Empowering quality data - the Gordian knot of bringing real innovation into healthcare system.

OBJECTIVES: The introduction of Personalised Medicine (PM) into healthcare systems could benefit from a clearer understanding of the distinct national and regional frameworks around the world. Recent engagement by international regulators on maximising the use of real-world evidence (RWE) has highlighted the scope for improving the exploitation of the treasure-trove of health data that is currently largely neglected in many countries. The European Alliance for Personalised Medicine (EAPM) led an international study aimed at identifying the current status of conditions. METHODS: A literature review examined how far such frameworks exist, with a view to identifying conducive factors - and crucial gaps. This extensive review of key factors across 22 countries and 5 regions revealed a wide variety of attitudes, approaches, provisions and conditions, and permitted the construction of a comprehensive overview of the current status of PM. Based on seven key pillars identified from the literature review and expert panels, the data was quantified, and on the basis of further analysis, an index was developed to allow comparison country by country and region by region. RESULTS: The results show that United States of America is leading according to overall outcome whereas Kenya scored the least in the overall outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Still, common approaches exist that could help accelerate take-up of opportunities even in the less prosperous parts of the world.

One-year clinical outcomes of different coronary drug eluting stents-Data from a prospective registry.

We compared one-year clinical outcomes of different drug eluting stents (DES) used in a prospective observation registry maintained in two hospitals over three years. The primary endpoint was combination of all-cause mortality, stent thrombosis and revascularization. There was no significant difference among different DES. We grouped DES into well-evaluated Imported DES (Imported group), which used to be expensive prior to price control and economical Indian DES (Indigenous group) that lack supportive clinical trials. One-year follow-up data was available in 99% of Indigenous group (n=1856) and 98.5% of Imported group (n=1539). After propensity score matching, there were 1310 matched pairs. There was no significant difference between two groups in the primary end-point or each of the components.