Barriers to access to opioid medicines:a review of national legislation and regulations of 11 central and eastern European countries

Control measures designed to prevent the misuse of opioid medicines can often unintentionally restrict legitimate medical use, leaving patients with cancer in pain. This study aimed to develop and validate an assessment instrument based on WHO policy guidelines to systematically identify legal and regulatory barriers to opioid access in 11 European countries (Bulgaria, Cyprus, Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Turkey) as part of the Access to Opioid Medication in Europe project. Relevant legislation and regulations were independently assessed by three reviewers and potential barriers were identified within nine categories including prescribing, penalties, and others. Potential barriers were identified in all countries, ranging from 22 potential barriers (Cyprus) to 128 potential barriers (Lithuania). The total number of barriers in a single category varied from one (Slovenia, usage category) to 49 (Greece, prescribing category). Differences, such as prescription validity, varied within one category, ranging from 5 days (Hungary) to 13 weeks (Cyprus). The results of this Review should give rise to a national review and revision of provisions that impede access to opioids, disproportionate to their (intended) benefit in preventing misuse, in these 11 European countries

Drug repositioning and repurposing: terminology and definitions in literature

Drug repositioning and similar terms have been a trending topic in literature and represent novel drug development strategies. We analysed in a quantitative and qualitative manner how these terms were used and defined in the literature. In total, 217 articles referred to 'drug repositioning', 'drug repurposing', 'drug reprofiling', 'drug redirecting' and/or 'drug rediscovery'. Only 67 included a definition ranging from brief and general to extensive and specific. No common definition was identified. Nevertheless, four common features were found: concept, action, use and product. The different wording used for these features often leads to essential differences in meaning between definitions. In case a clear definition is needed, for example from a legal or regulatory perspective, the features can provide further guidance

Extensions of indication throughout the drug product lifecycle: a quantitative analysis

The marketing authorisation of the first generic product version is an important moment in a drug product lifecycle. The subsequently changed intellectual property protection prospects could affect the incentives for further drug development. We assessed the quantity and nature of extensions of indication of small molecule medicinal products authorised through the European Medicines Agency throughout the drug product lifecycle with special attention for the impact of the introduction of a first generic competitor. The majority (92.5%) of the extensions of indication was approved during the exclusivity period of the innovator product. Regulatory rethinking might be needed for a sustainable stimulation of extensions of indications in the post-generic period of a drug product lifecycle

Extensions of indication throughout the drug product lifecycle: a quantitative analysis

The marketing authorisation of the first generic product version is an important moment in a drug product lifecycle. The subsequently changed intellectual property protection prospects could affect the incentives for further drug development. We assessed the quantity and nature of extensions of indication of small molecule medicinal products authorised through the European Medicines Agency throughout the drug product lifecycle with special attention for the impact of the introduction of a first generic competitor. The majority (92.5%) of the extensions of indication was approved during the exclusivity period of the innovator product. Regulatory rethinking might be needed for a sustainable stimulation of extensions of indications in the post-generic period of a drug product lifecycle

Access to Strong Opioid Analgesics in the Context of Legal and Regulatory Barriers in Eleven Central and Eastern European Countries

Background: In 2011-2013, >95% of the global opioid analgesics consumption occurred in three regions, accounting for 15% of the world population. Despite abundant literature on barriers to access, little is known on the correlation between actual access to opioid analgesics and barriers to access, including legal and regulatory barriers. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the correlation between access to strong opioid analgesics and barriers to access in national legislation and regulations in 11 central and eastern European countries that participated in the Access to Opioid Medication in Europe (ATOME) project. Design: Two variables were contrasted to assess their correlation: the country level of access to strong opioid analgesics indicated by the Adequacy of Consumption Measure (ACM) and the number of potential legal and regulatory barriers identified by an external review of legislation and regulations. Measurements: A linear correlation was evaluated using a squared linear correlation coefficient. Results: Evaluation of the correlation between the ACM and the number of potential barriers produces an R-2 value of 0.023 and a correlation plot trend line gradient of -0.075, indicating no correlation between access to strong opioid analgesics and the number of potential barriers in national legislation and regulations in the countries studied. Conclusions: No correlation was found, which indicates that other factors besides potential legal and regulatory barriers play a critical role in withholding prescribers and patients essential pain medication in the studied countries. More research is needed toward better understanding of the complex interplay of factors that determine access to strong opioid analgesics

Legal Barriers in Accessing Opioid Medicines : Results of the ATOME Quick Scan of National Legislation of Eastern European Countries

