Prevalence and determinants of unintended double medication of antihypertensive, lipid-lowering, and hypoglycemic drugs in Austria: a nationwide cohort study.

PURPOSE: Double medication is defined as the unintended overlapping prescription of two identical substances with the same route of administration by two different prescribers to the same patient. Consequences of double medication are reduced patient safety and excess healthcare costs. Based on nationwide prescription data from 2011 covering 97% of Austria's population, we estimated double medication prevalences for treatment of hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and diabetes mellitus. METHODS: We investigated prescriptions of 88 antihypertensive, 16 lipid-lowering and 29 hypoglycemic substances in 7,971,323 persons in 2011. Prevalence of double medication was calculated patientwise (prevalence by patients) and timewise (prevalence by patient-years). Risk factors for double medication were identified by logistic regression. RESULTS: For antihypertensive, lipid-lowering, and hypoglycemic subtances, overall 15.0% (men: 15.1%, women: 15.0%), 13.1% (13.7%, 12.5%), and 13.0% (13.0%, 13.4%) of patients were doubly medicated, respectively. Corresponding prevalences by patient-years were 1.6%, 2.0%, and 1.2%. Logistic regression confirmed lower age and copayment waiver as independent risk factors of double medication. Furthermore, double medication occurred more often with prescriptions from hospitals or internal medicine specialists compared with general practitioners, as well as in August compared with earlier or later in the calendar year. CONCLUSION: While appropriate care or comanagement of patients by internal medicine specialists and general practitioners may explain some of the double prescriptions, our data indicate that unintended double medication is frequent. In Austria, lack of financial incentives of patients to avoid filling duplicate prescriptions explains a considerable fraction of double medication occurrences.

Personalizing health care: feasibility and future implications.

Considerable variety in how patients respond to treatments, driven by differences in their geno- and/ or phenotypes, calls for a more tailored approach. This is already happening, and will accelerate with developments in personalized medicine. However, its promise has not always translated into improvements in patient care due to the complexities involved. There are also concerns that advice for tests has been reversed, current tests can be costly, there is fragmentation of funding of care, and companies may seek high prices for new targeted drugs. There is a need to integrate current knowledge from a payer's perspective to provide future guidance. Multiple findings including general considerations; influence of pharmacogenomics on response and toxicity of drug therapies; value of biomarker tests; limitations and costs of tests; and potentially high acquisition costs of new targeted therapies help to give guidance on potential ways forward for all stakeholder groups. Overall, personalized medicine has the potential to revolutionize care. However, current challenges and concerns need to be addressed to enhance its uptake and funding to benefit patients.

Interpreting the Benefit and Risk Data in Between-Drug Comparisons: Illustration of the Challenges Using the Example of Mefenamic Acid versus Ibuprofen.

Evidence-based pain therapy should rely on precisely defined and personalized criteria. This includes balancing the benefits and risks not only of single drugs but often requires complex between-drug comparisons. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) have been available for several decades and their use is described in an abundance of guidelines. Most of these guidelines recommend that 'the selection of a particular NSAID should be based on the benefit-risk balance for each patient'. However, head-to-head studies are often lacking or of poor quality, reflecting the lower standards for clinical research and regulatory approval at the time. The inconsistency of approved indications between countries due to national applications adds to the complexity. Finally, a fading research interest once drugs become generic points to a general deficit in the post-marketing evaluation of medicines. Far from claiming completeness, this narrative review aimed to illustrate the challenges that physicians encounter when trying to balance benefits and risks in a situation of incomplete and inconsistent data on longstanding treatment concepts. Ibuprofen and mefenamic acid, the most frequently sold NSAIDs in Austria, serve as examples. The illustrated principles are, however, not specific to these drugs and are generalizable to any comparison of older drugs in daily clinical practice.

Why are self-medication opportunities limited in Austria? An interview study and comparison with other countries.

