Prescription-based cost analysis of medicines for cardiovascular risk factors at Indian Council of Medical Research-Rational Use of Medicine Centre Hospitals of India.

OBJECTIVES: India has taken several initiatives to provide health care to its population while keeping the related expenditure minimum. Since cardiovascular diseases are the most prevalent chronic conditions, in the present study, we aimed to analyze the difference in prices of medicines prescribed for three cardiovascular risk factors, based on (a) listed and not listed in the National List of Essential Medicines (NLEM) and (b) generic and branded drugs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Outpatient prescriptions for diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and dyslipidemia were retrospectively analyzed from 12 tertiary centers. The prices of medicines prescribed were compared based on presence or absence in NLEM India-2015 and prescribing by generic versus brand name. The price was standardized and presented as average price per medicine per year for a given medicine. The results are presented in Indian rupee (INR) and as median (range). RESULTS: Of the 4,736 prescriptions collected, 843 contained oral antidiabetic, antihypertensive, and/or hypolipidemic medicines. The price per medicine per year for NLEM oral antidiabetics was INR 2849 (2593-3104) and for non-NLEM was INR 5343 (2964-14364). It was INR 806 (243-2132) for generic and INR 3809 (1968-14364) for branded antidiabetics. Antihypertensives and hypolipidemics followed the trend. The price of branded non-NLEM medicines was 5-22 times higher compared to generic NLEM which, for a population of 1.37 billion, would translate to a potential saving of 346.8 billion INR for statins. The variability was significant for sulfonylureas, angiotensin receptor blockers, beta-blockers, diuretics, and statins (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: The study highlights an urgent need for intervention to actualize the maximum benefit of government policies and minimize the out-of-pocket expenditure on medicines.

Pharmacogenomics-assisted schizophrenia management: A hybrid type 2 effectiveness-implementation study protocol to compare the clinical utility, cost-effectiveness, and barriers.

OBJECTIVES: The response to antipsychotic therapy is highly variable. Pharmacogenomic (PGx) factors play a major role in deciding the effectiveness and safety of antipsychotic drugs. A hybrid type 2 effectiveness-implementation research will be conducted to evaluate the clinical utility (safety and efficacy), cost-effectiveness, and facilitators and barriers in implementing PGx-assisted management compared to standard of care in patients with schizophrenia attending a tertiary care hospital in eastern India. METHODS: In part 1, a randomized controlled trial will be conducted. Adult patients with schizophrenia will be randomized (2: 1) to receive PGx-assisted treatment (drug and regimen selection depending on the results of single-nucleotide polymorphisms in genes DRD2, HTR1A, HTR2C, ABCB1, CYP2D6, CYP3A5, and CYP1A2) or the standard of care. Serum drug levels will be measured. The patients will be followed up for 12 weeks. The primary endpoint is the difference in the Udvalg for Kliniske Undersøgelser Side-Effect Rating Scale score between the two arms. In part 2, the cost-effectiveness of PGx-assisted treatment will be evaluated. In part 3, the facilitators and barriers to implementing PGx-assisted treatment for schizophrenia will be explored using a qualitative design. EXPECTED OUTCOME: The study findings will help in understanding whether PGx-assisted management has a clinical utility, whether it is cost-effective, and what are the facilitators and barriers to implementing it in the management of schizophrenia. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study has been registered with the Clinical Trials Registry-India (CTRI/2023/08/056210).

A review of clinical trials registered in India from 2008 to 2022 to describe the first-in-human trials.

Aim: This analysis was conducted to review the number, and describe the characteristics of first-in-human (FIH) Phase 1 clinical trials registered in India from 2008 to 2022. Materials and Methods: The data were extracted from the Clinical Trials Registry - India database for all FIH Phase 1 clinical trials registered between 2008 and 2022. Early-phase trials that were not FIH trials (e.g., pharmacokinetic studies and drug-drug interaction studies) were excluded from the study. Results: A total of 1891 trials were retrieved and 220 were included in the analysis. Most of the investigational products were drugs (55%) followed by vaccines (38.2%). The most common therapeutic class of drugs was cancer chemotherapy (19.8%), followed by antimicrobial chemotherapy and endocrinology (18.2% each). The most common vaccine was the influenza vaccine (21.4%), followed by the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine (15.5%). The pharmaceutical industry was the predominant sponsor for most (91%) of the Phase 1 trials. Of the top five sites where most of the Phase 1 trials were conducted, three were private nonacademic centers (cumulatively 31%) and two were tertiary care medical colleges (cumulatively 9%). Conclusion: Phase 1 clinical trials seem to be conducted in India predominantly with industry sponsorship. There is a need to have an alternate ecosystem to take forward molecules that do not receive adequate attention from the industry and molecules that are of national health priority other than areas such as chemotherapy, antimicrobials, and endocrinology. The Indian Council of Medical Research is setting up Phase 1 clinical trial capacity for molecules that predominantly may arise from nonindustry channels.

