Public's perspective on COVID-19 adenovirus vector vaccines after thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS) reports and associated regulatory actions - A cross-sectional study in six EU member states.

OBJECTIVE: In 2021, thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS) was confirmed by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) as a rare side effect of the COVID-19 adenovirus vector vaccines Vaxzevria® and Jcovden®. This study aimed to describe the public's knowledge of TTS and how it affected the willingness to be vaccinated with COVID-19 vaccines and other vaccines in six European countries. METHODS: From June to October of 2022, a multi-country cross-sectional online survey was conducted in Denmark, Greece, Latvia, Netherlands, Portugal, and Slovenia. The minimum target of participants to be recruited was based on the size of the country's population. The results were analysed descriptively. RESULTS: In total, 3794 respondents were included in the analysis; across the six countries, 33.3 %-68.3 % reported being familiar with signs and symptoms of TTS, although 3.1-61.4 % of those were able to identify the symptoms correctly. The reported changes in willingness to be vaccinated against COVID-19 and with other vaccines varied per country. The largest reported change in the willingness to be vaccinated with Vaxzevria® and Jcovden® was observed in Denmark (61.2 %), while the willingness to be vaccinated with other COVID-19 vaccines changed most in Slovenia (30.4 %). The smallest decrease in willingness towards future vaccination against COVID-19 was reported in the Netherlands (20.9 %) contrasting with the largest decrease observed in Latvia (69.1 %). CONCLUSION: Knowledge about TTS seemed to have influenced the public's opinion in Europe resulting in less willingness to be vaccinated with Vaxzevria® and Jcovden®. Willingness for vaccination against COVID-19 with other vaccines and widespread use of vaccines to prevent other diseases also differed and seemed to be determined by the approaches taken by national health authorities when reacting to and communicating about COVID-19 vaccination risks. Further investigation of optimal risk communication strategies is warranted.

Magistral Compounding with 3D Printing: A Promising Way to Achieve Personalized Medicine.

BACKGROUND: Magistral compounding has always been an integral part of pharmacy practice. The increasing demand worldwide for personalized drug treatments might be accommodated by an increase in magistral compounding. The new, flexible technology of 3D medicine printing could advance this process even further. However, the issue of how 3D medicine printing can be implemented within the existing magistral compounding infrastructure has not been explored. AIMS: To investigate how 3D printing can be integrated into the existing compounding system by taking regulatory, economic, and profession-oriented aspects into account. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with relevant Dutch stakeholders representing various health institutions, such as health ministries and boards, professional bodies, and different types of pharmacies. Participants were identified through purposeful sampling. Content analysis was applied to identify the main themes. RESULTS: A total of 15 Dutch stakeholders were interviewed. It was found that the prevalence of compounding in community pharmacies in the Netherlands has decreased as a result of the practice shifting to specialized compounding pharmacies due to higher costs, lack of space, and the need to fulfill quality requirements. All interviewees considered 3D printing to be a promising compounding technique for community pharmacies, as it offers an automated approach with high digital flexibility and enables adapted formulations, including 'polypills.' Regulatory and quality assurance challenges were considered comparable to those of normal magistral products; however, there remain pending regulatory issues regarding quality control, particularly for Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients containing intermediate feedstock materials (e.g., prefilled cartridges) in 3D printing. 3D printing was believed to become cost effective over time. CONCLUSION: In the Netherlands, specialized compounding pharmacies have largely taken over compounding activities. 3D printing could be introduced within this system; however, challenges regarding how to regulate prefilled cartridges have yet to be addressed. Compounding using 3D printing in regular community pharmacies could enhance patients' individualized treatment; however, this activity would require incentives to stimulate the return of compounding to normal pharmacy practice.

Scenarios for 3D printing of personalized medicines - A case study.

