Group I pharmaceuticals of IARC and associated cancer risks: systematic review and meta-analysis.

We aimed to summarize the cancer risk among patients with indication of group I pharmaceuticals as stated in monographs presented by the International Agency for Research on Cancer working groups. Following the PRISMA guidelines, a comprehensive literature search was conducted using the PubMed database. Pharmaceuticals with few studies on cancer risk were identified in systematic reviews; those with two or more studies were subjected to meta-analysis. For the meta-analysis, a random-effects model was used to calculate the summary relative risks (SRRs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). Heterogeneity across studies was presented using the Higgins I square value from Cochran's Q test. Among the 12 group I pharmaceuticals selected, three involved a single study [etoposide, thiotepa, and mustargen + oncovin + procarbazine + prednisone (MOPP)], seven had two or more studies [busulfan, cyclosporine, azathioprine, cyclophosphamide, methoxsalen + ultraviolet (UV) radiation therapy, melphalan, and chlorambucil], and two did not have any studies [etoposide + bleomycin + cisplatin and treosulfan]. Cyclosporine and azathioprine reported increased skin cancer risk (SRR = 1.32, 95% CI 1.07-1.62; SRR = 1.56, 95% CI 1.25-1.93) compared to non-use. Cyclophosphamide increased bladder and hematologic cancer risk (SRR = 2.87, 95% CI 1.32-6.23; SRR = 2.43, 95% CI 1.65-3.58). Busulfan increased hematologic cancer risk (SRR = 6.71, 95% CI 2.49-18.08); melphalan was associated with hematologic cancer (SRR = 4.43, 95% CI 1.30-15.15). In the systematic review, methoxsalen + UV and MOPP were associated with an increased risk of skin and lung cancer, respectively. Our results can enhance persistent surveillance of group I pharmaceutical use, establish novel clinical strategies for patients with indications, and provide evidence for re-categorizing current group I pharmaceuticals into other groups.

Comparative Effects of Bivalent, Quadrivalent, and Nonavalent Human Papillomavirus Vaccines in The Prevention of Genotype-Specific Infection: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Human papillomavirus (HPV) infection is a major global disease burden and the main cause of cervical cancer. Certain HPV genotypes, with are the most common etiologic pathogens and cause a significant disease burden, are being targeted for vaccine development. However, few studies have focused on the comparative effectiveness of the bivalent HPV (2v-HPV), quadrivalent HPV (4v-HPV), and nonavalent HPV (9v-HPV) vaccines against HPV strain-specific infection. This study investigated the comparative effects of these vaccines against genotype-specific infection. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a pairwise and network meta-analysis of published randomized clinical trials of HPV vaccines according to sex and HPV infection status for nine HPV genotypes (HPV 6/11/16/18/31/33/45/52/58). RESULTS: Overall, 10 randomized controlled trials (12 articles) were included in this study. In the network meta-analysis, no statistically significant differences were observed in the prevention of carcinogenic HPV strains (16/18/31/33/45/52/58) between the 2v-HPV and 4v-HPV vaccines in female HPV infection-naïve populations. However, the 9v-HPV vaccine showed a significantly superior effect compared with 2v-HPV and 4v-HPV vaccines in preventing HPV 31/33/45/52/58 infections. Although 2v-HPV and 4v-HPV vaccines provided some cross-protection against HPV 31/33/45/52/58 infections, the effect was significant only on HPV 31 infection. For HPV 16 and 18, neither statistically significant nor small differences were found in the prevention of HPV infection among the 2v-HPV, 4v-HPV, and 9v-HPV vaccines. CONCLUSION: Our study complements previous understanding of how the effect of HPV vaccines differs according to the HPV genotype. This is important because HPV genotype prevalence varies among countries. We advocate for continued efforts in vaccinating against HPV, while public health agencies should consider the difference in the vaccine effect and HPV genotype prevalence when implementing HPV vaccination in public vaccination programs.

