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.

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.

Uso de benzodiazepinas y fármacos relacionados en el seguro social para adultos mayores de Argentina / Use of benzodiazepines and related drugs in social security for older adults in Argentina

Resumen El uso clínico de las benzodiazepinas (BZD) y fármacos relacionados es un tema controversial, especialmente la prescripción prolongada en adultos mayores, que es contraria a las recomendaciones generales. Nuestro objetivo fue describir el uso de BZD y de los hipnóticos denominados fármacos Z (zolpidem, zopiclona y eszopiclona) en los adultos mayores beneficiarios del Instituto Nacional de Servicios Sociales para Jubilados y Pensionados (INSSJP-PAMI) de Argentina. Se realizó un estudio de utilización de medicamentos observacional, descriptivo, de corte transversal, a partir de la base de datos de dispensa de medicamentos del Instituto. Se incluyeron los beneficiarios de ambos sexos de 65 años y más. Se calculó para cada fármaco la prevalencia de uso en 2018 y las dosis diarias definidas (DDD) por cada 1000 habitantes/día (DHD). Se inclu yeron 3 864 949 beneficiarios (77.6 % de la población argentina de esa edad, 61.2 % mujeres), con 184 000 nonagenarios y más de 5000 centenarios. El 30.3 % recibió al me nos una dispensa de BZD o fármacos Z durante 2018, con mayor prevalencia de uso en mujeres (35.6%) que en varones (22.0%) y con aumento progresivo hasta los 85-89 años, y descenso posterior. Las BZD más recetadas fueron alprazolam (41.6%) y clonazepam (41.1%), seguidas por lorazepam (9.9%). La dispensa alcanzó 252.7 DHD, representado un promedio de 0.8 DDD por usuario y por día, valor que disminuyó con la edad. La prevalencia de uso encontrada está entre las más elevadas a nivel internacional, justificando la implementación de intervenciones clínicas y de salud pública para mejorar esta situación.

Abstract The clinical use of benzodiazepines (BZD) and related drugs is a controversial issue, especially prolonged prescription in older adults, which is contrary to general recommendations. Our objective was to describe the use of BZD and the hypnotics called Z drugs (zolpidem, zopiclone and eszopiclone) in elderly beneficiaries of the National Institute of Social Services for Retirees and Pensioners (INSSJP-PAMI) of Argentina. An observational, descriptive, cross-sectional drug use study was conducted based on the Institute's drug dispensing database. Beneficiaries of both sexes aged 65 years and over were included. The prevalence of use in 2018 and the defined daily doses (DDD) per 1000 inhabitants / day (DHD) were calculated for each drug. A total of 3 864 949 benefi ciaries were included (77.6% of the Argentine population of that age, 61.2% women), with 184 000 nonagenar ians and more than 5000 centenarians; 30.3% of whom received at least one dispensation of BZD or "Z drugs" during 2018, with a higher prevalence of use in women (35.6%) than in men (22.0%) and with a progressive increase until 85-89 years, with a subsequent decrease. The most prescribed BZDs were alprazolam (41.6%) and clonazepam (41.1%), followed by lorazepam (9.9%). The dispense drugs reached 252.7 DHD, representing an average of 0.8 DDD per user and per day, a value that decreased with age. The prevalence of use found is among the highest at international level, justifying the implementation of clinical and public health interventions to improve this situation.

[Use of benzodiazepines and related drugs in social security for older adults in Argentina]. / Uso de benzodiazepinas y fármacos relacionados en el Seguro Social para adultos mayores de Argentina.

The clinical use of benzodiazepines (BZD) and related drugs is a controversial issue, especially prolonged prescription in older adults, which is contrary to general recommendations. Our objective was to describe the use of BZD and the hypnotics called Z drugs (zolpidem, zopiclone and eszopiclone) in elderly beneficiaries of the National Institute of Social Services for Retirees and Pensioners (INSSJP-PAMI) of Argentina. An observational, descriptive, cross-sectional drug use study was conducted based on the Institute's drug dispensing database. Beneficiaries of both sexes aged 65 years and over were included. The prevalence of use in 2018 and the defined daily doses (DDD) per 1000 inhabitants / day (DHD) were calculated for each drug. A total of 3 864 949 beneficiaries were included (77.6% of the Argentine population of that age, 61.2% women), with 184 000 nonagenarians and more than 5000 centenarians; 30.3% of whom received at least one dispensation of BZD or "Z drugs" during 2018, with a higher prevalence of use in women (35.6%) than in men (22.0%) and with a progressive increase until 85-89 years, with a subsequent decrease. The most prescribed BZDs were alprazolam (41.6%) and clonazepam (41.1%), followed by lorazepam (9.9%). The dispense drugs reached 252.7 DHD, representing an average of 0.8 DDD per user and per day, a value that decreased with age. The prevalence of use found is among the highest at international level, justifying the implementation of clinical and public health interventions to improve this situation.

