating patients according to their global cardiovascular risk (CVR), rather than strictly keeping blood pressure, or other risk factors, below set limit values. The objective of this study is to compare the effect of a simple versus a complex educational intervention implementing this new concept among General Practitioners (GPs). Methods/design:A prospective longitudinal cluster-randomised intervention trial with 94 German GPs consecutively enroling 40 patients each with known hypertension. All GPs then received a written manual specifically developed to transfer the global concept of CVR into daily General Practice. After cluster-randomisation, half of the GPs additionally received a clinical outreach visit, with a trained peer discussing with them the concept of global CVR referring to example study patients from the respective GP. Main outcome measure is the improvement of calculated CVR six months after intervention in the subgroup of patients with high CVR (but no history of cardiovascular disease), defined as 10-year-mortality ≥ 5% employing the European SCORE formula. Secondary outcome measures include the intervention's effect on single risk factors, and on prescription rates of drugs targeting CVR. All outcome measures are separately studied in the three subgroups of patients with 1. high CVR (defined as above), 2. low CVR (SCORE < 5%), and 3. a history of cardiovascular disease. The influence of age, sex, social status, and the perceived quality of the respective doctor-patient-relation on the effects will be examined.Discussion: To our knowledge, no other published intervention study has yet evaluated the impact of educating GPs with the goal to treat patients with hypertension according to their global cardiovascular risk. However, recent guidelines on hypertension [4][5][6], and on both primary and secondary cardiovascular prevention [7] emphasise that rather than to focus on single risk factors, intensity of care should focus on the global cardiovascular risk (CVR) of an individual patient. Global cardiovascular risk is an arithmetical compound of age, sex, and the known cardiovascular risk factors, and can be approximated by means of various risk calculators. If pharmacological risk factor treatment promises a relative risk reduction of some 25% [8,9], or possibly up to 80% in combination therapy [10], then a relevant absolute risk reduction is only possible where there is a relevant absolute risk to begin with. According to the concept of global cardiovascular risk, therefore, pharmacological treatment is only recommended for patients with a cardiovascular 10-year-mortality at or above 5%. The essence of this paradigmatic change is that treatment efforts and resources should be concentrated on where the (high) cardiovascular risk is: "treat risk, not risk factors" [11]. For general practitioners (GPs), this concept is of particular interest because it firstly focuses efforts and resources on high-risk patients, s...

BackgroundRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) are important sources of information on the benefits and harms patients may expect from treatment options. The aim of this structured literature review by the German Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care was to explore whether and how the end-of-life (EoL) situation of patients with advanced cancer is considered in RCTs investigating anti-cancer treatments.MethodsOur journal pool comprised 19 medical journals, namely five preselected key general medical journals as well as 14 specialist journals (mainly cancer) identified via a scoping search. We systematically searched these journals in MEDLINE to identify RCTs investigating anti-cancer treatments for the following four cancer types: glioblastoma, lung cancer (stage IIIb-IV), malignant melanoma (stage IV), and pancreatic cancer (search via OVID; November 2012). We selected a representative sample of 100 publications, that is, the 25 most recent publications for each cancer type. EoL was defined as a life expectancy of ≤ two years. We assessed the information provided on (1) the descriptions of the terminal stage of the disease, (2) the therapeutic goal (i.e. the intended therapeutic benefit of the intervention studied), (3) the study endpoints assessed, (4) the authors’ concluding appraisal of the intervention’s effects, and (5) the terminology referring to the patients’ EoL situation.ResultsMedian survival was ≤ one year for each of the four cancer types. Descriptions of the terminal stage of the disease were ambiguous or lacking in 29/100 publications. One or more therapeutic goals were mentioned in 51/100 publications; these goals were patient-relevant in 38 publications (survival alone: 30/38; health-related quality of life (HRQoL) or HRQoL and survival: 6/38; symptom control or symptom control and survival: 2/38). Primary endpoints included survival (50%), surrogates (44%), and safety (3%). Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were assessed in 36/100 RCTs. The implications of treatment-related harms for the patients were discussed in 22/100 appraisals. Terminology referring to the patients’ EoL situation (e.g. “terminal”) was scarce, whereas terms suggesting control of the disease (e.g. “cancer control“) were common.ConclusionsThe EoL situation of patients with advanced cancer should be more carefully considered in clinical trials. Although the investigation and robust reporting of PROs is a prerequisite for informed decision-making in healthcare, they are rarely defined as endpoints and HRQoL is rarely mentioned as a therapeutic goal. Suggestions for improving standards for study design and reporting are presented.