Outer packaging labelling of medicines in Southern African Development Community (SADC) countries: comparative analysis of requirements and transition terms for harmonisation.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted an urgent need for harmonised requirements for the regulation of medicines. To fully implement harmonised medicines regulations across Africa, common technical standards of medicine regulations are needed. One such technical standard is the labelling of medicines on outer packaging. In this study, we compared outer packaging labelling requirements and transition terms for harmonization for countries in the Southern African Development Community (SADC) region. METHODS: Data on legislation and/or regulatory guidelines for medicine outer packaging labelling from National Medicines Regulatory Authorities (NMRAs) were obtained for countries in the SADC region (n = 16) by February 2023. A detailed comparative content analysis was conducted to determine alignment with the requirements of the Southern African Development Community (SADC) harmonised labelling guidelines to assess readiness levels of each country to transition to the SADC harmonised labelling guideline for outer packaging of medicines. RESULTS: Content analysis showed at least 11 out of 16 countries require national legal reform to transition to the SADC harmonised labelling guideline. In all cases where countries specified labelling requirements for outer packaging of medicines, these were stipulated in national medicines legislation. CONCLUSION: Even though there is a high level of alignment across the countries in terms of national labelling requirements, most countries in the SADC region would still require national legislative reform to transition to regional harmonised labelling requirements and then ultimately to continental requirements of the African Medicines Agency (AMA).

Intensive monitoring of adverse drug events associated with the use of new glucose-lowering drugs: results from an inception cohort study in Portugal.

AIMS: To determine the frequency and the time-course profile of adverse drug events associated with new glucose-lowering drugs in daily practice and to explore factors potentially associated to these events. METHODS: An inception cohort study was implemented. Adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus initiating a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist or a sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitor were eligible for inclusion. Data were collected through baseline and follow-up telephone questionnaires, administered at 2 weeks, 3 months and 6 months. Kaplan-Meier curves and log-rank were computed to compare the time to adverse drug event onset. Cox models were used to explore potential factors associated with adverse drug events. RESULTS: A total of 1328 participants were recruited to the study. In all, 1118 adverse drug events were reported (of which 36% were not listed in the summary of product characteristics) by 41% of participants. The median latency time of adverse drug events reported in ≥1% of participants ranged from 0 to 2 days. Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist and sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitor subgroups were associated with an increased likelihood of adverse drug event reporting when compared with the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor subgroup. A total of 328 glucose-lowering drugs were withdrawn, more than half as a result of an adverse drug event. CONCLUSIONS: More than two-fifths of participants reported an adverse drug event; dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors led to the highest proportion of unlabelled adverse drug events. Adverse drug event latency time data show that counselling and adverse drug event management should be proactively addressed from treatment initiation. There should be greater focus on prevalent new users of glucose-lowering drugs, who were more complex participants in this study in terms of type 2 diabetes disease, as they were more likely to report an adverse drug event than the incident new users.

Adverse events related to biologicals used for patients with multiple sclerosis: a comparison between information originating from regulators and information originating from the scientific community.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Clinical decision making is facilitated by healthcare professionals' and patients' adequate knowledge of the adverse events. This is especially important for biologicals used for treating multiple sclerosis (MS). So far, little is known about whether different information sources report adverse events consistently. METHODS: Biologicals authorized by the European Medicines Agency for the treatment of MS were included in this study. Information on adverse events derived from phase 3 clinical trials from European Public Assessment Reports (EPARs) and from scientific publications was compared. RESULTS: In the study, eight biologicals used for the treatment of MS were included for which the EPAR and/or scientific publication reported a total of 707 adverse events. Approximately one-third of the adverse events was reported in both the EPAR and scientific publication, one-third was only reported in the EPAR and one-third only in the scientific publication. Serious adverse events and adverse events that regulators classified as 'important identified risk' were significantly more often reported in both sources compared to adverse events not classified as such (respectively, 38% vs. 30% and 49% vs. 30%). Adverse events only reported in the EPAR or in the scientific publication were, in general, not described in the benefit-risk section or abstract, which were considered to be the most important sections of the documents. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that there is substantial discordance in the reporting of adverse events on the same phase 3 trials between EPARs and scientific publications. To support optimal clinical decision making, both documents should be considered.

