[What is being investigated and who conducts clinical research related to medicines in Argentina?] / ¿Qué se investiga y quién realiza en Argentina la investigación clínica relacionada a medicamentos?

INTRODUCTION: Clinical trials that involve medicines are performed in order to determine their effectiveness and safety. In Argentina, these studies are presented either to National Administration of Drugs, Food and Medical Technology (ANMAT) to obtain drug registration, or to the National Ministry of Health (MSAL) (to obtain the official recognition). This work was carried out to increase the knowledge about the clinical trials performed in Argentina. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The MSAL/ANMAT databases were explored. The variables were: dates of request, institution, phase of the study, enrollment modality, product investigated, therapeutic group, comparator, pathology involved, and location of laboratory performance. RESULTS: A total of 201 protocols were detected in the period of study, all of them performed with registration purposes. Twenty pharmaceutical companies carried out 60% of the studies (17 with foreign capital). Seventy percent were phase III (90% multicenter protocols). Three out of 4 trials corresponded to the oncology / immunosuppressant therapeutical group. In 65% the comparator used was placebo. A 71% of the studies were carried out in health institutions of Buenos Aires City. Ninety-eight per cent of laboratory controls were carried out abroad. DISCUSSION: Foreign pharmaceutical companies are the only ones that carry out clinical trials on medicines in Argentina, all of them for registration purposes. The use of placebo as a comparator is inappropriate, since each drug is expected to be validated against another of recognized efficacy already available in the market. Oncological/immunological pathologies are the ones that arouse greater interest among local researchers due to their prevalence and their greater profitability in the pharmaceutical market.

Introducción: Los ensayos clínicos que involucran medicamentos, tienen como objetivo determinar su eficacia y seguridad. En Argentina, estos estudios se presentan ante la agencia reguladora Administración Nacional Medicamentos, Alimentos y Tecnología Médica (ANMAT), para registrarlos; o bien ante el Ministerio de Salud de la Nación (MSAL). El objetivo de este trabajo fue conocer cuáles son los medicamentos de interés y quiénes son los que llevan adelante este tipo investigación clínica en Argentina. Materiales y métodos: Se exploraron las bases de datos MSAL/ANMAT. Las variables fueron fechas de solicitud del trámite, institución solicitante, fase del estudio, modalidad de enrolamiento, producto investigado, grupo terapéutico, comparador, enfermedad involucraday lugar de realización de laboratorio. Resultados: Se detectaron en el periodo 201 protocolos, todos ellos con fines registrales. Veinte compañías farmacéuticas realizaron el 60% de los estudios (17 de capitales extranjeros). El 70% fueron fase III (90% multicéntricos). Tres de cada 4 ensayos correspondieron al grupo de oncológicos/ inmunosupresores. En el 65% el comparador fue placebo. El 71% de los estudios se realizaron en instituciones de la Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires. El 98 % de controles de laboratorio se realizaron en el exterior. Discusión: Las compañías farmacéuticas extranjeras son quienes realizan con fines registrales el mayor número de ensayos clínicos sobre medicamentos en Argentina. El predominio del uso de placebo como comparador resulta inapropiado, ya que el verdadero valor del estudio es cuando un fármaco innovador demuestra superioridad contra otro ya existente de reconocida eficacia. Las enfermedades oncológicas/inmunológicas fueron aquellas que despertaron mayor interés entre los investigadores y patrocinantes por prevalencia y rentabilidad.

Medicamentos de alto costo: el difícil equilibrio entre los derechos individuales y los derechos colectivos / High-cost medicines: the difficult balance between individual and collective rights

[RESUMEN]. Los medicamentos son bienes especiales que cubren necesidades de salud de la población. En las últimas décadas, la industria farmacéutica modificó su estrategia de investigación y desarrollo, y migró su interés desde la exploración de fármacos destinados a enfermedades crónicas padecidas por gran parte de la población hacia la búsqueda de medicamentos para pocas personas que tienen enfermedades raras. Esta falta de masividad en los consumidores se traduce en una oferta selectiva de pocos productos dirigidos a ciertas patologías que tienen un precio muy elevado, lo cual hace difícil tanto el acceso de los pacientes como el brindar cobertura desde los financiadores de la salud. En este artículo se recorre la temática de los medicamentos de alto precio y se incorpora al debate el contexto sanitario, cultural, jurídico, político y económico que la rodea. Se hace hincapié en las diferencias existentes entre los distintos fármacos en términos de eficacia para cambiar el curso natural de las enfermedades para los cuales son indicados, en la construcción del precio al cual estos medicamentos se venden en el mercado, en las consecuencias que tiene ese precio para los financiadores de la salud, y en la relación costo-oportunidad de tener que pagar por ellos en desmedro de otros recursos considerados esenciales. Por último, se reflexiona sobre los derechos legítimos de cada individuo a reclamar el acceso a medicamentos de alto precio por considerarlos fundamentales para recuperar su salud, y de cómo garantizar esa cobertura puede afectar los derechos colectivos de la población, y se aportan ejemplos concretos que ilustran esta situación.

[ABSTRACT]. Medicines are special goods that cover the health needs of the population. In recent decades, the pharmaceutical industry has changed its research and development strategy, shifting its focus from the exploration of medicines for chronic diseases affecting a large part of the population to the search for drugs for rare diseases that affect a small number of people. This lack of a mass consumer base is reflected in a selective offer of a few very high-cost products aimed at certain diseases, which hinders both patient access and financial coverage. This article reviews the issue of high-cost medicines, including its cultural, legal, political, economic, and health aspects. It emphasizes the differences between various medicines in terms of their efficacy in changing the natural course of diseases, their market price, the consequences of their cost for healthcare funders, and the cost-opportunity ratio of having to pay for them at the expense of other essential resources. Finally, the article reflects on the legitimate rights of each individual to claim access to high-cost medicines when they are considered essential to recover a person’s health, and on how guaranteeing such coverage can affect the collective rights of the population. Concrete examples that illustrate this situation are provided.

[RESUMO]. Medicamentos são bens especiais que atendem às necessidades de saúde da população. Nas últimas décadas, a indústria farmacêutica mudou sua estratégia de pesquisa e desenvolvimento, deixando de explorar medicamentos para doenças crônicas que afetam grande parte da população e passando a buscar medicamentos para poucas pessoas com doenças raras. Esse número limitado de consumidores se reflete em uma oferta seletiva de poucos produtos de preço elevado para determinadas doenças, dificultando o acesso dos pacientes e a obtenção de cobertura dos agentes financiadores da saúde. Neste artigo, analisa-se a questão dos medicamentos de alto custo e incorpora-se ao debate o contexto sanitário, cultural, jurídico, político e econômico. São enfatizados os seguintes aspectos: diferenças entre os diferentes medicamentos em termos da eficácia em mudar o curso natural das doenças para as quais são indicados; determinação do preço pelo qual esses medicamentos são vendidos no mercado; consequências desse preço para os agentes financiadores da saúde; e a relação custo-oportunidade de ter de pagar por esses medicamentos em detrimento de outros recursos considerados essenciais. Por fim, reflete-se sobre os direitos legítimos de cada indivíduo de reivindicar acesso a medicamentos de alto custo, por considerá-los essenciais para recuperar a própria saúde, e como a garantia dessa cobertura pode afetar os direitos coletivos da população; também são fornecidos exemplos concretos que ilustram essa situação.

