Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 536
Filtrar
Más filtros

Intervalo de año de publicación
2.
Milbank Q ; 99(4): 1132-1161, 2021 12.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34407252

RESUMEN

Policy Points In 2012, Colorado and Washington were the first states to legalize recreational marijuana through voter-initiated ballots. In these states, counties could restrict or ban local marijuana facilities through a variety of regulatory methods such as ordinances and zoning. County-level recreational marijuana policies in Washington and Colorado vary substantially, with 69.2% of Washington counties and 23.4% of Colorado counties allowing all types of recreational marijuana facilities as of April 1, 2019. After Colorado and Washington legalized recreational marijuana, many counties modified their marijuana policies over time, with shifts in county policy often preceded by advocacy and information-seeking activities. CONTEXT: In 2012, Colorado and Washington were the first states to legalize recreational marijuana. Both allowed local governments to further regulate the availability of marijuana facilities in their jurisdictions. As early adopters, these states are important quasi-natural experiments to examine local marijuana policy and policy change processes, including key stakeholders and arguments. METHODS: We conducted a policy scan of county-level recreational marijuana ordinances and regulations in Colorado and Washington. Data collected included policy documents from counties in both states and newspaper articles. We used a mixed-methods approach to describe the types of county-level recreational marijuana policies enacted by April 1, 2019; identify key policy stakeholders involved in local policy debates; and explore arguments used in support or opposition of county policies. We also selected four counties that represent three county policy environments (all marijuana facility types allowed, some marijuana facility types allowed, all marijuana facility types prohibited) and described the policy changes within these counties since recreational marijuana was legalized. FINDINGS: By April 1, 2019, Colorado counties were less likely than Washington counties to allow marijuana facilities-48.4% of Colorado counties prohibited recreational marijuana facilities in their jurisdiction compared to 23.1% of Washington counties. Since state legalization, several counties in both states have made substantial marijuana facility policy modifications, often preceded by information-seeking activities. Primary stakeholders involved in policy debates included elected officials, law enforcement, individual growers/farmers, marijuana business license applicants, parents, and residents. Proponents referenced local economic gain, reduced crime, and potential health benefits of marijuana as arguments in favor of permitting local facilities, whereas opponents pointed to economic loss, negative health and public health issues, public safety concerns, and existing federal law. Both sides referenced local public opinion data to support their position. CONCLUSIONS: By early 2019, a patchwork of local marijuana policies was in place in Colorado and Washington. We identify key areas of policy and public health research needed to inform future local marijuana policy decisions, including the impact of legalization on public health outcomes (particularly for youth) and public safety.


Asunto(s)
Política de Salud/legislación & jurisprudencia , Legislación de Medicamentos/estadística & datos numéricos , Uso de la Marihuana/epidemiología , Colorado/epidemiología , Política de Salud/tendencias , Humanos , Legislación de Medicamentos/tendencias , Washingtón/epidemiología
3.
Health Rep ; 32(4): 3-14, 2021 04 21.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33881274

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: The Canadian government legalized non-medical cannabis use by adults in October 2018 to minimize associated harms and redirect profits from criminals. In October 2019, a wider array of products, including edibles, was legalized, with entry into the legal market beginning in December. DATA AND METHODS: Three quarters (the first quarters of 2018 and 2019 and the fourth quarter of 2020) of the National Cannabis Survey were used to examine changes in cannabis use (overall use and daily or almost daily (DAD) use), consumption methods, products and sources. RESULTS: Cannabis use in the past three months was higher in late 2020 (20.0%) than in 2019 (17.5%) and 2018 (14.0%), and this was particularly the case among: females (for whom rates rose to equal male rates for the first time), adults aged 25 and older, and some provinces. Similarly, DAD use, at 7.9% also increased. Higher percentages of Canadians reported getting at least some of their cannabis from legal sources or growing it, and fewer were relying on friends and family or illegal sources in 2020. DISCUSSION: This study spans three years-from before legalization to about two years after. It provides a more complete picture of the law's impact on cannabis use and related behaviours, given the more established legal cannabis industry better equipped to compete with the black market on price, convenience and selection. Findings demonstrate that change is continuing, and, as before, some cautions and assurances remain. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cannabis use continues to be difficult to measure. Monitoring remains important, given the ever-changing provincial retail landscapes; the introduction of new products; and the pressure by the industry to remove or adjust potency limits, and allow widespread delivery, farm-gate sales and cannabis lounges.