El uso clínico de las benzodiazepinas (BZD) y fármacos relacionados es un tema controversial, especialmente la prescripción prolongada en adultos mayores, que es contraria a las recomendaciones generales. Nuestro objetivo fue describir el uso de BZD y de los hipnóticos denominados fármacos Z (zolpidem, zopiclona y eszopiclona) en los adultos mayores beneficiarios del Instituto Nacional de Servicios Sociales para Jubilados y Pensionados (INSSJP-PAMI) de Argentina. Se realizó un estudio de utilización de medicamentos observacional, descriptivo, de corte transversal, a partir de la base de datos de dispensa de medicamentos del Instituto. Se incluyeron los beneficiarios de ambos sexos de 65 años y más. Se calculó para cada fármaco la prevalencia de uso en 2018 y las dosis diarias definidas (DDD) por cada 1000 habitantes/día (DHD). Se incluyeron 3 864 949 beneficiarios (77.6 % de la población argentina de esa edad, 61.2 % mujeres), con 184 000 nonagenarios y más de 5000 centenarios. El 30.3 % recibió al me nos una dispensa de BZD o fármacos Z durante 2018, con mayor prevalencia de uso en mujeres (35.6%) que en varones (22.0%) y con aumento progresivo hasta los 85-89 años, y descenso posterior. Las BZD más recetadas fueron alprazolam (41.6%) y clonazepam (41.1%), seguidas por lorazepam (9.9%). La dispensa alcanzó 252.7 DHD, representado un promedio de 0.8 DDD por usuario y por día, valor que disminuyó con la edad. La prevalencia de uso encontrada está entre las más elevadas a nivel internacional, justificando la implementación de intervenciones clínicas y de salud pública para mejorar esta situación.

Data sources for drug utilization research in Latin American countries-A cross-national study: DASDUR-LATAM study.

PURPOSE: Drug utilization research (DUR) contributes to inform policymaking and to strengthen health systems. The availability of data sources is the first step for conducting DUR. However, documents that systematize these data sources in Latin American (LatAm) countries are not known. We compiled the potential data sources for DUR in the LatAm region. METHODS: A network of DUR experts from nine LatAm countries was assembled and experts conducted: (i) a website search of the government, academic, and private health institutions; (ii) screening of eligible data sources, and (iii) liaising with national experts in pharmacoepidemiology (via an online survey). The data sources were characterized by accessibility, geographic granularity, setting, sector of the data, sources and type of the data. Descriptive analyses were performed. RESULTS: We identified 125 data sources for DUR in nine LatAm countries. Thirty-eight (30%) of them were publicly and conveniently available; 89 (71%) were accessible with limitations, and 18 (14%) were not accessible or lacked clear rules for data access. From the 125 data sources, 76 (61%) were from the public sector only; 46 (37%) were from pharmacy records; 43 (34%) came from ambulatory settings and; 85 (68%) gave access to individual patient-level data. CONCLUSIONS: Although multiple sources for DUR are available in LatAm countries, the accessibility is a major challenge. The procedures for accessing DUR data should be transparent, feasible, affordable, and protocol-driven. This inventory could permit a comparison of drug utilization between countries identifying potential medication-related problems that need further exploration.

[Benzodiazepine and Z-drug consumption in a national social security organization in Argentina: rational or excessive use?] / Consumo de benzodiazepinas y fármacos Z en una organización de la seguridad social nacional argentina: ¿uso racional o excesivo?

Benzodiazepines and "Z-drugs" (BZD/Z) are overprescribed in many countries. This study evaluates their consumption in a social security sector health insurance provider with national coverage in Argentina. With a descriptive and observational approach, outpatient dispensations of BZD/Zs were analyzed for people over 18 years old from April 2020 to March 2021, disaggregated by sex, age, active ingredient, and half-life. An annual prevalence of use of 11.6% was found among the 431,445 adult affiliates, with higher rates in women and in those over age 60. Overall consumption of BZD/Zs was 77.6 defined daily doses (DDD) per 1000 enrollee-days. The average user received 5.1 annual dispensations and the equivalent of 1.4 DDD for each day of the year. BZD/Zs with long half-life were the most used. We found high levels of BZD/Z consumption and for longer periods than recommended. It is necessary to improve the quality of consumption and reduce the negative impact of inappropriate use of these drugs among treated individuals.

Las benzodiazepinas y los "fármacos Z" (BZD-Z) se prescriben en exceso en muchos países. Este estudio evaluó su consumo en una organización de la seguridad social (obra social) de Argentina de alcance nacional. A partir de un diseño observacional descriptivo se analizó la dispensa ambulatoria de BZD-Z, entre abril 2020 y marzo 2021, a mayores de 18 años; desagregada por sexo, edad, principio activo y vida media. Se encontró una prevalencia anual de uso del 11,6% entre los 431.445 afiliados adultos, con valores más elevados en las mujeres y mayores de 60 años. El consumo global de BZD-Z fue de 77,6 dosis diarias definidas (DDD) cada 1.000 afiliados-día. El usuario promedio recibió 5,1 dispensas anuales y el equivalente a 1,4 DDD por cada día del año. Las BZD-Z más usadas fueron las de vida media larga. El consumo de BZD-Z resultó elevado y más prolongado que lo recomendado. Es necesario mejorar la calidad en el consumo y reducir el impacto negativo del uso inapropiado de estos fármacos entre los individuos tratados.

Data transparency for building a stronger healthcare system: A case study from Argentinean administrative drug utilization data sources.