[High-cost medicines: the difficult balance between individual and collective rightsMedicamentos de alto custo: o difícil equilíbrio entre direitos individuais e coletivos]. / Medicamentos de alto costo: el difícil equilibrio entre los derechos individuales y los derechos colectivos.

Medicines are special goods that cover the health needs of the population. In recent decades, the pharmaceutical industry has changed its research and development strategy, shifting its focus from the exploration of medicines for chronic diseases affecting a large part of the population to the search for drugs for rare diseases that affect a small number of people.This lack of a mass consumer base is reflected in a selective offer of a few very high-cost products aimed at certain diseases, which hinders both patient access and financial coverage.This article reviews the issue of high-cost medicines, including its cultural, legal, political, economic, and health aspects. It emphasizes the differences between various medicines in terms of their efficacy in changing the natural course of diseases, their market price, the consequences of their cost for healthcare funders, and the cost-opportunity ratio of having to pay for them at the expense of other essential resources.Finally, the article reflects on the legitimate rights of each individual to claim access to high-cost medicines when they are considered essential to recover a person's health, and on how guaranteeing such coverage can affect the collective rights of the population. Concrete examples that illustrate this situation are provided.

Medicamentos são bens especiais que atendem às necessidades de saúde da população. Nas últimas décadas, a indústria farmacêutica mudou sua estratégia de pesquisa e desenvolvimento, deixando de explorar medicamentos para doenças crônicas que afetam grande parte da população e passando a buscar medicamentos para poucas pessoas com doenças raras.Esse número limitado de consumidores se reflete em uma oferta seletiva de poucos produtos de preço elevado para determinadas doenças, dificultando o acesso dos pacientes e a obtenção de cobertura dos agentes financiadores da saúde.Neste artigo, analisa-se a questão dos medicamentos de alto custo e incorpora-se ao debate o contexto sanitário, cultural, jurídico, político e econômico. São enfatizados os seguintes aspectos: diferenças entre os diferentes medicamentos em termos da eficácia em mudar o curso natural das doenças para as quais são indicados; determinação do preço pelo qual esses medicamentos são vendidos no mercado; consequências desse preço para os agentes financiadores da saúde; e a relação custo-oportunidade de ter de pagar por esses medicamentos em detrimento de outros recursos considerados essenciais.Por fim, reflete-se sobre os direitos legítimos de cada indivíduo de reivindicar acesso a medicamentos de alto custo, por considerá-los essenciais para recuperar a própria saúde, e como a garantia dessa cobertura pode afetar os direitos coletivos da população; também são fornecidos exemplos concretos que ilustram essa situação.

Judicialización de medicamentos de alto precio en Argentina: estudio cuali-cuantitativo / Judicialization of high priced medications in Argentina: quali-quantitative study

Resumen Introducción : Las consecuencias económicas de la cobertura obligatoria, vía judicial, de medicamentos de alto precio constituye un problema creciente, que amerita conocer sus características locales para aportar posibles soluciones. Objetivo : Identificar medicamentos, enfermedades, impacto económico y factores contextuales de la ju dicialización de medicamentos de alto precio (MEP) Argentina. Métodos : Estudio descriptivo cuali-cuantitativo que analizó retrospectivamente recursos de amparos legales por MEP de tres bases de datos nacionales y provinciales durante 4 años, evaluando relación existente entre am paros con aprobación regulatoria, inclusión de los MEP al paquete de beneficios y relación con notas periodísticas. Resultados : Se incluyeron 405 amparos provenientes principalmente del Ministerio de Salud Nacional. Los tres medicamentos más judicializados fueron nusiner sen (21.7%), palbociclib (5.9%) y agalsidasa-alfa (4.7%). Solo el 69.4% de los medicamentos se encontraban aprobados para la comercialización en Argentina al momento del amparo; el 45.7% se encontraban incorpo rados al Sistema Único de Reintegros y el 16.8% contaban con informe de la Comisión Nacional de Evaluación de Tecnologías Sanitarias y Excelencia Clínica (CONETEC), negativa en el 87.1% de casos. El tiempo promedio des de la solicitud hasta la provisión del medicamento fue de 150 días. Se observó una correlación temporal entre la aparición del MEP en la prensa nacional gráfica y la presentación de amparos de dicho MEP. Conclusiones : La judicialización se concentró en medicamentos de altísimo precio para enfermedades poco frecuentes u oncológicas. Los fallos fueron mayo ritariamente a favor del demandante, siendo los tiempos de acceso al medicamento prolongados. Los medios de comunicación anticiparon los procesos judiciales.

Abstract Introduction : The economic consequences of manda tory coverage, through judicial means, of high-priced medications constitutes a growing problem, which mer its knowing its local characteristics to provide possible solutions. Objective : To identify medications, diseases involved, economic impact and contextual factors of the judi cialization of high-priced medications in the Argentine Health System(MEP). Methods : Quali-quantitative descriptive study that retrospectively analyzed legal protection resources by MEP from three national and provincial databases from January 2017 to December 2020, evaluating the exist ing relationship between lawsuits with regulatory ap proval, inclusion in benefit packages and relationship with journalistic articles for the three most frequently prosecuted drugs. Results : 405 lawsuits were included, mainly from the Ministry of National Health. The three most prosecuted medications were nusinersen (21.7%), palbociclib (5.9%) and agalsidase-alfa (4.7%). Only 69.4% of medications were approved for marketing in Argentina at the time of the protection; 45.7% were incorporated into the Single Reimbursement System, and 16.8% had a report from the National Commission for the Evaluation of Health Technologies and Clinical Excellence (CONETEC), which was negative in 87.1% of cases. The average time from request to provision of the medication was 150 days. A temporal correlation was observed between the appear ance of the MEP in the national graphic press and the appeals occurrence. Conclusions : Judicialization focused on very high-priced medications for rare or oncological diseases. The rulings were mostly in favor of the plaintiff, and access times to the medication took a long time. The mass media anticipated the judicial processes.

[Judicialization of high priced medications in Argentina: quali-quantitative study]. / Judicialización de medicamentos de alto precio en Argentina: estudio cuali-cuantitativo.

INTRODUCTION: The economic consequences of mandatory coverage, through judicial means, of high-priced medications constitutes a growing problem, which merits knowing its local characteristics to provide possible solutions. OBJECTIVE: To identify medications, diseases involved, economic impact and contextual factors of the judicialization of high-priced medications in the Argentine Health System(MEP). METHODS: Quali-quantitative descriptive study that retrospectively analyzed legal protection resources by MEP from three national and provincial databases from January 2017 to December 2020, evaluating the existing relationship between lawsuits with regulatory approval, inclusion in benefit packages and relationship with journalistic articles for the three most frequently prosecuted drugs. RESULTS: 405 lawsuits were included, mainly from the Ministry of National Health. The three most prosecuted medications were nusinersen (21.7%), palbociclib (5.9%) and agalsidase-alfa (4.7%). Only 69.4% of medications were approved for marketing in Argentina at the time of the protection; 45.7% were incorporated into the Single Reimbursement System, and 16.8% had a report from the National Commission for the Evaluation of Health Technologies and Clinical Excellence (CONETEC), which was negative in 87.1% of cases. The average time from request to provision of the medication was 150 days. A temporal correlation was observed between the appearance of the MEP in the national graphic press and the appeals occurrence. CONCLUSIONS: Judicialization focused on very highpriced medications for rare or oncological diseases. The rulings were mostly in favor of the plaintiff, and access times to the medication took a long time. The mass media anticipated the judicial processes.