Asunto(s)
Cannabis , Legislación de Medicamentos , Fumar Marihuana , Adulto , COVID-19 , Canadá , Femenino , Humanos , Legislación de Medicamentos/estadística & datos numéricos , Legislación de Medicamentos/tendencias , Masculino , Fumar Marihuana/economía , Fumar Marihuana/legislación & jurisprudencia , Encuestas y Cuestionarios
4.
PLoS Biol ; 15(12): e2002404, 2017 Dec.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29252997

RESUMEN

After 40 years, the 1976 US Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) was revised under the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act. Its original goals of protecting the public from hazardous chemicals were hindered by complex and cumbersome administrative burdens, data limitations, vulnerabilities in risk assessments, and recurring corporate lawsuits. As a result, countless chemicals were entered into commercial use without toxicological information. Few chemicals of the many identified as potential public health threats were regulated or banned. This paper explores the factors that have worked against a comprehensive and rational policy for regulating toxic chemicals and discusses whether the TSCA revisions offer greater public protection against existing and new chemicals.


Asunto(s)
Seguridad Química/legislación & jurisprudencia , Contaminantes Ambientales/toxicidad , Contaminación Ambiental/prevención & control , Sustancias Peligrosas/toxicidad , Política Pública/historia , Animales , Seguridad Química/historia , Seguridad Química/tendencias , Contaminantes Ambientales/normas , Contaminación Ambiental/ética , Contaminación Ambiental/legislación & jurisprudencia , Sustancias Peligrosas/normas , Historia del Siglo XX , Historia del Siglo XXI , Humanos , Legislación de Medicamentos/ética , Legislación de Medicamentos/historia , Legislación de Medicamentos/tendencias , Política Pública/legislación & jurisprudencia , Política Pública/tendencias , Medición de Riesgo/historia , Medición de Riesgo/legislación & jurisprudencia , Medición de Riesgo/tendencias , Responsabilidad Social , Estados Unidos , United States Environmental Protection Agency
5.
JAMA ; 323(2): 164-176, 2020 01 14.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31935033

RESUMEN

Importance: US law requires testing of new drugs before approval to ensure that they provide a well-defined benefit that is commensurate with their risks. A major challenge for the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is to achieve an appropriate balance between rigorous testing and the need for timely approval of drugs that have benefits that outweigh their risks. Objective: To describe the evolution of laws and standards affecting drug testing, the use of new approval programs and standards, expansions of the role and authority of the FDA, and changes in the number of drugs approved from the 1980s to 2018. Evidence: Sources of evidence included principal federal laws and FDA regulations (1962-2018) and FDA databases of approved new drugs (1984-2018), generic drugs (1970-2018), biologics (1984-2018), and vaccines (1998-2018); special development and approval programs (Orphan drug [1984-2018], Fast-Track [1988-2018], Priority Review and its predecessors [1984-2018], Accelerated Approval [1992-2018], and Breakthrough Therapy [2012-2018]); expanded access (2010-2017) and Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (2008-2018); and user fees paid to the FDA by industry (1993-2018). Findings: From 1983 to 2018, legislation and regulatory initiatives have substantially changed drug approval at the FDA. The mean annual number of new drug approvals, including biologics, was 34 from 1990-1999, 25 from 2000-2009, and 41 from 2010-2018. New biologic product approvals increased from a median of 2.5 from 1990-1999, to 5 from 2000-2013, to 12 from 2014-2018. The median annual number of generic drugs approved was 136 from 1970 to the enactment of the Hatch-Waxman Act in 1984; 284 from 1985 to the enactment of the Generic Drug User Fee Act in 2012; and 588 from 2013-2018. Prescription drug user fee funding expanded from new drugs and biologics in 1992 to generic and biosimilar drugs in 2012. The amount of Prescription Drug User Fee Act fees collected from industry increased from an annual mean of $66 million in 1993-1997 to $820 million in 2013-2017, and in 2018, user fees accounted for approximately 80% of the salaries of review personnel responsible for the approval of new drugs. The proportion of drugs approved with an Orphan Drug Act designation increased from 18% (55/304) in 1984-1995, to 22% (82/379) in 1996-2007, to 41% (154/380) in 2008-2018. Use of Accelerated Approval, Fast-Track, and Priority Review for new drugs has increased over time, with 81% (48/59) of new drugs benefiting from at least 1 such expedited program in 2018. The proportion of new approvals supported by at least 2 pivotal trials decreased from 80.6% in 1995-1997 to 52.8% in 2015-2017, based on 124 and 106 approvals, respectively, while the median number of patients studied did not change significantly (774 vs 816). FDA drug review times declined from more than 3 years in 1983 to less than 1 year in 2017, but total time from the authorization of clinical testing to approval has remained at approximately 8 years over that period. Conclusions and Relevance: Over the last 4 decades, the approval and regulation processes for pharmaceutical agents have evolved and increased in complexity as special programs have been added and as the use of surrogate measures has been encouraged. The FDA funding needed to implement and manage these programs has been addressed by expanding industry-paid user fees. The FDA has increasingly accepted less data and more surrogate measures, and has shortened its review times.