The effects of remdesivir on mortality and the requirement for mechanical ventilation in patients with COVID-19: a systematic review stratified by disease severity.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: The effectiveness of remdesivir treatment in reducing mortality and the requirement for mechanical ventilation (MV) remains uncertain, as randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have produced conflicting results. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and other data resources to find RCTs published prior to April 10, 2023. The selection of studies, assessment of risk of bias, and meta-analysis were conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and the need to initiate MV. RESULTS: A total of 5,068 articles were screened, from eight RCTs comprising 11,945 patients. The meta-analysis found that, compared to standard care or placebo, remdesivir treatment provided no significant all-cause mortality benefit (pooled risk ratio [RR], 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85-1.02; 8 studies; high certainty evidence), while subgroup analyses revealed a trend towards reduced mortality among patients requiring oxygen but not MV (pooled RR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.77-1.00; 6 studies; I2 = 4%). The need to initiate MV (pooled RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.59-0.94; 7 studies; moderate certainty evidence) in remdesivir-treated patients was also reduced compared to controls. Remdesivir significantly increased clinical improvement and discharge and significantly reduced serious adverse events. CONCLUSION: In this systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs, it was found that remdesivir treatment did not show a substantial decrease in the risk of mortality. However, it was linked to a reduction in the necessity for additional ventilatory support, suggesting remdesivir could be beneficial for COVID-19 patients, particularly those who are not on MV.

Correction: Clinical efficacy and safety of interferon (Type I and Type III) therapy in patients with COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0272826.].

Clinical efficacy of inhaled corticosteroids in patients with coronavirus disease 2019: A living review and meta-analysis.

Inhaled corticosteroids are known to be relatively safe for long-term use in inflammatory respiratory diseases and it has been repurposed as one of the potential therapies for outpatients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, inhaled corticosteroids have not been accepted for COVID-19 as a standard therapy because of its lack of proven benefits. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of inhaled corticosteroids in patients with COVID-19. Randomized controlled trials comparing the efficacy of inhaled corticosteroid treatment in patients with COVID-19 were identified through literature electronic database searches up to March 10, 2023. Meta-analyses were conducted for predefined outcomes, and the certainty of evidence was graded using the grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation approach. Overall, seven trials (eight articles) were included in this systematic review. Compared with usual care, inhaled corticosteroids was associated with significantly improved clinical recovery at 7 and 14 days in patients with COVID-19. In subgroup analysis, only budesonide showed significant efficacy in clinical recovery, whereas no significant benefit was observed for ciclesonide. Moreover, inhaled corticosteroids use was not significantly associated with all-cause hospitalization, all-cause mortality, admission to intensive care unit, or the use of mechanical ventilation. Our systematic review used evidence with very low to moderate certainty. Although based on limited evidence, our results suggest that inhaled corticosteroids treatment, especially budesonide, improves the clinical recovery of patients with COVID-19. More trials and meta-analyses are needed to assess the efficacy of inhaled corticosteroids for COVID-19 treatment.

Clinical efficacy and safety of SARS-CoV-2-neutralizing monoclonal antibody in patients with COVID-19: A living systematic review and meta-analysis.

This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of neutralizing monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) with usual care in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Randomized controlled trials comparing the efficacy and safety of neutralizing mAb treatment in patients with COVID-19 were identified using electronic database searches through March 10, 2023. This systematic review was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Overall, 13 trials (23 articles) involving 25,646 patients were included in this systematic review. Compared with usual care, neutralizing mAbs were associated with significantly reduced all-cause mortality in outpatients with COVID-19 (pooled risk ratios [RR], 0.41; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.20-0.83; 12 studies), but not in inpatients. In the subgroup analysis, only outpatients infected prior to the emergence of Delta variant or those with mAb-VOC match had significantly reduced mortality, while no significant benefit was observed in patients infected with Delta and post-Delta variants or mAb-VOC mismatch. Moreover, the rate of hospitalization and number of hospital visits had significantly reduced only in outpatients infected prior to the emergence of the Delta variant and those with mAb-VOC match. Our systematic review used majority of the high-certainty evidence. Our study found neutralizing mAbs were beneficial for outpatients infected prior to Delta variant or mAb-VOC match. In the face of the continuous emergence of new COVID-19 variants, additional clinical data are needed to determine whether neutralizing mAb treatment will be effective for the newly emerging variants.