Introducción: Las consecuencias económicas de la cobertura obligatoria, vía judicial, de medicamentos de alto precio constituye un problema creciente, que amerita conocer sus características locales para aportar posibles soluciones. OBJETIVO: Identificar medicamentos, enfermedades, impacto económico y factores contextuales de la judicialización de medicamentos de alto precio (MEP) Argentina. Métodos: Estudio descriptivo cuali-cuantitativo que analizó retrospectivamente recursos de amparos legales por MEP de tres bases de datos nacionales y provinciales durante 4 años, evaluando relación existente entre amparos con aprobación regulatoria, inclusión de los MEP al paquete de beneficios y relación con notas periodísticas. RESULTADOS: Se incluyeron 405 amparos provenientes principalmente del Ministerio de Salud Nacional. Los tres medicamentos más judicializados fueron nusinersen (21.7%), palbociclib (5.9%) y agalsidasa-alfa (4.7%). Solo el 69.4% de los medicamentos se encontraban aprobados para la comercialización en Argentina al momento del amparo; el 45.7% se encontraban incorporados al Sistema Único de Reintegros y el 16.8% contaban con informe de la Comisión Nacional de Evaluación de Tecnologías Sanitarias y Excelencia Clínica (CONETEC), negativa en el 87.1% de casos. El tiempo promedio desde la solicitud hasta la provisión del medicamento fue de 150 días. Se observó una correlación temporal entre la aparición del MEP en la prensa nacional gráfica y la presentación de amparos de dicho MEP. CONCLUSIONES: La judicialización se concentró en medicamentos de altísimo precio para enfermedades poco frecuentes u oncológicas. Los fallos fueron mayoritariamente a favor del demandante, siendo los tiempos de acceso al medicamento prolongados. Los medios de comunicación anticiparon los procesos judiciales.

A Cross-National Comparison of Biosimilars Pricing in Argentina, Australia, Brazil, and Italy.

BACKGROUND: Biosimilar medicines are defined as biological products highly similar to an already licensed biological product (RP). The market entry of biosimilars is expected to reduce the costs of biological treatments. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate the range of differences between the prices of biosimilars and the corresponding RP for biologicals approved in four countries. METHOD: This is a cross-national comparison of pricing of biosimilars in Argentina, Australia, Brazil, and Italy. The study examined online price databases provided by the national authorities of the investigated countries. Biosimilar price difference was calculated by subtracting the unit price of the biosimilar by the unit price of the RP, and then dividing it by the unit price of the RP. The results were presented as percentage. RESULTS: Brazil had the highest median price reduction (- 36.3%) in biosimilars price, followed by Italy (- 20.0%) and Argentina (- 18.6%). All the biosimilars in Italy were priced below the RP presenting a minimum reduction of 6.3%, while in Australia, most of the prices of biosimilars were equal to the RP. In Argentina, one infliximab-biosimilar displayed price above the RP (40.7%) while the lower priced brand had a reduction of 14.4%. Brazil had four biosimilars with prices above the respective RP, including isophane insulin (1), insulin glargine (1) and somatropin (2). CONCLUSION: The study revealed a marked dispersion in the price's differences between biosimilars and RP across the studied countries. Governments should evaluate whether their policies have been successful in improving affordability of biological therapies.

Concordancia entre las listas de medicamentos esenciales y las guías para diabetes en América Latina y el Caribe / Concordance between essential medicines lists and diabetes guidelines in Latin America and the Caribbean / Concordância entre as listas de medicamentos essenciais e diretrizes para diabetes na América Latina e no Caribe

[RESUMEN]. Objetivo. Analizar la existencia y actualización de las listas de medicamentos nacionales (LMN) y guías de práctica clínica (GPC) para el tratamiento de la diabetes en América Latina y el Caribe (ALC). Comparar los fármacos incluidos en las listas y guías de cada país, entre sí y con los de la Organización Mundial de la Salud (OMS). Métodos. Estudio de corte transversal. Se identificaron las LMN y GPC para diabetes en los sitios web de la Organización Panamericana de la Salud y de las autoridades sanitarias nacionales. Se relevaron los fármacos y se analizaron por grupo farmacológico según el cuarto nivel de la nomenclatura ATC. Se utilizó el puntaje F1 para evaluar la proximidad de las LMN con la lista modelo de medicamentos esenciales (LMME) de la OMS. Resultados. Del total de países, 87,2% cuentan con LMN, y 91% con GPC (78% y 45% actualizadas en los últimos 5 años, respectivamente). En comparación con los 6 grupos de hipoglucemiantes de la LMME, las LMN tenían una mediana (rango) de 6 (4-13) y un puntaje F1 de 0,80; esto indica una consonancia adecuada. Las GPC tenían una mediana (rango) de 12 (1-12) hipoglucemiantes frente a los 8 de las guías de la OMS. Las GPC tuvieron una mediana de 15 fármacos más que las respectivas LMN. Conclusiones. Si bien la mayoría de los países de ALC cuentan con LMN y GPC para diabetes, la falta de concordancia entre ellas limita su eficacia. Es necesario alinear los procesos y criterios de elaboración de estas dos herramientas de la política de medicamentos.

[ABSTRACT]. Objective. Conduct an analysis to determine the existence and updating of national essential medicines lists (EMLs) and clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for the treatment of diabetes in Latin America and the Carib- bean (LAC); and compare the medicines included in each country's list and guidelines both with each other and with those of the World Health Organization (WHO). Methods. Cross-sectional study. EMLs and CPGs for diabetes were found on the websites of the Pan Amer- ican Health Organization and national health authorities. Medicines were noted and analyzed according to pharmacological group, based on the fourth level of nomenclature of the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) classification system. F1 scoring was used to assess the proximity of EMLs to the WHO Model List of Essential Medicines (MLEM). Results. Of the total number of countries, 87.2% have EMLs, and 91% have CPGs (78% and 45% updated in the last five years, respectively). Compared to the six hypoglycemic groups of the MLEM, the EMLs had a median (range) of 6 (4–13) and an F1 score of 0.80; This indicates proper alignment. CPGs had a median (range) of 12 (1–12) hypoglycemic drugs compared to eight in the WHO guidelines. CPGs had a median of 15 more drugs than their respective EMLs. Conclusions. While most LAC countries have EMLs and CPGs for diabetes, the lack of concordance among them limits their effectiveness. It is necessary to align the processes and criteria for the development of these two tools for policymaking on medicines.

