Adverse event costs of systemic therapies for metastatic colorectal cancer previously treated with fluoropyrimidine-, oxaliplatin- and irinotecan-based chemotherapy and biologics in the US.

Aim: The objective of this study was to compare adverse event (AE) management costs for fruquintinib, regorafenib, trifluridine/tipiracil (T/T) and trifluridine/tipiracil+bevacizumab (T/T+bev) for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) previously treated with at least two prior lines of therapy from the US commercial and Medicare payer perspectives. Materials & methods: A cost-consequence model was developed to calculate the per-patient and per-patient-per-month (PPPM) AE costs using rates of grade 3/4 AEs with incidence ≥5% in clinical trials, event-specific management costs and duration treatment. Anchored comparisons of AE costs were calculated using a difference-in-differences approach with best supportive care (BSC) as a common reference. AE rates and treatment duration were obtained from clinical trials: FRESCO and FRESCO-2 (fruquintinib), RECOURSE (T/T), CORRECT (regorafenib) and SUNLIGHT (T/T, T/T+bev). AE management costs for the commercial and Medicare perspectives were obtained from publicly available sources. Results: From the commercial perspective, the AE costs (presented as per-patient, PPPM) were: $4015, $1091 for fruquintinib (FRESCO); $4253, $1390 for fruquintinib (FRESCO-2); $17,110, $11,104 for T/T (RECOURSE); $9851, $4691 for T/T (SUNLIGHT); $8199, $4823 for regorafenib; and $11,620, $2324 for T/T+bev. These results were consistent in anchored comparisons: the difference-in-difference for fruquintinib based on FRESCO was -$1929 versus regorafenib and -$11,427 versus T/T; for fruquintinib based on FRESCO-2 was -$2257 versus regorafenib and -$11,756 versus T/T. Across all analyses, results were consistent from the Medicare perspective. Conclusion: Fruquintinib was associated with lower AE management costs compared with regorafenib, T/T and T/T+bev for patients with previously treated mCRC. This evidence has direct implications for treatment, formulary and pathways decision-making in this patient population.

Medication use evaluation of tocilizumab implementation in COVID-19 treatment guidelines: A causal inference approach.

DISCLAIMER: In an effort to expedite the publication of articles, AJHP is posting manuscripts online as soon as possible after acceptance. Accepted manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and copyedited, but are posted online before technical formatting and author proofing. These manuscripts are not the final version of record and will be replaced with the final article (formatted per AJHP style and proofed by the authors) at a later time. PURPOSE: Introduction of new medications to health-system formularies is often not accompanied by assessments of their clinical impact on the local patient population. The growing availability of electronic health record (EHR) data and advancements in pharmacoepidemiology methods offer institutions the opportunity to monitor the medication implementation process and assess clinical effectiveness in the local clinical context. In this study, we applied novel causal inference methods to evaluate the effects of a formulary policy introducing tocilizumab therapy for critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: We conducted a medication use evaluation utilizing EHR data from patients admitted to a large medical center during the 6 months before and after implementation of a formulary policy endorsing the use of tocilizumab for treatment of COVID-19. The impact of tocilizumab on 28-day all-cause mortality was assessed using a difference-in-differences analysis, with ineligible patients serving as a nonequivalent control group, and a matched analysis guided by a target trial emulation framework. Safety endpoints assessed included the incidence of secondary infections and liver enzyme elevations. Our findings were benchmarked against clinical trials, an observational study, and a meta-analysis. RESULTS: Following guideline modification, tocilizumab was administered to 69% of eligible patients. This implementation was associated with a 3.1% absolute risk reduction in 28-day mortality (odds ratio, 0.86; number needed to treat to prevent one death, 32) attributable to the inclusion of tocilizumab in the guidelines and an additional 8.6% absolute risk reduction (odds ratio, 0.65; number needed to treat to prevent one death, 12) linked to its administration. These findings were consistent with estimates from published literature, although the effect estimates from the difference-in-differences analysis exhibited imprecision. CONCLUSION: Evaluating formulary management decisions through novel causal inference approaches offers valuable estimates of clinical effectiveness and the potential to optimize the impact of new medications on population outcomes.

Lomitapide: A Medication Use Evaluation and a Formulary Perspective.

