The use of Special-Order products in England between 2012 and 2020: An insight into the need for Point-of-Care manufacturing.

Point-of-care manufacturing such as 3D printing has recently received significant attention from regulatory bodies and the pharmaceutical industry. However, little information is available on the quantity of the most prescribed patient-specific items, their dosage form, and why they were required to be dispensed. In England, 'Specials' are unlicensed medicines formulated to meet the requirements of a specific prescription, prescribed if no suitable licensed alternative exists. This work aims to quantify and examine trends in the prescribing of 'Specials' in England during 2012-2020, using the NHS Business Services Authority (NHSBSA) database. Quarterly prescription data from NHSBSA for the top 500 'Specials' by quantity from 2012 to 2020 were compiled yearly. The changes in net ingredient cost, the number of items, British National Formulary (BNF) drug category, dosage form, and a potential reason for requiring a 'Special' were identified. In addition, the cost-per-unit was calculated for each category. The total spending on 'Specials' decreased by 62 % from £109.2 M in 2012 to £41.4 M in 2020, primarily due to a 55.1 % reduction in the number of 'Specials' items issued. The most frequently prescribed dosage form type of 'Special' was oral dosage forms (59.6 % of all items in 2020) particularly oral liquids. The most common reason for prescribing a 'Special' was an inappropriate dosage form (74 % of all 'Specials' in 2020). The total number of items dropped over the 8 years as commonly prescribed 'Specials' such as melatonin and cholecalciferol became licensed. In conclusion, the total spending on 'Specials' dropped from 2012 to 2020 primarily due to a reduction in the number of 'Specials' items issued and pricing changes in the Drug tariff. Based on the current demand for 'special order' products, these findings are instrumental for formulation scientists to identify 'Special' formulations to design the next generation of extemporaneous medicine to be produced at the point of care.

Development and evaluation of an assessment of the age-appropriateness/inappropriateness of formulations used in children.

BACKGROUND: Medicines designed for adults may be inappropriate for use in children in terms of strength, dosage form and/or excipient content. There is currently no standardised method of assessing the age-appropriateness of a medicine for paediatric use. AIM: To develop and test a tool to assess whether a dosage form (formulation) is appropriate for children and estimate the proportion of formulations considered 'inappropriate' in a cohort of hospitalised paediatric patients with a chronic illness. METHOD: A multi-phase study: patient data collection, tool development, case assessments and tool validation. Inpatients aged 0-17 years at two UK paediatric/neonatal hospitals during data collection periods between January 2015 and March 2016. Written informed consent/assent was obtained. Medicines assessed were new or regularly prescribed to inpatients as part of their routine clinical care. All medicine administration episodes recorded were assessed using the Age-appropriate Formulation tool. The tool was developed by a consensus approach, as a one-page flowchart. Independent case assessments were evaluated in 2019. RESULTS: In 427 eligible children; 2,199 medicine administration episodes were recorded. Two assessors reviewed 220 episodes in parallel: percentage exact agreement was found to be 91.7% (99/108) and 93.1% (95/102). In total, 259/2,199 (11.8%) medicine administration episodes involved a dosage form categorised as 'age-inappropriate'. CONCLUSION: A novel tool has been developed and internally validated. The tool can identify which medicines would benefit from development of an improved paediatric formulation. It has shown high inter-rater reliability between users. External validation is needed to further assess the tool's utility in different settings.

Adverse drug reactions and off-label and unlicensed medicines in children: a nested case-control study of inpatients in a pediatric hospital.

BACKGROUND: Off-label and unlicensed (OLUL) prescribing has been prevalent in pediatric practice. Using data from a prospective cohort study of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) among pediatric inpatients, we aimed to test the hypothesis that OLUL status is a risk factor for ADRs. METHODS: A nested case?control study was conducted within a prospective cohort study. Details of all medicines administered were recorded, including information about OLUL status. The odds ratio for OLUL medicines being implicated in a probable or definite ADR was calculated. A multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression model was fitted to the data to assess the influence that OLUL medicine use had on the hazard of an ADR occurring. RESULTS: A total of 10,699 medicine courses were administered to 1,388 patients. The odds ratio (OR) of an OLUL medicine being implicated in an ADR compared with an authorized medicine was 2.25 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.95 to 2.59). Medicines licensed in children but given to a child below the minimum age or weight had the greatest odds of being implicated in an ADR (19% of courses in this category were implicated, OR 3.54 (95% CI 2.82 to 4.44). Each additional OLUL medicine given significantly increased the hazard of an ADR (hazard ratio (HR) 1.3 95% CI 1.2 to 1.3, P <0.001). Each additional authorized medicine given also significantly increased the hazard (HR 1.2 95% CI 1.2 to 1.3, P <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: OLUL medicines are more likely to be implicated in an ADR than authorized medicines. The number of medicines administered is a risk factor for ADRs highlighting the need to use the lowest number of medicines, at the lowest dose for the shortest period, with continual vigilance by prescribers, in order to reduce the risk of ADRs.

Incidence, characteristics and risk factors of adverse drug reactions in hospitalized children - a prospective observational cohort study of 6,601 admissions.

BACKGROUND: Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) are an important cause of harm in children. Current data are incomplete due to methodological differences between studies: only half of all studies provide drug data, incidence rates vary (0.6% to 16.8%) and very few studies provide data on causality, severity and risk factors of pediatric ADRs. We aimed to determine the incidence of ADRs in hospitalized children, to characterize these ADRs in terms of type, drug etiology, causality and severity and to identify risk factors. METHODS: We undertook a year-long, prospective observational cohort study of admissions to a single UK pediatric medical and surgical secondary and tertiary referral center (Alder Hey, Liverpool, UK). Children between 0 and 16 years 11 months old and admitted for more than 48 hours were included. Observed outcomes were occurrence of ADR and time to first ADR for the risk factor analysis. RESULTS: A total of 5,118 children (6,601 admissions) were included, 17.7% of whom experienced at least one ADR. Opiate analgesics and drugs used in general anesthesia (GA) accounted for more than 50% of all drugs implicated in ADRs. Of these ADRs, 0.9% caused permanent harm or required admission to a higher level of care. Children who underwent GA were at more than six times the risk of developing an ADR than children without a GA (hazard ratio (HR) 6.40; 95% confidence interval (CI) 5.30 to 7.70). Other factors increasing the risk of an ADR were increasing age (HR 1.06 for each year; 95% CI 1.04 to 1.07), increasing number of drugs (HR 1.25 for each additional drug; 95% CI 1.22 to 1.28) and oncological treatment (HR 1.90; 95% CI 1.40 to 2.60). CONCLUSIONS: ADRs are common in hospitalized children and children who had undergone a GA had more than six times the risk of developing an ADR. GA agents and opiate analgesics are a significant cause of ADRs and have been underrepresented in previous studies. This is a concern in view of the increasing number of pediatric short-stay surgeries.