[RESUMO]. Objetivos. Analisar a existência e a atualização das listas nacionais de medicamentos (LNMs) e guias de prática clínica (GPCs) para o tratamento do diabetes na América Latina e no Caribe (ALC). Comparar os medicamentos incluídos nas listas e nas diretrizes de cada país entre si e com as da Organização Mundial da Saúde (OMS). Métodos. Estudo transversal. Foram identificadas LMNs e GPCs para o diabetes nos sites da Organização Pan-Americana da Saúde e das autoridades sanitárias nacionais. Os medicamentos foram pesquisados e analisados por grupo farmacológico de acordo com o quarto nível da classificação ATC. A pontuação F1 foi utilizada para avaliar o grau de proximidade das LMNs com a lista-modelo de medicamentos essenciais (LMME) da OMS. Resultados. Do total de países, 87,2% dispõem de uma LNM e 91%, de GPCs (78% e 45%, respectivamente, atualizadas nos últimos 5 anos). Em comparação com os seis grupos de agentes hipoglicemiantes da LMME, as LMNs tinham uma mediana (intervalo) de 6 (4 a 13) e uma pontuação F1 de 0,80, o que indica uma con- formidade adequada. As GPCs tinham uma mediana (intervalo) de 12 (1 a 12) agentes hipoglicemiantes, em comparação com 8 nos guias da OMS. As GPCs tinham uma mediana de 15 medicamentos a mais do que as respectivas LNMs. Conclusões. Embora a maioria dos países da América Latina e do Caribe disponha de LNMs e GPCs para o diabetes, a falta de concordância entre elas limita sua eficácia. É necessário alinhar os processos e os critérios de desenvolvimento dessas duas ferramentas da política de medicamentos.

[Concordance between essential medicines lists and diabetes guidelines in Latin America and the CaribbeanConcordância entre as listas de medicamentos essenciais e diretrizes para diabetes na América Latina e no Caribe]. / Concordancia entre las listas de medicamentos esenciales y las guías para diabetes en América Latina y el Caribe.

Objective: Conduct an analysis to determine the existence and updating of national essential medicines lists (EMLs) and clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for the treatment of diabetes in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC); and compare the medicines included in each country's list and guidelines both with each other and with those of the World Health Organization (WHO). Methods: Cross-sectional study. EMLs and CPGs for diabetes were found on the websites of the Pan American Health Organization and national health authorities. Medicines were noted and analyzed according to pharmacological group, based on the fourth level of nomenclature of the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) classification system. F1 scoring was used to assess the proximity of EMLs to the WHO Model List of Essential Medicines (MLEM). Results: Of the total number of countries, 87.2% have EMLs, and 91% have CPGs (78% and 45% updated in the last five years, respectively). Compared to the six hypoglycemic groups of the MLEM, the EMLs had a median (range) of 6 (4-13) and an F1 score of 0.80; This indicates proper alignment. CPGs had a median (range) of 12 (1-12) hypoglycemic drugs compared to eight in the WHO guidelines. CPGs had a median of 15 more drugs than their respective EMLs. Conclusions: While most LAC countries have EMLs and CPGs for diabetes, the lack of concordance among them limits their effectiveness. It is necessary to align the processes and criteria for the development of these two tools for policymaking on medicines.

Objetivos: Analisar a existência e a atualização das listas nacionais de medicamentos (LNMs) e guias de prática clínica (GPCs) para o tratamento do diabetes na América Latina e no Caribe (ALC). Comparar os medicamentos incluídos nas listas e nas diretrizes de cada país entre si e com as da Organização Mundial da Saúde (OMS). Métodos: Estudo transversal. Foram identificadas LMNs e GPCs para o diabetes nos sites da Organização Pan-Americana da Saúde e das autoridades sanitárias nacionais. Os medicamentos foram pesquisados e analisados por grupo farmacológico de acordo com o quarto nível da classificação ATC. A pontuação F1 foi utilizada para avaliar o grau de proximidade das LMNs com a lista-modelo de medicamentos essenciais (LMME) da OMS. Resultados: Do total de países, 87,2% dispõem de uma LNM e 91%, de GPCs (78% e 45%, respectivamente, atualizadas nos últimos 5 anos). Em comparação com os seis grupos de agentes hipoglicemiantes da LMME, as LMNs tinham uma mediana (intervalo) de 6 (4 a 13) e uma pontuação F1 de 0,80, o que indica uma conformidade adequada. As GPCs tinham uma mediana (intervalo) de 12 (1 a 12) agentes hipoglicemiantes, em comparação com 8 nos guias da OMS. As GPCs tinham uma mediana de 15 medicamentos a mais do que as respectivas LNMs. Conclusões: Embora a maioria dos países da América Latina e do Caribe disponha de LNMs e GPCs para o diabetes, a falta de concordância entre elas limita sua eficácia. É necessário alinhar os processos e os critérios de desenvolvimento dessas duas ferramentas da política de medicamentos.

Concordancia entre las listas de medicamentos esenciales y las guías para diabetes en América Latina y el Caribe / Concordance between essential medicines lists and diabetes guidelines in Latin America and the Caribbean / Concordância entre as listas de medicamentos essenciais e diretrizes para diabetes na América Latina e no Caribe

RESUMEN Objetivo. Analizar la existencia y actualización de las listas de medicamentos nacionales (LMN) y guías de práctica clínica (GPC) para el tratamiento de la diabetes en América Latina y el Caribe (ALC). Comparar los fármacos incluidos en las listas y guías de cada país, entre sí y con los de la Organización Mundial de la Salud (OMS). Métodos. Estudio de corte transversal. Se identificaron las LMN y GPC para diabetes en los sitios web de la Organización Panamericana de la Salud y de las autoridades sanitarias nacionales. Se relevaron los fármacos y se analizaron por grupo farmacológico según el cuarto nivel de la nomenclatura ATC. Se utilizó el puntaje F1 para evaluar la proximidad de las LMN con la lista modelo de medicamentos esenciales (LMME) de la OMS. Resultados. Del total de países, 87,2% cuentan con LMN, y 91% con GPC (78% y 45% actualizadas en los últimos 5 años, respectivamente). En comparación con los 6 grupos de hipoglucemiantes de la LMME, las LMN tenían una mediana (rango) de 6 (4-13) y un puntaje F1 de 0,80; esto indica una consonancia adecuada. Las GPC tenían una mediana (rango) de 12 (1-12) hipoglucemiantes frente a los 8 de las guías de la OMS. Las GPC tuvieron una mediana de 15 fármacos más que las respectivas LMN. Conclusiones. Si bien la mayoría de los países de ALC cuentan con LMN y GPC para diabetes, la falta de concordancia entre ellas limita su eficacia. Es necesario alinear los procesos y criterios de elaboración de estas dos herramientas de la política de medicamentos.