Background: 3D printing is a promising new technology for medicines' production. It employs additive manufacturing techniques, and is ideal for producing personalized medicines (e.g., patient-tailored dose, dosage form, drug release kinetics). Objective: To investigate how 3D printing technologies can be implemented in a European pharmaceutical system, by suggesting different scenarios and assessing aspects that could affect its implementation. Method: Qualitative, semi-structured interviews were conducted with key stakeholders (e.g., from ministry, authorities, research organizations, pharmacies) in the Netherlands to elicit perspectives on 3D printing of personalized medicines. The Netherlands were chosen since it has a strong tradition in compounding. Five general scenarios were investigated: placing the 3D printers in industry, community pharmacies, hospital pharmacies, compounding facilities, and in patients' homes. Content analysis was used, building on verbatim transcripts. Results: Fifteen stakeholders were interviewed. Regulatory, economic, ethical and organizational challenges were identified to varying degrees in the different scenarios. The industry and home scenarios were associated with the most challenges, hospital pharmacies and compounding facilities with the least. Other important aspects identified were the role of community pharmacies, and who should design the tablets to be printed. Conclusion: All potential scenarios for 3D printing of personalized medicines include challenges. These should be taken into account when pursuing the use of 3D printing of medicine.

Added therapeutic value of new drugs approved in Brazil from 2004 to 2016.

This study aimed to assess the level of therapeutic innovation of new drugs approved in Brazil over 13 years and whether they met public health needs. Comparative descriptive analysis of therapeutic value assessments performed by the Brazilian Chamber of Drug Market Regulation (CMED) and the French drug bulletin Prescrire for new drugs licensed in Brazil, from January 1st 2004 to December 31st 2016. The extent to which new drugs met public health needs was examined by: checking inclusions into government-funded drug lists and/or clinical guidelines; comparing Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical Classification (ATC) codes and drug indications with the list of conditions contributing the most to the national disease burden; and assessing new medicines aimed to treat neglected diseases. 253 new drugs were approved. Antineoplastics, immunossupressants, antidiabetics and antivirals were the most frequent. Thirty-three (14%) out of 236 drugs assessed by the Brazilian chamber and sixteen (8.2%) out of 195 assessed by the French bulletin Prescrire were considered innovative. Thirty-six drugs (14.2%) were selected for coverage by the Brazilian Unified National Health System (SUS), seven of which were therapeutically innovative, and none were aimed to treat neglected disease. About 1/3 of the drugs approved aimed to treat conditions among the top contributors to Brazil's disease burden. Few therapeutically innovative drugs entered the Brazilian market, from which only a small proportion was approved to be covered by the SUS. Our findings suggest a divergence between public health needs, research & development (R&D) and drug licensing procedures.

Added therapeutic value of new drugs approved in Brazil from 2004 to 2016 / Valor terapêutico acrescentado de novos medicamentos aprovados no Brasil de 2004 a 2016 / Valor terapéutico añadido de los nuevos medicamentos aprobados en Brasil desde 2004 a 2016

Abstract: This study aimed to assess the level of therapeutic innovation of new drugs approved in Brazil over 13 years and whether they met public health needs. Comparative descriptive analysis of therapeutic value assessments performed by the Brazilian Chamber of Drug Market Regulation (CMED) and the French drug bulletin Prescrire for new drugs licensed in Brazil, from January 1st 2004 to December 31st 2016. The extent to which new drugs met public health needs was examined by: checking inclusions into government-funded drug lists and/or clinical guidelines; comparing Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical Classification (ATC) codes and drug indications with the list of conditions contributing the most to the national disease burden; and assessing new medicines aimed to treat neglected diseases. 253 new drugs were approved. Antineoplastics, immunossupressants, antidiabetics and antivirals were the most frequent. Thirty-three (14%) out of 236 drugs assessed by the Brazilian chamber and sixteen (8.2%) out of 195 assessed by the French bulletin Prescrire were considered innovative. Thirty-six drugs (14.2%) were selected for coverage by the Brazilian Unified National Health System (SUS), seven of which were therapeutically innovative, and none were aimed to treat neglected disease. About 1/3 of the drugs approved aimed to treat conditions among the top contributors to Brazil's disease burden. Few therapeutically innovative drugs entered the Brazilian market, from which only a small proportion was approved to be covered by the SUS. Our findings suggest a divergence between public health needs, research & development (R&D) and drug licensing procedures.