In order to compile an inventory of national data sources for drug utilization research (DUR) in Argentina and to verify publicly available data sources, we performed a cross-sectional study that sought to identify national and provincial databases of drug use. In July 2020, we searched the websites of government institutions, carried out a systematic query of bibliographic databases for "drug utilization research" conducted in Argentina, and conducted a survey with local experts. Data collected included: the institution responsible for the database, population covered, accessibility, source of the data, healthcare setting, geographic information, and whether data were individual or aggregated. Descriptive analyses were then performed. We identified 31 data sources for DUR; only one was publicly and conveniently accessible. Five published aggregated data and provide more detailed access by formal request. Only seven sources (23%) reported national data, and most (n=29) included only data from the public healthcare sector. Although data sources for DUR have been found in Argentina, limited access by researchers and policymakers is still an significant obstacle. Increasing health data transparency by making data sources publicly available for the purpose of analyzing public health information is crucial for building a stronger health system.

Para realizar un inventario de fuentes de datos nacionales sobre utilización de medicamentos en Argentina y verificar las fuentes de datos disponibles públicamente, llevamos a cabo un estudio transversal que investiga la existencia de bases de datos nacionales y provinciales sobre utilización de medicamentos. En julio de 2020, realizamos una búsqueda en sitios web de instituciones gubernamentales, una búsqueda sistemática en bases de datos bibliográficas sobre "drug utilization research" en Argentina y una encuesta de expertos. Se identificaron 31 fuentes de datos de utilización de medicamentos, solo una era de acceso público y conveniente, cinco publicaban datos agregados y proporcionaban un acceso más detallado mediante solicitud formal, solo siete fuentes (23%) informaban datos nacionales, y la mayoría de ellas (n=29) incluían solo datos del sector público de salud. Aunque se han encontrado fuentes de datos de utilización de medicamentos en Argentina, el acceso a investigadores y legisladores sigue siendo una barrera importante. Aumentar la transparencia de los datos de salud a través de fuentes disponibles públicamente para analizar la información de salud pública es crucial para construir un sistema de salud más sólido.

[Reduction of social coverage for symptomatic slow-acting drugs for osteoarthritis: a disinvestment initiative in Argentina, 2015-2017]. / Reducción de la cobertura social para los fármacos antiartrósicos sintomáticos de acción lenta: una iniciativa de desinversión en Argentina, 2015-2017.

In April 2016, the National Institute of Social Services for Retirees and Pensioners discontinued its policy of 100% coverage for 159 drugs (the "social subsidy"), including symptomatic slow-acting drugs for osteoarthritis (SYSADOAs), due to insufficient evidence of significant clinical benefit. We evaluated the effect of this measure on the use of SYSADOAs as well as non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), which were unaffected by this policy change. We compared outpatient dispensations of SYSADOAs and NSAIDs from 2015 to 2017, measuring dispensed units, retail price, and out-of-pocket expenses for beneficiaries each month. After the change in coverage, there was a 61.6% total decrease in SYSADOA units dispensed, and a 63.4% decrease in the final sales price to the public, measured in constant values. Dispensation was not reoriented towards NSAIDs, which fell by 6.1%. The incidence of new treatments decreased (from 6.4 to 3.3 treatments per 1,000 beneficiaries per month), as did their continuity. Beneficiaries' out-of-pocket spending on SYSADOAs increased by 75.8% (at constant values). Disinvestment in interventions with questionable therapeutic value is an important tool in working toward the sustainability of health systems.

En abril de 2016, el Instituto Nacional de Servicios Sociales para Jubilados y Pensionados excluyó del subsidio social la cobertura al 100% de 159 fármacos, entre ellos, los antiartrósicos sintomáticos de acción lenta o symptomatic slow-acting drugs for osteoarthritis (SySADOA), por insuficiente evidencia de beneficio clínico significativo. Evaluamos el efecto de esta medida sobre la utilización de SySADOA y de los antiinflamatorios no esteroides (AINE), no afectados por la medida. Se compararon las dispensas ambulatorias de los SySADOA y los AINE de 2015 a 2017, midiendo unidades dispensadas, precio de venta al público y gasto de bolsillo del beneficiario para cada mes. Luego de la medida, descendieron un 61,6% los envases de SySADOA dispensados y un 63,4% el monto total del precio de venta al público, medido en valores constantes. La dispensa no se reorientó hacia los AINE, que descendieron un 6,1%. Disminuyó tanto la incidencia de nuevos tratamientos (de 6,4 a 3,3 tratamientos por 1.000 beneficiarios por mes) como su continuidad. El gasto de bolsillo de los beneficiarios en SySADOA aumentó un 75,8% (a valores constantes). La desinversión en intervenciones de valor terapéutico cuestionable es una herramienta valiosa para la sustentabilidad de los sistemas de salud.

Regulatory reliance to approve new medicinal products in Latin American and Caribbean countries

[ABSTRACT]. Objective. To describe the current status of regulatory reliance in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) by assessing the countries’ regulatory frameworks to approve new medicines, and to ascertain, for each country, which foreign regulators are considered as trusted regulatory authorities to rely on. Methods. Websites from LAC regulators were searched to identify the official regulations to approve new drugs. Data collection was carried out in December 2019 and completed in June 2020 for the Caribbean countries. Two independent teams collected information regarding direct recognition or abbreviated processes to approve new drugs and the reference (trusted) regulators defined as such by the corresponding national legislation. Results. Regulatory documents regarding marketing authorization were found in 20 LAC regulators’ websites, covering 34 countries. Seven countries do not accept reliance on foreign regulators. Thirteen regulatory authorities (Argentina, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Mexico, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay, and the unique Caribbean Regulatory System for 15 Caribbean States) explicitly accept relying on marketing authorizations issued by the European Medicines Agency, United States Food and Drug Administration, and Health Canada. Ten countries rely also on marketing authorizations from Australia, Japan, and Switzerland. Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and Mexico are reference authorities for eight LAC regulators. Conclusions. Regulatory reliance has become a common practice in the LAC region. Thirteen out of 20 regulators directly recognize or abbreviate the marketing authorization process in case of earlier approval by a regulator from another jurisdiction. The regulators most relied upon are the European Medicines Agency, United States Food and Drug Administration, and Health Canada.