Asunto(s)
Aprobación de Drogas/legislación & jurisprudencia , Regulación Gubernamental , Legislación de Medicamentos/tendencias , Preparaciones Farmacéuticas/normas , United States Food and Drug Administration , Aprobación de Drogas/economía , Aprobación de Drogas/estadística & datos numéricos , Historia del Siglo XX , Legislación de Medicamentos/historia , Estados Unidos
6.
J Gen Intern Med ; 34(8): 1419-1426, 2019 08.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30684198

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: To determine the association of medical marijuana legalization with prescription opioid utilization. METHODS: A 10% sample of a nationally representative database of commercially insured population was used to gather information on opioid use, chronic opioid use, and high-risk opioid use for the years 2006-2014. Adults with pharmacy and medical benefits for the entire calendar year were included in the population for that year. Multilevel logistic regression analysis, controlling for patient, person-year, and state-level factors, were used to determine the impact of medical marijuana legalization on the three opioid use measures. Sub-group analysis among cancer-free adults and cancer-free adults with at least one chronic non-cancer pain condition in the particular year were conducted. Alternate regression models were used to test the robustness of our results including a fixed effects model, an alternate definition for start date for medical marijuana legalization, a person-level analysis, and a falsification test. RESULTS: The final sample included a total of 4,840,562 persons translating into 15,705,562 person years. Medical marijuana legalization was found to be associated with a lower odds of any opioid use: OR = 0.95 (0.94-0.96), chronic opioid use: OR = 0.93 (0.91-0.95), and high-risk opioid use: OR = 0.96 (0.94-0.98). The findings were similar in both the sub-group analyses and all the sensitivity analyses. The falsification tests showed no association between medical marijuana legalization and prescriptions for antihyperlipidemics (OR = 1.00; CI 0.99-1.01) or antihypertensives (OR = 1.00; CI 0.99-1.01). CONCLUSIONS: In states where marijuana is available through medical channels, a modestly lower rate of opioid and high-risk opioid prescribing was observed. Policy makers could consider medical marijuana legalization as a tool that may modestly reduce chronic and high-risk opioid use. However, further research assessing risk versus benefits of medical marijuana legalization and head to head comparisons of marijuana versus opioids for pain management is required.


Asunto(s)
Analgésicos Opioides/uso terapéutico , Prescripciones de Medicamentos , Legislación de Medicamentos/tendencias , Marihuana Medicinal/uso terapéutico , Trastornos Relacionados con Opioides/epidemiología , Adulto , Analgésicos Opioides/efectos adversos , Dolor Crónico/tratamiento farmacológico , Dolor Crónico/epidemiología , Prescripciones de Medicamentos/normas , Femenino , Humanos , Legislación de Medicamentos/normas , Masculino , Marihuana Medicinal/efectos adversos , Persona de Mediana Edad , Trastornos Relacionados con Opioides/diagnóstico , Factores de Riesgo
7.
Prev Med ; 125: 62-68, 2019 08.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31125629

RESUMEN

We examine the association between opioid prescription patterns in privately insured adults and changes in state cannabis laws among five age groups (18-25, 26-35 36-45, 46-55 and 56-64 years). Using the 2016 Clinformatics Data Mart, a nationwide commercial health insurance database, we performed a cross-sectional analysis of two types of opioid prescribing (>30-day and >90-day prescriptions) among all adults aged 18-64 based on the stringency of cannabis laws. We found a significant interaction between age and cannabis law on opioid prescriptions. Age-stratified multilevel multivariable analyses showed lower opioid prescription rates in the four younger age groups only in states with medical cannabis laws, when considering both >30 day and >90 day opioid use [>30 day adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 0.56, in 18-25, aOR = 0.67 in 26-35, aOR = 0.67 in 36-45, and aOR = 0.76 in 46-54 years; >90 day aOR = 0.56, in 18-25, aOR = 0.68 in 26-35, aOR = 0.69 in 36-45, and aOR = 0.77 in 46-54 years, P < 0.0001 for all]. This association was not significant in the oldest age group of 55-64 years. There was no significant association between opioid prescriptions and other categories of cannabis laws (recreational use and decriminalization) in any of the age groups studied.