Introduction: Lomitapide is approved for lowering low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) in homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia, which is a rare genetic disorder. The evidence regarding its safety and efficacy from a small clinical trial requires further validation for effectiveness and safety in the real world. This study aimed to use institutional data on the effectiveness and safety of lomitapide to assist in formulating a perspective on adding it to the formulary. Methods: This was a retrospective review of patients who were actively prescribed lomitapide at King Abdulaziz Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, from 2019 to 2022. Data collection included demographics, confirmed gene mutation results, duration of lomitapide therapy, baseline, on-treatment, last LDL-C levels, percent reduction in LDL-C after 1-3 months of therapy (whichever was first available), other LDL-C lowering therapies used, liver function tests, adverse effects, and compliance. Results: Eight adult patients were included in the review, with a mean age of 25.5 years. Approximately 75% were female, and the duration of treatment with lomitapide ranged from 9 months to 3 years. None of the patients were on continuous LDL apheresis. The mean baseline LDL-C at presentation to our facility was 17.2 mmol/L (range, 11.78-21.97 mmol/L), the mean percent drop in LDL-C with lomitapide was 34.1% (range, 0%-87%), gastrointestinal disturbances were documented in 50% of the patients, and no cases of severe liver toxicities or increase in liver enzymes were seen. Conclusions: In our cohort of adult patients, lomitapide showed an overall modest reduction in LDL-C, with no cases of increase in liver enzymes and documented intolerance, indicating that most patients were likely noncompliant. This review revealed important considerations when reimbursing expensive medications for rare diseases. Real-world evidence in real-time can support healthcare systems in price negotiations and reaching mutual agreements that can eventually improve patient access to care.

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.

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.

Evaluating unmet needs in large-volume subcutaneous drug delivery: U.S. payer perspectives on a novel, large-volume on-body delivery system.

OBJECTIVE: Existing healthcare systems face finite resource allocation and budgetary constraints, resulting in a substantial need for innovative solutions to enhance service delivery at reduced costs. A novel, user-friendly on-body delivery system (OBDS) was developed which enables administration of large-volume subcutaneous (SC) drugs in both clinical and home-based settings (at-home healthcare professional [HCP] administration or at-home self-administration). METHODS: This research sought to evaluate the potential economic impact of at-home self- or HCP- administration with the OBDS through a comprehensive review of published literature and semi-structured interviews with 17 US payers representing approximately 227 million covered lives. RESULTS: Published literature on OBDS remains limited, but available research highlights the cost-savings of SC administration due to reduced healthcare resource utilization, particularly with home-based care, and improved patient compliance. In interviews, payers identified several attributes that would help address unmet clinical and economic needs. Clinically, the hidden needle and ease-of-use compared to SC syringe pumps was deemed valuable to improve patient compliance and, as OBDS required minimal training, reduce the risk of administration errors. The flexibility to administer drugs at home (self-administration or HCP-administration) or in-clinic was identified as the most impactful attribute on coverage decision making as it has the greatest potential to reduce costs associated with HCP administration for several therapeutic areas. CONCLUSIONS: Given the ability to help address critical unmet needs for the patient and healthcare system, a large proportion of the payers stated that the novel OBDS would warrant a price premium versus the cost of the standalone SC vial and certainly over the IV counterpart. Future research to quantify the value that OBDS efficiencies could bring to healthcare delivery are warranted.

Medicines management in children and young people: pharmacokinetics, drug calculations and off-label drug use.

Medicines management in children and young people presents specific challenges because children differ from adults in their response to medicines. The way in which medicines work inside the human body, or pharmacokinetics, varies according to age and stage of development. Accurate drug calculations for a child rely on the careful consideration of a series of factors, such as weight and height, pharmacokinetics and drug characteristics. This article focuses on three fundamental aspects: pharmacokinetics, drug calculations, and unlicensed and off-label drug use.

Does the introduction of an infliximab biosimilar always result in savings for hospitals? A descriptive study using real-world data.

