 |
|
|
|
|
| |
Scientific Programme
PAD2009
www.PAD2009.se
THE NEXT 10 YEARS IN THE MANAGEMENT OF PERIPHERAL ARTERY DISEASE
Changing the collaborative relationship between the public, clinicians, industry, government, and regulatory agencies on behalf of improved PAD outcomes
Örebro, Sweden, May 12-13, 2009
Organized by British-Swedish-American Collaborators in Vascular Disease
Program Committee: Lars Norgren, Sweden; John Dormandy, UK; Jill J F Belch, UK;
William R Hiatt, USA; Alan T Hirsch, USA; Michael R Jaff, USA,
Iris Baumgartner, Switzerland; Curt Diehm, Germany
PROGRAM
TUESDAY 12 MAY
08.30-10.00
1. The PAD Health Disparity Defined: Why do health care providers continue to
view PAD as less important than other manifestations of cardiovascular disease?
a. The Evidence-Based Epidemiologic Perspective: PAD patients have higher event
rates, slower referral and lower reimbursement rates (Alan Hirsch)
b. The Translational Challenge for PAD and a Source of the Treatment Gap: Are
primary health care physicians sufficiently aware of PAD as a serious disease?
(Michael Criqui)
c. National aspects
(Olav Rolandsson)
d. The Generalist-Specialist Relationship-1: Are full time angiologists or
vascular medicine physicians essential?
(Jill Belch)
e. The Generalist-Specialist Relationship-2:Who takes care of PAD in the
Scandinavian countries? Just vascular surgeons? (Lars Norgren)
Discussion
10.00-10.30 Coffee break
10.30-12.00
2. The Costs Are Real: The current and anticipated health economic impact of PAD.
a. Present and future cost of management of PAD: The European perspective
(Isabelle Durand-Zaleski)
b. Present and future cost of management of PAD: The American perspective
(Michael Jaff)
c. Who will pay the increasing cost in the future ? (Carolin Miltenburger)
d. What is the view of the industry ? (Stacy Enxing-Seng)
Discussion
12.00-13.30 Lunch
13.30-15.00
3. Advancing PAD Knowledge is Key: Who will pay for PAD-specific research in the
future? Public or private interests?
a. Cost and funding of research: The MRC view (Joe McNamara)
b. Cost and funding of research: The NIH view (Eser Tolunay )
c. Cost and funding of research: The industry view (Repr. for sponsor companies)
d. Changing the balance between public and private finance (Caroline
Miltenburger)
Discussion
15.00-15.30 Coffee break
15.30-17.00
4. Can the Treatment Paradigm Shift? Is a breakthrough in the treatment of PAD
to be expected within 10 years?
a. Will angiogenesis ever be an effective treatment for claudication or CLI ?
(Brian Annex)
b. Will endovascular therapy ever provide cost-effective treatment of
intermittent claudication or save limbs and heal ulcers in CLI ? (Iris
Baumgartner)
c. Is it beyond realistic views to believe CLI can be treated by drugs ? (Erich
Minar)
d. Will open surgery be confined to the treatment of acute ischemia ? (Mark
Nehler)
Discussion
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
WEDNESDAY 13 MAY
08.30-10.00
5. The Regulatory Environment: What are the likely changes during the next ten
years in the criteria applied by regulators to assess new treatment modalities?
FDA versus EMEA?
a. FDA aspects (Ray Lipicky)
b. EMEA aspects (C Unkrig)
c. Swedish Regulatory Authorities aspects (Bengt Ljungberg)
d. Health and safety. Risk assessment in drug development (Glyn Belcher)
Discussion
10.00-10.30 Coffee break
10.30-12.00
6. Advancing the Evidence Base: What clinical trials need to be performed?
a. Do we need new antiplatelet therapies for PAD? (Gordon Lowe)
b. Why is PAD in general not typically included in secondary prevention trials?
(Curt Diehm)
c. What new classes of drugs may be developed for claudication symptoms? (Eric
Wahlberg)
d. Do we need trials to compare endovascular and open repair? (Andrew Bradbury)
e. How can increasing challenges to recruit patients for clinical trials be met?
(William Hiatt)
Discussion
12.00-13.00 Lunch
13.00-14.30
7. Applying What We Know: Has the plethora of guidelines for the management of
PAD in recent years been helpful or counterproductive?
a. US Preventive Task Force negative recommendation against ABI screening to
improve outcomes in asymptomatic adults. Aspects on NICE Guidelines (Russel
Harris)
b. Is the plethora of guidelines in PAD counterproductive? (John Dormandy)
c. Can guidelines be successfully translated into clinical practice by
application of data and performance standards? (Alan Hirsch)
Discussion
14.30-15.00
Summing up: The most important messages from this symposium?
All speakers
15.00 Coffee break
Top of page
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