Asunto(s)
Analgésicos Opioides/uso terapéutico , Seguro de Salud , Legislación de Medicamentos/tendencias , Marihuana Medicinal , Pautas de la Práctica en Medicina/estadística & datos numéricos , Sector Privado , Adolescente , Adulto , Factores de Edad , Estudios Transversales , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Pautas de la Práctica en Medicina/tendencias , Estudios Retrospectivos , Estados Unidos
8.
Ann Pharm Fr ; 77(6): 496-505, 2019 Nov.
Artículo en Francés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31564420

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: The objective was to identify the main texts applicable to the practice of pharmacy in Quebec, then count the specific number of recommendations and criteria and describe the evolution of the legal and normative framework. METHODS: This is a descriptive and retrospective study of the main texts applicable to the legal and normative framework for the practice of pharmacy on January 1st, 2019. RESULTS: A total of 107 texts relating to the practice of pharmacy in Quebec were identified. They come from the legislator (53.1 %), the Order of pharmacists (26.1 %) or other organizations (20.8 %). These were laws/regulations (n=59), contributing to the optimal use of drugs (n=18), relating to hospital pharmacy management (n=18), the provision of pharmaceutical care (n=11), drug preparation (n=3), oncology practice (n=2) or health and safety at work (n=1). Thirty-three texts were considered for enumeration of recommendations and explicit criteria, for a total of 235 recommendations and 3703 explicit criteria applicable to the practice of hospital pharmacy in Quebec. CONCLUSION: There is a significant increase in the number of texts, recommendations and criteria applicable to the practice of hospital pharmacy in Quebec. Compliance with this legal and normative framework appears to be a considerable challenge for hospital pharmacists. It seems worthwhile to further promote discussion with text-issuing agencies in order to keep the search for compliance realistic.


Asunto(s)
Legislación de Medicamentos , Servicio de Farmacia en Hospital/legislación & jurisprudencia , Utilización de Medicamentos/legislación & jurisprudencia , Humanos , Legislación de Medicamentos/tendencias , Sistemas de Medicación en Hospital/legislación & jurisprudencia , Salud Laboral/legislación & jurisprudencia , Farmacéuticos/legislación & jurisprudencia , Servicio de Farmacia en Hospital/organización & administración , Práctica Profesional/legislación & jurisprudencia , Quebec , Estudios Retrospectivos
9.
Value Health ; 21(3): 252-257, 2018 03.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29566830

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: To analyze how value-based pricing (VBP), which grounds the price paid for pharmaceuticals in their value, can manage "affordability" challenges, defined as drugs that meet cost-effectiveness thresholds but are "unaffordable" within the short-run budget. METHODS: Three specific contexts are examined, drawing on recent experience. First, an effective new treatment for a chronic, progressive disease, such as hepatitis C, creates a budget spike that is transitory because initial prevalence is high, relative to current incidence. Second, "cures" that potentially provide lifetime benefits may claim abnormally high VBP prices, with high immediate budget impact potentially/partially offset by deferred cost savings. Third, although orphan drugs in principle target rare diseases, in aggregate they pose affordability concerns because of the growing number of orphan indications and increasingly high prices. RESULTS: For mass diseases, the transitory budget impact of treating the accumulated patient stock can be managed by stratified rollout that delays treatment of stable patients and prioritizes patients at high risk of deterioration. Delay spreads the budget impact and permits potential savings from launch of competing treatments. For cures, installment payments contingent on outcomes could align payment flows and appropriately shift risk to producers. This approach, however, entails high administrative and incentive costs, especially if applied across multiple payers in the United States. For orphan drugs, the available evidence on research and development trends and returns argues against the need for a higher VBP threshold to incentivize research and development in orphan drugs, given existing statutory benefits under orphan drug legislation.


Asunto(s)
Enfermedad Crónica/tratamiento farmacológico , Producción de Medicamentos sin Interés Comercial/economía , Enfermedades Raras/tratamiento farmacológico , Presupuestos , Análisis Costo-Beneficio , Aprobación de Drogas/economía , Aprobación de Drogas/legislación & jurisprudencia , Costos de los Medicamentos/legislación & jurisprudencia , Costos de los Medicamentos/tendencias , Política de Salud/legislación & jurisprudencia , Política de Salud/tendencias , Humanos , Legislación de Medicamentos/economía , Legislación de Medicamentos/tendencias
10.
Int Rev Psychiatry ; 30(5): 91-106, 2018 10.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30522342

RESUMEN

Pre-clinical research supports that cannabinoids reduce opioid dose requirements, but few studies have tested this in humans. This review evaluates ecological and epidemiological studies that have been cited as evidence that medical cannabis use may reduce opioid use and opioid-related harms. Medline and Embase were searched for relevant articles. Data were extracted on study setting, analyses approach, covariates, and outcomes. Eleven ecological and 14 epidemiological studies were found. In ecological studies, states that allow medical cannabis laws have reported a slower rate of increase in opioid overdose deaths compared with states without such laws. These differences have increased over time and persisted after controlling for state sociodemographic characteristics and use of prescription monitoring programmes. Few studies have controlled for other potential confounders such as opioid dependence treatment and imprisonment rates. Some epidemiological studies provide evidence that cannabis availability may reduce opioid use, but are limited by selection bias, cross-sectional designs, and self-reported assessments of the opioid-sparing effects of cannabis. Some epidemiological and ecological studies suggest that cannabis may reduce opioid use and harms, although important methodological weaknesses were identified. Well-designed clinical studies may provide more conclusive evidence on whether cannabinoids can reduce opioid use and related harm.