Access to medicines in Turkey: Evaluation of the process of medicines brought from abroad.

OBJECTIVE: Turkey's health reforms started in 2003 with providing changes in regulatory, financing, and healthcare services. Access to health care and pharmaceuticals increased rapidly, and this resulted with an increase in public pharmaceutical expenditures. Our study aims to quantify and to evaluate the impact of a specific process within the Turkish system called "Medicines Brought From Abroad" (MBFA). METHODS: We reviewed the general reimbursement legislations of Social Security Institution (SSI), the guideline on MBFA, the SSI reimbursement list, the list of MBFA published by the Ministry of Health to describe the current supply mechanism of medicines and, in particular, the role of MBFA. RESULTS: Total costs of the of MBFA medicines over the period 2011-17 went up to more than $520 million, which takes 7.5 percent of total public pharmaceutical expenditure for 2017. Our results showed that MBFA provides access to many orphan drugs and in total, forty-two orphan drugs listed in MBFA accounted for 83 percent of all MBFA budget in the year 2017. Nine of the top ten MBFA medicines were orphan drugs and total costs were $408 million. The highest budget impact was for eculizumab for "paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria" (PNH), covering 31 percent of total MBFA costs and 2.3 percent of overall drug costs in 2017. CONCLUSIONS: Turkey faced significant challenges for creating an access pathway for innovative medicines while continuing the sustainability of the public pharmaceutical budget like many other countries. Therefore, it may be argued that Turkey needs to create an independent health technology assessment organization to provide sustainable access to medicines in the future.

A decade of marketing approval of gene and cell-based therapies in the United States, European Union and Japan: An evaluation of regulatory decision-making.

There is a widely held expectation of clinical advance with the development of gene and cell-based therapies (GCTs). Yet, establishing benefits and risks is highly uncertain. We examine differences in decision-making for GCT approval between jurisdictions by comparing regulatory assessment procedures in the United States (US), European Union (EU) and Japan. A cohort of 18 assessment procedures was analyzed by comparing product characteristics, evidentiary and non-evidentiary factors considered for approval and post-marketing risk management. Product characteristics are very heterogeneous and only three products are marketed in multiple jurisdictions. Almost half of all approved GCTs received an orphan designation. Overall, confirmatory evidence or indications of clinical benefit were evident in US and EU applications, whereas in Japan approval was solely granted based on non-confirmatory evidence. Due to scientific uncertainties and safety risks, substantial post-marketing risk management activities were requested in the EU and Japan. EU and Japanese authorities often took unmet medical needs into consideration in decision-making for approval. These observations underline the effects of implemented legislation in these two jurisdictions that facilitate an adaptive approach to licensing. In the US, the recent assessments of two chimeric antigen receptor-T cell (CAR-T) products are suggestive of a trend toward a more permissive approach for GCT approval under recent reforms, in contrast to a more binary decision-making approach for previous approvals. It indicates that all three regulatory agencies are currently willing to take risks by approving GCTs with scientific uncertainties and safety risks, urging them to pay accurate attention to post-marketing risk management.

Selection of essential medicines for the prevention and treatment of cardiovascular diseases in low and middle income countries.

