Medical treatment of XXXX : scoring the advances.

@entity1 @entity500 @entity31 @entity134 @entity3378 @entity288
Recently, oenological prejudices were challenged by the use of a points scoring system (from 50 to 100) to evaluate wine in a book now widely regarded as one of the most authoritative. On this scale, a 1981 Chateau Citran described as 'emaciated' scored 65, a 1983 Chateau Kirwan scored 85, and a 1982 Petrus 100. If the same approach were used for drugs used in @entity31 to quantify an advance over conditions existing at the time of its introduction how would they score? Because they were the first available drugs in their class and clearly constituted major advances, @entity288 and @entity3378 both score 95, the score being limited by a high level of side effects. The new salicylates score 75, because they extend the benefits of @entity3378 to a minority of @entity1 but they have the potential to score 90 if increased dosing and greater effectiveness over @entity3378 can be achieved. Salicylate enemas score 80, because they advance treatment over topical corticosteroids for @entity1 with resistant distal disease, but the mode of delivery needs improvement. @entity134 foams also score 80, particularly if the @entity1 's vote is taken into account. @entity500 's score cannot be calculated because there is doubt over its efficacy, but it is potentially 88 if it saves @entity1 with difficult disease from colectomy. We can only guess what an oral non-absorbed @entity134 would score, but if response rates for relapse were substantially improved, or if corticosteroids could be used as effective maintenance treatment, it could be as high as 95. There are indications that we should 'watch this space'.
