Societal burden of atopic dermatitis in the US population

The societal burden of anxiety disorders is enormous in the United States and in many other countries. A quarter of the US population will experience an anxiety disorder at some point in their lives. Although cognitive-behavioral therapy is effective at treating anxiety disorders, most individuals with anxiety disorders will go untreated as a consequence of several barriers to accessing treatment. Technology may serve as a means of addressing such barriers. This chapter reviews the application of technology for psychoeducation, training, screening, tracking, treatment, homework, and aftercare in anxiety disorders. More research is needed to evaluate the efficacy of these applications in controlled trials, but preliminary evidence is promising.

Download Full-text

Prescribing practices for systemic agents in the treatment of severe pediatric atopic dermatitis in the US and Canada: The PeDRA TREAT survey

Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology ◽

10.1016/j.jaad.2016.09.021 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 76 (2) ◽

pp. 281-285 ◽

Cited By ~ 39

Author(s):

Christine R. Totri ◽

Lawrence F. Eichenfield ◽

Kirsty Logan ◽

Laura Proudfoot ◽

Jochen Schmitt ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Atopic Dermatitis ◽

Prescribing Practices ◽

The Us ◽

Systemic Agents

Download Full-text

The Eleventh Circuit Holds that Agreements in which Pharmaceutical Companies Pay Generic Companies Not to Compete May be Valid

The Journal of Law Medicine & Ethics ◽

10.1017/s107311050000749x ◽

2004 ◽

Vol 32 (1) ◽

pp. 181-184

Author(s):

Amy Garrigues

Keyword(s):

Pharmaceutical Companies ◽

Court Decisions ◽

Patent Holder ◽

Trial Court ◽

Court Of Appeals ◽

The Us ◽

Antitrust Laws ◽

Per Se ◽

Appeals Court ◽

Two Sides

On September 15, 2003, the US. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that agreements between pharmaceutical and generic companies not to compete are not per se unlawful if these agreements do not expand the existing exclusionary right of a patent. The Valley DrugCo.v.Geneva Pharmaceuticals decision emphasizes that the nature of a patent gives the patent holder exclusive rights, and if an agreement merely confirms that exclusivity, then it is not per se unlawful. With this holding, the appeals court reversed the decision of the trial court, which held that agreements under which competitors are paid to stay out of the market are per se violations of the antitrust laws. An examination of the Valley Drugtrial and appeals court decisions sheds light on the two sides of an emerging legal debate concerning the validity of pay-not-to-compete agreements, and more broadly, on the appropriate balance between the seemingly competing interests of patent and antitrust laws.

Download Full-text