Variation in antiosteoporotic drug prescribing and spending across Spain. A population-based ecological cross-sectional study

Introduction: Evidence has shown that utilization of antiosteoporotic medications does not correspond with risk, and studies on other therapies have shown that adequacy of pharmaceutical prescribing might vary between regions. Nevertheless, very few studies have addressed the variability in osteoporotic drug consumption. We aimed to describe variations in pharmaceutical utilization and spending on osteoporotic drugs between Health Areas (HA) in Spain. Methods: Population-based cross-sectional ecological study of expenditure and utilization of the five therapeutic groups marketed for osteoporosis treatment in Spain in 2009. Small area variation analysis (SAVA) methods were used. The units of analysis were the 168 HA of 13 Spanish regions, including 7.2 million women aged 50 years and older. The main outcomes were the defined daily dose (DDD) per 1000 inhabitants and day (DDD/1000/Day) dispensed according to the pharmaceutical claims reimbursed, and the expenditure on antiosteoporotics at retail price per woman =50 years old and per year. Results: The average osteoporosis drug consumption was 116.8 DDD/1000W/Day, ranging from 78.5 to 158.7 DDD/1000W/Day between the HAs in the 5th and 95th percentiles. Seventy-five percent of the antiosteoporotics consumed was bisphosphonates, followed by raloxifene, strontium ranelate, calcitonins, and parathyroid hormones including teriparatide. Regarding variability by therapeutic groups, biphosphonates showed the lowest variation, while calcitonins and parathyroid hormones showed the highest variation. The annual expenditure on antiosteoporotics was €426.5 million, translating into an expenditure of €59.2 for each woman =50 years old and varying between €38.1 and €83.3 between HAs in the 5th and 95th percentiles. Biphosphonates, despite accounting for 79% of utilization, only represented 63% of total expenditure, while parathyroid hormones with only 1.6% of utilization accounted for 15% of the pharmaceutical spending. Conclusion: This study highlights a marked geographical variation in the prescription of antiosteoporotics, being more pronounced in the case of costly drugs such as parathyroid hormones. The differences in rates of prescribing explained almost all of the variance in drug spending, suggesting that the difference in prescription volume between territories, and not the price of the drugs, is the main source of variation in this setting. Data on geographical variation of prescription can help guide policy proposals for targeting areas with inadequate antiosteoporotic drug use

Effectiveness of the combination elvitegravir/cobicistat/tenofovir/emtricitabine (EVG/COB/TFV/FTC) plus darunavir among treatment-experienced patients in clinical practice : A multicentre cohort study

Background: The aim of this study was to investigate the effectiveness and tolerability of the combination elvitegravir/cobicistat/tenofovir/emtricitabine plus darunavir (EVG/COB/TFV/FTC + DRV) in treatment-experienced patients from the cohort of the Spanish HIV/AIDS Research Network (CoRIS). Methods: Treatment-experienced patients starting treatment with EVG/COB/TFV/FTC + DRV during the years 2014-2018 and with more than 24 weeks of follow-up were included. TFV could be administered either as tenofovir disoproxil fumarate or tenofovir alafenamide. We evaluated virological response, defined as viral load (VL) < 50 copies/ml and < 200 copies/ml at 24 and 48 weeks after starting this regimen, stratified by baseline VL (< 50 or ≥ 50 copies/ml at the start of the regimen). Results: We included 39 patients (12.8% women). At baseline, 10 (25.6%) patients had VL < 50 copies/ml and 29 (74.4%) had ≥ 50 copies/ml. Among patients with baseline VL < 50 copies/ml, 85.7% and 80.0% had VL < 50 copies/ml at 24 and 48 weeks, respectively, and 100% had VL < 200 copies/ml at 24 and 48 weeks. Among patients with baseline VL ≥ 50 copies/ml, 42.3% and 40.9% had VL < 50 copies/ml and 69.2% and 68.2% had VL < 200 copies/ml at 24 and 48 weeks. During the first 48 weeks, no patients changed their treatment due to toxicity, and 4 patients (all with baseline VL ≥ 50 copies/ml) changed due to virological failure. Conclusions: EVG/COB/TFV/FTC + DRV was well tolerated and effective in treatment-experienced patients with undetectable viral load as a simplification strategy, allowing once-daily, two-pill regimen with three antiretroviral drug classes. Effectiveness was low in patients with detectable viral loads

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Summary: Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health