Variation in the availability of cancer drug generics in the United States of America.

While most of the attention and spending in the oncology community in the United States has been focused on the remarkable scientific inventions of the newer targeted drugs, the shortage of the older essential cancer drugs that are off patent, mostly generics and injectables, has a threatening impact on the health of cancer patients, the execution of clinical trials and the identification of newer drugs and thus impacts upon the burden of costs and pressures on the health system in the United States. It is a part of the problem of the scarcity of generics across all medical specialties, but its oncology is particularly vulnerable. The problem in The United States has been increasing since the beginning of the 21st century until the 2011; since then there has been some improvement in 2012 and the first two quarters of 2013. In the second quarter of 2012, there were 211 active shortages, down from 246 reports of active shortages in the same quarter of 2011. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) officials ascribe the improvement to efforts that the agency made after President Obama issued an executive order in 2012 that impel the FDA to obtain early reports from companies about potential shortages. The drivers of the shortages are multi-factorial. But are largely economic and are due to the lack of incentives to produce generics. There are efforts from the US government, politicians and the medical, pharmacy and oncology communities. However, the problem is still serious. There is a general agreement that efforts so far have not been adequate, and that there is a need for addressing effectively the fundamentals and the underlying causes. There is a lot that could be done in the United States and across the world to improve the accessibility of economically sustainable better value cancer drugs regardless of whether they are brand or generics and aiming at a win-win outcome for all stakeholders

Developing cancer control plans in Africa: examples from five countries

Please help populate SUNScholar with the full text of SU research output. Also - should you need this item urgently, please send us the details and we will try to get hold of the full text as quick possible. E-mail to [email protected]. Thank you.Journal Articles (subsidised)Geneeskunde en GesondheidswetenskappePediatrie En Kindergesondhei

Systematic review of miscellaneous agents for the management of oral mucositis in cancer patients

Purpose\ud The aim of this systematic review was to analyze the available literature and define clinical practice guidelines for the use of the following agents for the prevention and treatment of oral mucositis (OM): allopurinol, midline mucosa-sparing radiation blocks, payayor, pentoxifylline, timing of radiation therapy (RT) (morning versus late afternoon), pilocarpine, bethanechol, chewing gum, propantheline, and tetrachlorodecaoxide.\ud \ud Methods\ud A systematic review was conducted by the Mucositis Study Group of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer/International Society for Oral Oncology (MASCC/ISOO). The body of evidence for each intervention, in each cancer treatment setting, was assigned an evidence level. Based on the evidence level, one of the following three guideline determinations was possible: recommendation, suggestion, no guideline possible.\ud \ud Results\ud A total of 32 papers across 10 interventions were examined. New suggestions were developed against the use of systemic pilocarpine administered orally for prevention of OM during RT in head and neck cancer patients and in patients receiving high-dose chemotherapy, with or without total body irradiation, prior to hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. A suggestion was also made against the use of systemic pentoxifylline administered orally for the prevention of OM in patients undergoing bone marrow transplantation. No guideline was possible for any other agent reviewed due to inadequate and/or conflicting evidence.\ud \ud Conclusions\ud None of the agents reviewed was determined to be effective for the prevention or treatment of OM. Two agents, pilocarpine and pentoxifylline, were determined to be ineffective, in the populations listed above. Additional well-designed research is needed on other interventions