BACKGROUND: The incidence and mortality of cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) in low and middle income countries (LMICs) have been increasing, while access to CVDs medicines is suboptimal. We assessed selection of essential medicines for the prevention and treatment of CVDs on national essential medicines lists (NEMLs) of LMICs and potential determinants for selection. METHODS: Only operational NEMLs were considered eligible for this study. A selection of medicines listed under "cardiovascular medicines" or "blood products and plasma substitutes" in the NEMLs were included if they were present on international guidelines for the prevention and treatment of CVDs (hyperlipidemia, hypertension, platelet inhibition, ischemic stroke, stable ischemic heart disease, acute coronary syndromes, heart failure, atrial fibrillation, peripheral arterial disease and acute limb ischemia). The number and diversity of essential medicines selected for CVDs were studied. Moreover, determinants of selection of essential medicines for CVDs at a national level were explored. Data analysis was done using univariate linear regression and non-parametric tests. RESULTS: All medicine groups listed by the international guidelines were selected by the majority of the 34 countries studied with the exception of adenosine diphosphate receptor inhibitors which appeared on less than half of the NEMLs studied (41% of countries). The total number of essential medicines for the prevention and treatment of cardiovascular diseases (median 24 (range 16-50)) differed significantly across income levels (median range: 19.5-25, p = 0.014) and across regions (median range: 20-32, p = 0.049). When recommendations of the international guidelines were considered, over 75% of the NEMLs contained essential medicines for the majority of CVDs. CONCLUSION: The main medicine classes for the management of CVDs were represented on NEMLs. Consequently, for the majority of CVDs, evidence-based guideline-recommended treatment is possible as far as selection of essential medicines is concerned. Selection will therefore not be the limiting step in access to medicines for cardiovascular diseases.

Variability in market uptake of psychotropic medications in Europe reflects cultural diversity.

BACKGROUND: In the last 20-30 years, many international studies have found substantial differences in the use of (older) psychotropic medication between European countries. The majority mentioned an important role for attitudes and beliefs towards psychotropic medication. So far, no studies have looked into the effects of cultural diversity on the use of new medications entering the market. As national cultures relate deeply to held values regarding, for example, what is seen as effective versus ineffective or safe versus dangerous, (cultural) diversity in decision making around the role of new medications in clinical practice may already be expected from the first day after market authorization. METHODS: This study examined the relation between cultural diversity, described in Hofstede's model of cultural dimensions (Power Distance, Individualism, Masculinity, Uncertainty Avoidance, Indulgence and Long-Term Orientation) and utilization of three new psychotropic medications, namely aripiprazole, duloxetine and pregabalin in Europe. Country level sales data of the case study medications were correlated to country-specific scores of Hofstede's cultural dimensions. IMS Health's MIDAS database has been used for sales data (converted to Defined Daily Doses/1000 inhabitants/day) for the case study medications from the market authorization date in 2004 until December 2009 for 23 EU member states. RESULTS: Consumption of the case study medications was seen in all countries. In general, pregabalin was used more often than aripiprazole and duloxetine. In 2 years after market authorization, approximately 80% of all countries have reported use of all three molecules. Correlations between Hofstede dimensions individualism, long-term orientation and indulgence and total use of the case study medications tended to become stronger over time, but they were only statistically significant for indulgence at two years after market authorization (rho = 0.51, p = 0.014) and three years after market authorization (rho = 0.54, p = 0.008). A more detailed analysis showed (slight) variation by molecule. CONCLUSIONS: This study is a first step in including cultural dimensions when explaining cross-national variation in the use of new medications. The results indicate that indulgence, however marginally, is a cultural aspect that relates to the utilization of new psychotropic medications, suggesting that within the cultural context, less regulation of social norms is a main factor in explaining cross-national variation in uptake of these medications.

Relative effectiveness assessments of oncology medicines for pricing and reimbursement decisions in European countries.

BACKGROUND: There is a debate on the added clinical value of new, expensive, anticancer treatments. Among European decision makers, the relevance of commonly used end points in trials, especially overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and quality of life (QoL), varies, leading to the available evidence being valued differently. This research studies the extent to which the value of end points for cancer medicines differs among European decision makers. METHODS: We compared guidelines and relative effectiveness assessments (REAs) of medicines for pricing or reimbursement decisions in England, France, Germany, The Netherlands, Poland, and Scotland. Anticancer medicines that received marketing authorization in Europe between 2011 and 2013 with at least four available national REAs were evaluated. A total of 79 REAs were included. RESULTS: Health technology assessment (HTA) guidelines indicate a preference for clinically and patient relevant end points such as OS and QoL above surrogate end points. Most guidelines do not specify whether PFS is considered a surrogate or patient-relevant end point. The number of REAs included per jurisdiction varied between 7 (The Netherlands) and 18 (Germany). OS data were included in all REAs and were the preferred end point by HTA agencies, but these data were not always mature or robust. QoL data are included in only 54% of the REAs, with a limited impact on the recommendations. PFS data are included in 70% of the REAs, but the extent to which HTA agencies find PFS relevant varies. CONCLUSIONS: European decision-making on relative effectiveness of anticancer medicines is affected by a gap in requested versus available clinical evidence, mainly because the regulator is willing to accept some degree of clinical uncertainty. A multi-stakeholder debate would be essential to align concrete robust evidence requirements in oncology and a collectively shared definition for relevant clinical benefit, which will benefit patients and society in general.

