[Existing report of the health care of detainees and of the organization of the drug circuit in prisons in France]. / État des lieux de la prise en charge sanitaire des détenus et de l'organisation du circuit médicamenteux en milieu carcéral en France.

Since the healthcare system reform in prisons by the law of 18 January 1994, health care for prisoners has depended on the public hospital service. Since the application of this law, hospital pharmacists have been responsible for the health product circuit in the prison. In order to reassess the overall health care of detainees in prison in 2022, a study is being carried out. This study also aims to carry out an inventory of the organization of the drug circuit in prisons in France. In June 2022, a questionnaire was sent by email to pharmacists in charge of supplying health products to one or more prison health units in France. The response rate to the questionnaire is 34 %. The average number of full-time equivalent (FTE) somatic doctors is 1.25. The average FTE pharmacist and pharmacy technician are respectively 0.4 and 0.96. Prescriptions are computerized in 84 % of cases. Therapeutic education and pharmaceutical interviews are carried out in 24 % and 20 % respectively. This study showed an overall improvement in the care of prisoners and the organization of the medication circuit in France compared to the last study. Pharmacists are more present in prisons. However, clinical pharmacy and health promotion actions are insufficiently deployed.

Quality of economic evaluations of drug-coated balloons and drug-eluting stents in peripheral artery disease: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to perform a systematic review of economic evaluations of drug-coated balloons (DCBs) and drug-eluting stents (DESs) in peripheral artery disease (PAD) and to assess the level of evidence of relevant studies. The purpose was not to present economic findings. METHODS: A systematic review was performed using four electronic databases to identify health economic evaluation studies reporting on the use of DCBs and DESs in PAD. The methodological and reporting quality of the studies was assessed using three different tools, the Drummond, Cooper, and CHEERS (Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards) checklists. RESULTS: Six articles were included in this review of the 1,728 publications identified. Four studies were cost-effectiveness analyses and two cost-utility analyses. According to the Cooper hierarchy scale, the studies used good-quality data sources. The level of evidence used for clinical effect sizes, safety data, baseline clinical data, and costs was of high quality in general. In contrast, an evaluation of the reporting quality suggested that essential information was lacking. CONCLUSION: The present study demonstrates that clinical data used in economic evaluations of DCBs and DESs in PAD are from clinical studies of high quality in general. However, the quality of reporting represents a concern when interpreting the results provided by these economic studies.