ABSTRACT Objective. Conduct an analysis to determine the existence and updating of national essential medicines lists (EMLs) and clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for the treatment of diabetes in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC); and compare the medicines included in each country's list and guidelines both with each other and with those of the World Health Organization (WHO). Methods. Cross-sectional study. EMLs and CPGs for diabetes were found on the websites of the Pan American Health Organization and national health authorities. Medicines were noted and analyzed according to pharmacological group, based on the fourth level of nomenclature of the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) classification system. F1 scoring was used to assess the proximity of EMLs to the WHO Model List of Essential Medicines (MLEM). Results. Of the total number of countries, 87.2% have EMLs, and 91% have CPGs (78% and 45% updated in the last five years, respectively). Compared to the six hypoglycemic groups of the MLEM, the EMLs had a median (range) of 6 (4-13) and an F1 score of 0.80; This indicates proper alignment. CPGs had a median (range) of 12 (1-12) hypoglycemic drugs compared to eight in the WHO guidelines. CPGs had a median of 15 more drugs than their respective EMLs. Conclusions. While most LAC countries have EMLs and CPGs for diabetes, the lack of concordance among them limits their effectiveness. It is necessary to align the processes and criteria for the development of these two tools for policymaking on medicines.

RESUMO Objetivos. Analisar a existência e a atualização das listas nacionais de medicamentos (LNMs) e guias de prática clínica (GPCs) para o tratamento do diabetes na América Latina e no Caribe (ALC). Comparar os medicamentos incluídos nas listas e nas diretrizes de cada país entre si e com as da Organização Mundial da Saúde (OMS). Métodos. Estudo transversal. Foram identificadas LMNs e GPCs para o diabetes nos sites da Organização Pan-Americana da Saúde e das autoridades sanitárias nacionais. Os medicamentos foram pesquisados e analisados por grupo farmacológico de acordo com o quarto nível da classificação ATC. A pontuação F1 foi utilizada para avaliar o grau de proximidade das LMNs com a lista-modelo de medicamentos essenciais (LMME) da OMS. Resultados. Do total de países, 87,2% dispõem de uma LNM e 91%, de GPCs (78% e 45%, respectivamente, atualizadas nos últimos 5 anos). Em comparação com os seis grupos de agentes hipoglicemiantes da LMME, as LMNs tinham uma mediana (intervalo) de 6 (4 a 13) e uma pontuação F1 de 0,80, o que indica uma conformidade adequada. As GPCs tinham uma mediana (intervalo) de 12 (1 a 12) agentes hipoglicemiantes, em comparação com 8 nos guias da OMS. As GPCs tinham uma mediana de 15 medicamentos a mais do que as respectivas LNMs. Conclusões. Embora a maioria dos países da América Latina e do Caribe disponha de LNMs e GPCs para o diabetes, a falta de concordância entre elas limita sua eficácia. É necessário alinhar os processos e os critérios de desenvolvimento dessas duas ferramentas da política de medicamentos.

Medicamentos de alto costo: el difícil equilibrio entre los derechos individuales y los derechos colectivos / High-cost medicines: the difficult balance between individual and collective rights / Medicamentos de alto custo: o difícil equilíbrio entre direitos individuais e coletivos

RESUMEN Los medicamentos son bienes especiales que cubren necesidades de salud de la población. En las últimas décadas, la industria farmacéutica modificó su estrategia de investigación y desarrollo, y migró su interés desde la exploración de fármacos destinados a enfermedades crónicas padecidas por gran parte de la población hacia la búsqueda de medicamentos para pocas personas que tienen enfermedades raras. Esta falta de masividad en los consumidores se traduce en una oferta selectiva de pocos productos dirigidos a ciertas patologías que tienen un precio muy elevado, lo cual hace difícil tanto el acceso de los pacientes como el brindar cobertura desde los financiadores de la salud. En este artículo se recorre la temática de los medicamentos de alto precio y se incorpora al debate el contexto sanitario, cultural, jurídico, político y económico que la rodea. Se hace hincapié en las diferencias existentes entre los distintos fármacos en términos de eficacia para cambiar el curso natural de las enfermedades para los cuales son indicados, en la construcción del precio al cual estos medicamentos se venden en el mercado, en las consecuencias que tiene ese precio para los financiadores de la salud, y en la relación costo-oportunidad de tener que pagar por ellos en desmedro de otros recursos considerados esenciales. Por último, se reflexiona sobre los derechos legítimos de cada individuo a reclamar el acceso a medicamentos de alto precio por considerarlos fundamentales para recuperar su salud, y de cómo garantizar esa cobertura puede afectar los derechos colectivos de la población, y se aportan ejemplos concretos que ilustran esta situación.

ABSTRACT Medicines are special goods that cover the health needs of the population. In recent decades, the pharmaceutical industry has changed its research and development strategy, shifting its focus from the exploration of medicines for chronic diseases affecting a large part of the population to the search for drugs for rare diseases that affect a small number of people. This lack of a mass consumer base is reflected in a selective offer of a few very high-cost products aimed at certain diseases, which hinders both patient access and financial coverage. This article reviews the issue of high-cost medicines, including its cultural, legal, political, economic, and health aspects. It emphasizes the differences between various medicines in terms of their efficacy in changing the natural course of diseases, their market price, the consequences of their cost for healthcare funders, and the cost-opportunity ratio of having to pay for them at the expense of other essential resources. Finally, the article reflects on the legitimate rights of each individual to claim access to high-cost medicines when they are considered essential to recover a person's health, and on how guaranteeing such coverage can affect the collective rights of the population. Concrete examples that illustrate this situation are provided.

RESUMO Medicamentos são bens especiais que atendem às necessidades de saúde da população. Nas últimas décadas, a indústria farmacêutica mudou sua estratégia de pesquisa e desenvolvimento, deixando de explorar medicamentos para doenças crônicas que afetam grande parte da população e passando a buscar medicamentos para poucas pessoas com doenças raras. Esse número limitado de consumidores se reflete em uma oferta seletiva de poucos produtos de preço elevado para determinadas doenças, dificultando o acesso dos pacientes e a obtenção de cobertura dos agentes financiadores da saúde. Neste artigo, analisa-se a questão dos medicamentos de alto custo e incorpora-se ao debate o contexto sanitário, cultural, jurídico, político e econômico. São enfatizados os seguintes aspectos: diferenças entre os diferentes medicamentos em termos da eficácia em mudar o curso natural das doenças para as quais são indicados; determinação do preço pelo qual esses medicamentos são vendidos no mercado; consequências desse preço para os agentes financiadores da saúde; e a relação custo-oportunidade de ter de pagar por esses medicamentos em detrimento de outros recursos considerados essenciais. Por fim, reflete-se sobre os direitos legítimos de cada indivíduo de reivindicar acesso a medicamentos de alto custo, por considerá-los essenciais para recuperar a própria saúde, e como a garantia dessa cobertura pode afetar os direitos coletivos da população; também são fornecidos exemplos concretos que ilustram essa situação.

[Financial and health impact of two models of providing prostheses in a public health systemImpacto econômico e sanitário de dois modelos de fornecimento de próteses em um sistema público de saúde]. / Impacto sanitario económico de dos modelos de provisión de prótesis desde un sistema público de salud.