BACKGROUND: Biosimilars are biologic drugs that have the potential to increase the efficiency of healthcare spending and curb drug-related cost increases. However, their introduction into hospital formularies through initiatives such as non-medical switching must be carefully orchestrated so as not to cause treatment discontinuation or result in increased health resource utilization, such as additional visits or laboratory tests, among others. This retrospective cohort study aims to assess the impact of the introduction of CT-P13 on the healthcare expenditures of patients who were treated with originator infliximab or CT-P13. METHODS: Gastroenterology, immunoallergology and rheumatology patients treated between September 2017 and December 2020 at a university hospital in Western Switzerland were included and divided into seven cohorts, based on their treatment pathway (i.e., use and discontinuation of CT-P13 and/or originator infliximab). Costs in Swiss francs were obtained from the hospital's cost accounting department and length of stay was extracted from inpatient records. Comparisons of costs and length of stay between cohorts were calculated by bootstrapping. RESULTS: Sixty immunoallergology, 84 rheumatology and 114 gastroenterology patients were included. Inpatient and outpatient costs averaged (sd) CHF 1,611 (1,020) per hospital day and CHF 4,991 (6,931) per infusion, respectively. The mean (sd) length of stay was 20 (28) days. Although immunoallergology and rheumatology patients had higher average costs than gastroenterology patients, differences in costs and length of stay were not formally explained by treatment pathway. Differences in health resource utilization were marginal. CONCLUSIONS: The introduction of CT-P13 and the disruption of patient treatment management were not associated with differences in average outpatient and inpatient costs and length of stay, in contrast to the results reported in the rest of the literature. Future research should focus on the cost-effectiveness of non-medical switching policies and the potential benefits for patients.

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.

Modeling the Effects of Formulary Exclusions: How Many Patients Could Be Affected by a Specific Exclusion?

Background: Medication formularies, initially designed to promote the use of cost-effective generic drugs, are now designed to maximize financial benefits for the pharmacy benefit management companies that negotiate purchase prices. In the second-largest pharmacy benefit management formulary that is publicly available, 55% of mandated substitutions are not for generic or biosimilar versions of the same active ingredient and/or formulation and may not be medically or financially beneficial to patients. Methods: We modeled the effect of excluding novel agents for atrial fibrillation/venous thromboembolism, migraine prevention, and psoriasis, which all would require substitution with a different active ingredient. Using population data, market share of the 2 largest US formularies, and 2021 prescription data, we calculated how many people could be affected by such exclusions. Using data from the published literature, we calculated how many of those individuals are likely to discontinue treatment and/or have adverse events due to a formulary exclusion. Results: The number of people likely to have adverse events due to the exclusion could be as high as 1 million for atrial fibrillation/venous thromboembolism, 900 000 for migraine prevention, and 500 000 for psoriasis. The numbers likely to discontinue treatment for their condition are as high as 924 000 for atrial fibrillation/venous thromboembolism, 646 000 for migraine, and 138 000 for psoriasis. Conclusion: Substitution with a nonequivalent treatment is common in formularies currently in use and is not without substantial consequences for hundreds of thousands of patients. Forced medication substitution results in costly increases in morbidity and mortality and should be part of the cost-benefit analysis of any formulary exclusion.

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.

Evaluation of KIDs List Compliance at a Children's Hospital Within a Large Academic Medical Center.

OBJECTIVES: In 2020, a list of Key Potentially Inappropriate Drugs in Pediatrics, known as the "KIDs List," was published. The objective of this analysis was to evaluate institutional compliance with the -recommendations in this publication and identify areas for improvement. METHODS: Medications in the KIDs List were compared to the institutional formulary at a large academic medical center caring for pediatric and adult patients. Medications listed in the formulary were then -evaluated for order comments and restrictions related to their use in pediatric patients. Oral liquid products and a group of commonly used intravenous (IV) medications were reviewed for potentially inappropriate excipients through available manufacturer information. The pediatric clinical specialists were then solicited to review and make recommendations for medications that had not been addressed. RESULTS: Of the 67 medications or classes listed in the KIDs List, 47 (70.1%) of the medications are listed in our formulary and available for use. Of these 47 medications, 4 (8.5%) included warnings related to their use in pediatric patients. Of the 270 oral liquid medications reviewed, 206 (76.3%) contained at least 1 -potentially inappropriate excipient. Of the 20 commonly used IV medications, 3 (15%) contained at least 1 potentially inappropriate excipient. CONCLUSIONS: This review found that many medications listed in the KIDs List are included in our -institution's formulary and that few have warnings for pediatric patients built into the institutional electronic health record. Further review of medications in the formulary will be conducted to determine the next steps to implementing KIDs List recommendations.