Asunto(s)
Analgésicos Opioides/efectos adversos , Sobredosis de Droga/epidemiología , Sobredosis de Droga/prevención & control , Reducción del Daño , Marihuana Medicinal/administración & dosificación , Trastornos Relacionados con Opioides/epidemiología , Cannabinoides , Sobredosis de Droga/mortalidad , Humanos , Legislación de Medicamentos/tendencias
11.
BMC Int Health Hum Rights ; 18(1): 43, 2018 11 29.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30497476

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: As of May 2017, the United States federal government renewed its prioritization for the enforcement of mandatory minimum sentences for illicit drug offenses. While the effect of such policies on racial disparities in incarceration is well-documented, less is known about the extent to which these laws are associated with decreased drug use. This study aims to identify changes in cocaine use associated with mandatory minimum sentencing policies by examining differential sentences for powder and crack cocaine set by the Anti-Drug Abuse Act (ADAA) (100:1) and the Fair Sentencing Act (FSA), which reduced the disparate sentencing to 18:1. METHODS: Using data from National Survey on Drug Use and Health, we examined past-year cocaine use before and after implementation of the ADAA (1985-1990, N = 21,296) and FSA (2009-2013, N = 130,574). We used weighted logistic regressions and Z-tests across models to identify differential change in use between crack and powder cocaine. Prescription drug misuse, or use outside prescribed indication or dose, was modeled as a negative control to identify underlying drug trends not related to sentencing policies. RESULTS: Despite harsher ADAA penalties for crack compared to powder cocaine, there was no decrease in crack use following implementation of sentencing policies (odds ratio (OR): 0.72, p = 0.13), although both powder cocaine use and misuse of prescription drugs (the negative control) decreased (OR: 0.59, p < 0.01; OR: 0.42, p < 0.01 respectively). Furthermore, there was no change in crack use following the FSA, but powder cocaine use decreased, despite no changes to powder cocaine sentences (OR: 0.81, p = 0.02), suggesting that drug use is driven by factors not associated with sentencing policy. CONCLUSIONS: Despite harsher penalties for crack versus powder cocaine, crack use declined less than powder cocaine and even less than drugs not included in sentencing policies. These findings suggest that mandatory minimum sentencing may not be an effective method of deterring cocaine use.


Asunto(s)
Trastornos Relacionados con Cocaína , Cocaína Crack , Drogas Ilícitas/legislación & jurisprudencia , Legislación de Medicamentos/tendencias , Trastornos Relacionados con Sustancias , Humanos , Polvos , Prisiones , Política Pública , Estados Unidos
12.
Chimia (Aarau) ; 72(3): 146-150, 2018 Mar 30.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29631666

RESUMEN

The pharmaceutical industry is one of the most regulated industries in Switzerland. Though the concept of good manufacturing practises (GMP) was implemented for chemical production in the early 1990s, the rules and regulations for our industry are in constant evolution. In this article we will highlight the impact of these changes to the industry using three recent guideline up-dates as examples: the implementation of ICH Q3D 'Guideline for elemental impurities', the EU-GMP Guideline Part III Chapter 'Guideline on setting health based exposure limits for use in risk identification in the manufacture of different medicinal products in shared facilities' from 01. June 2015, and the new guidelines to data integrity such as 'PIC/S 041-1 Good Practices for Data Management and Integrity in regulated GMP/GDP environments'. These examples show how scientific approaches help to modernize the control strategies for our products and increase product quality for a better patient safety. The requirements of data integrity regulations are also of interest to industries and universities not working under GxP requirements as they also support the business to improve data quality (traceability) for patent applications, and reduce risk of data falsification.