Factors Affecting Health-Related Quality of Life in Patients With Metastatic Breast Cancer.

PURPOSE: Improving survival and health-related quality of life (HRQOL), along with symptom relief, is important for the treatment of metastatic breast cancer (MBC). This study measured HRQOL and analyzed its influence on sociodemographic and clinical factors in patients with MBC. METHODS: We interviewed 298 patients with MBC to investigate their sociodemographic characteristics and HRQOL by using EuroQol-5D-5L (EQ-5D) between September and October 2014. We also reviewed medical records to examine the clinical condition of the patients, including disease progression, adverse events, treatments, chronic disease, and metastatic areas. The distribution of the EQ-5D index was compared between different clinical conditions by using the Kruskal-Wallis test. We also conducted multiple regression analyses to identify the factors affecting HRQOL in patients with MBC. RESULTS: The mean EQ-5D index was 0.79 for all patients surveyed. The mean EQ-5D index score was significantly lower in patients in the progressed state than in those in the progression-free survival state (0.73 vs. 0.80, p = 0.0002). The HRQOL of patients treated with chemotherapy alone was significantly lower than that of patients treated with hormonal or targeted therapy (0.76 vs. 0.82 or 0.85; p = 0.0020). Regression analysis revealed that the clinical factors associated with lower HRQOL were progressed state, chemotherapy, and adverse events, such as hair loss or stomatitis. Finally, young age, high income, and employment were the sociodemographic factors that were positively associated with better HRQOL. CONCLUSION: This study provides new information on the health utility of MBC patients on the basis of various patient characteristics and offers insights that can assist medical professionals in treating patients with MBC and help policymakers implement cancer strategies. Further research is needed to reflect the changing environment of cancer treatment and enrich available evidence.

Two Years of Experience and Methodology of Korean COVID-19 Living Clinical Practice Guideline Development.

BACKGROUND: In Korea, during the early phase of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, we responded to the uncertainty of treatments under various conditions, consistently playing catch up with the speed of evidence updates. Therefore, there was high demand for national-level evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for clinicians in a timely manner. We developed evidence-based and updated living recommendations for clinicians through a transparent development process and multidisciplinary expert collaboration. METHODS: The National Evidence-based Healthcare Collaborating Agency (NECA) and the Korean Academy of Medical Sciences (KAMS) collaborated to develop trustworthy Korean living guidelines. The NECA-supported methodological sections and 8 professional medical societies of the KAMS worked with clinical experts, and 31 clinicians were involved annually. We developed a total of 35 clinical questions, including medications, respiratory/critical care, pediatric care, emergency care, diagnostic tests, and radiological examinations. RESULTS: An evidence-based search for treatments began in March 2021 and monthly updates were performed. It was expanded to other areas, and the search interval was organized by a steering committee owing to priority changes. Evidence synthesis and recommendation review was performed by researchers, and living recommendations were updated within 3-4 months. CONCLUSION: We provided timely recommendations on living schemes and disseminated them to the public, policymakers and various stakeholders using webpages and social media. Although the output was successful, there were some limitations. The rigor of development issues, urgent timelines for public dissemination, education for new developers, and spread of several new COVID-19 variants have worked as barriers. Therefore, we must prepare systematic processes and funding for future pandemics.