Developing Standard Treatment Workflows-way to universal healthcare in India.

Primary healthcare caters to nearly 70% of the population in India and provides treatment for approximately 80-90% of common conditions. To achieve universal health coverage (UHC), the Indian healthcare system is gearing up by initiating several schemes such as National Health Protection Scheme, Ayushman Bharat, Nutrition Supplementation Schemes, and Inderdhanush Schemes. The healthcare delivery system is facing challenges such as irrational use of medicines, over- and under-diagnosis, high out-of-pocket expenditure, lack of targeted attention to preventive and promotive health services, and poor referral mechanisms. Healthcare providers are unable to keep pace with the volume of growing new scientific evidence and rising healthcare costs as the literature is not published at the same pace. In addition, there is a lack of common standard treatment guidelines, workflows, and reference manuals from the Government of India. Indian Council of Medical Research in collaboration with the National Health Authority, Govt. of India, and the WHO India country office has developed Standard Treatment Workflows (STWs) with the objective to be utilized at various levels of healthcare starting from primary to tertiary level care. A systematic approach was adopted to formulate the STWs. An advisory committee was constituted for planning and oversight of the process. Specialty experts' group for each specialty comprised of clinicians working at government and private medical colleges and hospitals. The expert groups prioritized the topics through extensive literature searches and meeting with different stakeholders. Then, the contents of each STW were finalized in the form of single-pager infographics. These STWs were further reviewed by an editorial committee before publication. Presently, 125 STWs pertaining to 23 specialties have been developed. It needs to be ensured that STWs are implemented effectively at all levels and ensure quality healthcare at an affordable cost as part of UHC.

Efficacy and safety of bempedoic acid lipid-lowering therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

AIM: This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to synthesize the efficacy and safety of bempedoic acid in patients requiring lipid-lowering therapy. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, and Scopus databases were searched for randomized controlled trials from inception till June 2023. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), and secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality, serum lipid profile, and adverse events between bempedoic acid and comparators. ROB2 was used for risk of bias assessment. We pooled mean differences or relative risks (RR) along with 95% confidence intervals (random-effects model). RESULTS: Five-hundred and thirty-one studies were screened and 17 (n = 21,131) were included for review. There was a significant reduction in the risk of MACE [RR, 0.88 (95% CI: 0.77 to 0.99), p = 0.03)] and all-cause mortality [RR, 0.90 (95% CI: 0.82 to 0.98), p = 0.02] following bempedoic acid treatment. Treatment with bempedoic acid led to a significant reduction in the mean serum total cholesterol [- 34.41 mg/dl (95% CI: - 42.43 to - 26.39), p < 0.001], low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) [- 33.91 mg/dl (95% CI: - 39.66 to - 28.17), p < 0.001], as well as high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) [- 2.40 mg/dl (95% CI: - 3.09 to - 1.71), p < 0.001] levels. However, there was a significant increase in the risk of hyperuricemia [RR, 2.05 (95% CI: 1.81 to 2.33), p < 0.001] following bempedoic acid treatment. The number needed to harm was large for all safety outcomes. The GRADE of evidence was moderate for all outcomes. CONCLUSION: Bempedoic acid reduces the risk of MACE and all-cause mortality, lowers serum total cholesterol and LDL-C levels, and has a favorable safety profile. Trial registration ClinicalTrial.gov Identifier: CRD42023412837.

An observational multi-centric COVID-19 sequelae study among health care workers.