Risk of vertebral and non-vertebral fractures in patients with sarcoidosis: a population-based cohort.

UNLABELLED: In this retrospective cohort study using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD), patients with sarcoidosis have an increased risk of clinical vertebral fractures and when on recent treatment with oral glucocorticoids, also an increased risk of any fractures and osteoporotic fractures. INTRODUCTION: Sarcoidosis is a chronic inflammatory disease, in which fragility fractures have been reported despite normal BMD. The aim of this study was to assess whether patients with sarcoidosis have an increased risk of clinical fractures compared to the general population. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using the CPRD. All patients with a CPRD code for sarcoidosis between January 1987 and September 2012 were included. Cox proportional hazards models were used to derive adjusted relative risks (RRs) of fractures in all sarcoidosis patients compared to matched controls, and within the sarcoidosis group according to use and dose of systemic glucocorticoids. RESULTS: Five thousand seven hundred twenty-two sarcoidosis patients (mean age 48.0 years, 51 % females, mean follow-up 6.7 years) were identified. Compared to 28,704 matched controls, the risk of any fracture was not different in patients with sarcoidosis. However, the risk of clinical vertebral fractures was significantly increased (adj RR 1.77; 95 % CI 1.06-2.96) and the risk of non-vertebral fractures was decreased although marginally significant (adj RR 0.87; 95 % CI 0.77-0.99). Compared to sarcoidosis patients not taking glucocorticoids, recent use of systemic glucocorticoids was associated with an increased risk of any fracture (adj RR 1.50; 95 % CI 1.20-1.89) and of an osteoporotic fracture (adj RR 1.47; 95 % CI 1.07-2.02). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with sarcoidosis have an increased risk of clinical vertebral fractures, and when using glucocorticoid therapy, an increased risk of any fractures and osteoporotic fractures. In contrast, the risk of non-vertebral fractures maybe decreased. Further investigation is needed to understand the underlying mechanisms of these contrasting effects on fracture risk.

Use of incretin agents and risk of pancreatic cancer: a population-based cohort study.

AIM: To investigate the association between the use of incretin agents and the risk of pancreatic cancer. METHODS: A retrospective population-based cohort study, using data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink, 2007-2012, was conducted. Patients (n = 182 428) with at least one non-insulin antidiabetic drug (NIAD) prescription and aged ≥18 years during data collection, were matched one-to-one to control patients without diabetes. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models and a new user design were used to estimate the hazard ratio (HR) of pancreatic cancer in incretin users (n = 28 370) compared with control subjects without diabetes and other NIAD-treated patients. Time-dependent adjustments were made for age, sex, lifestyle, comorbidities and drug use. RESULTS: The mean duration of follow-up was 4.1 years for incretin users. Current NIAD use was associated with a fourfold increased risk of pancreatic cancer [HR 4.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.49-5.24]. This risk was almost doubled among current incretin users as compared with control subjects. Incretin use was not associated with pancreatic cancer when compared with control subjects with diabetes (HR 1.36, 95% CI 0.94-1.96); however, the 'new user' design did show an association between incretin use and pancreatic cancer when compared with control subjects with diabetes. In both cohorts with prevalent and incident users of antidiabetic drugs, the risk of pancreatic cancer almost doubled in those who had recently initiated incretin therapy (up to seven prescriptions), whereas this elevated risk dropped to baseline levels with prolonged use. CONCLUSIONS: We found that incretin use was not associated with pancreatic cancer after adjustment for the severity of the underlying Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM). The elevated risk of pancreatic cancer in those recently initiating incretin agents is likely to be caused by protopathic bias or other types of unknown distortion. The presence of considerable confounding by disease severity and the lack of a duration-of-use relationship do not support a causal explanation for the association between incretin agents and pancreatic cancer.