Clinical efficacy and safety of interferon (Type I and Type III) therapy in patients with COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Interferon (IFN) has been highlighted in several randomized controlled trials as an attractive therapeutic candidate based plausible mode of action, suppressed response in severe COVID-19, and inhibition of SARS-CoV-2 replication. This study investigated the efficacy and safety of IFN in patients with COVID-19 according to clinical severity. Randomized controlled trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of IFN (systemic or inhaled IFN-α, -ß, and -λ) treatment in adult patients with COVID-19 were identified by systematically searching electronic databases until January 2023. Risk of bias were assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, meta-analysis, and certainty of evidence grading were followed for the systematic review. We included 11 trials comprising 6,124 patients. Compared with exclusive standard care or placebo, IFN therapy did not provide significant clinical benefits for mortality at day 28 (pooled risk ratio [RR] = 0.86, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.62-1.18, 9 studies, low-certainty evidence) and progression to mechanical ventilation (pooled RR = 1.08, 95% CI: 0.81-1.43, 6 studies, low-certainty evidence) in patients with COVID-19. IFN therapy resulted in significantly increased hospital discharge on day 14 relative to the control arm (pooled RR = 1.29, 95% CI: 1.04-1.59). These results were inconsistent compared to other comparable outcomes such as recovery at day 14 and time to clinical improvement. The IFN-treated arm was as safe as the control arm, regardless of clinical severity (pooled RR = 0.87, 95% CI: 0.64-1.19, 9 studies, low-certainty evidence). In conclusion, IFN therapy was safe but did not demonstrate favorable outcomes for major clinical indices in patients with COVID-19, particularly those with higher than moderate severity. IFN therapy was not associated with worsening outcomes in patients with severe COVID-19. Future clinical trials should evaluate the clinical efficacy of IFN therapy in patients with mild COVID-19 or at an earlier stage. Trial registration: The protocol for this review was prospectively registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) under the registration number CRD42022301413.

Diagnostic accuracy of prostate-specific antigen below 4 ng/mL as a cutoff for diagnosing prostate cancer in a hospital setting: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: A prostate-specific antigen (PSA) cutoff of 4 ng/mL has been widely used for prostate cancer screening in population-based settings. However, the accuracy of PSA below 4 ng/mL as a cutoff for diagnosing prostate cancer in a hospital setting is inconclusive. We systematically reviewed the accuracy of PSA below 4 ng/mL cutoff in a hospital setting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We systematically reviewed the literature by searching major databases until March 2020, and a meta-analysis and quality assessment were performed. RESULTS: A total of 11 studies were included at the completion of the screening process. The meta-analysis showed a sensitivity of 0.92 and a specificity of 0.16 for a PSA cutoff below 4 ng/mL. The area under the hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.87, the positive likelihood ratio was 1.23, the negative likelihood ratio was 0.46, and the diagnostic odds ratio was 2.64. PSA sensitivities and specificities varied according to the cutoff range: 0.94 and 0.17 for 2 to 2.99 ng/mL, and 0.92 and 0.16 for 3 to 3.99 ng/mL, respectively. No significant differences in the sensitivity and specificity of PSA cutoffs in the range of 2 to 2.99 ng/mL and 3 to 3.99 ng/mL were found. CONCLUSIONS: Although a PSA cutoff <3 ng/mL is relatively more sensitive and specific than PSA ≥3 ng/mL, no significant differences in sensitivity and specificity were found in the diagnosis of prostate cancer. Therefore, clinicians should choose an appropriate PSA cutoff on the basis of clinical circumstances and patients' characteristics.

Clinical efficacy and safety of interleukin-6 receptor antagonists (tocilizumab and sarilumab) in patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

This study investigated the efficacy and safety of interleukin-6 (IL-6) receptor antagonists with standard care treatment in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The randomized controlled trials were identified through systematic searches of electronic databases through February 10, 2022. In total, 17 trials comprising 8,614 patients were included. Compared with exclusive standard care or placebo, IL-6 receptor antagonists with standard of care treatment were associated with a significantly reduced all-cause mortality at 28 days (pooled risk ratios [RR], 0.88; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.82-0.95; 17 studies) and progression to invasive mechanical ventilation (RR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.71-0.88; nine studies). Particularly, the subgroup of patients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19 showed a significant mortality benefit (RR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.81-0.96; four studies) and a reduced risk for mechanical ventilation (RR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.70-0.91; three studies) with tocilizumab treatment. The frequency of serious adverse events was lower in the tocilizumab treatment group than in the standard of care treatment group (RR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.71-0.97; 11 studies), with no significant difference in the sarilumab treatment group (RR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.89-1.40; four studies). Our meta-analysis demonstrated that tocilizumab treatment showed promising results in reducing 28-day mortality and progression to mechanical ventilation in patients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19, without the burden of serious adverse events.Trial registration: Clinical Trials Registry India identifier: CTRI/2020/05/025369.The proper registration is PROSPERO: registration number CRD42021294120.

