L'évolution rapide des nouvelles technologies de la santé, pour lesquelles on dispose de preuves limitées, mais prometteuses, soulève un défi de taille, celui de dispenser des soins qui répondent aux besoins de santé de la population et optimisent l'issue des patients, qui démontrent une utilisation efficace des ressources en santé et qui respectent les principes fondamentaux d'équité, d'accès et de choix. Dans le présent article, nous proposons « l'accessibilité par la production de preuves » comme mécanisme possible pour relever ce défi et en exposons l'application à la « méthode Zamboni » pour le traitement de la sclérose en plaques.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
StanbrookMBHebertPC. Access to treatment for multiple sclerosis must be based on science, not hope. Consulté le 22 mars 2011, à l'adresse www.cmaj.ca/cgi/rapidpdf/cmaj.100835v1.
2.
MalagoniAMGaleottiRMenegattiE et coll. Is chronic fatigue the symptom of venous insufficiency associated with multiple sclerosis? A longitudinal pilot study. Int Angiol.2010; 29: 176–182.
3.
ZamboniPGaleottiRMenegattiE et coll. A prospective open-label study of endovascular treatment of chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency. J Vasc Surg.2009; 50: 1348–1358.
4.
ZamboniPMenegattiEWeinstock-GuttmanB et coll. CSF dynamics and brain volume in multiple sclerosis are associated with extracranial venous flow anomalies: A pilot study. Int Angiol.2010; 29: 140–18.
5.
ZivadinovRSchirdaCDwyerMG et coll. Chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency and iron deposition on susceptibilityweighted imaging in patients with multiple sclerosis: A pilot case-control study. Int Angiol.2010; 29: 158–175.
6.
Débats de la Chambre des communes: Compte rendu officiel (Hansard): 3e session, 40e Parlement. 2010;145(062).
7.
BriggsARitchieKFenwickE et coll. Access with evidence development in the UK: Past experience, current initiatives and future potential. Pharmacoeconomics. 2010; 28: 163–170.
8.
ChapmanSReeveERajaratnamG et coll. Setting up an outcomes guarantee for pharmaceuticals: New approach to risk sharing in primary care. Br Med J.2003; 326: 707–709.
9.
McCabeCJStafinskiTEdlinR et coll. Access with evidence development schemes: A framework for description and evaluation. Pharmacoeconomics. 2010; 28: 143–152.
10.
MenonDMcCabeCJStafinskiT et coll. Principles of design of access with evidence development approaches: A consensus statement from the Banff Summit. Pharmacoeconomics. 2010; 28: 109–111.
11.
MillerFGPearsonSD. Coverage with evidence development — Ethical issues and policy implications. Med Care. 2008; 46: 746–751.
12.
MohrPETunisSR. Access with evidence development: The US experience. Pharmacoeconomics. 2010; 28: 153–162.
StafinskiTMcCabeCJMenonD. Funding the unfundable: Mechanisms for managing uncertainty in decisions on the introduction of new and innovative technologies into healthcare systems. Pharmacoeconomics. 2010; 28: 113–142.
15.
KhanOFilippiMFreedmanMS et coll. Chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency and multiple sclerosis. Ann Neurol.2010; 67: 286–290.
16.
WolfBRBuckwalterJA. Randomized surgical trials and “sham” surgery: Relevance to modern orthopaedics and minimally invasive surgery. Iowa Orthop J.2006; 26: 107–11.
17.
HillAB. The environment and disease: Association or causation?Proc R Soc Med.1965; 58: 295–300.
18.
FinebergHV. The Learning Healthcare System—now and to come. Article présenté à The Learning Healthcare System in 2010 and Beyond: Understanding, engaging, and communicating the possibilities. Institute of Medicine. Les 1er et 2 avril 2010; Washington, DC.