Long-term persistence with anti-osteoporosis drugs after fracture.

UNLABELLED: Long-term persistence with anti-osteoporosis drugs and determinants for discontinuation among fracture patients were examined. Persistence was 75.0 and 45.3 % after 1 and 5 years, respectively. Those aged ≥80 years were at increased risk of early discontinuation. Within 1 year after discontinuation, 24.3 % restarted therapy, yet 47.0 % persisted for 1 year. INTRODUCTION: The risk of osteoporotic fracture can effectively be reduced with use of anti-osteoporosis drugs. However, little is known about persistence with these drugs after fracture where subsequent fracture risk is high. The aims were to determine long-term persistence with anti-osteoporosis drugs among fracture patients, including its determinants, and to describe restart and subsequent persistence. METHODS: A cohort study was conducted within the Dutch PHARMO Database Network. Patients aged ≥50 years (n = 961) who received anti-osteoporosis drugs within 1 year after fracture, but not in the preceding year, were included (2002-2011). Persistence (defined as the proportion on treatment) and the proportion restarting after discontinuation were estimated using Kaplan-Meier analyses. Time-dependent Cox regression was used to identify determinants of non-persistence including age, sex, initial dosage regime, fracture type, comorbidities, and drug use. RESULTS: Persistence with anti-osteoporosis drugs was 75.0 % (95 % confidence interval (CI) 72.0-77.7) and 45.3 % (95 % CI 40.4-50.0) after 1 and 5 years, respectively. A significant determinant of non-persistence was age ≥80 years (reference 50-59 years: adjusted hazard ratio [adj. HR] 1.65; 95 % CI 1.15-2.38). This effect was not constant over time (≤360 days following initiation: adj. HR 2.07; 95 % CI 1.27-3.37; >360 days: adj. HR 1.08; 95 % CI 0.62-1.88). Within 1 year after discontinuation, 24.3 % (95 % CI 20.1-29.2) restarted therapy, yet 47.0 % persisted for 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified suboptimal persistence with anti-osteoporosis drugs among fracture patients. Major target groups for measures aimed to improve persistence may be those aged >80 years and those restarting therapy.

Anti-osteoporosis drug prescribing after hip fracture in the UK: 2000-2010.

UNLABELLED: The probability of initiating with anti-osteoporosis therapy increased from 7 % in 2000 to 46 % in 2010. This improvement was greater for patients over the age of 75 years. Men, those overweight, having dementia or exposed to antipsychotics, sedatives/hypnotics or opioid analgesics were significantly less likely to receive anti-osteoporosis drugs. INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study was to examine trends and determinants of anti-osteoporosis drug prescribing after hip fracture in the UK between 2000 and 2010. METHODS: Data were extracted from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink for patients ≥50 years who had a first hip fracture between 2000 and 2010 and who did not currently (≤6 months prior) receive anti-osteoporosis drugs (bisphosphonates, strontium ranelate, parathyroid hormone, calcitonin and raloxifene) (n = 27,542). The cumulative incidence probability of being prescribed anti-osteoporosis drugs within 1 year after hip fracture was estimated by Kaplan-Meier life-table analyses. Determinants for treatment initiation were estimated by Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: The probability of being prescribed any anti-osteoporosis drug after hip fracture increased from 7 % in 2000 to 46 % in 2010. This trend was more marked in patients ≥75 years. The increase in prescribing of anti-osteoporosis drugs was complemented by a similar increase in vitamin D/calcium provision. Cumulative incidence of receiving anti-osteoporosis therapy was greater at any given point in time in women (8 % in 2000, 51 % in 2010) compared to men (4 % in 2000, 34 % in 2010). In addition to male gender, multivariable Cox regression identified reduced likelihood of receiving anti-osteoporosis drugs for those being overweight, having dementia and exposed to psychotropic drugs (antipsychotics, sedatives/hypnotics) or opioid analgesics. CONCLUSION: Although the prescribing of anti-osteoporosis drugs after hip fracture has increased substantially since 2000, the overall rate remained inadequate, particularly in men. With the continuing increase in the absolute number of hip fractures, further research should be made into the barriers to optimise osteoporosis management.