Asunto(s)
Contaminación de Medicamentos/legislación & jurisprudencia , Industria Farmacéutica/legislación & jurisprudencia , Legislación de Medicamentos/tendencias , Contaminación de Medicamentos/prevención & control , Industria Farmacéutica/organización & administración , Industria Farmacéutica/normas , Regulación Gubernamental , Guías como Asunto , Control de Calidad , Suiza
13.
Mo Med ; 115(5): 398-404, 2018.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30385981

RESUMEN

We review recent findings on medical aspects of marijuana use in order to identify those who are at greatest risk of marijuana-related medical problems. We analyze the impact of medical marijuana laws on health, in particular the disproportionate effects on adolescents and children. Chronic marijuana use predominantly affects certain areas of the brain that overlap the default mode network, linked hubs in the brain that play a supervisory role in critical thought processes such as attention, memory, and social interactions. Disruption of the default mode network areas has been documented in schizophrenia and Alzheimer's disease, illnesses with symptoms and brain changes that parallel findings in marijuana abusers. These findings counter the claim that marijuana is a harmless drug and are a cause for alarm in persons with cannabis dependence.


Asunto(s)
Legislación de Medicamentos/tendencias , Uso de la Marihuana/legislación & jurisprudencia , Marihuana Medicinal/uso terapéutico , Humanos
14.
Healthc Q ; 21(3): 6-7, 2018 Oct.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30741146

RESUMEN

Imagine a Minister for Addictions, not only for individuals we criminalize and stigmatize as "drug addicts" but for us all. So misunderstood is addiction, so scant is our public discourse about its scientific basis and so deep is the despair wrought by its present spread that we require a government reboot.


Asunto(s)
Legislación de Medicamentos/tendencias , Trastornos Relacionados con Sustancias/prevención & control , Canadá , Humanos , Uso de la Marihuana/legislación & jurisprudencia
15.
Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf ; 26(11): 1314-1320, 2017 Nov.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28722235

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: To evaluate the safety-related regulatory actions implemented by Japan's Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency (PMDA) in 2012. METHODS: We analyzed serious safety issues appended to drug package inserts (PIs) in Japan in 2012. The issues were characterized according to drug class, adverse event, years since drug approval, initiator of regulatory actions, revised section of PI, and evidence source. We also quantified the durations from signal detection to tentative decision and from tentative decision to regulatory action. RESULTS: We identified 144 serious safety issues during the study period, and the majority of evidence originated from spontaneous reports (83.5%). The PMDA initiated regulatory actions for half of all safety issues, and the median duration from drug approval to regulatory action was 8 years (interquartile range [IQR], 3-26.5 years). The median duration was 49 days (IQR, 0-362 days) from signal detection to tentative decision and 84 days (IQR, 63-136 days) from tentative decision to regulatory action. Several safety issues involving older drugs and multiple products had protracted decision-making durations. CONCLUSIONS: Most safety issues led to prompt regulatory actions predominantly based on spontaneous reports. Some safety issues that were not easily detected by the spontaneous reporting system were identified years after approval. In addition, several safety issues required assessments of multiple drug products, which prolonged the decision-making process.


Asunto(s)
Legislación de Medicamentos/tendencias , Seguridad del Paciente/legislación & jurisprudencia , Sistemas de Registro de Reacción Adversa a Medicamentos , Toma de Decisiones en la Organización , Aprobación de Recursos , Etiquetado de Medicamentos , Efectos Colaterales y Reacciones Adversas Relacionados con Medicamentos/epidemiología , Agencias Gubernamentales , Humanos , Japón/epidemiología , Vigilancia de Productos Comercializados
16.
Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf ; 26(11): 1338-1346, 2017 Nov.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28771933

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: Cardiovascular safety alerts about rosiglitazone resulted in regulatory actions in several countries in 2010, but the Food and Drug Administration eliminated access restrictions in 2013, reflecting new evidence concerning the drug safety. We investigated the effects of safety signals and regulation shifts concerning rosiglitazone on prescribing of antidiabetic drugs (ADs). METHODS: Patient data were extracted from the Korean health insurance claims database for 2007 to 2015. Linear regression and interrupted time series analyses were performed to examine drug utilization trends and the impact of 5 milestone events regarding rosiglitazone safety on AD utilization. RESULTS: A steady growth was observed in the AD consumption, with metformin preserving its dominant market share throughout the period. Pioglitazone use has increased since 2008 in response to safety issues surrounding rosiglitazone. A significant decline in rosiglitazone use was observed after Nissen's meta-analysis and safety warnings (2007) and after restriction/suspension of access to rosiglitazone (2010), associated with a drop in prevalence by 29.5%/year and 99.5%/year, respectively. The most common AD newly started among users who discontinued rosiglitazone in 2010 was pioglitazone, followed by dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors. Our concomitancy analysis showed that DPP-4 inhibitors have overtaken sulfonylureas since 2014 as the most common add-on to metformin. CONCLUSIONS: The most frequently added AD in diabetes patients who had switched off rosiglitazone in 2010 was pioglitazone, followed by DPP-4 inhibitors. Despite new evidence from a long-term clinical trial and the Food and Drug Administration's subsequent decision to eliminate access restrictions on rosiglitazone in 2013, domestic regulations were left intact; hence, its use remained negligible in Korea.