Revised Korean Society of Infectious Diseases/National Evidence-based Healthcarea Collaborating Agency Guidelines on the Treatment of Patients with COVID-19.

Despite the global effort to mitigate the spread, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has become a pandemic that took more than 2 million lives. There are numerous ongoing clinical studies aiming to find treatment options and many are being published daily. Some effective treatment options, albeit of variable efficacy, have been discovered. Therefore, it is necessary to develop an evidence-based methodology, to continuously check for new evidence, and to update recommendations accordingly. Here we provide guidelines on pharmaceutical treatment for COVID-19 based on the latest evidence.

Health technology assessment in sub-Saharan Africa: a descriptive analysis and narrative synthesis.

BACKGROUND: Countries in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) are moving towards universal health coverage. The process of Health Technology Assessment (HTA) can support decisions relating to benefit package design and service coverage. HTA involves institutional cooperation with agreed methods and procedural standards. We systematically reviewed the literature on policies and capacity building to support HTA institutionalisation in SSA. METHODS: We systematically reviewed the literature by searching major databases (PubMed, Embase, etc.) until June 2019 using terms considering three aspects: HTA; health policy, decision making; and SSA. We quantitatively extracted and descriptively analysed content and conducted a narrative synthesis eliciting themes from the selected literature, which varied in study type and apporach. RESULTS: Half of the 49 papers identified were primary research studies and mostly qualitative. Five countries were represented in six of ten studies; South Africa, Ghana, Uganda, Cameroon, and Ethiopia. Half of first authors were from SSA. Most informants were policy makers. Five themes emerged: (1) use of HTA; (2) decision-making in HTA; (3) values and criteria for setting priority areas in HTA; (4) involving stakeholders in HTA; and (5) specific examples of progress in HTA in SSA. The first one was the main theme where there was little use of evidence and research in making policy. The awareness of HTA and economic evaluation was low, with inadequate expertise and a lack of local data and tools. CONCLUSIONS: Despite growing interest in HTA in SSA countries, awareness remains low and HTA-related activities are uncoordinated and often disconnected from policy. Further training and skills development are needed, firmly linked to a strategy focusing on strengthening within-country partnerships, particularly among researchers and policy makers. The international community has an important role here by supporting policy- relevant technical assistance, highlighting that sustainable financing demands evidence-based processes for effective resource allocation, and catalysing knowledge-sharing opportunities among countries facing similar challenges.

Korean Society of Infectious Diseases/National Evidence-based Healthcare Collaborating Agency Recommendations for Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Monoclonal Antibody Treatment of Patients with COVID-19.

Neutralizing antibodies targeted at the receptor-binding domain of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) spike protein have been developed and now under evaluation in clinical trials. The US Food and Drug Administration currently issued emergency use authorizations for neutralizing monoclonal antibodies in non-hospitalized patients with mild to moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) who are at high risk for progressing to severe disease and/or hospitalization. In terms of this situation, there is an urgent need to investigate the clinical aspects and to develop strategies to deploy them effectively in clinical practice. Here we provide guidance for the use of anti-SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibodies for the treatment of COVID-19 based on the latest evidence.

Survival of advanced melanoma patients treated with immunotherapy and targeted therapy: A real-world study.

INTRODUCTION: We aimed to examine the survival outcomes plus patient and treatment characteristics of advanced melanoma patients treated with first-line immunotherapy (IT), targeted therapy (TT), and chemotherapy (CTH) and compare findings with information from pivotal trials for each therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the use of systematic IT, TT and CTH therapies in melanoma patients in four Queensland public hospitals. We estimated median duration of overall survival (OS) and survival rates (6 months, 1, and 2 years) using Kaplan-Meier methods. We compared our findings to those of clinical trials. RESULTS: Five hundred three patients who met the inclusion criteria were divided into three groups based on the first-line treatment: IT 232; TT 157; and CTH 114. OS was 18 months with IT (95% CI 13, 22); 12 months with TT (95% CI 8, 15); and 5 months with CTH (95% CI 5, 6). The demographic characteristics, treatment protocols, and durations for IT and TT were generally consistent with trials but fewer patients in our study had subsequent therapy than in the trials. The OS in our study was slightly lower than the OS reported in trials. CONCLUSION: The OS of novel cancer therapy in the real world was lower than seen in trials but is expected given these are patients who have a poorer prognosis. A future study could investigate the impact of prognostic factors on survival in the longer term. This study provides evidence that we can use routinely collected real-world data to evaluate the effectiveness of checkpoint and kinase inhibitors in patients with advanced melanoma.