Essential medicines for breast cancer in low and middle income countries.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer is the most common type of cancer among women worldwide. In low and middle-income countries (LMICs), appropriate selection of medicines on national essential medicines lists (NEMLs) is a first step towards adequate access to treatment. We studied selection of systemic treatments for breast cancer on NEMLs and assessed its alignment with treatment guidelines for different types of early and advanced breast cancer. Furthermore, influence of country characteristics on the selection was investigated. METHOD: NEMLs from 75 LMICs were studied for inclusion of all components of therapy in each stage of breast cancer according to international consensus guidelines. The results were then grouped by income level, WHO region and the NEMLs' release date. Non parametric tests were used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: Unlike HER2-targeted therapies (<10%), aromatase inhibitors (12%) and taxanes (28%); tamoxifen and first generation chemotherapeutic regimens (e.g., anthracycline-based regimens) were frequently found in the NEMLs (71-78%). Consequently, all components of treatment for "Luminal A" early breast cancer and non HER2 overexpressed advanced breast cancer were found on the NEMLs of over 70% of countries. However, 40% of the low income countries did not have all the components of therapy for any type of early breast cancer in their NEMLs, and adequate treatment of HER2 overexpressed breast cancer was hardly possible with the current selections. Recent NEMLs were more aligned with the guidelines (p < 0.05). Eastern Mediterranean and African regions less frequently incorporated all components of breast cancer treatment in their NEMLs. CONCLUSION: Alignment of selection with guidelines' recommendations was inconsistent for different types of early and advanced breast cancer in NEMLs. Regular updates and more attention to clinical guidelines is therefore recommended.

Net gain analysis, an addition to responder analysis--The case of antipsychotic treatment of acute mania.

Net Gain Analysis (NGA) is proposed as an alternative to Responders Analysis (RA) as a more comprehensive method to tap clinical relevance of the effect of treatment. NGA is the group difference in responders minus the group difference in deteriorators; while RA is the group difference in responders. We examined the performance of these two methods in a dataset consisting of individual patient data from 10 randomized controlled trials (N = 2666) of five different antipsychotics in patients with acute mania by comparing the rank ordering of the five compounds according to both systems (NGA and RA). The rank order did not differ between the 2 systems but the inferiority of one compound was revealed more evidently by the NGA in comparison to the RA.

How do the EMA and FDA decide which anticancer drugs make it to the market? A comparative qualitative study on decision makers' views.

BACKGROUND: The process leading to a regulatory outcome is guided by factors both related and unrelated to the data package, defined in this analysis as 'formal and informal factors', respectively. The aim of this qualitative study was to analyse which formal and informal factors drive the decision-making process of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulators with regard to anticancer drugs, using in-depth semi-structured interviews with regulators of the two agencies. METHODS: In line with the theory and practice of qualitative research, no set sample size was defined a priori. Respondent enrolment continued until saturation and redundancy were reached. Data were collected through means of in-depth semi-structured interviews conducted either in a face-to-face setting or via Skype(®) with each regulator. The interviews were audio-recorded and verbatim transcribed. The analysis was manually carried out on the transcribed text. Data were independently coded and categorized by two researchers. Interpretation of the findings emerged through a process of triangulation between the two. RESULTS: Seven EMA and six FDA regulators, who had extensive experience with making decisions about anticancer medicines, were interviewed between April and June 2012. There is an open dialogue between the FDA and EMA, with the two moving closer and exchanging information, not opinions. Differences in decision-making between the agencies may be due to a different evaluation of end points. Different interaction modalities with industry and patients represent an additional source of divergence with a potential impact on decision-making. The key message of our respondents was that the agencies manage uncertainty in a different way: unlike the EMA, the FDA has a prevailing attitude to take risks in order to guarantee quicker access to new treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Although formal factors are the main drivers for regulatory decisions, the influence of informal factors plays an important role in the drug evaluation process.