Objective: Compare the health outcomes and financial outcomes of two systems for the procurement of prostheses: the traditional system, in which procurement is initiated when a product is requested; and the "Prosthesis Bank" model, based on a current inventory of supplies. Methods: Descriptive-analytical study of users of Ministry of Health services in the province of Buenos Aires, Argentina. The patients belonged to two study groups: 1) prostheses were provided through the traditional computerized system for hospital procurement and contracting, known as SIPACH; and 2) prostheses were provided by the Prosthesis Bank. The study was limited to endovascular prostheses (coronary stents) and hip prostheses. Official government databases were used. The study period was from 01/01/2018 to 31/10/2022. The variables analyzed were: age, sex, diagnosis, hospital, type of implant or prosthesis, date of request, date received, unit price, direct and indirect costs, average cost of daily hospitalization, cost-effectiveness, and budgetary impact. Results: A total of 4 106 applications were analyzed. In the traditional system: 13.5% of patients did not get their prostheses; it took 50 days longer than with the Prosthesis Bank; and total costs were higher in SIPACH (coronary stent, +463%; hip prosthesis, +133%). The Prosthesis Bank saved USD 3.2 million annually and prevented 22 deaths through early provision of endovascular prostheses. Conclusions: The Prosthesis Bank proved to be superior to the traditional model for providing prostheses, both in terms of health-by achieving better access, shortening waiting times, and avoiding deaths-and financially-by significantly reducing unit and overall prices, achieving significant savings in allocated budgets.

Objetivo: Comparar os resultados econômicos e sanitários de dois sistemas de aquisição de próteses: um sistema tradicional, no qual a compra é iniciada mediante solicitação, e um modelo em estoque chamado Banco de Próteses (BDP). Métodos: Estudo descritivo-analítico com usuários do Ministério da Saúde da província de Buenos Aires, Argentina. Os pacientes pertenciam a dois grupos de estudo: 1) próteses fornecidas pelo método tradicional do Sistema Informatizado de Aquisição e Contratações Hospitalares (SIPACH); e 2) próteses fornecidas pelo BDP. A análise se restringiu a próteses endovasculares do tipo stent coronariano e próteses de quadril. Foram utilizados bases de dados oficiais do governo. O período do estudo foi de 01/01/2018 a 31/10/2022. As variáveis analisadas foram: idade, sexo, diagnóstico, hospital, tipo de implante ou prótese; data de solicitação; data de aquisição; preço unitário, custos diretos e indiretos; custo médio diário de internação, relação custo-efetividade e impacto orçamentário. Resultados: Foram analisadas 4 106 solicitações. No sistema tradicional, 13,5% dos pacientes não receberam as próteses e houve 50 dias a mais de espera do que pelo BDP. Além disso, os custos totais foram maiores no SIPACH (+463% no caso dos stents coronários e +133% para as próteses de quadril). O BDP economizou US$ 3,2 milhões ao ano e evitou 22 mortes com o fornecimento precoce de próteses endovasculares. Conclusões: O BDP demonstrou superioridade em relação ao modelo tradicional de fornecimento de próteses, tanto em termos sanitários, ao oferecer maior acesso, diminuir o tempo de espera e evitar mortes, quanto em termos econômicos, ao reduzir significativamente os preços unitários e totais, gerando economias significativas nos orçamentos alocados.

Impacto sanitario económico de dos modelos de provisión de prótesis desde un sistema público de salud / Financial and health impact of two models of providing prostheses in a public health system

[RESUMEN]. Objetivo. Comparar los resultados sanitarios y económicos de dos sistemas de adquisición de prótesis: un sistema tradicional en el cual la compra se inicia al solicitar el insumo versus un modelo de insumos en existencia denominado Banco de Prótesis. Métodos. Estudio descriptivo-analítico, en usuarios del Ministerio de Salud de la provincia de Buenos Aires, Argentina. Los pacientes pertenecían a dos grupos de estudio 1) prótesis provistas por vía tradicional del Sistema Informático para Adquisición y Contrataciones Hospitalarias (SIPACH); 2) prótesis provistas por Banco de Prótesis (BDP). Se limitó el análisis a prótesis endovasculares del tipo stent coronario y prótesis de cadera. Se utilizaron bases de datos oficiales gubernamentales. El periodo de estudio comprendió del 01/01/2018 hasta el 31/10/2022. Las variables analizadas fueron: edad, sexo, diagnóstico, hospital, tipo de implante o prótesis; fecha solicitud; fecha adquisición; precio unitario, costos directos e indirectos; costos promedio de la internación diaria, costo-efectividad e impacto presupuestario. Resultados. Se analizaron 4 106 solicitudes. En el sistema tradicional, 13,5% de los pacientes no consiguieron sus prótesis, hubo 50 días más de demora que con BDP, y los costos totales fueron superiores en SIPACH (stent coronarios +463%, prótesis de cadera +133%). El BDP ahorró US$ 3,2 millones anuales y evitó 22 muertes con la provisión temprana de prótesis endovasculares. Conclusiones. El BDP demostró superioridad al modelo tradicional de provisión de prótesis tanto en términos sanitarios, por lograr mayor acceso, acortar tiempos de espera y evitar muertes; como económicos, por reducir significativamente los precios unitarios y globales, logrando un notable ahorro en los presupuestos asignados.

[ABSTRACT]. Objective. Compare the health outcomes and financial outcomes of two systems for the procurement of prostheses: the traditional system, in which procurement is initiated when a product is requested; and the "Prosthesis Bank" model, based on a current inventory of supplies. Methods. Descriptive-analytical study of users of Ministry of Health services in the province of Buenos Aires, Argentina. The patients belonged to two study groups: 1) prostheses were provided through the traditional computerized system for hospital procurement and contracting, known as SIPACH; and 2) prostheses were provided by the Prosthesis Bank. The study was limited to endovascular prostheses (coronary stents) and hip prostheses. Official government databases were used. The study period was from 01/01/2018 to 31/10/2022. The variables analyzed were: age, sex, diagnosis, hospital, type of implant or prosthesis, date of request, date received, unit price, direct and indirect costs, average cost of daily hospitalization, cost-effectiveness, and budgetary impact. Results. A total of 4 106 applications were analyzed. In the traditional system: 13.5% of patients did not get their prostheses; it took 50 days longer than with the Prosthesis Bank; and total costs were higher in SIPACH (coronary stent, +463%; hip prosthesis, +133%). The Prosthesis Bank saved USD 3.2 million annually and prevented 22 deaths through early provision of endovascular prostheses. Conclusions. The Prosthesis Bank proved to be superior to the traditional model for providing prostheses, both in terms of health—by achieving better access, shortening waiting times, and avoiding deaths—and financially— by significantly reducing unit and overall prices, achieving significant savings in allocated budgets.