Research governance authorisation: the next frontier.

Objective There is much interest in examining the use of medicines and their real-world benefits and harms using routinely collected data sources such as patients' electronic medical records in hospitals in order to optimise use and health outcomes. This study aimed to describe the process and challenges involved in obtaining ethical approval and research governance authorisation for a research project that started on 7 December 2018 in Queensland and make recommendations for improving the process. Methods There were three aspects: (a) ethics approval; (b) governance - site-specific assessment (SSA); and (c) governance - Public Health Act (PHA) Application Assessment. Results The process to satisfy all requirements took more than 1 year (371 days); ethics took 16 days and PHA approval 16 days. The major hurdle was the SSA, which took 98-274 days across five sites. The main issues were opaqueness in processes and inconsistences in approach leading to considerable frustration. Discussion It is recommendeded that Research Governance Offices should be clear on the process and requirements. All Local Hospital Networks (LHN, Hospital and Health Services in Queensland) should develop and adopt a standardised low and negligible risk SSA approval process. Frustration of government officials and researchers led the National Health and Medical Research Council to streamline ethics approval processes, but the same cannot be said for the governance process. It is appreciated that LHN processes were developed for good and valid reasons, but the onerous and inconsistent application of these processes hinder timely and relevant research. It is time for action: follow the success of the ethics process to redesign governance. What is known about the topic? Researchers are interested in examining the use of medicines and their real-world benefits and harms using routinely collected data sources such as patients' electronic medical records in hospitals in order to optimise use and health outcomes. There are challenges in obtaining ethical approval and research governance authorisation for research projects. What does this paper add? We identified that the main hurdle was obtaining site-specific agreements across numerous hospital sites. What are the implications for practitioners? We recommend that Research Governance Offices should be clear on the process and requirements. All Local Hospital Networks (LHN, Hospital and Health Services in Queensland) should develop and adopt a standardised low and negligible risk SSA approval process. The ethics approval process has been streamlined in recent years so we need to follow this success to redesign governance.

Comparing proton pump inhibitors with histamin-2 receptor blockers regarding the risk of osteoporotic fractures: a nested case-control study of more than 350,000 Korean patients with GERD and peptic ulcer disease.

BACKGROUND: Patients with peptic ulcer disease (PUD) and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) are more likely to receive long-term therapy with proton pump inhibitors (PPIs). This study aimed to investigate the risk of osteoporotic fractures in PPI users compared to histamine-2 receptor antagonist (H2RA) users and the association between fractures and the duration and regular use of PPI. METHODS: A population-based, nationwide nested case-control study from January 2006 to December 2015 was performed using Korean National Health Insurance Service claims data. We included patients ≥50 years of age, without previous fractures, newly prescribed with PPI or H2RA, and diagnosed with PUD or GERD from 2006 to 2015. Patients with osteoporotic fracture (n = 59,240) were matched with the non-fracture control group (n = 296,200) at a 1:5 ratio based on sex, age, cohort entry date, follow-up duration, and bisphosphonate use. The osteoporotic fractures were defined using the diagnostic codes of claims data (M80, M81, M82, M484, M485, S220, S221, S320, S327, S422, S423, S525, S526, S72). RESULTS: The higher the cumulative use of PPIs, the higher the osteoporotic fracture risk (P for trend < 0.001). The risk of osteoporotic fracture in the patients whose cumulative use of PPI was more than 1 year was higher than that of others (OR: 1.42, 95% CI: 1.32-1.52). Patients who regularly used PPI in the recent 1 year had a higher risk of osteoporotic fracture than exclusive H2RA users (OR: 1.37, 95% CI: 1.26-1.50). CONCLUSIONS: The risk of osteoporotic fracture increased with the duration of PPI use, especially when PPI was used for ≥1 year and regularly in the recent 1 year.

