[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: This study examines the effect of changes in the vintage distribution of cardiovascular system drugs on hospitalization and mortality due to cardiovascular disease using longitudinal country-level data. The vintage of a drug is the first year in which it was marketed anywhere in the world. We use annual data on the utilization of over 1100 cardiovascular drugs (active ingredients) in 20 OECD countries during the period 1995–2003.
Countries with larger increases in the share of cardiovascular drug doses that contained post-1995 ingredients had smaller increases in the cardiovascular disease hospital discharge rate, controlling for the quantity of cardiovascular medications consumed per person, the use of other medical innovations (computed tomography scanners and magnetic resonance imaging units), potential risk factors (average consumption of calories, tobacco, and alcohol), and demographic variables (population size and age structure, income, and educational attainment). The estimates also indicate that the use of newer cardiovascular drugs has reduced the average length of stay and the age-adjusted cardiovascular mortality rate, but not the number of potential years of life lost due to cardiovascular disease before age 70 per 100 000 population.
The estimates indicate that if drug vintage had not increased during 1995–2004, hospitalization and mortality would have been higher in 2004. We estimate that per capita expenditure on cardiovascular hospital stays would have been 70% ($89) higher in 2004 had drug vintage not increased during 1995–2004. Per capita expenditure on cardiovascular drugs would have been lower in 2004 had drug vintage not increased during 1995–2004. However, our estimate of the increase in expenditure on cardiovascular hospital stays is about 3.7 times as large as our estimate of the reduction in per capita expenditure for cardiovascular drugs that would have occurred ($24). Copyright
Health Economics 05/2009; 18(5):519-34. DOI:10.1002/hec.1382 · 2.23 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: After more than 20 years, the conflict of interest (COI) movement has failed to substantiate its central claim that interactions between physicians, researchers and the medical products industry cause physicians to make clinical decisions that are adverse to the best interests of their patients. The COI movement's instigators have produced no solid evidence of harm commensurate with their extravagant allegations. At the same time, they have diverted resources away from more worthwhile pursuits, such as basic and applied medical research, clinical care and medical education towards onerous compliance exercises and obtrusive laws. Perhaps worst of all, they have made it respectable to ignore the epistemological foundations of medical science, diverting attention away from the scientific merit of the information presented and focusing it instead on the identity and motives of those who present the information.
International Journal of Clinical Practice 06/2014; 68(6). DOI:10.1111/ijcp.12438 · 2.57 Impact Factor
Note: This list is based on the publications in our database and might not be exhaustive.
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.