[RESUMEN]. Objetivo. Describir el estado actual de la utilización de las decisiones de autoridades regulatorias de otras jurisdicciones en América Latina y el Caribe mediante la evaluación de los marcos regulatorios nacionales para la aprobación de nuevos medicamentos y establecer los organismos regulatorios extranjeros que se consideran autoridades regulatorias confiables para cada país. Métodos. Se realizaron búsquedas en los sitios web de las autoridades regulatorias de América Latina y el Caribe para identificar las regulaciones oficiales para la aprobación de nuevos medicamentos. La recopilación de datos se llevó a cabo en diciembre del 2019 y se completó en junio del 2020 para los países del Caribe. Dos equipos independientes recopilaron información sobre el reconocimiento directo o los procedimientos abreviados para la aprobación de nuevos medicamentos y los autoridades regulatorias de referencia (confiables) así definidos en la legislación nacional correspondiente. Resultados. Se encontraron documentos regulatorios sobre la aprobación de nuevos productos en los sitios web de veinte organismos regulatorios de América Latina y el Caribe, que abarcaban 34 países. Siete países no aceptan la utilización de decisiones de autoridades regulatorias extranjeras. Trece autoridades regulatorias (Argentina, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, México, Panamá, Paraguay, Perú, República Dominicana, Uruguay y el sistema regulador único para quince Estados del Caribe) aceptan de manera explícita confiar las decisiones para aprobación de nuevos medicamentos emitidas por la Agencia Europea de Medicamentos, la Administración de Alimentos y Medicamentos de Estados Unidos y Salud Canadá. Diez países aceptan también utilizar las autorizaciones para la comercialización de Australia, Japón y Suiza. Argentina, Brasil, Chile y México son autoridades de referencia para ocho autoridades regulatorias en la región. Conclusiones. La utilización de las decisiones de autoridades regulatorias de otras jurisdicciones se han convertido en una práctica común en América Latina y el Caribe. Trece de veinte autoridades regulatorias reconocen directamente o abrevian el proceso de aprobación de nuevos medicamentos en caso de que hayan recibido previamente la aprobación por parte de un organismo regulatorio de otra jurisdicción. La Agencia Europea de Medicamentos, la Administración de Alimentos y Medicamentos de Estados Unidos y Salud Canadá son las autoridades regulatorias de otras jurisdicciones en las cuales los reguladores de América Latina y el Caribe confían más.

[RESUMO]. Objetivo. Descrever a prática atual de uso de decisões regulatórias de outras jurisdições na América Latina e no Caribe (ALC) mediante avaliação os marcos regulatórios dos países para aprovação de novos medicamentos e verificar, para cada país, quais entidades reguladoras estrangeiras são consideradas autoridades reguladoras de confiança por cada país. Métodos. Foi realizada uma pesquisa nos sites das autoridades reguladoras da ALC para identificar as regulamentações oficiais para aprovação de novos medicamentos. A coleta de dados foi feita em dezembro de 2019 e concluída em junho de 2020 para os países do Caribe. Dois grupos independentes coletaram informações sobre o reconhecimento direto ou o procedimento abreviado para aprovação de novos medicamentos e as autoridades reguladoras de referência (de confiança) definidas como tal pela respectiva legislação nacional. Resultados. Documentos regulatórios relacionados à aprovação de novos produtos foram obtidos de 20 sites de órgãos reguladores da ALC, abrangendo 34 países. Sete países não admitem o uso de decisões regulatórias de entidades reguladoras externas. Treze autoridades reguladoras (na Argentina, Colômbia, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Equador, Guatemala, México, Panamá, Paraguai, Peru, República Dominicana, Uruguai e o Sistema Regulador do Caribe unificado para 15 Estados caribenhos) admitem explicitamente a admissibilidade de decisões regulatórias para aprovação de novos medicamentos de outras jurisdições, quais sejam: Agência Europeia de Medicamentos (EMA), Agência Reguladora de Alimentos e Medicamentos (FDA) dos EUA e Health Canada. Dez países também aceitam decisões para autorização de comercialização da Austrália, Japão e Suíça. Argentina, Brasil, Chile e México são autoridades de referência para oito agências reguladoras. Conclusões. O uso de decisões regulatórias de outras jurisdições tornou-se prática comum na América Latina e Caribe. Treze das 20 agências reguladoras reconhecem diretamente ou abreviam o procedimento de aprovação de novos medicamentos no caso de tal aprovação já haver sido concedida por uma autoridade reguladora de outra jurisdição. A EMA, a FDA e a Health Canada são as autoridades estrangeiras nas quais as agências reguladoras da América Latina e Caribe mais confiam.