Selection of oncology medicines in low- and middle-income countries.

BACKGROUND: High cancer mortality rates in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) have raised concerns regarding access to oncology medicines. Essential medicines are those which satisfy the primary health care needs and provide a basis for public procurement or reimbursement decisions in LMICs. We explored selection of oncology medicines in LMICs through investigating national essential medicines lists (NEMLs) for cancer treatments. METHODS: Recently updated NEMLs were retrieved for 76 countries. Oncology medicines were classified based on therapeutic categories. Countries were clustered based on geographic regions, income levels and burden of cancer (mortality and morbidity). Indicators of frequency (number of medicines), diversity (number of therapeutic (sub)categories) and more importantly absence were measured and compared across countries using parametric and nonparametric tests. RESULTS: The overall median number of oncology medicines on NEMLs was 16 (interquartile range = 23) chosen predominantly from subcategories of 'antineoplastic agents', with substantial variation across regions and income groups. Five countries did not select any oncology medicine and 68% did not have any 'hormones and related agents' on their NEMLs. Newer technologies like targeted therapies were infrequently incorporated. The cluster of countries suffering most from the burden of cancer selected more essential oncology medicines and diversified further. CONCLUSION: The observed selection of oncology essential medicines can reflect insufficiencies and inequalities in access to cancer treatments at least in the public sector of LMICs. Further resources need to be allocated from governments and international organizations to tackle the problem of access to oncology medicines in these countries.

Risk of fracture in patients with Guillain-Barré syndrome.

UNLABELLED: The aim of this study was to evaluate fracture risk in patients with Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS). No association with risk of fracture was observed for GBS patients compared with controls. Only GBS patients using pain treatment had a doubled risk of fracture. INTRODUCTION: Symptoms of Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) may vary from mild difficulty in walking to complete paralysis, which may increase the risk of fractures. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate fracture risk in patients with GBS. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink (1987-2012). Each patient with GBS was matched by year of birth, sex, and practice, up to six patients without a history of GBS. Outcome measure was any fracture. RESULTS: There were no associations between GBS and any fracture, adjusted hazard ratio (AHR) 1.01 (95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.77-1.33), or osteoporotic fracture, AHR 0.76 (95 % CI 0.50-1.17), compared with controls. Stratification to gender, age, and duration since diagnosis did not show an association either. Only for GBS patients using pain treatment, risk of fracture was doubled AHR 1.97 (95 % confidence CI 1.21-3.21) compared with controls. The risk of fracture in GBS patients exposed to pain treatment was equivalent to risk of fracture among controls exposed to pain treatment. CONCLUSIONS: No association with risk of fracture was observed for GBS patients compared with controls. Only GBS patients using pain treatment had a doubled risk of fracture, but their risk was equivalent to fracture risk among controls exposed to pain treatment.

Risk of fracture in patients with muscular dystrophies.

UNLABELLED: The aim of the study was to determine fracture risk in incident muscular dystrophy (MD) patients. Patients with MD are at a 1.4-fold increased risk of fracture as compared with population-based control patients. Risk further increased among elderly and female patients and among patients exposed to oral glucocorticoids. INTRODUCTION: Muscular dystrophies (MDs) are inherited diseases causing muscle weakness and thereby increase the risk of falling and detrimental effects on bone. Both are recognised risk factors for fracture. Therefore, the aim of this study was to determine the hazard ratio of fracture in patients with MD. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using the UK General Practice Research Database (1987-2012). Each patient with MD was matched by year of birth, sex and practice to up to six patients without a history of MD. Outcome measure was all fractures. RESULTS: As compared with control patients, risk of any fracture was statistically significantly increased in MD patients (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR], 1.40; 95 % confidence interval [CI], 1.14-1.71). An increased risk of fracture was observed among MD patients with female gender (AHR, 1.78; 95 % CI, 1.33-2.40) and an increasing age as compared with control patients. Stratification to Duchenne MD showed no association with fracture, whereas risk of fracture was increased twofold among patients with myotonic dystrophy (AHR, 2.34; 95 % CI, 1.56-3.51). MD patients had an almost tripled risk of fracture when they used oral glucocorticoids in the previous 6 months as compared to non-users with MD. CONCLUSION: Patients with MD are at a 1.4-fold increased risk of fracture as compared with population-based control patients. Especially in older age groups and female gender, the fracture risk of MD versus non-MD patients is increased, whereas exposure to glucocorticoids further increased fracture risk among MD patients.