Asunto(s)
Prescripciones de Medicamentos/estadística & datos numéricos , Hipoglucemiantes/efectos adversos , Legislación de Medicamentos/tendencias , Tiazolidinedionas/efectos adversos , Inhibidores de la Dipeptidil-Peptidasa IV/efectos adversos , Inhibidores de la Dipeptidil-Peptidasa IV/uso terapéutico , Quimioterapia Combinada , Utilización de Medicamentos/estadística & datos numéricos , Utilización de Medicamentos/tendencias , Medicina Basada en la Evidencia , Humanos , Hipoglucemiantes/uso terapéutico , Análisis de Series de Tiempo Interrumpido , Metformina/efectos adversos , Metformina/uso terapéutico , Seguridad del Paciente , Farmacoepidemiología , Pioglitazona , República de Corea/epidemiología , Rosiglitazona , Compuestos de Sulfonilurea/efectos adversos , Compuestos de Sulfonilurea/uso terapéutico , Tiazolidinedionas/uso terapéutico
17.
Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf ; 26(11): 1357-1366, 2017 Nov.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28809079

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: Evaluate changes in use of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) and red blood cell transfusion in cancer patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy following regulatory and reimbursement actions. METHODS: Calendar year patient cohorts (2005-2013) with breast, colorectal, lung, multiple myeloma, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, ovarian, or prostate cancer and receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy were identified within the Marketscan database. Incidence of ESA treatment and transfusion were estimated in each year, as was median number of ESA administrations. Clinical characteristics associated with ESA administration and transfusions were evaluated by using multivariable logistic regression. Additionally, annual new ESA user cohorts within the Oncology Services Comprehensive Electronic Records database (2011-2014) were examined to assess hemoglobin levels at ESA initiation. RESULTS: Across all tumor types, ESA use decreased substantially (breast cancer: 53.7 to 3.2%; lung cancer: 66.0 to 13.3%, non-Hodgkin lymphoma: 39.8 to 3.8%), transfusion use increased (2 to 5.5%, 5.5 to 18.2%, and 4.5 to 9.1%, respectively), and median number of ESA administrations declined. Across all tumor types, proportion of patients initiating an ESA with hemoglobin >10 g/dL was <10% from 2011 onward. In recent years, cancer patients who are older, female, and have chronic kidney disease or moderate or severe liver disease were most likely to receive ESAs. CONCLUSION: Subsequent to important regulatory and reimbursement ESA-related actions, total ESA exposure among cancer patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy declined substantially. Today, fewer patients receive ESA therapy, and among those treated, more are initiated at hemoglobin levels <10 g/dL and are exposed for a shorter duration, consistent with current product labeling.


Asunto(s)
Transfusión de Eritrocitos/estadística & datos numéricos , Eritropoyesis/efectos de los fármacos , Hematínicos/uso terapéutico , Reembolso de Seguro de Salud/estadística & datos numéricos , Legislación de Medicamentos/tendencias , Neoplasias/terapia , Adulto , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Anemia/tratamiento farmacológico , Anemia/prevención & control , Anemia/terapia , Antineoplásicos/efectos adversos , Antineoplásicos/uso terapéutico , Estudios de Cohortes , Bases de Datos Factuales , Femenino , Hemoglobinas/análisis , Humanos , Incidencia , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Estudios Retrospectivos , Estimulación Química , Estados Unidos/epidemiología
18.
Alcohol Clin Exp Res ; 40(1): 33-46, 2016 Jan.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26727520

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Marijuana policies are rapidly evolving. In the United States, recreational use of marijuana is now legal in 4 states and medical marijuana is legal in 23 states. Research evaluating such policies has focused primarily on how policies affect issues of price, access to, use, and consequences of marijuana. Due to potential spillover effects, researchers also need to examine how marijuana policies may impact use and consequences of alcohol. METHODS: The current paper is a critical review of articles evaluating alcohol outcomes associated with marijuana decriminalization, medical marijuana legalization, and nonmedical or recreational marijuana legalization. We identified articles and reports through (1) online searches of EBSCO host database including Academic Search Premier, Econlit, Legal Collection, Medline, PsycARTICLES, and PsycINFO, as well as PubMed and Google Scholar databases; (2) review of additional articles cited in papers identified through electronic searches; and (3) targeted searches of state and local government records regarding marijuana law implementation. We reviewed studies with respect to their data sources and sample characteristics, methodology, and the margin of alcohol and marijuana use, timing of policy change, and the aspects of laws examined. RESULTS: The extant literature provides some evidence for both substitution (i.e., more liberal marijuana policies related to less alcohol use as marijuana becomes a substitute) and complementary (i.e., more liberal marijuana policies related to increases in both marijuana and alcohol use) relationships in the context of liberalization of marijuana policies in the United States. CONCLUSIONS: Impact of more liberal marijuana policies on alcohol use is complex, and likely depends on specific aspects of policy implementation, including how long the policy has been in place. Furthermore, evaluation of marijuana policy effects on alcohol use may be sensitive to the age group studied and the margin of alcohol use examined. Design of policy evaluation research requires careful consideration of these issues.