Supervised Physical Rehabilitation in the Treatment of Patients with Advanced Cancer: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: As the survival rate of cancer patients increases, the clinical importance of rehabilitation provided by healthcare professionals also increases. However, the evidence supporting the relevance of rehabilitation programs is insufficient. This study aimed to review the literature on effectiveness in physical function, quality of life (QOL) or fatigue of supervised physical rehabilitation in patients with advanced cancer. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted following the Cochrane guidelines. We narratively described the results when meta-analysis was not applicable or appropriate. Literature databases including Ovid-MEDLINE, Ovid-EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library, as well as several Korean domestic databases, were searched up to June 2017 for studies that investigated the effectiveness of supervised physical rehabilitation programs on physical function, QOL or fatigue in patients with advanced cancer. The quality of the selected studies was evaluated independently by paired reviewers. RESULTS: Eleven studies with 922 participants were finally selected among 2,459 articles. The meta-analysis revealed that after physical exercise, the physical activity level and strength of patients with advanced cancer increased significantly. The QOL showed a statistically significant improvement after physical rehabilitation according to the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer version C30. Though some of measurements about cardiovascular endurance or strength in several studies were not able to be synthesized, each study reported that they were significantly improved after receiving rehabilitation. CONCLUSION: Supervised physical rehabilitation for patients with advanced cancer is effective in improving physical activity, strength, and QOL. However, more trials are needed to prove the effectiveness of supervised exercise and to strengthen the evidence.

Consumption of medicines used for gastric acid-related disorders in Australia and South Korea: a cross-country comparison.

PURPOSE: The study's aim was to compare the use of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), histamine 2-receptor antagonists (H2RAs) and mucoprotective medicines (MPs) used for gastric acid-related disorders (GARD) in Australia and South Korea (Korea) from 2004 to 2017. METHODS: Prescription data for PPIs, H2RAs and MPs for Australian outpatients were extracted from the Australian Statistics on Medicines annual reports, with dose-specific and expenditure data obtained from Medicare. Similar data were obtained from Korean National Health Insurance Service claims data. We analysed the volume and expenditure of medicines use annually using the defined daily dose per 1,000 population per day. We calculated which medicines accounted for 90% of use and estimated the proportions of use for low- and high-dose PPIs. RESULTS: While total utilisation for GARD medicines increased over time in both countries, patterns of use differed. Overall, use was somewhat higher in Australia but increased more rapidly in Korea. PPIs were used more extensively in Australia, while more MPs and H2RAs were used in Korea. Expenditure and use of low-dose PPIs is escalating in Korea. CONCLUSION: There were substantial differences in the use of GARD medicines in Australia and Korea over 14 years. Both countries face similar challenges to promote rational medicines use and contain medical care costs. The discrepant prescribing patterns can be attributed to differences in healthcare systems, pharmaceutical policies and demographics. This study provides a baseline to influence more rational use of these medicines. It provides insight into medicines policies for other countries that face similar challenges.

Utilization Patterns of Coagulation Factor Consumption for Patients with Hemophilia.

Hemophilia is a serious rare disease that requires continuous management and treatment for which the medicine is costly at the annual average of 100 million KRW for an individual. The aim of this study was to investigate trends in the utilization of coagulation factor (CF) used for hemophilia treatment using the National Health Insurance database from 2010 to 2013 in Korea and compare the utilization of CF with other countries. The consumption of CF per capita (IU) in Korea was not more than other countries with similar income to Korea. However, CF usage per patient IU was higher because the prevalence rate of hemophilia in Korea was lower than in other countries while the number of serious patients was much more. Therefore, it is difficult to say that the consumption of hemophilia medicine in Korea is higher than that in other countries. The consumption and cost of hemophilia medicine in Korea is likely to increase due to the increased utilization of expensive bypassing agents and the widespread use of prophylaxis for severe hemophilia. Even during the research period, it increased slightly and other countries show a similar trend. Thus, hemophilia patient management should accompany active monitoring on the health and cost outcomes of pharmaceutical treatment in the future. This study is expected to contribute to further insight into drug policies for other countries that face similar challenges with high price pharmaceuticals.