[RESUMO]. Objetivo. Comparar os resultados econômicos e sanitários de dois sistemas de aquisição de próteses: um sistema tradicional, no qual a compra é iniciada mediante solicitação, e um modelo em estoque chamado Banco de Próteses (BDP). Métodos. Estudo descritivo-analítico com usuários do Ministério da Saúde da província de Buenos Aires, Argentina. Os pacientes pertenciam a dois grupos de estudo: 1) próteses fornecidas pelo método tradicional do Sistema Informatizado de Aquisição e Contratações Hospitalares (SIPACH); e 2) próteses fornecidas pelo BDP. A análise se restringiu a próteses endovasculares do tipo stent coronariano e próteses de quadril. Foram utilizados bases de dados oficiais do governo. O período do estudo foi de 01/01/2018 a 31/10/2022. As variáveis analisadas foram: idade, sexo, diagnóstico, hospital, tipo de implante ou prótese; data de solicitação; data de aquisição; preço unitário, custos diretos e indiretos; custo médio diário de internação, relação custo-efetividade e impacto orçamentário. Resultados. Foram analisadas 4 106 solicitações. No sistema tradicional, 13,5% dos pacientes não recebe- ram as próteses e houve 50 dias a mais de espera do que pelo BDP. Além disso, os custos totais foram maiores no SIPACH (+463% no caso dos stents coronários e +133% para as próteses de quadril). O BDP economizou US$ 3,2 milhões ao ano e evitou 22 mortes com o fornecimento precoce de próteses endovasculares. Conclusões. O BDP demonstrou superioridade em relação ao modelo tradicional de fornecimento de próteses, tanto em termos sanitários, ao oferecer maior acesso, diminuir o tempo de espera e evitar mortes, quanto em termos econômicos, ao reduzir significativamente os preços unitários e totais, gerando economias significativas nos orçamentos alocados.

Biosimilars approvals by thirteen regulatory authorities: A cross-national comparison.

Biosimilars are biological medicines highly similar to a previously licensed reference product and their licensing is expected to improve access to biological therapies. This study aims to present an overview of biosimilars approval by thirteen regulatory authorities (RA). The study is a cross-national comparison of regulatory decisions involving biosimilars in Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Chile, Canada, Colombia, Europe, Hungary, Guatemala, Italy, Mexico, Peru and United States. We examined publicly available documents containing information regarding the approval of biosimilars and investigated the publication of public assessment reports for registration applications, guidelines for biosimilars licensing, and products approved. Data extraction was conducted by a network of researchers and regulatory experts. All the RA had issued guidance documents establishing the requirements for the licensing of biosimilars. However, only three RA had published public assessment reports for registration applications. In total, the investigated jurisdictions had from 19 to 78 biosimilars approved, most of them licensed from 2018 to 2020. In spite of the advance in the number of products in recent years, some challenges still persist. Limited access to information regarding the assessment of biosimilars by RA can affect confidence, which may ultimately impact adoption of these products in practice.

[Characterization of the drug supply in Argentina]. / Caracterización de la oferta de medicamentos en la República Argentina.

INTRODUCTION: Knowing the characteristics of the pharmaceutical market allows obtaining sensitive information to understand the supply, demand and access of the population to medicines. In order to provide primary data regarding the marketing of drugs in Argentina, the following research was performed. METHOD: This is a cross-sectional quantitative-qualitative descriptive study of the Argentine pharmaceutical market, taking into account 30 years of official information provided by the National Regulatory Agency (ANMAT). RESULTS: Two hundred and sixteen laboratories (182 national) drug producers / importers, 53 distributors and 479 drugstores (wholesale drug distribution establishments) were identified. A high concentration of marketing was detected, grouping 90% in only 5 intermediaries. There are currently 6670 products/certificates in the country, an amount that fluctuated over the last 30 years. Six laboratories are owners of between 116 and 208 certificates; 84% of these products come from national laboratories, 5002 are mono-drugs, while 83% are marketed under a fancy name. The three main indications for which the registration of drugs in Argentina is intended are diseases of digestive system, nervous system and infectious diseases; 58% of the marketed products consist of oral formulations. DISCUSSION: Based on data provided by this study, it is possible to assert that the Argentinian pharmaceutical market has a majority share of national capital, with a great concentration in a few pharmaceutical companies and distributors. The products are mostly available as non-combined drugs, in their oral form, and available by their brand names.

Introducción: Conocer las características del mercado farmacéutico permite obtener información sensible para entender la oferta, la demanda y el acceso de la población a los medicamentos. Con el objetivo de aportar datos primarios respecto a la comercialización de fármacos en Argentina, se desarrolló la siguiente investigación. Métodos: Se trata de un estudio descriptivo cuantitativo-cualitativo transversal del mercado farmacéutico argentino, tomando en cuenta 30 años de información oficial aportada por la Agencia Reguladora Nacional (ANMAT). Resultados: Se identificaron 216 laboratorios (182 nacionales) productores/importadores de medicamentos, 53 distribuidores y 479 droguerías (establecimientos de distribución de medicamentos al por mayor). Se detectó una alta concentración de la comercialización, agrupándose el 90% de la misma, en solo 5 intermediarios. En el país existen actualmente 6670 productos/certificados, cantidad que fluctuó a lo largo de los últimos 30 años. Seis laboratorios son dueños de entre 116 y 208 certificados. El 84% de estos productos provienen de laboratorios nacionales, 5002 son monofármacos, mientras que el 83% se comercializa bajo un nombre de fantasía. Las tres principales indicaciones a las que se destina el registro de medicamentos en la Argentina son enfermedades del aparato digestivo, sistema nervioso, e infecciosas; el 58% es comercializado como formulaciones orales. Discusión: el presente trabajo muestra que el mercado farmacéutico argentino tiene una participación mayoritaria de capitales nacionales, existiendo gran concentración en pocas empresas productoras y distribuidoras. Los productos son mayormente monodrogas comercializadas en forma oral y ofrecidas por su nombre de fantasía.

Caracterización de la oferta de medicamentos en la República Argentina / Characterization of the drug supply in Argentina

Resumen Introducción : Conocer las características del mercado farmacéutico permite obtener información sensible para entender la oferta, la demanda y el acceso de la pobla ción a los medicamentos. Con el objetivo de aportar da tos primarios respecto a la comercialización de fármacos en Argentina, se desarrolló la siguiente investigación. Métodos : Se trata de un estudio descriptivo cuanti tativo-cualitativo transversal del mercado farmacéutico argentino, tomando en cuenta 30 años de información oficial aportada por la Agencia Reguladora Nacional (ANMAT). Resultados : Se identificaron 216 laboratorios (182 nacionales) productores/importadores de medicamentos, 53 distribuidores y 479 droguerías (establecimientos de distribución de medicamentos al por mayor). Se detectó una alta concentración de la comercialización, agrupán dose el 90% de la misma, en solo 5 intermediarios. En el país existen actualmente 6670 productos/certificados, cantidad que fluctuó a lo largo de los últimos 30 años. Seis laboratorios son dueños de entre 116 y 208 certifica dos. El 84% de estos productos provienen de laboratorios nacionales, 5002 son monofármacos, mientras que el 83% se comercializa bajo un nombre de fantasía. Las tres principales indicaciones a las que se destina el registro de medicamentos en la Argentina son enfermedades del aparato digestivo, sistema nervioso, e infecciosas; el 58% es comercializado como formulaciones orales. Discusión : el presente trabajo muestra que el mer cado farmacéutico argentino tiene una participación mayoritaria de capitales nacionales, existiendo gran concentración en pocas empresas productoras y distri buidoras. Los productos son mayormente monodrogas comercializadas en forma oral y ofrecidas por su nombre de fantasía.