Transparencia de datos para construir un sistema de salud más sólido: estudio de caso de bases de datos administrativas argentinas sobre utilización de medicamentos / Data transparency for building a stronger healthcare system: A case study from Argentinean administrative drug utilization data sources

RESUMEN Para realizar un inventario de fuentes de datos nacionales sobre utilización de medicamentos en Argentina y verificar las fuentes de datos disponibles públicamente, llevamos a cabo un estudio transversal que investiga la existencia de bases de datos nacionales y provinciales sobre utilización de medicamentos. En julio de 2020, realizamos una búsqueda en sitios web de instituciones gubernamentales, una búsqueda sistemática en bases de datos bibliográficas sobre "drug utilization research" en Argentina y una encuesta de expertos. Se identificaron 31 fuentes de datos de utilización de medicamentos, solo una era de acceso público y conveniente, cinco publicaban datos agregados y proporcionaban un acceso más detallado mediante solicitud formal, solo siete fuentes (23%) informaban datos nacionales, y la mayoría de ellas (n=29) incluían solo datos del sector público de salud. Aunque se han encontrado fuentes de datos de utilización de medicamentos en Argentina, el acceso a investigadores y legisladores sigue siendo una barrera importante. Aumentar la transparencia de los datos de salud a través de fuentes disponibles públicamente para analizar la información de salud pública es crucial para construir un sistema de salud más sólido.

ABSTRACT In order to compile an inventory of national data sources for drug utilization research (DUR) in Argentina and to verify publicly available data sources, we performed a cross-sectional study that sought to identify national and provincial databases of drug use. In July 2020, we searched the websites of government institutions, carried out a systematic query of bibliographic databases for "drug utilization research" conducted in Argentina, and conducted a survey with local experts. Data collected included: the institution responsible for the database, population covered, accessibility, source of the data, healthcare setting, geographic information, and whether data were individual or aggregated. Descriptive analyses were then performed. We identified 31 data sources for DUR; only one was publicly and conveniently accessible. Five published aggregated data and provide more detailed access by formal request. Only seven sources (23%) reported national data, and most (n=29) included only data from the public healthcare sector. Although data sources for DUR have been found in Argentina, limited access by researchers and policymakers is still an significant obstacle. Increasing health data transparency by making data sources publicly available for the purpose of analyzing public health information is crucial for building a stronger health system.

Consumo de benzodiazepinas y fármacos Z en una organización de la seguridad social nacional argentina: ¿uso racional o excesivo? / Benzodiazepine and Z-drug consumption in a national social security organization in Argentina: rational or excessive use?

RESUMEN Las benzodiazepinas y los "fármacos Z" (BZD-Z) se prescriben en exceso en muchos países. Este estudio evaluó su consumo en una organización de la seguridad social (obra social) de Argentina de alcance nacional. A partir de un diseño observacional descriptivo se analizó la dispensa ambulatoria de BZD-Z, entre abril 2020 y marzo 2021, a mayores de 18 años; desagregada por sexo, edad, principio activo y vida media. Se encontró una prevalencia anual de uso del 11,6% entre los 431.445 afiliados adultos, con valores más elevados en las mujeres y mayores de 60 años. El consumo global de BZD-Z fue de 77,6 dosis diarias definidas (DDD) cada 1.000 afiliados-día. El usuario promedio recibió 5,1 dispensas anuales y el equivalente a 1,4 DDD por cada día del año. Las BZD-Z más usadas fueron las de vida media larga. El consumo de BZD-Z resultó elevado y más prolongado que lo recomendado. Es necesario mejorar la calidad en el consumo y reducir el impacto negativo del uso inapropiado de estos fármacos entre los individuos tratados.

ABSTRACT: Benzodiazepines and "Z-drugs" (BZD/Z) are overprescribed in many countries. This study evaluates their consumption in a social security sector health insurance provider with national coverage in Argentina. With a descriptive and observational approach, outpatient dispensations of BZD/Zs were analyzed for people over 18 years old from April 2020 to March 2021, disaggregated by sex, age, active ingredient, and half-life. An annual prevalence of use of 11.6% was found among the 431,445 adult affiliates, with higher rates in women and in those over age 60. Overall consumption of BZD/Zs was 77.6 defined daily doses (DDD) per 1000 enrollee-days. The average user received 5.1 annual dispensations and the equivalent of 1.4 DDD for each day of the year. BZD/Zs with long half-life were the most used. We found high levels of BZD/Z consumption and for longer periods than recommended. It is necessary to improve the quality of consumption and reduce the negative impact of inappropriate use of these drugs among treated individuals.