BACKGROUND: Austria has high health resource use compared to similar countries. Reclassifying (switching) medicines from prescription to non-prescription can reduce pressure on health resources and aid timely access to medicines. Since Austria is less progressive in this area than many other countries, this research aimed to elucidate enablers and barriers to it reclassifying medicines and make recommendations for change in the context of similar research conducted elsewhere. METHODS: Qualitative research using a heuristic approach was conducted in Austria in 2018. Informed by their own "insider" and "outsider" knowledge, the authors identified themes from personal interviews with 24 participants, including reclassification committee members, government officials and stakeholders, before comparing these themes with earlier research findings. RESULTS: Significant barriers to reclassification included committee conservatism, minimal political support, medical negativity and few company applications. Insufficient transparency about committee decisions, expectations of adverse committee decisions and a limited market discouraged company applications. Austria's 'social partnership' arrangement and consensus decision making aided a conservative approach, but the regulator and an alternative non-committee switch process were enabling. Pharmacy showed mixed interest in reclassification. Suggested improvements include increasing transparency, committee composition changes, encouraging a more evidence-based approach by the committee, more pharmacy undergraduate clinical training, and companies using scientific advisory meetings and submitting high quality applications. CONCLUSION: Removing barriers to reclassification would facilitate non-prescription availability of medicines and encourage self-care, and could reduce pressure on healthcare resources.

Sex-Related Differences in Drugs with Anti-Inflammatory Properties.

There is increasing evidence of sex differences in the action of anti-inflammatory drugs, with women being at significantly higher risk of adverse effects. Nevertheless, clinicians' awareness of the implications of these sex differences on dosing and adverse event monitoring in routine practice is still in need of improvement. We reviewed the literature evaluating sex differences in terms of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of anti-inflammatory drugs. The anti-thrombotic activity of selective and non-selective COX-inhibitors tends to be stronger in men than women. Side effect profiles differ with regards to gastro-intestinal, renal and hepatic complications. Glucocorticosteroids were found to be more effective in men; women were more sensitive to corticosteroids when their oestradiol levels were high, a finding important for women taking hormonal contraception. TNF-alpha inhibitors have a longer half-life in men, leading to stronger immunosuppression and this a higher incidence of infections as side effects. Although research on sex differences in the effectiveness and safety of drugs is increasing, findings are often anecdotal and controversial. There is no systematic sex-differentiated reporting from clinical trials, and women are often under-represented. As personalized medicine is gaining in importance, sex, and gender aspects need to become integral parts of future research and policy making.

Mini-review: medication safety of red yeast rice products.

High lipid levels in the blood together with high blood pressure and diabetes are among the highest risks for coronary heart disease. In particular, elevated cholesterol levels promote the progression of atherosclerosis. Red yeast rice, also called red fermented rice or red mold rice, is used as a dietary supplement to lower cholesterol levels. It contains varying amounts of natural monacolin K, which is a structural homolog to lovastatin, and shows hypocholesterolemic properties comparable to synthetic statins. Despite being portrayed as a natural alternative, the potential of red yeast rice for side effects and interactions is comparable to statin drugs. Consumers need to be made aware of the varying monacolin K content in red yeast rice products and the insufficient long-term safety data regarding the potential risks of red yeast rice.

[Generic drugs: quality, efficacy, safety and interchangeability]. / Generika: Qualität, Wirksamkeit, Sicherheit und Austauschbarkeit.

Since the introduction of generic drugs to the pharmaceutical market a sometimes emotional debate exists whether they are well-investigated and of high quality. There is some uncertainty about whether evidence of bioequivalence is enough to guarantee efficacy and safety of generic drugs. Some physicians ask the question if competent authorities are able to ascertain that the pharmaceutical quality of generics is acceptable. Doctors and patients sometimes are ill at ease about the interchangeability of innovator and generic products. This article describes how the European Union legislation ensures that a generic drug is only approved if its risk-benefit relationship is favourable and that it is essentially similar to the innovator product. In this context pharmacokinetic parameters are accepted as surrogates for clinical results because bioequivalence means therapeutic equivalence as well. For most drugs, current bioequivalence testing generally enables clinicians to routinely substitute generic for innovator products. Published findings, however, suggest that particular drugs may not be ideally suited for generic substitution when a patient is already on that drug. These are the so called critical dose medicinal products (drugs with a narrow therapeutic range). When starting a new therapy with any generic drug, however, its similarity to the innovator drug in terms of efficacy, safety and quality is guaranteed.