Resumo: O objetivo foi avaliar o nível de inovação terapêutica de novos medicamentos aprovados no Brasil ao longo de 13 anos e se eles atendem a necessidades de saúde pública. Foi feita uma análise comparativa descritiva da avaliação de valor terapêutico realizada pela Câmara de Regulação do Mercado de Medicamentos (CMED) e pelo boletim de medicamentos francês Prescrire para novos medicamentos licenciados no Brasil entre 1º de janeiro de 2004 e 31 de dezembro de 2016. Examinamos em que medida os novos medicamentos atendem a necessidade de saúde pública por meio de: checagem da inclusão em listas de medicamentos financiados pelo governo e/ou diretrizes clínicas; comparação de códigos da Classificação Anatômica Terapêutica Química (ATC, em inglês) e indicações de medicamentos com a lista de condições que mais contribuem para a carga de doença nacional; e avaliação de se os novos medicamentos tinham por objetivo tratar doenças negligenciadas. Foram aprovados 253 novos medicamentos. Antineoplásicos, imunossupressores, antidiabéticos e antivirais foram os mais frequentes. Trinta e três (14%) dos 236 medicamentos avaliados pela Câmara brasileira e 16 (8,2%) dos 195 avaliados pelo boletim francês Prescrire foram considerados inovadores. Trinta e seis medicamentos (14,2%) foram selecionados para cobertura no Sistema Único de Saúde (SUS), sete dos quais eram inovadores do ponto de vista terapêutico e nenhum dos quais tinha por objetivo tratar uma doença negligenciada. Em torno de 1/3 dos medicamentos aprovados tinha por objetivo o tratamento de doenças que figuram entre as principais contribuidoras da carga de doença no Brasil. Poucos medicamentos inovadores do ponto de vista terapêutico entraram no mercado brasileiro, dos quais apenas uma pequena proporção foi aprovada para ser coberta pelo SUS. Nossos resultados sugerem uma divergência entre necessidades de saúde pública, pesquisa e desenvolvimento (P&D) e procedimentos de licenciamento de medicamentos.

Resumen: El objetivo fue evaluar el nivel de innovación terapéutica de los nuevos medicamentos aprobados en Brasil durante 13 años y si cumplen con las necesidades sanitarias. Llevamos a cabo un análisis comparativo descriptivo acerca del valor terapéutico presente en las evaluaciones realizadas por la Cámara de Regulación del Mercado de Medicamentos (CMED) y la revista francesa Prescrire sobre los nuevos medicamentos autorizados en Brasil, desde el 1º de enero 2004 hasta el 31de diciembre de 2016. Su alcance, es decir, hasta qué punto los nuevos medicamentos cumplían con las necesidades de salud pública se comprobaron revisando las inclusiones en listas de medicamentos subvencionados por el gobierno y/o directrices clínicas; comparando los códigos de la Classificación Anatómicos Terapéuticos Químicos (ATC por sus siglas en inglés) y las indicaciones de los medicamentos respecto a la lista de enfermedades que contribuían a la mayor carga de morbilidad nacional; y asesorando si los nuevos medicamentos tenían como objetivo tratar enfermedades desatendidas. Se aprobaron 253 nuevos medicamentos. Los antineoplásicos, inmunosupresores, antidiabéticos y antivirales fueron los más frecuentes. Treinta y tres (14%), aparte de los 236 medicamentos evaluados por la Cámara Brasileña, y 16 (8,2%), aparte de los 195 evaluados por la revista francesa Prescrire, se consideraron innovadores. Treinta y seis medicamentos (14,2%) se seleccionaron para que tuvieran cobertura por el Sistema Único de Salud (SUS), siete de ellos eran terapéuticamente innovadores, y ninguno tenía como meta tratar enfermedades desatendidas. Alrededor de 1/3 de las medicinas aprobadas tenían como meta tratar problemas de salud entre las enfermedades con mayor carga de morbilidad en Brasil. Pocos medicamentos terapéuticamente innovadores accedieron al mercado brasileño y de éstos sólo una pequeña parte fueron aprobados para que fueran cubiertos por el SUS. Nuestros resultados sugieren una divergencia entre las necesidades públicas de salud, investigación & desarrollo (I&D) y los procedimientos para la autorización de medicamentos.

[Patients reported adverse drug reactions: what's happening in Europe]. / Adverse drug reactions riportate direttamente dai pazienti: cosa succede in Europa.

This contribution in based on a report that describes the European situation regarding patient reported Adverse Drug reactions (DPR) and analyzes the literature on the topic. In 7 European countries DPRs are accepted, and used for decision making. Patients reports in general are more vivid that those of health care workers and report information that professional reporters can never be expected to provide. Moreover, DPRs are reliable and comparable to those of professional reporters.