Regulatory reliance to approve new medicinal products in Latin American and Caribbean countries / Utilización de decisiones de autoridades regulatorias de otras jurisdicciones para aprobar nuevos productos medicinales en países de América Latina y el Caribe / Uso de decisões regulatórias de outras jurisdições para aprovação de novas especialidades farmacêuticas em países da América Latina e Caribe

ABSTRACT Objective. To describe the current status of regulatory reliance in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) by assessing the countries' regulatory frameworks to approve new medicines, and to ascertain, for each country, which foreign regulators are considered as trusted regulatory authorities to rely on. Methods. Websites from LAC regulators were searched to identify the official regulations to approve new drugs. Data collection was carried out in December 2019 and completed in June 2020 for the Caribbean countries. Two independent teams collected information regarding direct recognition or abbreviated processes to approve new drugs and the reference (trusted) regulators defined as such by the corresponding national legislation. Results. Regulatory documents regarding marketing authorization were found in 20 LAC regulators' websites, covering 34 countries. Seven countries do not accept reliance on foreign regulators. Thirteen regulatory authorities (Argentina, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Mexico, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay, and the unique Caribbean Regulatory System for 15 Caribbean States) explicitly accept relying on marketing authorizations issued by the European Medicines Agency, United States Food and Drug Administration, and Health Canada. Ten countries rely also on marketing authorizations from Australia, Japan, and Switzerland. Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and Mexico are reference authorities for eight LAC regulators. Conclusions. Regulatory reliance has become a common practice in the LAC region. Thirteen out of 20 regulators directly recognize or abbreviate the marketing authorization process in case of earlier approval by a regulator from another jurisdiction. The regulators most relied upon are the European Medicines Agency, United States Food and Drug Administration, and Health Canada.

RESUMEN Objetivo. Describir el estado actual de la utilización de las decisiones de autoridades regulatorias de otras jurisdicciones en América Latina y el Caribe mediante la evaluación de los marcos regulatorios nacionales para la aprobación de nuevos medicamentos y establecer los organismos regulatorios extranjeros que se consideran autoridades regulatorias confiables para cada país. Métodos. Se realizaron búsquedas en los sitios web de las autoridades regulatorias de América Latina y el Caribe para identificar las regulaciones oficiales para la aprobación de nuevos medicamentos. La recopilación de datos se llevó a cabo en diciembre del 2019 y se completó en junio del 2020 para los países del Caribe. Dos equipos independientes recopilaron información sobre el reconocimiento directo o los procedimientos abreviados para la aprobación de nuevos medicamentos y los autoridades regulatorias de referencia (confiables) así definidos en la legislación nacional correspondiente. Resultados. Se encontraron documentos regulatorios sobre la aprobación de nuevos productos en los sitios web de veinte organismos regulatorios de América Latina y el Caribe, que abarcaban 34 países. Siete países no aceptan la utilización de decisiones de autoridades regulatorias extranjeras. Trece autoridades regulatorias (Argentina, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, México, Panamá, Paraguay, Perú, República Dominicana, Uruguay y el sistema regulador único para quince Estados del Caribe) aceptan de manera explícita confiar las decisiones para aprobación de nuevos medicamentos emitidas por la Agencia Europea de Medicamentos, la Administración de Alimentos y Medicamentos de Estados Unidos y Salud Canadá. Diez países aceptan también utilizar las autorizaciones para la comercialización de Australia, Japón y Suiza. Argentina, Brasil, Chile y México son autoridades de referencia para ocho autoridades regulatorias en la región. Conclusiones. La utilización de las decisiones de autoridades regulatorias de otras jurisdicciones se han convertido en una práctica común en América Latina y el Caribe. Trece de veinte autoridades regulatorias reconocen directamente o abrevian el proceso de aprobación de nuevos medicamentos en caso de que hayan recibido previamente la aprobación por parte de un organismo regulatorio de otra jurisdicción. La Agencia Europea de Medicamentos, la Administración de Alimentos y Medicamentos de Estados Unidos y Salud Canadá son las autoridades regulatorias de otras jurisdicciones en las cuales los reguladores de América Latina y el Caribe confían más.

RESUMO Objetivo. Descrever a prática atual de uso de decisões regulatórias de outras jurisdições na América Latina e no Caribe (ALC) mediante avaliação os marcos regulatórios dos países para aprovação de novos medicamentos e verificar, para cada país, quais entidades reguladoras estrangeiras são consideradas autoridades reguladoras de confiança por cada país. Métodos. Foi realizada uma pesquisa nos sites das autoridades reguladoras da ALC para identificar as regulamentações oficiais para aprovação de novos medicamentos. A coleta de dados foi feita em dezembro de 2019 e concluída em junho de 2020 para os países do Caribe. Dois grupos independentes coletaram informações sobre o reconhecimento direto ou o procedimento abreviado para aprovação de novos medicamentos e as autoridades reguladoras de referência (de confiança) definidas como tal pela respectiva legislação nacional. Resultados. Documentos regulatórios relacionados à aprovação de novos produtos foram obtidos de 20 sites de órgãos reguladores da ALC, abrangendo 34 países. Sete países não admitem o uso de decisões regulatórias de entidades reguladoras externas. Treze autoridades reguladoras (na Argentina, Colômbia, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Equador, Guatemala, México, Panamá, Paraguai, Peru, República Dominicana, Uruguai e o Sistema Regulador do Caribe unificado para 15 Estados caribenhos) admitem explicitamente a admissibilidade de decisões regulatórias para aprovação de novos medicamentos de outras jurisdições, quais sejam: Agência Europeia de Medicamentos (EMA), Agência Reguladora de Alimentos e Medicamentos (FDA) dos EUA e Health Canada. Dez países também aceitam decisões para autorização de comercialização da Austrália, Japão e Suíça. Argentina, Brasil, Chile e México são autoridades de referência para oito agências reguladoras. Conclusões. O uso de decisões regulatórias de outras jurisdições tornou-se prática comum na América Latina e Caribe. Treze das 20 agências reguladoras reconhecem diretamente ou abreviam o procedimento de aprovação de novos medicamentos no caso de tal aprovação já haver sido concedida por uma autoridade reguladora de outra jurisdição. A EMA, a FDA e a Health Canada são as autoridades estrangeiras nas quais as agências reguladoras da América Latina e Caribe mais confiam.