CONTEXT: Overregulation of controlled medicines is one of the factors contributing to limited access to opioid medicines. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to identify legal barriers to access to opioid medicines in 12 Eastern European countries participating in the Access to Opioid Medication in Europa project, using a quick scan method. METHODS: A quick scan method to identify legal barriers was developed focusing on eight different categories of barriers. Key experts in 12 European countries were requested to send relevant legislation. Legislation was quick scanned using World Health Organization guidelines. Overly restrictive provisions and provisions that contain stigmatizing language and incorrect definitions were identified. The selected provisions were scored into two categories: 1) barrier and 2) uncertain, and reviewed by two authors. A barrier was recorded if both authors agreed the selected provision to be a barrier (Category 1). RESULTS: National legislation was obtained from 11 of 12 countries. All 11 countries showed legal barriers in the areas of prescribing (most frequently observed barrier). Ten countries showed barriers in the areas of dispensing and showed stigmatizing language and incorrect use of definitions in their legislation. Most barriers were identified in the legislation of Bulgaria, Greece, Lithuania, Serbia, and Slovenia. The Cypriot legislation showed the fewest total number of barriers. CONCLUSION: The selected countries have in common as main barriers prescribing and dispensing restrictions, the use of stigmatizing language, and incorrect use of definitions. The practical impact of these barriers identified using a quick scan method needs to be validated by other means

Barriers to access to opioid medicines for patients with opioid dependence : a review of legislation and regulations in eleven central and eastern European countries

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Barriers linked to drug control systems are considered to contribute to inequitable access to controlled medicines, leaving millions of people in pain and suffering. Most studies focus on access to opioids for the treatment of severe (cancer) pain. This study aims to identify specific access barriers for patients with opioid dependence in legislation and regulations of 11 central and eastern European countries. METHODS: This study builds on a previous analysis of legislation and regulations as part of the EU 7th Framework Access To Opioid Medication in Europe (ATOME) project. An in-depth analysis was undertaken to determine specific barriers for patients with opioid dependence in need of opioid analgesics or opioid agonist therapy (OAT). For each country, the number and nature of specific potential barriers for these patients were assessed according to eight categories: prescribing; dispensing; manufacturing; usage; trade and distribution; affordability; penalties; and other. An additional keyword search was conducted to minimize the omission of barriers. Barriers in an additional category, language, were recorded qualitatively. Countries included Bulgaria, Cyprus, Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia and Turkey. RESULTS: Ten of the 11 countries (all except Estonia) showed specific potential barriers in their legislation and regulations. The total number of barriers varied from two (Slovenia) to 46 (Lithuania); the number of categories varied from one (Slovenia) to five (Lithuania). Most specific potential barriers were shown in the categories 'prescribing', 'usage' and 'other'. The total number in a single category varied from one to 18 (Lithuania, prescribing). Individual differences between countries in the same specific potential barrier were shown; for example, variation in minimum age criteria for admission to OAT ranging from 15 (Lithuania, in special cases) to 20 years (Greece). All countries had stigmatizing language in their legislation. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with opioid dependence are likely to experience specific barriers to accessing opioids in addition to those experienced by other non-dependent patients

Access to Strong Opioid Analgesics in the Context of Legal and Regulatory Barriers in Eleven Central and Eastern European Countries

BACKGROUND: In 2011-2013, >95% of the global opioid analgesics consumption occurred in three regions, accounting for 15% of the world population. Despite abundant literature on barriers to access, little is known on the correlation between actual access to opioid analgesics and barriers to access, including legal and regulatory barriers. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the correlation between access to strong opioid analgesics and barriers to access in national legislation and regulations in 11 central and eastern European countries that participated in the Access to Opioid Medication in Europe (ATOME) project. DESIGN: Two variables were contrasted to assess their correlation: the country level of access to strong opioid analgesics indicated by the Adequacy of Consumption Measure (ACM) and the number of potential legal and regulatory barriers identified by an external review of legislation and regulations. MEASUREMENTS: A linear correlation was evaluated using a squared linear correlation coefficient. RESULTS: Evaluation of the correlation between the ACM and the number of potential barriers produces an R2 value of 0.023 and a correlation plot trend line gradient of -0.075, indicating no correlation between access to strong opioid analgesics and the number of potential barriers in national legislation and regulations in the countries studied. CONCLUSIONS: No correlation was found, which indicates that other factors besides potential legal and regulatory barriers play a critical role in withholding prescribers and patients essential pain medication in the studied countries. More research is needed toward better understanding of the complex interplay of factors that determine access to strong opioid analgesics

Drug repositioning and repurposing: terminology and definitions in literature

Drug repositioning and similar terms have been a trending topic in literature and represent novel drug development strategies. We analysed in a quantitative and qualitative manner how these terms were used and defined in the literature. In total, 217 articles referred to 'drug repositioning', 'drug repurposing', 'drug reprofiling', 'drug redirecting' and/or 'drug rediscovery'. Only 67 included a definition ranging from brief and general to extensive and specific. No common definition was identified. Nevertheless, four common features were found: concept, action, use and product. The different wording used for these features often leads to essential differences in meaning between definitions. In case a clear definition is needed, for example from a legal or regulatory perspective, the features can provide further guidance