Potential savings in prescription drug costs for hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and diabetes mellitus by equivalent drug substitution in Austria: a nationwide cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare systems spend considerable proportions of their budgets on pharmaceutical treatment of hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and diabetes mellitus. From data on almost all residents of Austria, a country with mandatory health insurance and universal health coverage, we estimated potential cost savings by substituting prescribed medicines with the cheapest medicines that were of the same chemical substance and strength, and available during the same time. METHODS: Data from 8.3 million persons (98.5 % of the total Austrian insured population) from 2009-2012 were analyzed. Real prescription costs for antihypertensive, lipid-lowering, and hypoglycemic medicines achievable by same-substance, same-strength drug substitution were computed for each active ingredient, and per gender and 1-year age category of patients. RESULTS: In 2012, health insurance providers spent 231.3 million, 77.8 million, and 91.9 million for antihypertensive, lipid-lowering, and diabetes medications, of which 52.2 million (22.6 %), 15.9 million (20.5 %), and 4.1 million (4.5 %), respectively, could have been saved by same-substance drug substitution. Highest potential savings were calculated for amlodipine (8.0 million, 65.4 %), simvastatin (12.2 million, 59.3 %), and metformin (2.4 million, 54.6 %), respectively. Higher savings for men than for women resulted from differing prescribed cumulative dosages and proportions of patients with co-payment waiver. Potential cost savings in antihypertensive and lipid-lowering drugs increased from 2009-2012. CONCLUSION: Our study highlights the cost-savings potential from arguably the most acceptable of interventions, simply switching to the cheapest available same-substance, same-strength product. In 2012, this strategy could have reduced costs for antihypertensive, lipid-lowering, and hypoglycemic treatment by up to 18.0 %.

Dabigatran - a continuing exemplar case history demonstrating the need for comprehensive models to optimize the utilization of new drugs.

BACKGROUND: There are potential conflicts between authorities and companies to fund new premium priced drugs especially where there are effectiveness, safety and/or budget concerns. Dabigatran, a new oral anticoagulant for the prevention of stroke in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF), exemplifies this issue. Whilst new effective treatments are needed, there are issues in the elderly with dabigatran due to variable drug concentrations, no known antidote and dependence on renal elimination. Published studies showed dabigatran to be cost-effective but there are budget concerns given the prevalence of AF. These concerns resulted in extensive activities pre- to post-launch to manage its introduction. OBJECTIVE: To (i) review authority activities across countries, (ii) use the findings to develop new models to better manage the entry of new drugs, and (iii) review the implications based on post-launch activities. METHODOLOGY: (i) Descriptive review and appraisal of activities regarding dabigatran, (ii) development of guidance for key stakeholder groups through an iterative process, (iii) refining guidance following post launch studies. RESULTS: Plethora of activities to manage dabigatran including extensive pre-launch activities, risk sharing arrangements, prescribing restrictions and monitoring of prescribing post launch. Reimbursement has been denied in some countries due to concerns with its budget impact and/or excessive bleeding. Development of a new model and future guidance is proposed to better manage the entry of new drugs, centering on three pillars of pre-, peri-, and post-launch activities. Post-launch activities include increasing use of patient registries to monitor the safety and effectiveness of new drugs in clinical practice. CONCLUSION: Models for introducing new drugs are essential to optimize their prescribing especially where concerns. Without such models, new drugs may be withdrawn prematurely and/or struggle for funding.

Dabigatran - a case history demonstrating the need for comprehensive approaches to optimize the use of new drugs.

BACKGROUND: There are potential conflicts between authorities and companies to fund new premium priced drugs especially where there are safety and/or budget concerns. Dabigatran, a new oral anticoagulant for the prevention of stroke in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF), exemplifies this issue. Whilst new effective treatments are needed, there are issues in the elderly with dabigatran due to variable drug concentrations, no known antidote and dependence on renal elimination. Published studies have shown dabigatran to be cost-effective but there are budget concerns given the prevalence of AF. There are also issues with potentially re-designing anticoagulant services. This has resulted in activities across countries to better manage its use. OBJECTIVE: To (i) review authority activities in over 30 countries and regions, (ii) use the findings to develop new models to better manage the entry of new drugs, and (iii) review the implications for all major stakeholder groups. METHODOLOGY: Descriptive review and appraisal of activities regarding dabigatran and the development of guidance for groups through an iterative process. RESULTS: There has been a plethora of activities among authorities to manage the prescribing of dabigatran including extensive pre-launch activities, risk sharing arrangements, prescribing restrictions, and monitoring of prescribing post-launch. Reimbursement has been denied in some countries due to concerns with its budget impact and/or excessive bleeding. Development of a new model and future guidance is proposed to better manage the entry of new drugs, centering on three pillars of pre-, peri-, and post-launch activities. CONCLUSION: Models for introducing new drugs are essential to optimize their prescribing especially where there are concerns. Without such models, new drugs may be withdrawn prematurely and/or struggle for funding.