Abstract Introduction : Knowing the characteristics of the phar maceutical market allows obtaining sensitive informa tion to understand the supply, demand and access of the population to medicines. In order to provide primary data regarding the marketing of drugs in Argentina, the following research was performed. Method : This is a cross-sectional quantitative-quali tative descriptive study of the Argentine pharmaceutical market, taking into account 30 years of official information provided by the National Regulatory Agency (ANMAT). Results : Two hundred and sixteen laboratories (182 national) drug producers/importers, 53 distributors and 479 drugstores (wholesale drug distribution establishments) were identified. A high concentration of market ing was detected, grouping 90% in only 5 intermediaries. There are currently 6670 products/certificates in the country, an amount that fluctuated over the last 30 years. Six laboratories are owners of between 116 and 208 certificates; 84% of these products come from na tional laboratories, 5002 are mono-drugs, while 83% are marketed under a fancy name. The three main indica tions for which the registration of drugs in Argentina is intended are diseases of digestive system, nervous system and infectious diseases; 58% of the marketed products consist of oral formulations. Discussion : Based on data provided by this study, it is possible to assert that the Argentinian pharmaceutical market has a majority share of national capital, with a great concentration in a few pharmaceutical companies and distributors. The products are mostly available as non-combined drugs, in their oral form, and available by their brand names.

In Silico and In Vivo Studies of a Tumor-Penetrating and Interfering Peptide with Antitumoral Effect on Xenograft Models of Breast Cancer.

The combination of a tumor-penetrating peptide (TPP) with a peptide able to interfere with a given protein-protein interaction (IP) is a promising strategy with potential clinical application. Little is known about the impact of fusing a TPP with an IP, both in terms of internalization and functional effect. Here, we analyze these aspects in the context of breast cancer, targeting PP2A/SET interaction, using both in silico and in vivo approaches. Our results support the fact that state-of-the-art deep learning approaches developed for protein-peptide interaction modeling can reliably identify good candidate poses for the IP-TPP in interaction with the Neuropilin-1 receptor. The association of the IP with the TPP does not seem to affect the ability of the TPP to bind to Neuropilin-1. Molecular simulation results suggest that peptide IP-GG-LinTT1 in a cleaved form interacts with Neuropilin-1 in a more stable manner and has a more helical secondary structure than the cleaved IP-GG-iRGD. Surprisingly, in silico investigations also suggest that the non-cleaved TPPs can bind the Neuropilin-1 in a stable manner. The in vivo results using xenografts models show that both bifunctional peptides resulting from the combination of the IP and either LinTT1 or iRGD are effective against tumoral growth. The peptide iRGD-IP shows the highest stability to serum proteases degradation while having the same antitumoral effect as Lin TT1-IP, which is more sensitive to proteases degradation. Our results support the development of the TPP-IP strategy as therapeutic peptides against cancer.

Impacto económico de medicamentos de alto precio/costo en la seguridad social de Argentina. El caso del instituto de obra social para las Fuerzas Armadas y de Seguridad / Economic impact of high-price/cost medicines on social security in Argentina. The case of the Institute for the Armed and Security Forces

Resumen Introducción: En Argentina, los medicamentos de alto costo (MAC) generan una carga económica elevada que deben afrontar las instituciones sanitarias. Sin embargo, no existe a la fecha un estu dio en Argentina que indique la magnitud del real problema de los MAC para la Seguridad Social. El presente trabajo, explora cuál es su impacto económico para una de las principales Obras Sociales del país. Métodos: Se realizó un estudio descriptivo con etapa analítica a partir de datos obtenidos en gerencia de prestaciones, área farmacia y área contable de la institución. Cada medicamento fue clasificado según recomendación de OMS (clasificación Anatómica-Terapéutica- Química-ATC). Los precios fueron consignados en tres valores: nominal al momento de adquisición, actualizado a pesos fin de 2021 utilizando el CER (coeficiente de estabilización de referencia), y en dólares (USD). Se evaluaron 105 324 dispensas de MAC, correspondientes a 258 011 unidades para 10 450 afiliados. Resultados: El gasto total anualizado fue 57 millones de dólares (USD), y por usuario 6220 USD. Solo 1.9% de los afiliados requirieron MAC, aunque el gasto fue del 21.9% de los ingresos (aportes + contribuciones). Los primeros 5 medicamentos que generaron el mayor gasto fueron enzalutamida, bevacizu mab, nivolumab, palbociclib, pembrolizumab. Las enfermedades oncológicas y reumatológicas representaron el 62.8% del gasto. Conclusión: A la luz de los resultados, se deduce que los MAC constituyen un riesgo potencial de desfinanciación del sistema de salud si son abordados de manera atomizada por cada subsector. Los MAC requieren de políticas globales de carácter nacional y/o regional.

Abstract Introduction: In Argentina, high-cost drugs (HCD) induce a high economic burden for all the health system sec tors. However, it does not exist in Argentina any data that indicates the real problem of HCD for Social Security. That is why, the present study explores the economic impact of the HCD for one of the main Institutions of the country. Methods: A descriptive study with an analytical stage was carried out based on data obtained from management, pharmacy and accounting area. Each drug was classified according to WHO recommendation (Anatomical-Therapeutic-Chemical-ATC classification). The prices were expressed in three ways: nominal value at the time of acquisition in local currency, updated using the CER (reference stabilization coefficient), and in US dollars. A total of 105 324 HCD dispensed were evaluated, which corresponded to 258 011 units destined to 10 450 patients. Results: Total annualized spend was US$57 million (US$6220 per patient). Only 1.9% of affiliates required HCD, although those expenses represented 21.9% of the institutions´ total income. The first 5 drugs associated to the highest expenditure were enzalutamide, bevacizumab, nivolumab, palbociclib, pembrolizumab. Oncological and rheumatological diseases represented 62.8% of the HCD costs. Conclusion: Considering the results obtained, it can be deduced that if the HCD problem is approached in a scattered way by each subsec tor, it will become a potential risk for health system defund. The HCD topic requires of global policies at national or even regional level.

Antimicrobial Consumption from 2017 to 2021 in East Trinidad and Tobago: A Study in the English-Speaking Caribbean.

An antimicrobial consumption (AMC) study was performed in Trinidad and Tobago at the Eastern Regional Health Authority (ERHA). A retrospective, cross-sectional survey was conducted from 1 November 2021 to 30 March 2022. Dosage and package types of amoxicillin, azithromycin, co-amoxiclav, cefuroxime, ciprofloxacin, levofloxacin, moxifloxacin, nitrofurantoin and co-trimoxazole were investigated. Consumption was measured using the World Health Organization's Antimicrobial Resistance and Consumption Surveillance System methodology version 1.0, as defined daily doses (DDD) per 1000 population per day (DID). They were also analyzed using the 'Access', 'Watch' and 'Reserve' classifications. In the ERHA, AMC ranged from 6.9 DID to 4.6 DID. With regards to intravenous formulations, the 'Watch' group displayed increased consumption, from 0.160 DID in 2017 to 0.238 DID in 2019, followed by a subsequent drop in consumption with the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Oral co-amoxiclav, oral cefuroxime, oral azithromycin and oral co-trimoxazole were the most highly consumed antibiotics. The hospital started off as the higher consumer of antibiotics, but this changed to the community. The consumption of 'Watch' group antibiotics increased from 2017 to 2021, with a drop in consumption of 'Access' antibiotics and at the onset of COVID-19. Consumption of oral azithromycin was higher in 2021 than 2020.