ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the processes by which pharmaceuticals are added to the formularies of Australian paediatric hospitals. DESIGN: Descriptive study of the processes and outcomes of all submissions to Australian paediatric hospital drug and therapeutics committees from 1 July 2010 to 31 December 2011. SETTING: All eight tertiary paediatric hospitals in Australia. PARTICIPANTS: Interviews with committee secretaries or delegates and document analysis. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Total number of formulary applications, stratified by therapeutic class, approval rates for each hospital and quality of supporting information. RESULTS: One hundred and twenty applications were considered during the study period, with most applications approved (range, 67%-100%). Neurological agents were the most common therapeutic class considered. A conflict of interest was declared for 10 applications (8%). Forty-five (38%) were independently reviewed by a statewide medicines advisory committee or hospital pharmacist. Several committees approved identical applications during the period of review and with different outcomes. For applications submitted for new drugs or new indications (95 applications), supporting data included randomised controlled trials (37/95), case series (36/95), product information (34/95) and narrative reviews (29/95). Few applications (14/95) included a systematic review or meta-analysis. No application included an evaluation of the risk of bias of supporting studies. CONCLUSIONS: There is limited high-quality evidence informing paediatric hospital-based drug approvals. Approval processes vary considerably among institutions with substantial duplication of effort and variable outcomes. Resources and training appear insufficient given the technical complexity of submissions. A national, standardised approach to hospital-based drug evaluation could reduce overlap and improve decision making.
Subject(s)
Formularies, Hospital as Topic/standards , Hospitals, Pediatric , AustraliaABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Antiviral prophylaxis is commonly used in recipients of solid-organ transplants with the aim of preventing the clinical syndrome associated with cytomegalovirus infection. We undertook a systematic review to investigate whether this approach affects risks of cytomegalovirus disease and death. METHODS: Randomised controlled trials of prophylaxis with antiviral medications for cytomegalovirus disease in solid-organ-transplant recipients were identified. Data were combined in meta-analyses by a random-effects model. FINDINGS: Compared with placebo or no treatment, prophylaxis with aciclovir, ganciclovir, or valaciclovir significantly reduced the risks of cytomegalovirus disease (19 trials, 1981 patients; relative risk 0.42 [95% CI 0.34-0.52]), cytomegalovirus infection (17 trials, 1786 patients; 0.61 [0.48-0.77]), and all-cause mortality (17 trials, 1838 patients; 0.63 [0.43-0.92]), mainly owing to lower mortality from cytomegalovirus disease (seven trials, 1300 patients; 0.26 [0.08-0.78]). Prophylaxis also lowered the risks of disease caused by herpes simplex or zoster virus, bacterial infections, and protozoal infections, but not fungal infection, acute rejection, or graft loss. Meta-regression showed no significant difference in the risk of cytomegalovirus disease or all-cause mortality by organ transplanted or cytomegalovirus serostatus; no conclusions were possible for cytomegalovirus-negative recipients of negative organs. In trials of direct comparisons, ganciclovir was more effective than aciclovir in preventing cytomegalovirus disease. Valganciclovir and intravenous ganciclovir were as effective as oral ganciclovir. INTERPRETATION: Prophylaxis with antiviral medications reduces the risk of cytomegalovirus disease and associated mortality in recipients of solid-organ transplants. This approach should be used routinely in cytomegalovirus-positive recipients and in cytomegalovirus-negative recipients of organs positive for the virus.
