Establishment of a children's Drugs and Therapeutics Committee to ensure evidence-based and cost-effective medical treatment for children.

The prevalence of undocumented medical treatments among children is a significant issue, as well as many EU countries lack access to newly developed children-friendly medicines. Consequently, there is a pressing need for supplementary resources that can facilitate informed decision-making regarding children's medication. We therefore aim to describe the process of establishing a children's Drug and Therapeutics Committee (cDTC), as well as the preparing and implementation of recommendations for children in the capital region of Denmark. Following the guidelines outlined by the World Health Organization, we established a cDTC, and recommendations for paediatric medication practice were constructed from assessments of medication use patterns among children in the capital region between 2019 and 2021. The recommendations were meticulously crafted based on evaluation of the current marketing authorization landscape and existing best available evidence. In 2019, the capital region established the first cDTC supported by expert councils and an editorial board. A total of 2429 purchase item numbers covering 1 222 846 defined daily doses and 592 088 purchased packages covering 10 200 000 defined daily doses were identified in the secondary and primary sectors, respectively. Three comprehensive lists covering recommendations for newborns and children were published between 2021 and 2020 totaling 331 recommended pharmaceutical products. The recommendations primarily intended for use in the secondary healthcare sector were implemented through the revision of 38 paediatric- and six neonatal product ranges throughout capital region. In conclusion, recommendation lists for children governed by a cDTC provide a rational auxiliary tool that can be immediately implemented in the clinic.

Revitalizing oncology medications access in Saudi Arabia: Current challenges and recommendations by the Saudi Oncology Pharmacy Assembly.

BACKGROUND: Cancer care is posing immense challenges to healthcare systems globally. Advances in screening, monitoring, and treating cancer improved patient outcomes and survival rates yet amplified the disease burden. Multiple barriers might impede early access to innovative therapies. We thoroughly examined the current challenges in oncology medication access in Saudi Arabia and provided consensus recommendations to revitalize the process. METHODS: A focus group discussion was conducted. Expert healthcare providers (pharmacists and physicians) were invited to participate based on prespecified criteria. The research team conducted a qualitative analysis of the discussion to identify themes and formulate recommendations. RESULTS: Fourteen experts were equally distributed into two groups, limiting the number in each group to 7. Pharmacists were 12 (∼86%), and physicians were 2 (∼14%). Ten were practicing in governmental hospitals, four representing different sectors; regulatory bodies, including Ministry of Health, National Unified Procurement Company, and Saudi Food and Drug Authority. Five themes were identified: national cancer burden, local data availability, pharmacoeconomic evaluation, patients reported outcomes, administration, and procurement. Consensus recommendations were formulated to optimize the formulary management process, enabling informed decision-making and facilitating early medication access for cancer patients. CONCLUSIONS: The formulary management process can be enhanced by addressing the national cancer burden, promoting local data availability, conducting pharmacoeconomic evaluations, focusing on patient outcomes, and improving administration and procurement procedures. Implementing these recommendations can improve access to oncology medications and improve patient care outcomes in Saudi Arabia.

[Concordance between essential medicines lists and diabetes guidelines in Latin America and the CaribbeanConcordância entre as listas de medicamentos essenciais e diretrizes para diabetes na América Latina e no Caribe]. / Concordancia entre las listas de medicamentos esenciales y las guías para diabetes en América Latina y el Caribe.

