RESUMEN

Objective: To review and qualitatively synthesize the evidence related to the economic burden of COVID-19, including healthcare resource utilization and costs. Methods: A systematic review of studies that assessed the economic burden [eg, direct costs, productivity, macroeconomic impact due to non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) and equity] of COVID-19 was conducted by searches in EMBASE, MEDLINE, MEDLINE-IN-PROCESS, and The Cochrane Library, as well as manual searches of unpublished research for the period between January 2020 to February 2021. Single reviewer data extraction was confirmed independently by a second reviewer. Results: The screening process resulted in a total of 27 studies: 25 individual publications, and 2 systematic literature reviews, of narrower scopes, that fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The patients diagnosed with more severe COVID-19 were associated with higher costs. The main drivers for higher costs were consistent across countries and included ICU admission, in-hospital resource use such as mechanical ventilation, which lead to increase costs of $2082.65 ± 345.04 to $2990.76 ± 545.98. The most frequently reported indirect costs were due to productivity losses. On average, older COVID-19 patients incurred higher costs when compared to younger age groups. An estimation of a 20% COVID-19 infection rate based on a Monte Carlo simulation in the United States led to a total direct medical cost of $163.4 billion over the course of the pandemic. Conclusion: The COVID-19 pandemic has generated a considerable economic burden on patients and the general population. Preventative measures such as NPIs only have partial success in lowering the economic costs of the pandemic. Implementing additional preventative measures such as large-scale vaccination is vital in reducing direct and indirect medical costs, decreased productivity, and GDP losses.

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: Enactment of the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007 (FDAAA) authorized the FDA to require manufacturers to submit Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) when it was deemed necessary to ensure that a drug's benefit outweigh its risk. REMS apply to new drug applications (NDAs), abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs) and biologics license applications (BLAs). The objective of this review is to describe the impact of REMS requirements on the pharmaceutical industry. AREAS COVERED: Articles were identified in MEDLINE searches through October 11, 2011, using the MeSH terms and keywords pharmaceutical industry, risk management, United States Food and Drug Administration, REMS, ETASU, and Medication Guide in various combinations. EXPERT OPINION: The new powers ascribed to the FDA are notable, as they add enforceability to safety strategies that were not part of FDA's prior risk management tools, risk minimization action plans (RiskMAPs). Failure to comply with REMS can lead to financial penalties up to $10 million, and a drug could be deemed misbranded if the REMS is not followed. The new approach to risk management via FDAAA has elevated the rigor with which manufacturers must fulfill postmarketing safety commitments.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

The US FDA Amendments Act of 2007 was signed into law on 27 September 2007. A provision of this law granted the FDA new powers to enhance drug safety by requiring the pharmaceutical industry to develop Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (REMS). REMS are deemed necessary when a question exists as to whether the benefits of a drug outweigh its risks. REMS constitute a safety plan with several potential components, including a medication guide, a communication plan, elements to ensure safe use and an implementation system to help guide the prescribers, pharmacists and patients. This applies to existing drugs on the market, new drug applications (NDAs), abbreviated NDAs (generics) and biologics licence applications. REMS represent an 'upgrade' from previously required risk minimization action plans, based on the strengthening of FDA powers of authority and enforceability to incur monetary penalties against individuals representing the pharmaceutical industry who fail to comply. For illustrative purposes, we chose the drug romiplostim (Nplate®) to present an REMS, as all components were utilized to help assuage risks associated with the drug. Romiplostim is an FDA-approved drug used to treat thrombocytopenia in patients with chronic immune (idiopathic) thrombocytopenic purpura that has a significant adverse safety profile based on the risk of changes in bone marrow reticulin formation and bone marrow fibroses, and other associated risks. This review of current REMS policy is intended to provide the prescriber with a better understanding of current modalities in FDA-mandated drug safety programmes, which will impact day-to-day healthcare provider practices.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: To determine the clinical and microbiologic efficacy of levofloxacin for the treatment of subjects with pneumonia caused by multidrug-resistant (MDR) Streptococcus pneumoniae (MDRSP) and non-MDRSP strains. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A pooled analysis was conducted using data from ten clinical studies in pneumonia: five comparative studies and five noncomparative studies conducted from 1992 to 2002. This analysis included data from levofloxacin-treated subjects with S. pneumoniae isolated at study entry. Susceptibility of S. pneumoniae isolated from subjects at study entry was determined against representative agents from five antimicrobial classes: tetracyclines, sulfonamides, second-generation cephalosporins, penicillins, and macrolides. Isolates were classified as MDRSP (based on resistance to two or more antimicrobial classes) or non-MDRSP (intermediate resistance or susceptible to all classes or resistant to 1 antimicrobial class). Clinical and microbiologic efficacy of levofloxacin (i.v., p.o., or i.v./p.o. for 5 to 14 days) in the microbiologically evaluable population was determined at post-therapy; a test for homogeneity of the odds ratio of the difference in clinical success for comparative versus noncomparative studies was performed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES AND RESULTS: The main outcome measures were clinical success rates and microbiologic eradication rates of 419 microbiologically evaluable levofloxacin-treated subjects with MDRSP or non-MDRSP. Clinical success rates were 96.3% (52/54) and 95.1% (347/365), respectively (difference -1.2; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -6.7, 4.3). Similarly, per pathogen microbiologic eradication rates for MDRSP and non-MDRSP were 96.3% (52/54) and 95.6% (350/366), respectively (difference -0.7; 95% CI: -6.1, 4.8). Study limitations include the use of data from comparative and noncomparative studies. A test for homogeneity of the odds ratios for clinical success in comparative versus noncomparative studies showed no significant difference (p = 0.27). CONCLUSIONS: These data support the use of levofloxacin for patients with community-acquired pneumonia caused by S. pneumoniae, including MDR strains.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

The present meta-analysis was undertaken to (1) assess erythroid response rates in myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) patients treated with epoetin alfa as a monotherapy, (2) gain further insights into predictors of response rates, and (3) compare the erythroid response rates observed with epoetin alfa and darbepoetin alfa. A systematic review of studies from 1990 to 2006 in MDS patients treated with epoetin alfa or darbepoetin alfa was performed and yielded 30 studies evaluating a total of 1,314 patients (epoetin alfa: 22 studies, 925 patients; darbepoetin alfa: eight studies, 389 patients). Pooled estimates of erythroid response rates, stratified by the International Working Group criteria (IWGc) and treatment group, were calculated using random-effects meta-analysis methods. Univariate meta-regression analyses were further conducted to identify study characteristics associated with erythroid response rate. The pooled estimate of erythroid response rate was significantly higher for epoetin alfa IWGc studies (57.6%) as compared to non-IWGc studies (31.6%; p < 0.001). Study factors predictive of higher response rate in the epoetin alfa IWGc studies included higher proportion of patients with RA/RARS (p < 0.001), lower mean baseline serum erythropoietin level (p = 0.007), and fixed dosing regimen (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the pooled erythroid response rates between the two agents (epoetin alfa: 57.6% vs. darbepoetin alfa: 59.4%; p = 0.828). The current study reported significantly higher erythroid response rates predominantly in the more recent studies that primarily utilized IWGc to define response. With the use of standardized patient selection and response evaluation methods, epoetin alfa and darbepoetin alfa yielded comparable erythroid response rates in MDS patients.

Asunto(s)