Reducción de la cobertura social para los fármacos antiartrósicos sintomáticos de acción lenta: una iniciativa de desinversión en Argentina, 2015-2017 / Reduction of social coverage for symptomatic slow-acting drugs for osteoarthritis: a disinvestment initiative in Argentina, 2015-2017

RESUMEN En abril de 2016, el Instituto Nacional de Servicios Sociales para Jubilados y Pensionados excluyó del subsidio social la cobertura al 100% de 159 fármacos, entre ellos, los antiartrósicos sintomáticos de acción lenta o symptomatic slow-acting drugs for osteoarthritis (SySADOA), por insuficiente evidencia de beneficio clínico significativo. Evaluamos el efecto de esta medida sobre la utilización de SySADOA y de los antiinflamatorios no esteroides (AINE), no afectados por la medida. Se compararon las dispensas ambulatorias de los SySADOA y los AINE de 2015 a 2017, midiendo unidades dispensadas, precio de venta al público y gasto de bolsillo del beneficiario para cada mes. Luego de la medida, descendieron un 61,6% los envases de SySADOA dispensados y un 63,4% el monto total del precio de venta al público, medido en valores constantes. La dispensa no se reorientó hacia los AINE, que descendieron un 6,1%. Disminuyó tanto la incidencia de nuevos tratamientos (de 6,4 a 3,3 tratamientos por 1.000 beneficiarios por mes) como su continuidad. El gasto de bolsillo de los beneficiarios en SySADOA aumentó un 75,8% (a valores constantes). La desinversión en intervenciones de valor terapéutico cuestionable es una herramienta valiosa para la sustentabilidad de los sistemas de salud.

ABSTRACT In April 2016, the National Institute of Social Services for Retirees and Pensioners discontinued its policy of 100% coverage for 159 drugs (the "social subsidy"), including symptomatic slow-acting drugs for osteoarthritis (SYSADOAs), due to insufficient evidence of significant clinical benefit. We evaluated the effect of this measure on the use of SYSADOAs as well as non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), which were unaffected by this policy change. We compared outpatient dispensations of SYSADOAs and NSAIDs from 2015 to 2017, measuring dispensed units, retail price, and out-of-pocket expenses for beneficiaries each month. After the change in coverage, there was a 61.6% total decrease in SYSADOA units dispensed, and a 63.4% decrease in the final sales price to the public, measured in constant values. Dispensation was not reoriented towards NSAIDs, which fell by 6.1%. The incidence of new treatments decreased (from 6.4 to 3.3 treatments per 1,000 beneficiaries per month), as did their continuity. Beneficiaries' out-of-pocket spending on SYSADOAs increased by 75.8% (at constant values). Disinvestment in interventions with questionable therapeutic value is an important tool in working toward the sustainability of health systems.

La evidencia en tiempos de coronavirus (COVID-19) / Evidence in times of coronavirus (COVID-19)

La pandemia de COVID-19 está generando información epidemiológica y clínica en una escala sin precedentes para una enfermedad de reciente aparición. Aunque ya se han iniciado numerosos ensayos clínicos de fármacos antiguos y nuevos como potenciales antivirales específicos, la mayor parte de la información publicada hasta ahora carece de los controles básicos para la evaluación de la eficacia de un medicamento. Los medios de comunicación amplifican estos resultados preliminares y suman presión a los médicos asistenciales y a los decisores de políticas públicas. Este artículo revisa las pruebas disponibles sobre los cuatro tratamientos antivirales específicos más prometedores: hidroxicloroquina, lopinavir/ritonavir, remdesvir e interferones alfa y beta. Se comprueba en todos ellos que no hay demostración suficiente de eficacia como para recomendar su uso fuera de una investigación experimental adecuadamente controlada. En el uso individual de un medicamento no hay forma de saber si está beneficiando o perjudicando al paciente. Es erróneo asumir que la eventual curación se debe al fármaco y un mal desenlace debe atribuirse a la enfermedad. Sólo la comparación entre grupos de pacientes asignados al tratamiento experimental o a un control adecuado permite conocer la eficacia y seguridad de las intervenciones. El desafío es conciliar la urgencia de actuar con la generación de nuevos conocimientos.Aunque no resulta sencillo organizar ensayos clínicos en este contexto, las instituciones pueden sumarse a los proyectos en marcha a nivel nacional e internacional. El uso de estos fármacos debe considerarse experimental, por lo que es necesario obtener el consentimiento informado del paciente. (AU)

The COVID-19 pandemic is generating epidemiological and clinical information on an unprecedented scale for a newly emerging disease. Although numerous clinical trials of old and new drugs as potential specific antivirals have already been started, most of the information published so far lacks basic controls for evaluating drug efficacy. The media amplify these preliminary results and add pressure to doctors and policymakers. This article reviews the available evidence for the four most promising specific antiviral treatments: hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir / ritonavir, remdesvir, and alpha and beta interferons. The findings show that none of them has sufficient demonstration of efficacy to recommend its use outside ofthe adequately controlled experimental study. In the individual use of a drug there is no way of knowing if it is benefiting orharming the patient. It is wrong to assume that the eventual cure is due to the drug and a poor outcome must be attributed to the disease. Only the comparison between groups of patients assigned to the experimental treatment or to an adequate control can establish the efficacy and safety of the interventions. The challenge is to reconcile the urgency to act with the generation of new knowledge. Although it is not easy to organize clinical trials in this context, the institutions can join theongoing projects at the national and international levels. The use of these drugs should be considered experimental, so it is necessary to obtain the informed consent of the patient. (AU)

[Cardiovascular risk of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs]. / Riesgo cardiovascular de los antiinflamatorios no esteroideos.