Background: India has seen more than 43 million confirmed cases of COVID-19 as of April 2022, with a recovery rate of 98.8%, resulting in a large section of the population including the healthcare workers (HCWs), susceptible to develop post COVID sequelae. This study was carried out to assess the nature and prevalence of medical sequelae following COVID-19 infection, and risk factors, if any. Methods: This was an observational, multicenter cross-sectional study conducted at eight tertiary care centers. The consenting participants were HCWs between 12 and 52 weeks post discharge after COVID-19 infection. Data on demographics, medical history, clinical features of COVID-19 and various symptoms of COVID sequelae was collected through specific questionnaire. Finding: Mean age of the 679 eligible participants was 31.49 ± 9.54 years. The overall prevalence of COVID sequelae was 30.34%, with fatigue (11.5%) being the most common followed by insomnia (8.5%), difficulty in breathing during activity (6%) and pain in joints (5%). The odds of having any sequelae were significantly higher among participants who had moderate to severe COVID-19 (OR 6.51; 95% CI 3.46-12.23) and lower among males (OR 0.55; 95% CI 0.39-0.76). Besides these, other predictors for having sequelae were age (≥45 years), presence of any comorbidity (especially hypertension and asthma), category of HCW (non-doctors vs doctors) and hospitalisation due to COVID-19. Interpretation: Approximately one-third of the participants experienced COVID sequelae. Severity of COVID illness, female gender, advanced age, co-morbidity were significant risk factors for COVID sequelae. Funding: This work is a part of Indian Council for Medical Research (ICMR)- Rational Use of Medicines network. No additional financial support was received from ICMR to carry out the work, for study materials, medical writing, and APC.

Efficacy and safety of baricitinib and tocilizumab in hospitalized patients with COVID-19: A comparison using systematic review and meta-analysis.

Objective: This review was performed to compare the efficacy and safety among hospitalized patients with COVID-19 who received baricitinib and those who received tocilizumab independently with placebo or the standard of care (SOC). Methods: Relevant databases were searched for randomized controlled trials which evaluated the effect of baricitinib or tocilizumab as compared to placebo or the SOC in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. The primary endpoint was the comparison of the 28-day mortality. Risk ratios (RR) and mean differences were compared and pooled for dichotomous and continuous variables, respectively. A two-staged exploratory network meta-analysis using a multivariate meta-analysis was also performed. All analyses were performed in Stata version 16.0. The GRADE approach was used to assess the quality of the generated evidence (PROSPERO ID: CRD42022323363). Results: Treatment with baricitinib [RR, 0.69 (95% CI, 0.50-0.94), p = 0.02, i2 = 64.86%] but not with tocilizumab [RR, 0.87 (95% CI, 0.71-1.07), p = 0.19, i2 = 24.41%] led to a significant improvement in the 28-day mortality as compared to that with the SOC. Treatment with baricitinib or tocilizumab, both independently led to a significant reduction in the duration of hospitalization [baricitinib: mean difference, -1.13 days (95% CI, -1.51 to -0.76), p < 0.001, i2 = 0.00%; tocilizumab: mean difference, -2.80 days (95% CI, -4.17 to -1.43), p < 0.001, i2 = 55.47%] and a significant improvement in the proportion of patients recovering clinically by day 28 [baricitinib: RR, 1.24 (95% CI, 1.03-1.48), p = 0.02, i2 = 27.20%; tocilizumab: RR, 1.41 (95% CI, 1.12-1.78), p < 0.001, i2 = 34.59%] as compared to those with the SOC. From the safety point of view, both these drugs showed similar results. There were fewer patients who experienced any serious adverse event following treatment with barictinib and tocilizumab as compared to those following treatment with the SOC [baricitinib: RR, 0.76 (95% CI, 0.62-0.92), p = 0.01, i2 = 12.63%; tocilizumab: RR, 0.85 (95% CI, 0.72-1.01), p = 0.07, i2 = 0.00%]. Conclusion: As baricitinib and tocilizumab are recommended interchangeably by various guidelines for the management of COVID-19, considering the better 28-day mortality data and other comparable efficacy and safety outcomes, baricitinib may be favored over tocilizumab considering its ease of administration, shorter half-life, and lower cost of treatment.

Exploring links between vitamin D deficiency and COVID-19.

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic remains a major public health threat in most countries. The causative severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus can lead to acute respiratory distress syndrome and result in mortality in COVID-19 patients. Vitamin D is an immunomodulator hormone with established effectiveness against various upper respiratory infections. Vitamin D can stall hyper-inflammatory responses and expedite healing process of the affected areas, primarily in the lung tissue. Thus, there are ecological and mechanistic reasons to promote exploration of vitamin D action in COVID-19 patients. As no curative drugs are available currently for COVID-19, we feel that the potential of vitamin D to alter the course of disease severity needs to be investigated. Clinical studies may be undertaken to address the value of vitamin D supplementation in deficient, high-risk COVID-19 patients.