Objective: Conduct an analysis to determine the existence and updating of national essential medicines lists (EMLs) and clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for the treatment of diabetes in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC); and compare the medicines included in each country's list and guidelines both with each other and with those of the World Health Organization (WHO). Methods: Cross-sectional study. EMLs and CPGs for diabetes were found on the websites of the Pan American Health Organization and national health authorities. Medicines were noted and analyzed according to pharmacological group, based on the fourth level of nomenclature of the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) classification system. F1 scoring was used to assess the proximity of EMLs to the WHO Model List of Essential Medicines (MLEM). Results: Of the total number of countries, 87.2% have EMLs, and 91% have CPGs (78% and 45% updated in the last five years, respectively). Compared to the six hypoglycemic groups of the MLEM, the EMLs had a median (range) of 6 (4-13) and an F1 score of 0.80; This indicates proper alignment. CPGs had a median (range) of 12 (1-12) hypoglycemic drugs compared to eight in the WHO guidelines. CPGs had a median of 15 more drugs than their respective EMLs. Conclusions: While most LAC countries have EMLs and CPGs for diabetes, the lack of concordance among them limits their effectiveness. It is necessary to align the processes and criteria for the development of these two tools for policymaking on medicines.

Objetivos: Analisar a existência e a atualização das listas nacionais de medicamentos (LNMs) e guias de prática clínica (GPCs) para o tratamento do diabetes na América Latina e no Caribe (ALC). Comparar os medicamentos incluídos nas listas e nas diretrizes de cada país entre si e com as da Organização Mundial da Saúde (OMS). Métodos: Estudo transversal. Foram identificadas LMNs e GPCs para o diabetes nos sites da Organização Pan-Americana da Saúde e das autoridades sanitárias nacionais. Os medicamentos foram pesquisados e analisados por grupo farmacológico de acordo com o quarto nível da classificação ATC. A pontuação F1 foi utilizada para avaliar o grau de proximidade das LMNs com a lista-modelo de medicamentos essenciais (LMME) da OMS. Resultados: Do total de países, 87,2% dispõem de uma LNM e 91%, de GPCs (78% e 45%, respectivamente, atualizadas nos últimos 5 anos). Em comparação com os seis grupos de agentes hipoglicemiantes da LMME, as LMNs tinham uma mediana (intervalo) de 6 (4 a 13) e uma pontuação F1 de 0,80, o que indica uma conformidade adequada. As GPCs tinham uma mediana (intervalo) de 12 (1 a 12) agentes hipoglicemiantes, em comparação com 8 nos guias da OMS. As GPCs tinham uma mediana de 15 medicamentos a mais do que as respectivas LNMs. Conclusões: Embora a maioria dos países da América Latina e do Caribe disponha de LNMs e GPCs para o diabetes, a falta de concordância entre elas limita sua eficácia. É necessário alinhar os processos e os critérios de desenvolvimento dessas duas ferramentas da política de medicamentos.

Formulary Drug Reviews: Nirsevimab.

Each month, subscribers to The Formulary Monograph Service receive 5 to 6 well-documented monographs on drugs that are newly released or are in late phase 3 trials. The monographs are targeted to Pharmacy & Therapeutics Committees. Subscribers also receive monthly 1-page summary monographs on agents that are useful for agendas and pharmacy/nursing in-services. A comprehensive target drug utilization evaluation/medication use evaluation (DUE/MUE) is also provided each month. With a subscription, the monographs are available online to subscribers. Monographs can be customized to meet the needs of a facility. Through the cooperation of The Formulary, Hospital Pharmacy publishes selected reviews in this column. For more information about The Formulary Monograph Service, contact Wolters Kluwer customer service at 866-397-3433.

Valoctocogene Roxaparvovec.

Each month, subscribers to The Formulary Monograph Service receive 5 to 6 well-documented monographs on drugs that are newly released or are in late phase 3 trials. The monographs are targeted to Pharmacy & Therapeutics Committees. Subscribers also receive monthly 1-page summary monographs on agents that are useful for agendas and pharmacy/nursing in-services. A comprehensive target drug utilization evaluation/medication use evaluation (DUE/MUE) is also provided each month. With a subscription, the monographs are available online to subscribers. Monographs can be customized to meet the needs of a facility. Through the cooperation of The Formulary, Hospital Pharmacy publishes selected reviews in this column. For more information about The Formulary Monograph Service, contact Wolters Kluwer customer service at 866-397-3433.