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatories (NSAIDs) are among the most commonly used drugs in clinical practice. They block cyclooxygenases (COX) enzymes, but the degree of inhibition of COX-1 and COX-2 varies between them. In general, NSAIDs are classified in selective COX-2 or coxibs and non-selective or traditional NSAIDs. Both the analgesic and antiinflammatory effects, as well as the cardiovascular adverse effects, depend on the COX-2 inhibition. This paper reviews the available evidence of the increased risk of thrombotic events for both coxibs and traditional NSAID. The prothrombotic effect could be due to the inhibition of endothelial COX-2, with a decrease in production of prostacyclin and a relative increase in platelet thromboxane levels. Coxibs and diclofenac 150 mg/day seem to increase the risk of major vascular events by more than a third. Ibuprofen 2400 mg/day could slightly increase the risk of coronary events. Naproxen 1000 mg/day apparently does not increase the risk of vascular events. Besides ibuprofen and naproxen have the potential to decrease the cardioprotective effect of low doses of aspirin. Naproxen (= 1000 mg/day) and low doses of ibuprofen (= 1200 mg/day) are considered to have the most favorable thrombotic cardiovascular safety profiles of all NSAIDs. Therapeutic decisions should be based on an assessment of a person's individual risk factors, using the safest NSAIDs, at the lowest effective doses, for the shortest duration necessary to control symptoms, restricting their use in patients with increased cardiovascular risk.

Riesgo cardiovascular de los antiinflamatorios no esteroideos / Cardiovascular risk of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug

Los antiinflamatorios no esteroideos (AINEs) se encuentran entre los fármacos más utilizados en la práctica clínica. Actúan mediante el bloqueo de las enzimas ciclooxigenasas (COX), pero el grado de inhibición de COX-1 y COX-2 varía entre ellos. Se ha generalizado la clasificación entre COX-2 selectivos o coxibs, y los no selectivos o AINEs tradicionales. Tanto los efectos analgésico y antiinflamatorio como los efectos adversos cardiovasculares dependen de la inhibición de COX-2. Este trabajo revisa las evidencias disponibles del aumento del riesgo de eventos trombóticos tanto para los coxibs como para los AINEs tradicionales. El efecto protrombótico podría deberse a la inhibición de la COX-2 endotelial, con disminución de la prostaciclina y un incremento relativo de los niveles del tromboxano plaquetario. Los coxibs y el diclofenac, 150 mg/día, aumentarían el riesgo de eventos vasculares mayores en más de un tercio. El ibuprofeno 2400 mg/día aumentaría levemente el riesgo de eventos coronarios. El naproxeno 1000 mg/día no incrementaría el riesgo de eventos vasculares. Además, el ibuprofeno y el naproxeno tienen el potencial del disminuir el efecto cardioprotector de bajas dosis de aspirina. El naproxeno (≤ 1000 mg/día) y el ibuprofeno a bajas dosis (≤ 1200 mg/día) deberían considerarse los AINEs con el mejor perfil de seguridad cardiovascular. Las decisiones terapéuticas deben basarse en una adecuada evaluación del riesgo del paciente, utilizando los AINEs más seguros, a las menores dosis efectivas, por el menor tiempo posible que permita el control de los síntomas, restringiendo su utilización en enfermos con aumento del riesgo cardiovascular.

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatories (NSAIDs) are among the most commonly used drugs in clinical practice. They block cyclooxygenases (COX) enzymes, but the degree of inhibition of COX-1 and COX-2 varies between them. In general, NSAIDs are classified in selective COX-2 or coxibs and non-selective or traditional NSAIDs. Both the analgesic and anti-inflammatory effects, as well as the cardiovascular adverse effects, depend on the COX-2 inhibition. This paper reviews the available evidence of the increased risk of thrombotic events for both coxibs and traditional NSAID. The prothrombotic effect could be due to the inhibition of endothelial COX-2, with a decrease in production of prostacyclin and a relative increase in platelet thromboxane levels. Coxibs and diclofenac 150 mg/day seem to increase the risk of major vascular events by more than a third. Ibuprofen 2400 mg/day could slightly increase the risk of coronary events. Naproxen 1000 mg/day apparently does not increase the risk of vascular events. Besides ibuprofen and naproxen have the potential to decrease the cardioprotective effect of low doses of aspirin. Naproxen (≤ 1000 mg/day) and low doses of ibuprofen (≤ 1200 mg/day) are considered to have the most favorable thrombotic cardiovascular safety profiles of all NSAIDs. Therapeutic decisions should be based on an assessment of a person´s individual risk factors, using the safest NSAIDs, at the lowest effective doses, for the shortest duration necessary to control symptoms, restricting their use in patients with increased cardiovascular risk.