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.

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.

Population Pharmacokinetics of Hydroxychloroquine Sulfate in Healthcare Workers, Given for Prophylaxis Against Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in India.

Healthcare workers (HCWs) and frontline workers were recommended hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) 400 mg twice a day on day 1, followed by 400 mg once weekly for the next 7 weeks, as prophylaxis against COVID-19. There was limited information on the population pharmacokinetics (popPK) of HCQ in an Indian setting when administered for prophylaxis against COVID-19, and hence this study was proposed. It was a multicentric prospective study conducted at 3 sites in India wherein HCWs who were already on HCQ prophylaxis, who were about to start prophylaxis or who had stopped the prophylaxis for any reason were enrolled. Each participant gave 2 to 6 blood samples at different time points and whole-blood HCQ concentrations were assayed using liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry (LC MS/MS). popPK analysis was performed using PUMAS 1.1.0. A total of N = 338 blood samples from N = 121 participants were included in the popPK analysis. A 2-compartment structural model with linear elimination was able to explain the observed data. Body weight was found to be a significant covariate influencing drug clearance. The final model was assessed using goodness-of-fit plots, a visual predictive check and a bootstrap, all of which confirmed that the model was appropriate. Simulations based on the current regimen showed that trough values were below the half-maximal effective concentration (EC50) of 0.7 µmol against COVID-19. A new weight-based dosage regimen was proposed to maintain the trough concentration above the EC50 threshold.

Use of drugs not listed in the National List of Essential Medicines: Findings from a prescription analysis by the Indian Council of Medical Research-Rational Use of Medicines Centres Network in tertiary care hospitals across India.

BACKGROUND: The concept of listing essential medicines can lead to improved supply and access, more rational prescribing, and lower costs of drugs. However, these benefits hinge on the prescription of drugs from an Essential Medicines List (EML). Several studies have highlighted the problem of underutilization of EMLs by prescribers. Therefore, as part of prescription research by the Indian Council of Medical Research-Rational Use of Medicines Centres Network, we evaluated the extent of prescription of drugs not listed in the National List of Essential Medicines (NLEM). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Prescriptions of outpatients from participating centers were included after obtaining verbal/written informed consent as approved by the Ethics Committee, and evaluated for prescription of drugs from the NLEM 2015. RESULTS: Analysis of 4838 prescriptions from 13 tertiary health-care institutes revealed that 2677 (55.33%) prescriptions had at least one non-NLEM drug prescribed. In all, 5215 (31.12%) of the total 16,758 drugs prescribed were not in NLEM. Of these, 2722 (16.24%) were single drugs and 2493 (14.88%) were fixed-dose combinations (FDCs). These comprised 700 different drug products - 346 single drugs and 354 FDCs. The average number of non-NLEM drugs prescribed per prescription was 1.08, while the average number of all drugs prescribed was 3.35 per prescription. It was also found that some of the non-NLEM drugs prescribed had the potential to result in increased cost (for example, levocetirizine), increased adverse effects (dextromethorphan), and less effectiveness (losartan) when compared to their NLEM counterparts. Nonavailability of an essential drug (oral hydroxocobalamin) was another important finding of our study. CONCLUSION: This study highlights the extent and pattern of drugs prescribed from outside the NLEM at the tertiary health-care level and the need for training and enhanced awareness among prescribers for greater utilization of the NLEM.