Estimating Tiotropium Wasted Doses After Adding Revefenacin to an Inpatient Formulary: A Single-Center Cross-Sectional Study.

Introduction: Revefenacin is a once-daily nebulized long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA). Revefenacin is supplied as single-use nebulized vials, which may be preferable and less costly for hospital and health-system pharmacies to dispense versus multidose tiotropium inhalers. Estimates of LAMA multidose inhaler wasted doses remains unknown. Methods: This was a single-center descriptive cross-sectional study conducted between January 1 2021 and December 31 2021. Adult patients 18 years and older admitted to a 500-bed academic medical center in the southern United States and were ordered multidose tiotropium packages or single-use revefenacin vials during the study period were included. Results: Among 602 inpatients, there were 705 LAMA orders: 541 tiotropium (76.7%) and 164 revefenacin (23.3%). Four hundred ninety-five tiotropium orders (91.5%) wasted between 20% and 90% of multidose packages. Approximately $24,000 tiotropium doses were wasted versus single-use revefenacin vials. Conclusion: Multidose inhalers of tiotropium dispensed to hospitalized patients contributed to wasted doses compared to nebulized single-use revefenacin vials. Opportunities exist to minimize wasted doses of multidose long-acting inhalers dispensed to hospitalized patients.

Where Do Real-Time Prescription Benefit Tools Fit in the Landscape of High US Prescription Medication Costs? A Narrative Review.

The problem of unaffordable prescription medications in the United States is complex and can result in poor patient adherence to therapy, worse clinical outcomes, and high costs to the healthcare system. While providers are aware of the financial burden of healthcare for patients, there is a lack of actionable price transparency at the point of prescribing. Real-time prescription benefit (RTPB) tools are new electronic clinical decision support tools that retrieve patient- and medication-specific out-of-pocket cost information and display it to clinicians at the point of prescribing. The rise in US healthcare costs has been a major driver for efforts to increase medication price transparency, and mandates from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services for Medicare Part D sponsors to adopt RTPB tools may spur integration of such tools into electronic health records. Although multiple factors affect the implementation of RTPB tools, there is limited evidence on outcomes. Further research will be needed to understand the impact of RTPB tools on end results such as prescribing behavior, out-of-pocket medication costs for patients, and adherence to pharmacologic treatment. We review the terminology and concepts essential in understanding the landscape of RTPB tools, implementation considerations, barriers to adoption, and directions for future research that will be important to patients, prescribers, health systems, and insurers.

Exploring the complexities of drug formulation selection, storage, and shelf-life for exploration spaceflight.

Medications have been a part of space travel dating back to the Apollo missions. Currently, medical kits aboard the International Space Station (ISS) contain medications and supplies to treat a variety of possible medical events. As we prepare for more distant exploration missions to Mars and beyond, risk management planning for astronaut healthcare should include the assembly of a medication formulary that is comprehensive enough to prevent or treat anticipated medical events, remains safe and chemically stable, and retains sufficient potency to last for the duration of the mission. Emerging innovation and technologies in pharmaceutical development, delivery, quality maintenance, and validation offer promise for addressing these challenges. The present editorial will summarize the current state of knowledge regarding innovative formulary optimization strategies, pharmaceutical stability assessment techniques, and storage and packaging solutions that could enhance drug safety and efficacy for future exploration spaceflight missions.

Designing a Value-Based Formulary for a Commercial Health Plan: A Simulated Case Study of Diabetes Medications.

OBJECTIVES: The healthcare expenditure for managing diabetes with glucose-lowering medications has been substantial in the United States. We simulated a novel, value-based formulary (VBF) design for a commercial health plan and modeled possible changes in spending and utilization of antidiabetic agents. METHODS: We designed a 4-tier VBF with exclusions in consultation with health plan stakeholders. The formulary information included covered drugs, tiers, thresholds, and cost sharing amounts. The value of 22 diabetes mellitus drugs was determined primarily in terms of incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Using pharmacy claims database (2019-2020), we identified 40 150 beneficiaries who were on the included diabetes mellitus medicines. We simulated future health plan spending and out-of-pocket costs with 3 VBF designs, using published own price elasticity estimates. RESULTS: The average age of the cohort is 55 years (51% female). Compared with the current formulary, the proposed VBF design with exclusions is estimated to reduce total annual health plan spending by 33.2% (current: $33 956 211; VBF: $22 682 576), saving $281 in annual spending per member (current: $846; VBF: $565) and $100 in annual out-of-pocket spending per member (current: $119; VBF: $19). Implementing the full VBF with new cost shares, along with exclusions, has the potential to achieve the greatest savings, compared with the 2 intermediate VBF designs (ie, VBF with prior cost sharing and VBF without exclusions). Sensitivity analyses using various price elasticity values showed declines in all spending outcomes. CONCLUSION: Designing a VBF with exclusions in a US employer-based health plan has the potential to reduce health plan and patient spending.

Evaluation of the inpatient use of inotuzumab ozogamicin and creation of appropriate use guidelines.

Inpatient use of inotuzumab ozogamicin (IO) at our academic medical center has increased since its FDA approval in 2017. Administration of IO does not require hospitalization and is appropriate for outpatient use. The aim of this report is to assess the appropriateness of use, overall inpatient utilization, and cost of IO. This is a retrospective chart review of patients that received at least one dose of IO while admitted to the hospital. Data points included rationale for inpatient IO administration, hospital admission reason, number of IO doses and number of vials used, length of stay, in-hospital mortality, percentage of admissions that were new-starts, outpatient continuation of IO, use of concomitant regimens, and CD22 positivity. Between September 1, 2017, and June 30, 2022, 55 doses of IO were identified. Of the 29 unique admissions, common rationales for inpatient IO use included high disease burden/tumor lysis syndrome risk (31%) and use of a regimen requiring hospitalization (28%). The rationale for hospitalization was most commonly 'chemotherapy administration' (34%) and 'relapsed/refractory disease' (38%). Median length of stay was 23 days, most were new starts (76%), and 5 patients died during the associated admission. Only 63% of patients continued therapy in the outpatient setting. The inpatient use of IO was associated with a prolonged length-of-stay, a 17% in-hospital mortality, and represents a significant cost burden to the health system. As a result of these findings, guidelines for inpatient use of IO were implemented across the health system.

Comparative Study of General Notices in Pharmacopoeias in Japan, the United States, and Europe.

Globalization of pharmaceutical supply chains has expanded and manufacturers are required to manufacture products in compliance with the pharmacopoeial standards used in all exporting countries/regions to ensure product quality. International harmonization has been facilitated by the Pharmacopoeial Discussion Group consisting of the Japanese Pharmacopoeia, the United States Pharmacopeia, and the European Pharmacopoeia. However, since the pharmacopoeias have been developed individually under the regulatory framework of each country/region, differences exist between these pharmacopoeias. When using pharmacopoeias, an understanding of common pharmacopoeial rules is essential. Clarifying the similarities and differences in the General Notices of the pharmacopoeias widely referenced worldwide is considered valuable for those already using one or two of them to access the remaining pharmacopoeias. In this study, we compared the existence of items and the contents described in the General Notices of the three pharmacopoeias to clarify the differences. Investigation of the existence of items revealed that more than 70% of the 105 items in General Notices in the three pharmacopoeias were in the entire pharmacopoeias (for Japan, including Japanese laws and notifications). Furthermore, investigating contents revealed that approximately 20% of the 105 items have some differences such as numerical values and test conditions. However, it was shown that most of the items did not have major differences. It is expected that the three pharmacopoeias will be utilized simultaneously by understanding the similarities and differences shown in this study.

Assessing oncology providers attitudes and practices toward nonformulary drugs and mapping current obstacles in Saudi Arabia.

Introduction: Formulary drug list is a continually updated list of medications routinely stocked by hospitals and other healthcare facilities and deemed effective, safe, and cost saving. Non-formulary drug (NFD) refers to medications not on the formulary, due to cost or lack of clinical data. This study aimed to examine the processing of NFD requests by oncology providers (OPs) in Saudi Arabia. Method: A cross-sectional survey in Saudi oncology centers gathered perspectives of healthcare practitioners, mainly oncology pharmacists and physicians, on NFDs and request processes, aiming to understand variations, reasons for NFDs, and suggestions for an improved, unified NFDs request algorithm. Result: A total of 93 physicians and pharmacists responded, 57 % were pharmacists, 43 % were physicians, and 94.6 % worked in the governmental sector. Around 31.2 % reported that it takes one week to receive a decision on their NFD request, while 28 % reported it takes two weeks to one month. Furthermore, 35.5 % of participants reported that the complete NFD process, from the initial order placement to the receipt of medications, spans a duration of 2-4 months, while 8.6 % noted a longer duration exceeding six months. The participants reported that the most common obstacles while requesting NFD were procurement delays and lengthy processing times. Additionally, 26.9 % agreed that formulary restrictions hindered medical care and 40.3 % reported delays in patient care. While 33.8 % were forced to use fewer effective options, and 22.1 % referred patients to palliative care. Conclusion: The current practice of NFDs has negative consequences on cancer patient outcomes due to delays in patient care or the use of less effective drugs. Thus, we recommend having a national NFD access program.

Crizanlizumab.

Each month, subscribers to The Formulary Monograph Service receive 5 to 6 well-documented monographs on drugs that are newly released or are in late phase 3 trials. The monographs are targeted to Pharmacy & Therapeutics Committees. Subscribers also receive monthly 1-page summary monographs on agents that are useful for agendas and pharmacy/nursing in-services. A comprehensive target drug utilization evaluation/medication use evaluation (DUE/MUE) is also provided each month. With a subscription, the monographs are available online to subscribers. Monographs can be customized to meet the needs of a facility. Through the cooperation of The Formulary, Hospital Pharmacy publishes selected reviews in this column. For more information about The Formulary Monograph Service, contact Wolters Kluwer customer service at 866-397-3433.

Vericiguat.

Each month, subscribers to The Formulary Monograph Service receive 5 to 6 well-documented monographs on drugs that are newly released or are in late phase 3 trials. The monographs are targeted to Pharmacy & Therapeutics Committees. Subscribers also receive monthly 1-page summary monographs on agents that are useful for agendas and pharmacy/nursing in-services. A comprehensive target drug utilization evaluation/medication use evaluation (DUE/MUE) is also provided each month. With a subscription, the monographs are available online to subscribers. Monographs can be customized to meet the needs of a facility. Through the cooperation of The Formulary, Hospital Pharmacy publishes selected reviews in this column. For more information about The Formulary Monograph Service, contact Wolters Kluwer customer service at 866-397-3433.

Remdesivir.

Each month, subscribers to The Formulary Monograph Service receive 5 to 6 well-documented monographs on drugs that are newly released or are in late phase 3 trials. The monographs are targeted to Pharmacy & Therapeutics Committees. Subscribers also receive monthly 1-page summary monographs on agents that are useful for agendas and pharmacy/nursing in-services. A comprehensive target drug utilization evaluation/medication use evaluation (DUE/MUE) is also provided each month. With a subscription, the monographs are available online to subscribers. Monographs can be customized to meet the needs of a facility. Through the cooperation of The Formulary, Hospital Pharmacy publishes selected reviews in this column. For more information about The Formulary Monograph Service, contact Wolters Kluwer customer service at 866-397-3433.

Risankizumab.

Each month, subscribers to The Formulary Monograph Service receive 5 to 6 well-documented monographs on drugs that are newly released or are in late phase 3 trials. The monographs are targeted to Pharmacy and Therapeutics (P&T) Committees. Subscribers also receive monthly 1-page summary monographs on agents that are useful for agendas and pharmacy/nursing in-services. A comprehensive target drug utilization evaluation/medication use evaluation (DUE/MUE) is also provided each month. With a subscription, the monographs are available online to subscribers. Monographs can be customized to meet the needs of a facility. Through the cooperation of The Formulary, Hospital Pharmacy publishes selected reviews in this column. For more information about The Formulary Monograph Service, contact Wolters Kluwer customer service at 866-397-3433.

Formulary Drug Reviews: Terlipressin.

Each month, subscribers to The Formulary Monograph Service receive 5 to 6 well-documented monographs on drugs that are newly released or are in late phase 3 trials. The monographs are targeted to Pharmacy & Therapeutics Committees. Subscribers also receive monthly 1-page summary monographs on agents that are useful for agendas and pharmacy/nursing in-services. A comprehensive target drug utilization evaluation/medication use evaluation (DUE/MUE) is also provided each month. With a subscription, the monographs are available online to subscribers. Monographs can be customized to meet the needs of a facility. Through the cooperation of The Formulary, Hospital Pharmacy publishes selected reviews in this column. For more information about The Formulary Monograph Service, contact Wolters Kluwer customer service at 866-397-3433.

An Institutional Guide for Formulary Decisions of Biosimilars.

Biologics have changed the landscape for the management of many debilitating chronic diseases but account for a significant expenditure of medications globally. Fortunately, advances in technology paved the way for the introduction of biosimilars, which are highly similar to the originator biologics. In the quest to reduce the budget impact of biologics, organizations have begun to adopt biosimilars. Institutions evaluating biosimilars for inclusion in the hospital formulary must make informed formulary decisions by conducting a thorough review of key elements for evaluation of biosimilars and address the multidimensional aspects during the selection process of different biosimilar products. Therefore, we aim to present an institutional guide of these elements to inform formulary decisions. These key elements include biosimilar evaluation for formulary addition; regulatory approval; substitution, interchangeability, and switching; extrapolation; product characteristics, manufacturing, and supply chain issues; pharmacoeconomic evaluations; traceability, nomenclature, and coding; education; and pharmacovigilance.

Ferric Derisomaltose.

Each month, subscribers to The Formulary Monograph Service receive 5 to 6 well-documented monographs on drugs that are newly released or are in late phase 3 trials. The monographs are targeted to Pharmacy & Therapeutics Committees. Subscribers also receive monthly 1-page summary monographs on agents that are useful for agendas and pharmacy/nursing in-services. A comprehensive target drug utilization evaluation/medication use evaluation (DUE/MUE) is also provided each month. With a subscription, the monographs are available online to subscribers. Monographs can be customized to meet the needs of a facility. Through the cooperation of The Formulary, Hospital Pharmacy publishes selected reviews in this column. For more information about The Formulary Monograph Service, contact Wolters Kluwer customer service at 866-397-3433.

Maribavir.

Each month, subscribers to The Formulary Monograph Service receive 5 to 6 well-documented monographs on drugs that are newly released or are in late phase 3 trials. The monographs are targeted to Pharmacy & Therapeutics Committees. Subscribers also receive monthly 1-page summary monographs on agents that are useful for agendas and pharmacy/nursing in-services. A comprehensive target drug utilization evaluation/medication use evaluation (DUE/MUE) is also provided each month. With a subscription, the monographs are available online to subscribers. Monographs can be customized to meet the needs of a facility. Through the cooperation of The Formulary, Hospital Pharmacy publishes selected reviews in this column. For more information about The Formulary Monograph Service, contact Wolters Kluwer customer service at 866-397-3433.