Availability, price, and affordability of essential medicines to manage noncommunicable diseases : a national survey from Nepal

The aim of this study was to evaluate the availability, price, and affordability of essential noncommunicable disease (NCD) medicines in Nepal. A cross-sectional survey was conducted in Nepal in 2015 using World Health Organization/Health Action International (WHO/HAI) methodology. We collected data on the availability and price of 60 essential NCD medicines from medicine distribution outlets in both the public and private health care sectors in 6 regions. Essential NCD medicines were more available in the private sector (78%) than the public sector (60%). Furosemide tablets were the cheapest (NPR 0.6/10 tablets) and streptokinase injections were the most expensive (NPR 2200/vial) drugs. There was no significant difference (P > .05) in availability and affordability of essential NCD medicines across the 6 survey areas. Treating selected NCD conditions with medicines was generally affordable, with 1 month of treatment costing no more than a day’s wage of the lowest paid unskilled government worker. The lower availability of NCD medicines in the public sector limits the effectiveness of the government’s policy of providing free health services at public facilities. Although NCD medicines were generally affordable, future health policy should aim to ensure improved equitable access to NCD medicines, particularly in public facilities

Australian pharmacists' understanding of their continuing professional development obligations

Background: Adoption of mandatory continuing professional development (CPD) for pharmacists in Australia is relatively new. Difficulties have been reported with the introduction of CPD frameworks in other countries. There is limited information on how Australian pharmacists have engaged with the CPD requirements for registration. Aim: To explore Australian pharmacists' understanding and engagement with the CPD requirements for renewal of registration. Method: The Pharmacy Board of Australia's CPD requirements for registration was used to design an online survey to explore the level of understanding and engagement Australian pharmacists have with the CPD framework. Results: 278 pharmacists responded to the survey - 66% were female, 30% were male and 4% did not disclose their gender. 63% of respondents noted that it would not be difficult to acquire 40 CPD credits annually. Respondents identified that Group 1 activities were a preferred way of acquiring CPD credits. Majority of pharmacists (91%) believed that they knew the CPD requirements for registration and 77% noted that there had been sufficient guidance provided. Despite this, 26% of participants had never used self-directed learning plans and 38% did not know how to undertake self-directed learning. 76% of participants were under the common misconception that CPD is synonymous with continuing education. Conclusion: The majority of pharmacists believe they understand and can engage in the acquisition of CPD credits for renewal of registration. Some aspects of the CPD framework was not understood, such as how it aims to develop a pharmacist's practice. This aspect of the CPD framework will need to be further developed

Pharmacists and prescribing rights: review of international developments

Purpose. Continuity of care, equitable access, and quality and safety are major foci in health services management. The introduction of limited prescribing rights to pharmacists has the potential to reduce fragmentation within the health system, optimise medication management, improve continuity of patient care and improve patient access to medication. Results. Eight models for pharmacists' prescribing have been implemented internationally, varying in their dependency on protocols, formularies and collaboration with physicians. These have also been described using terms such as Supplementary Prescribing and Patient Group Directions. Conclusion. Issues relating to practical implementation of pharmacists' prescribing include negotiation of national health policy, pharmacists' training and accreditation, liability, reimbursement and documentation

Impact of deprescribing dual-purpose medications on patient-related outcomes for older adults near end-of-life: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Introduction: The decision to deprescribe medications used for both disease prevention and symptom control (dual-purpose medications or DPMs) is often challenging for clinicians. We aim to establish the impact of deprescribing DPMs on patient-related outcomes for older adults near end-of-life (EOL). Methods: This systematic review was conducted according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guideline. Literature was searched on PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Google Scholar until December 2019 for studies on deprescribing intervention with a control group (with or without randomisation); targeting ⩾65-year olds, at EOL, with at least one life-limiting illness and at least one potentially inappropriate DPM. We were interested in any patient-related outcomes. Studies with similar outcome assessment criteria were subjected to meta-analysis and narrative synthesis otherwise. The risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane Risk of Bias and ROBINS-I tools for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-experimental non-randomised controlled studies, respectively. Results: Five studies covering 689 participants with mean age 81.6–85.7 years, the majority (74.6–100%) with dementia were included. The risk of bias was moderate to low. The deprescribing of DPMs lowered the risk of mortality (risk ratio (RR) = 0.59, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.44–0.79) and referral to acute care facilities (RR = 0.40, 95% CI = 0.22–0.73), but did not have a significant impact on the risk of falls, non-vertebral fracture, emergency presentation, unplanned hospital admission, or general practitioner visits. No significant difference was observed in the quality of life, physical and cognitive functions between the intervention and control groups. Conclusion: There is some evidence that deprescribing of DPMs for older adults near the EOL can lower the risk of mortality and referral to acute care facilities, but there are insufficient good-quality studies powered to confirm a benefit in terms of quality of life, physical or cognitive function, health service utilisation and adverse events. Plain Language Summary What is the health impact of withdrawal or dose reduction of medication used for disease prevention and symptom control in older adults near end-of-life? Introduction: Older adults (aged ⩾ 65 years) with advanced diseases such as cancer, dementia, and organ failure tend to have a limited life expectancy. With the progression of these diseases towards the end-of-life, the intensity for day-to-day supportive care becomes increasingly necessary. The use of medications for symptom management is a critical part of such care, but the use of medications for long-term disease prevention can become irrelevant due to the already shortened life expectancy and may become harmful due to alterations in physiology and pharmacology associated with age and frailty. This necessitates the withdrawal or dose reduction of inappropriate medications, the process called deprescribing. The decision to deprescribe medications used for both disease prevention and symptom control (DPMs) in this population is often challenging for clinicians. In this context, whether deprescribing of DPMs can improve patient-related health outcomes is unknown. Methods: Evidence from the literature was reviewed and analysed, and the quality of studies was assessed. Five studies were identified, which had 689 participants with an average age above 80 years and mostly suffering from dementia. Results: The analysis of these studies showed deprescribing of DPMs lowered the risk of death and referral to acute care facilities at 12 months but had no significant impact on falls, non-vertebral fractures, emergency presentations, unplanned hospital admission, general practitioner visits, quality of life, physical and mental functions. Conclusion: In conclusion, there were insufficient numbers of high-quality studies powered to confirm whether deprescribing of DPMs reduces adverse events, health service use, or improves the quality of life or functioning in older adults near the end of life