ABSTRACT
Background: Diabetes Mellitus is a worldwide growing problem causing threat to patient's health because of its association with various complications and comorbidities. It is a chronic disease requiring lifelong medication which further adds to the economic burden. The objective of this study was to evaluate the prescribing pattern and to do pharmacoeconomic analysis of prescribed antidiabetic drugs.Methods: This observational cross sectional study was conducted for 12 months duration in Outpatient Pharmacy of tertiary care hospital. Prescriptions with antidiabetic drugs were captured and evaluation of prescribing pattern along with pharmacoeconomic analysis of antidiabetic drugs was done.Results: A total of 611 prescriptions with antidiabetic drugs were analyzed. There were total 4034 drugs in all prescriptions with a mean of 6.6 drugs per prescription. 4.28% of drugs were prescribed by generic name and 58.9% of prescribed drugs were from essential drug list. Dual drug therapy was prescribed in maximum number of patients (42.2%) followed by monotherapy (28.8%). More commonly prescribed class of antidiabetic drugs was biguanides as monotherapy (n=119) and its combination with sulfonylureas was prescribed maximally among dual drug therapy (n=158). Cost of monthly therapy for antidiabetic drugs prescribed as monotherapy was least with Biguanides (? 98.89/ month) whereas combination of biguanides and thiazolidinediones was least expensive among dual drug therapy (? 216/ month).Conclusions: Biguanides was the most common prescribed class of antidiabetic drugs among monotherapy and its combination with sulfonylureas was most prescribed as dual drug therapy and both of these therapies were economical.
ABSTRACT
Background & objectives: Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) targeting the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) have been evaluated in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Erlotinib and gefitinib are the first-generation EGFR-TKIs for patients with NSCLC. However, there is a paucity of studies comparing the effectiveness of these two drugs. Hence, this study was aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety of erlotinib and gefitinib in NSCLC patients. Methods: This study included 71 NSCLC patients who received EGFR-TKIs between 2013 and 2016. Adverse drug reaction of both erlotinib (n=37) and gefitinib (n=34) was determined and graded according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events grading system. Effectiveness was measured using response evaluation criteria in solid tumours and progression-free survival (PFS). Pharmacoeconomic analysis was performed by cost-effective analysis. Results: When comparing safety profile, both the drugs had similar adverse events except for dermal side effects such as acneiform eruption (51.4%), rash (54.05%) and mucositis (59.5%) for erlotinib and 20.6, 26.5 and 29.4 per cent for gefitinib, respectively. The PFS of the two drugs was compared to differentiate the effectiveness of erlotinib and gefitinib. There was no significant difference between the effectiveness of the two drugs. The pharmacoeconomic analysis showed that gefitinib was more cost-effective than erlotinib. Interpretation & conclusions: This study showed that erlotinib and gefitinib had similar effectiveness but gefitinib had a better safety profile compared to erlotinib. Therefore, gefitinib could be considered a better option for NSCLC patients compared to erlotinib. However, further studies need to be done with a large sample to confirm these findings.
ABSTRACT
[<b>Purpose</b>]<br>The purpose of this study was to demonstrate the effectiveness of Kampo medicines, from the aspect of cost effectiveness. We obtained judgment criteria by analyzing past published papers and implemented our study according to criteria about the kinds of formulations and diseases that were suitable for pharmacoeconomic analysis.<br>[<b>Method</b>]<br>First, we extracted the original, clinical, and NHI price listed formulations (EA) from each published paper, by searching for Japanese key words such as “_??__??_ (Kampo)” or “_??__??_ (economic)” in the databases of “Igaku Chuo Zasshi” and “Institute for Health Economics and Policy.” Considering the importance establishing a controlled treatment method in pharmacoeconomic analysis, we defined papers with a comparative control (Comp) as one judgment criterion (1), then extracted these data; and analyzed how target (diseases and formulations), controlled formulation, measurement outcomes, and “Sho” (patterns or syndromes) were handled in each paper. Secondly, we defined those formulations which had been referred to many times in the EA as our second judgment criterion (2), because we thought they had abundant and clear outcomes, and then implemented an outcome analysis of them.<br>[<b>Results and Discussion</b>]<br>Judgment criterion (1): The number of formulations, and the total number of papers referring to a Comp (38 articles) were 25 and 41 (Shoseiryuto [4], Shosaikoto [4], Kyukichoketsuin [3] in descending order) respectively. Approximately two-thirds of target illnesses covered in these papers were gastrointestinal diseases, infectious diseases, ear nose and throat diseases; and in women, pregnancy or delivery-related diseases. Concerning outcomes, only 10.5% of the papers measured human outcomes such as quality of life (QOL), which might suggest that the implementation of cost effectiveness analysis was difficult. The results of analyzing how to handle “Sho” suggested that Kyo-sho or Vacuity-sho patient formulations tended to exert their treatment effects relatively, even without consideration for “Sho”.<br>Judgment criterion (2): Using EA prices, we expedientially defined frequently referred formulations as those referred to in 15 or more of the total research paper number, and then extracted them. As the result of this extraction, 6 formulations (Hochuekkito, Keishibukuryogan, Shishihakuhito, and etc.) were obtained. Among these formulations, Shishihakuhito had high rates (88.2%) for achieving treatment goals, including the improvement of skin symptoms such as erythema and pruritus.<br>[<b>In Conclusion</b>]<br>A comparison between Kampo and Western medicines was not simply applicable, due to large differences between their mechanisms of action, and the ways they exert their effect, even if their ultimate effects are the same. We would need to create a study plan which would cover human outcomes when making a further pharmacoeconomic study, because Kampo medicines do have a good chance of improving QOL. We would even say that Vacuity-sho formulations given to patients could easily work, without consideration for “Sho”.