Taking Center Stage: Clinical Laboratory Leading Diagnostic Stewardship Efforts.

This article will discuss diagnostic stewardship from the perspective of those who are just starting, or have recently started, a diagnostic stewardship effort. This document will provide guidance on how to identify opportunities for intervention and tools that can be used to affect change. Specifically, we will discuss key components of a diagnostic stewardship committee, referral laboratory testing, prior authorization, miscellaneous test orders, establishing a laboratory test formulary, and conclude with some specific examples of interventions that can be considered.

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.

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

RESUMEN Objetivo. Analizar la existencia y actualización de las listas de medicamentos nacionales (LMN) y guías de práctica clínica (GPC) para el tratamiento de la diabetes en América Latina y el Caribe (ALC). Comparar los fármacos incluidos en las listas y guías de cada país, entre sí y con los de la Organización Mundial de la Salud (OMS). Métodos. Estudio de corte transversal. Se identificaron las LMN y GPC para diabetes en los sitios web de la Organización Panamericana de la Salud y de las autoridades sanitarias nacionales. Se relevaron los fármacos y se analizaron por grupo farmacológico según el cuarto nivel de la nomenclatura ATC. Se utilizó el puntaje F1 para evaluar la proximidad de las LMN con la lista modelo de medicamentos esenciales (LMME) de la OMS. Resultados. Del total de países, 87,2% cuentan con LMN, y 91% con GPC (78% y 45% actualizadas en los últimos 5 años, respectivamente). En comparación con los 6 grupos de hipoglucemiantes de la LMME, las LMN tenían una mediana (rango) de 6 (4-13) y un puntaje F1 de 0,80; esto indica una consonancia adecuada. Las GPC tenían una mediana (rango) de 12 (1-12) hipoglucemiantes frente a los 8 de las guías de la OMS. Las GPC tuvieron una mediana de 15 fármacos más que las respectivas LMN. Conclusiones. Si bien la mayoría de los países de ALC cuentan con LMN y GPC para diabetes, la falta de concordancia entre ellas limita su eficacia. Es necesario alinear los procesos y criterios de elaboración de estas dos herramientas de la política de medicamentos.

ABSTRACT 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.

RESUMO 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.

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.

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.

Access and use of WHO essential medicines in Italy.

Background: Many countries use the WHO Essential Medicines List (EML) as a guide for health policy choices to promote the efficient use of healthcare resources or adopt the concept of essential medicines (EMs) to develop their own national list of essential medicines. The aim of this study is to analyse the availability and use of medicines included in the 22nd WHO EML in Italy. Methods: Using the ATC code (5th level), a comparison was made between the medicines included in the WHO EML and those retrieved from the Italian Medicines Agency (AIFA) database. The availability (regulatory and reimbursement status) of EMs, as well as the market share in expenditure (million euros) and consumption [measured in WHO-defined daily doses (DDDs)], compared to all reimbursed medicines in 2021, were analysed. Results: In 2021, approximately 85.2% (n = 414) of medicines included in the WHO EML were commonly marketed in Italy. Of these, 396 EMs were fully reimbursed by the Italian National Healthcare Service (INHS), corresponding to 81.5% (396/486) of the WHO EML, while the remaining 18.5% (90/486) were neither authorised (n = 72) nor reimbursed (n = 18). The study found a low coverage for anti-parasitic, insecticides, and repellent products (ATC P) in addition to medicines for the genitourinary system and sex hormones (ATC G). Even though medicines on the WHO EML, including therapeutic alternatives, accounted for ~48.5% of the expenditure for medicines reimbursed by INHS, the list covered 74% of all national drug consumed. Novel high-cost therapies indicated in high-prevalence diseases and rare conditions, mostly antineoplastic and immune-modulating agents (ATC L) not included in the WHO EML, were also guaranteed. Conclusions: In Italy, high coverage of EMs was found. It was largely reimbursed by the INHS, even when compared to other European countries. Essential medicines represented a high percentage of the overall expenditure and consumption in Italy. The WHO EML could be an important tool to guide the health policy choices of high-income countries, although a more frequent update and easier access to information on rejected medicines are needed.