Asunto(s)
Consumo de Bebidas Alcohólicas/tendencias , Legislación de Medicamentos/tendencias , Fumar Marihuana/legislación & jurisprudencia , Marihuana Medicinal , Consumo de Bebidas Alcohólicas/epidemiología , Política de Salud , Humanos , Política Pública , Estados Unidos/epidemiología
19.
Br J Clin Pharmacol ; 82(6): 1471-1476, 2016 12.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27580254

RESUMEN

The medicines regulatory environment is evolving rapidly in response to the changing environment. Advances in science and technology have led to a vast field of increasingly complicated pharmaceutical and medical device products; increasing globalization of the pharmaceutical industry, advances in digital technology and the internet, changing patient populations, and shifts in society also affect the regulatory environment. In the UK, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) regulates medicines, medical devices and blood products to protect and improve public health, and supports innovation through scientific research and development. It works closely with other bodies in a single medicines network across Europe and takes forward UK health priorities. This paper discusses the range of initiatives in the UK and across Europe to support innovation in medicines regulation. The MHRA leads a number of initiatives, such as the Innovation Office, which helps innovators to navigate the regulatory processes to progress their products or technologies; and simplification of the Clinical Trials Regulations and the Early Access to Medicines Scheme, to bring innovative medicines to patients faster. The Accelerated Access Review will identify reforms to accelerate access for National Health Service patients to innovative medicines and medical technologies. PRIME and Adaptive Pathways initiatives are joint endeavours within the European regulatory community. The MHRA runs spontaneous reporting schemes and works with INTERPOL to tackle counterfeiting and substandard products sold via the internet. The role of the regulator is changing rapidly, with new risk-proportionate, flexible approaches being introduced. International collaboration is a key element of the work of regulators, and is set to expand.


Asunto(s)
Descubrimiento de Drogas/legislación & jurisprudencia , Regulación Gubernamental , Legislación de Medicamentos/tendencias , Legislación de Dispositivos Médicos/tendencias , Descubrimiento de Drogas/tendencias , Industria Farmacéutica/legislación & jurisprudencia , Industria Farmacéutica/tendencias , Agencias Gubernamentales , Evaluación de la Tecnología Biomédica/legislación & jurisprudencia , Evaluación de la Tecnología Biomédica/tendencias , Reino Unido
20.
Ann Pharmacother ; 50(9): 778-84, 2016 09.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27307413

RESUMEN

Recently momentum has been building behind pharmacist prescriptive authority for certain products such as oral contraceptives or naloxone. To some, prescriptive authority by pharmacists represents a departure from the traditional role of pharmacists in dispensing medications. Nearly all states, however, currently enable pharmacist prescriptive authority in some form or fashion. The variety of different state approaches makes it difficult for pharmacists to ascertain the pros and cons of different models. We leverage data available from the National Alliance of State Pharmacy Associations (NASPA), a trade association that tracks pharmacy legislation and regulations across all states, to characterize models of pharmacist prescriptive authority along a continuum from most restrictive to least restrictive. We identify 2 primary categories of current pharmacist prescriptive authority: (1) collaborative prescribing and (2) autonomous prescribing. Collaborative prescribing models provide a broad framework for the treatment of acute or chronic disease. Current autonomous prescribing models have focused on a limited range of medications for which a specific diagnosis is not needed. Approaches to pharmacist prescriptive authority are not mutually exclusive. We anticipate that more states will pursue the less-restrictive approaches in the years ahead.


Asunto(s)
Prescripciones de Medicamentos , Legislación de Medicamentos/tendencias , Legislación Farmacéutica/tendencias , Servicios Farmacéuticos/legislación & jurisprudencia , Farmacéuticos/legislación & jurisprudencia , Rol Profesional , Prescripciones de Medicamentos/normas , Humanos , Relaciones Interprofesionales , Servicios Farmacéuticos/normas , Servicios Farmacéuticos/tendencias , Farmacéuticos/psicología , Farmacéuticos/tendencias , Autonomía Profesional , Estados Unidos
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA