Enhancing choices regarding the administration of insulin among patients with diabetes requiring insulin across countries and implications for future care

There are a number of ongoing developments to improve the care of patients with diabetes across countries given its growing burden. Recent developments include new oral medicines to reduce cardiovascular events and death. They also include new modes to improve insulin administration to enhance adherence and subsequent patient management thereby reducing hypoglycaemia and improving long-term outcomes. In the case of insulins, this includes long-acting insulin analogues as well as continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems and continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion systems, combined with sensor-augmented pump therapy and potentially hybrid closed-loops. The benefits of such systems have been endorsed by endocrine societies and governments in patients with Type 1 diabetes whose HbA1c levels are not currently being optimised. However, there are concerns with the low use of such systems across higher-income countries, exacerbated by their higher costs, despite studies suggesting their cost-effectiveness ratios are within accepted limits. This is inconsistent in higher-income countries when compared with reimbursement and funding decisions for new high-priced medicines for cancer and orphan diseases, with often limited benefits, given the burden of multiple daily insulin injections coupled with the need for constant monitoring. This situation is different among patients and governments in low- and low-middle income countries struggling to fund standard insulins and the routine monitoring of HbA1c levels. The first priority in these countries is to address these priority issues before funding more expensive forms of insulin and associated devices. Greater patient involvement in treatment decisions, transparency in decision making, and evidence-based investment decisions should help to address such concerns in the future

Challenges and opportunities with routinely collected data on the utilization of cancer medicines. Perspectives from health authority personnel across 18 European countries

Background: Rising expenditure for new cancer medicines is accelerating concerns that their costs will become unsustainable for universal healthcare access. Moreover, early market access of new oncology medicines lacking appropriate clinical evaluation generates uncertainty over cost-effectiveness and increasing expenditure for unknown health gain. Patient-level data can complement clinical trials and generate better evidence on the effectiveness, safety and outcomes of these new medicines in routine care. This can support policy decisions including funding. Consequently, there is a need for improving datasets for establishing real-world outcomes of newly launched oncology medicines. Aim: To outline the types of available datasets for collecting patient-level data for oncology among different European countries. Additionally, to highlight concerns regarding the use and availability of such data from a health authority perspective as well as possibilities for cross-national collaboration to improve data collection and inform decision-making. Methods: A mixed methods approach was undertaken through a cross-sectional questionnaire followed-up by a focus group discussion. Participants were selected by purposive sampling to represent stakeholders across different European countries and healthcare settings. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze quantifiable questions, whilst content analysis was employed for open-ended questions. Results: 25 respondents across 18 European countries provided their insights on the types of datasets collecting oncology data, including hospital records, cancer, prescription and medicine registers. The most available is expenditure data whilst data concerning effectiveness, safety and outcomes is less available, and there are concerns with data validity. A major constraint to data collection is the lack of comprehensive registries and limited data on effectiveness, safety and outcomes of new medicines. Data ownership limits data accessibility as well as possibilities for linkage, and data collection is time-consuming, necessitating dedicated staff and better systems to facilitate the process. Cross-national collaboration is challenging but the engagement of multiple stakeholders is a key step to reach common goals through research. Conclusion: This study acts as a starting point for future research on patient-level databases for oncology across Europe. Future recommendations will require continued engagement in research, building on current initiatives and involving multiple stakeholders to establish guidelines and commitments for transparency and data sharing

The Implementation of Managed Entry Agreements in Central and Eastern Europe : Findings and Implications

Funding Information: In Bosnia and Herzegovina, both The Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Republic of Srpska, also have special funds and budgets in place for the financing of expensive medicines, which are innovative and under patent. Similar earmarked funds are available in Scotland (the New Medicines Fund funded by the Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme [PPRS] rebates) [35] and England (the Cancer Drugs Fund) [36]. However, support for such earmarked funds is mixed. While they facilitate access, critics raised issues about fairness towards other disease areas and patient groups that are not eligible for special funding [3, 39]. Further, the views of a Patient and Clinician Engagement meeting in Scotland [37] and the end-of-life criteria in England [38] offer opportunities for special considerations affecting medicines for end-of-life and very rare conditions to be taken into account in the health technology assessment process. Funding Information: The authors would like to acknowledge Dr. Jan Jones from the Scottish Medicines Consortium, Scotland, for contributing to the discussion with information on Scotland, Drs. Lyudmila Bezmelnitsyna and Anastasia Isaeva for contributing to data collection in Russia and Dr. Kate?ina Podrazilov? from SZP ?R for providing information on the Czech Republic. Alessandra Ferrario was a Research Officer at the LSE Health at the time this research was conducted. She is now a postdoctoral Research Fellow at the Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, USA. Email: [email protected] No sources of funding were used for this study. The authors declare they have no conflicts of interest. However, Di?na Ar?ja, Maria Dimitrova, Jurij F?rst, Ieva Grei?i?t?-Kuprijanov, Iris Hoxha, Arianit Jakupi, Erki Laidm?e, Vanda Markovic-Pekovic, Dmitry Meshkov, Guenka Petrova, Maciej Pomorski and Patricia Vella Bonanno work directly for national health authorities or are advisers to them. Alessandra Ferrario, Tomasz Bochenek, Ileana Mardare, Dominik Tomek, Luka Voncina, Alan Haycox, Panos Kanavos,?Olga L?blov?, and Brian Godman are academics and independent researchers also working with national and regional health authorities and others to improve the quality and efficiency of prescribing, and Tarik Catic, D?vid Dank?,and Tanja Novakovic are involved with pharmaceutical, pharmacoeconomics and outcomes research groups in their countries. Olga L?blov? has also carried out remunerated consultancy activities for A&R Partners, Baxter AG and Instytut Arcana and Ileana Mardare has signed a consulting contract with Ewopharma A.G. Romania. The content of the paper and the conclusions are those of each author and may not necessarily reflect those of any organisation that employs them. Publisher Copyright: © 2017, The Author(s).Background: Managed entry agreements (MEAs) are a set of instruments to facilitate access to new medicines. This study surveyed the implementation of MEAs in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) where limited comparative information is currently available. Method: We conducted a survey on the implementation of MEAs in CEE between January and March 2017. Results: Sixteen countries participated in this study. Across five countries with available data on the number of different MEA instruments implemented, the most common MEAs implemented were confidential discounts (n = 495, 73%), followed by paybacks (n = 92, 14%), price-volume agreements (n = 37, 5%), free doses (n = 25, 4%), bundle and other agreements (n = 19, 3%), and payment by result (n = 10, >1%). Across seven countries with data on MEAs by therapeutic group, the highest number of brand names associated with one or more MEA instruments belonged to the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC)-L group, antineoplastic and immunomodulating agents (n = 201, 31%). The second most frequent therapeutic group for MEA implementation was ATC-A, alimentary tract and metabolism (n = 87, 13%), followed by medicines for neurological conditions (n = 83, 13%). Conclusions: Experience in implementing MEAs varied substantially across the region and there is considerable scope for greater transparency, sharing experiences and mutual learning. European citizens, authorities and industry should ask themselves whether, within publicly funded health systems, confidential discounts can still be tolerated, particularly when it is not clear which country and party they are really benefiting. Furthermore, if MEAs are to improve access, countries should establish clear objectives for their implementation and a monitoring framework to measure their performance, as well as the burden of implementation.publishersversionPeer reviewe

Corrigendum to "Utilisation trend of long-acting insulin analogues including biosimilars across Europe: findings and implications"

In the article titled "Utilisation Trend of Long-Acting Insulin Analogues including Biosimilars across Europe: Findings and Implications" [1], the captions of Figures 3 and 4 were incorrect. The corrected captions for Figures 3 and 4 appear below

Variation in the prices of oncology medicines across Europe and the implications for the future

Introduction/ Objectives: There are increasing concerns among health authorities regarding the sustainability of healthcare systems with growing expenditure on medicines including new high-priced oncology medicines. Medicine prices among European countries may be adversely affected by their population size and economic power to negotiate. There are also concerns that prices of patented medicines do not change once the prices of medicines used for negotiations substantially change. This needs to be investigated as part of the implications of low-cost generic oncology medicines. Methodology: Analysing principally reimbursed prices of patented oral oncology medicines (imatinib, erlotinib and fludarabine) between 2013 and 2017 across Europe and exploring correlations between GDP, population size, and prices. Comparing the findings with previous research regarding prices of oral generic oncology medicines. Results: The prices of imatinib, erlotinib and fludarabine did vary among European countries but showed limited price erosion over time in the absence of generics. There appeared to be no correlation between population size and prices. However, higher prices were seen among countries with higher GDP per capita which is a concern for lower income countries referencing these. Discussion and Conclusion: It is likely that the limited price erosion for patented oncology medicines will change across Europe with increased scrutiny over their prices and value as more medicines used for pricing decisions lose their patents combined with growing pressures on the oncology drug budget. In addition, discussions will continue regarding fair pricing for new oncology medicines and other approaches given ever rising prices with research showing substantial price reductions for oral oncology medicines (up to -97.8% for imatinib) once generics become available. We are also seeing appreciable price reductions for biosimilars further increasing the likelihood of these developments

Barriers for Access to New Medicines: Searching for the Balance Between Rising Costs and Limited Budgets

Introduction: There is continued unmet medical need for new medicines across countries especially for cancer, immunological diseases and orphan diseases. However, there are growing challenges with funding new medicines at ever increasing prices along with funding increased medicine volumes with the growing prevalence of both infectious diseases and non-communicable diseases across countries. This has resulted in the development of new models to better manage the entry of new medicines, new financial models being postulated as well as strategies to improve prescribing efficiency. However, more needs to be done. Consequently, the primary aim of this paper is to consider potential ways to optimise the use of new medicines balancing rising costs with increasing budgetary pressures to stimulate debate especially from a payer perspective. Methods: A narrative review of pharmaceutical policies and implications, as well as possible developments, based on key publications and initiatives known to the co-authors principally from a health authority perspective. Results: A number of initiatives and approaches have been identified including new models to better manage the entry of new medicines based on three pillars (pre-, peri-, and post-launch activities). Within this, we see the growing role of horizon scanning activities starting up to 36 months before launch, managed entry agreements and post launch follow-up. It is also likely there will be greater scrutiny over the effectiveness and value of new cancer medicines given ever increasing prices. This could include establishing minimum effectiveness targets for premium pricing along with re-evaluating prices as more medicines for cancer lose their patent. There will also be a greater involvement of patients especially with orphan diseases. New initiatives could include a greater role of multicriteria decision analysis, as well as looking at the potential for de-linking research and development from commercial activities to enhance affordability. Conclusion: There are a number of ongoing activities across countries to try and fund new valued medicines whilst attaining or maintaining universal healthcare. Such activities will grow with increasing resource pressures and continued unmet need

Therapeutic strategies for rheumatic diseases and disorders: targeting redox imbalance and oxidative stress

Rheumatic diseases and disorders (RDDs) are a group of chronic autoimmune diseases that are collectively called ''multicausal diseases''. They have resulted from predisposing genetic profiles and exposure to a range of environmental, occupational and lifestyle risk factors. Other causative factors include bacterial and viral attacks, sexual habits, trauma, etc. In addition, numerous studies reported that redox imbalance is one of the most serious consequences of RDDs. For example, rheumatoid arthritis (RA) as a classic example of chronic RDDs is linked to oxidative stress. This paper summarizes the contributions of redox imbalance to RDDs. The findings suggest that establishing direct or indirect therapeutic strategies for RDDs requires a more in-depth understanding of the redox dysregulation in these diseases. For example, the recent awareness of the roles of peroxiredoxins (Prdxs, e.g. Prdx2, Prdx3) in RDDs provided one potential route of therapeutic intervention of these pathologies. Changes in stressful lifestyles and dietary habits may also provide additional benefits in the management of RDDs. Future studies should be directed to explore molecular interactions in redox regulations associated with RDDS and potential therapeutic interventions

Quality of life in parents of autistic children: A transcultural perspective

10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1022094FRONTIERS IN PSYCHOLOGY1

Evidence-based public policy making for medicines across countries; findings and implications for the future

Global expenditure on medicines is rising up to 6% per year driven by increasing prevalence of non-communicable diseases (NCDs) and new premium priced medicines for cancer, orphan diseases and other complex areas. This is difficult to sustain without reforms. Extensive narrative review of published papers and contextualizing the findings to provide future guidance. New models are being introduced to improve the managed entry of new medicines including managed entry agreements, fair pricing approaches and monitoring prescribing against agreed guidance. Multiple measures have also successfully been introduced to improve the prescribing of established medicines. This includes encouraging greater prescribing of generics and biosimilars versus originators and patented medicines in a class to conserve resources without compromising care. In addition, reducing inappropriate antibiotic utilization. Typically, multiple measures are the most effective. Multiple measures will be needed to attain and retain universal healthcare

Utilisation Trend of Long-Acting Insulin Analogues including Biosimilars across Europe : Findings and Implications

Diabetes mellitus rates and associated costs continue to rise across Europe enhancing health authority focus on its management. The risk of complications is enhanced by poor glycaemic control, with long-acting insulin analogues developed to reduce hypoglycaemia and improve patient convenience. There are concerns though with their considerably higher costs, but moderated by reductions in complications and associated costs. Biosimilars can help further reduce costs. However, to date, price reductions for biosimilar insulin glargine appear limited. In addition, the originator company has switched promotional efforts to more concentrated patented formulations to reduce the impact of biosimilars. There are also concerns with different devices between the manufacturers. As a result, there is a need to assess current utilisation rates for insulins, especially long-acting insulin analogues and biosimilars, and the rationale for patterns seen, among multiple European countries to provide future direction. Methodology. Health authority databases are examined to assess utilisation and expenditure patterns for insulins, including biosimilar insulin glargine. Explanations for patterns seen were provided by senior-level personnel. Typically increasing use of long-acting insulin analogues across Europe including both Western and Central and Eastern European countries reflects perceived patient benefits despite higher prices. However, activities by the originator company to switch patients to more concentrated insulin glargine coupled with lowering prices towards biosimilars have limited biosimilar uptake, with biosimilars not currently launched in a minority of European countries. A number of activities were identified to address this. Enhancing the attractiveness of the biosimilar insulin market is essential to encourage other biosimilar manufacturers to enter the market as more long-acting insulin analogues lose their patents to benefit all key stakeholder groups. There are concerns with the availability and use of insulin glargine biosimilars among European countries despite lower costs. This can be addressed