Building a Healthcare Alliance for Resourceful Medicine Offensive Against Neoplasms in Hematology Added Value Framework for Hematologic Malignancies: A Comparative Analysis of Existing Tools.

OBJECTIVES: The Innovative Medicines Initiative-funded, multistakeholders project Healthcare Alliance for Resourceful Medicine Offensive Against Neoplasms in Hematology (HARMONY) created a task force involving patient organizations, medical associations, pharmaceutical companies, and health technology assessment/regulator agencies' representatives to evaluate the suitability of previously established value frameworks (VFs) for assessing the clinical and societal impact of new interventions for hematologic malignancies (HMs). METHODS: Since the HARMONY stakeholders identified the inclusion of patients' points of view on evaluating VFs as a priority, surveys were conducted with the patient organizations active in HMs and part of the HARMONY network, together with key opinion leaders, pharmaceutical companies, and regulators, to establish which outcomes were important for each HM. Next, to evaluate VFs against the sources of information taken into account (randomized clinical trials, registries, real-world data), structured questionnaires were created and filled by HARMONY health professionals to specify preferred data sources per malignancy. Finally, a framework evaluation module was built to analyze existing clinical VFs (American Society of Clinical Oncology, European Society of Medical Oncology, Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale, Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen, Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, National Comprehensive Cancer Network Evidence Blocks, and patient-perspective VF). RESULTS: The comparative analysis describes challenges and opportunities for the use of each framework in the context of HMs and drafts possible lines of action for creating or integrating a more specific, patient-focused clinical VF for HMs. CONCLUSIONS: None of the frameworks meets the HARMONY goals for a tool that applies to HMs and assesses in a transparent, reproducible, and systematic way the therapeutic value of innovative health technologies versus available alternatives, taking a patient-centered approach and using real-world evidence.

Prevalence, risk factors, and interventions for obesity in Saudi Arabia: A systematic review.

Saudi Arabia (SA) has a reported obesity prevalence greater than the global average. Here, we systematically review firstly the prevalence and associated factors (59 studies) and secondly the pharmacological, lifestyle, and surgical interventions for obesity (body mass index, >30 kg/m2 ) in SA (29 studies) between December 2020 and March 2021 in PubMed, Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, and Cochrane. Peer-reviewed articles in Arabic and English on human adults (aged >18 years) were searched. Among the eight largest studies with sample sizes over 10,000 people, the maximum-reported obesity prevalence was 35.6%, with notable variations in gender and geographic region. Diet, specifically the move towards Western diet and heavy consumption of sugary beverages, and high levels of inactivity are major contributing factors to obesity. The reported obesity-risk polymorphisms are not specific. Bariatric surgery is underrepresented, and in general, there is a lack of nationally coordinated studies on weight loss interventions. In particular, the systematic review did not find a body of research on psychological interventions. There is no trial data for the use of GLP-1 analogs in SA, despite their widespread use. These findings can help policymakers, and practitioners prioritize future research efforts to reduce obesity prevalence in SA.

CardioScape mapping the cardiovascular funding landscape in Europe.

Aims: The burden of cardiovascular disease is increasing worldwide, which has to be reflected by cardiovascular (CV) research in Europe. CardioScape, a FP7 funded project initiated by the European Society of Cardiology (ESC), identified where CV research is performed, how it is funded and by whom. It could be transformed into an on-line and up-to-date resource of great relevance for researchers, funding bodies and policymakers and could be a role model for mapping CV research funding in Europe and beyond. Methods and results: Relevant funding bodies in 28 European Union (EU) countries were identified by a multistep process involving experts in each country. Projects above a funding threshold of 100 k€ during the period 2010-2012 were included using a standard questionnaire. Results were classified by experts and an adaptive text analysis software to a CV-research taxonomy, integrating existing schemes from ESC journals and congresses. An on-line query portal was set up to allow different users to interrogate the database according to their specific viewpoints. Conclusion: CV-research funding varies strongly between different nations with the EU providing 37% of total available project funding and clear geographical gradients exist. Data allow in depth comparison of funding for different research areas and led to a number of recommendations by the consortium. CardioScape can support CV research by aiding researchers, funding agencies and policy makers in their strategic decisions thus improving research quality if CardioScape strategy and technology becomes the basis of a continuously updated and expanded European wide publicly accessible database.