The risk of major and any (non-hip) fragility fracture after hip fracture in the United Kingdom: 2000-2010.

UNLABELLED: The risk of a subsequent major or any fracture after a hip fracture and secular trends herein were examined. Within 1 year, 2.7 and 8.4% of patients sustained a major or any (non-hip) fracture, which increased to 14.7 and 32.5% after 5 years. Subsequent fracture rates increased during the study period both for major and any (non-hip) fracture. INTRODUCTION: Hip fractures are associated with subsequent fractures, particularly in the year following initial fracture. Age-adjusted hip fracture rates have stabilised in many developed countries, but secular trends in subsequent fracture remain poorly documented. We thus evaluated secular trends (2000-2010) and determinants for the risk of a subsequent major (humerus, vertebral, or forearm) and any (non-hip) fracture after hip fracture. METHODS: Patients ≥50 years with a hip fracture between 2000 and 2010 were extracted from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink (n = 30,516). Incidence rates, cumulative incidence probabilities, and adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) were calculated. RESULTS: Within 1 year following hip fracture, 2.7 and 8.4% of patients sustained a major or any (non-hip) fracture, which increased to 14.7 and 32.5% after 5 years, respectively. The most important risk factors for a subsequent major fracture within 1 year were the female gender [aHR 1.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.51-2.40] and a history of secondary osteoporosis (aHR 1.54, 95% CI 1.17-2.02). The annual risk increased during the study period for both subsequent major (2009-2010 vs. 2000-2002: aHR 1.44, 95% CI 1.12-1.83) and any (non-hip) facture (2009-2010 vs. 2000-2002: aHR 1.80, 95% CI 1.58-2.06). CONCLUSION: The risk of sustaining a major or any (non-hip) fracture after hip fracture is small in the first year. However, given the recent rise in secondary fracture rates and the substantial risk of subsequent fracture in the longer term, fracture prevention is clearly indicated for patients who have sustained a hip fracture.

Antidepressant prescribing in five European countries: application of common definitions to assess the prevalence, clinical observations, and methodological implications.

PURPOSE: Drug utilization studies have applied different methods to various data types to describe medication use, which hampers comparisons across populations. The aim of this study was to describe the time trends in antidepressant prescribing in the last decade and the variation in the prevalence, calculated in a uniform manner, in seven European electronic healthcare databases. METHODS: Annual prevalence per 10,000 person-years (PYs) was calculated for 2001-2009 in databases from Spain, Germany, Denmark, the United Kingdom (UK), and the Netherlands. Prevalence data were stratified according to age, sex, antidepressant type (selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors [SSRIs] or tricyclic antidepressants [TCAs]) and major indications. RESULTS: The age- and sex-standardized prevalence was lowest in the two Dutch (391 and 429 users per 10,000 PYs) and highest in the two UK (913 and 936 users per 10,000 PYs) populations in 2008. The prevalence in the Danish, German, and Spanish populations was 637, 618, and 644 users per 10,000 PY respectively. Antidepressants were prescribed most often in 20- to 60-year-olds in the two UK populations compared with the others. SSRIs were prescribed more often than TCAs in all except the German population. In the majority of countries we observed an increasing trend of antidepressant prescribing over time. Two different methods identifying recorded indications yielded different ranges of proportions of patients recorded with the specific indication (15-57% and 39-69% for depression respectively). CONCLUSION: Despite applying uniform methods, variations in the prevalence of antidepressant prescribing were obvious in the different populations. Database characteristics and clinical factors may both explain these variations.