Agustín Ciapponi

Pharmaceutical policies: effects of reference pricing, other pricing, and purchasing policies.

BACKGROUNDnPharmaceuticals are important interventions that could improve peoples health. Pharmaceutical pricing and purchasing policies are used as cost-containment measures to determine or affect the prices that are paid for drugs. Internal reference pricing establishes a benchmark or reference price within a country which is the maximum level of reimbursement for a group of drugs. Other policies include price controls, maximum prices, index pricing, price negotiations and volume-based pricing.nnnOBJECTIVESnTo determine the effects of pharmaceutical pricing and purchasing policies on health outcomes, healthcare utilisation, drug expenditures and drug use.nnnSEARCH METHODSnWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), part of The Cochrane Library (including the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group Register) (searched 22/10/2012); MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations and MEDLINE, Ovid (searched 22/10/2012); EconLit, ProQuest (searched 22/10/2012); PAIS International, ProQuest (searched 22/10/2012); World Wide Political Science Abstracts, ProQuest (searched 22/10/2012); INRUD Bibliography (searched 22/10/2012); Embase, Ovid (searched 14/12/2010); NHSEED, part of The Cochrane Library (searched 08/12/2010); LILACS, VHL (searched 14/12/2010); International Political Science Abstracts (IPSA), Ebsco (searched (17/12/2010); OpenSIGLE (searched 21/12/10); WHOLIS, WHO (searched 17/12/2010); World Bank (Documents and Reports) (searched 21/12/2010); Jolis (searched 09/10/2011); Global Jolis (searched 09/10/2011) ; OECD (searched 30/08/2005); OECD iLibrary (searched 30/08/2005); World Bank eLibrary (searched 21/12/2010); WHO - The Essential Drugs and Medicines web site (browsed 21/12/2010).nnnSELECTION CRITERIAnPolicies in this review were defined as laws; rules; financial and administrative orders made by governments, non-government organisations or private insurers. To be included a study had to include an objective measure of at least one of the following outcomes: drug use, healthcare utilisation and health outcomes or costs (expenditures); the study had to be a randomised trial, non-randomised trial, interrupted time series (ITS), repeated measures (RM) study or a controlled before-after study of a pharmaceutical pricing or purchasing policy for a large jurisdiction or system of care.nnnDATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSISnTwo review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. Results were summarised in tables. There were too few comparisons with similar outcomes across studies to allow for meta-analysis or meaningful exploration of heterogeneity.nnnMAIN RESULTSnWe included 18 studies (seven identified in the update): 17 of reference pricing, one of which also assessed maximum prices, and one of index pricing. None of the studies were trials. All included studies used ITS or RM analyses. The quality of the evidence was low or very low for all outcomes. Three reference pricing studies reported cumulative drug expenditures at one year after the transition period. Two studies reported the median relative insurers cumulative expenditures, on both reference drugs and cost share drugs, of -18%, ranging from -36% to 3%. The third study reported relative insurers cumulative expenditures on total market of -1.5%. Four reference pricing studies reported median relative insurers expenditures on both reference drugs and cost share drugs of -10%, ranging from -53% to 4% at one year after the transition period. Four reference pricing studies reported a median relative change of 15% in reference drugs prescriptions at one year (range -14% to 166%). Three reference pricing studies reported a median relative change of -39% in cost share drugs prescriptions at one year (range -87% to -17%). One study of index pricing reported a relative change of 55% (95% CI 11% to 98%) in the use of generic drugs and -43% relative change (95% CI -67% to -18%) in brand drugs at six months after the transition period. The same study reported a price change of -5.3% and -1.1% for generic and brand drugs respectively six months after the start of the policy. One study of maximum prices reported a relative change in monthly sales volume of all statins of 21% (95% CI 19% to 24%) after one year of the introduction of this policy. Four studies reported effects on mortality and healthcare utilisation, however they were excluded because of study design limitations.nnnAUTHORS CONCLUSIONSnThe majority of the studies of pricing and purchasing policies that met our inclusion criteria evaluated reference pricing. We found that internal reference pricing may reduce expenditures in the short term by shifting drug use from cost share drugs to reference drugs. Reference pricing may reduce related expenditures with effects on reference drugs but the effect on expenditures of cost share drugs is uncertain. Reference pricing may increase the use of reference drugs and may reduce the use of cost share drugs. The analysis and reporting of the effects on patients drug expenditures were limited in the included studies and administration costs were not reported. Reference pricing effects on health are uncertain due to lack of evidence. The effects of other purchasing and pricing policies are until now uncertain due to sparse evidence. However, index pricing may reduce the use of brand drugs, increase the use of generic drugs, and may also slightly reduce the price of the generic drug when compared with no intervention.

Endometrial preparation for women undergoing embryo transfer with frozen embryos or embryos derived from donor oocytes

BACKGROUNDnIf a fresh embryo, assisted reproductive technology procedure cycle is unsuccessful and there are frozen embryos available, a frozen-thawed embryo transfer is performed. In some specific cases women may undergo oocyte donation treatment. In both situations the endometrium is primed by the administration of estrogen and progesterone. To prevent the possibility of spontaneous ovulation, gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists are frequently used.nnnOBJECTIVESnTo evaluate the most effective endometrial preparation for women undergoing transfer with frozen embryos or embryos from donor oocytes with regard to the subsequent live birth rate.nnnSEARCH STRATEGYnWe searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, and abstracts of reproductive societies meetings (from inception). No language restrictions were applied. Experts in the field were contacted.nnnSELECTION CRITERIAnRandomised controlled trials evaluating endometrial preparation in women undergoing fresh donor cycles and frozen embryo transfers.nnnDATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSISnTwo review authors independently applied the inclusion criteria, assessed trial risk of bias, and extracted data.nnnMAIN RESULTSnTwenty two randomised controlled trials were included. Five studies analysed the use of a GnRH agonist versus control. No significant benefit was demonstrated when using GnRH agonists. No evidence of statistically significant benefit was found for one GnRH agonist over another, or vaginal over intramuscular progesterone administration. No difference in pregnancy rate was demonstrated when no treatment was compared to aspirin, steroids, ovarian stimulation, or human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) prior to embryo transfer, although using hCG several times before the oocyte retrieval decreases the pregnancy rate. Finally, when oocyte recipients were studied further, starting progesterone on the day of oocyte pick-up (OPU) or the day after OPU produced a significantly higher pregnancy rate (OR 1.87, 95% CI 1.13 to 3.08) than when recipients started progesterone the day prior to OPU.nnnAUTHORS CONCLUSIONSnThere is insufficient evidence to recommend any one particular protocol for endometrial preparation over another with regard to pregnancy rates after embryo transfers. These were either frozen embryos or embryos derived from donor oocytes. However, there is evidence of a lower pregnancy rate and a higher cycle cancellation rate when the progesterone supplementation is commenced prior to oocyte retrieval in oocyte donation cycles. Adequately powered studies are needed to evaluate each treatment more accurately.

Interferon beta for primary progressive multiple sclerosis

BACKGROUNDnThis is an updated Cochrane review of the previous version published (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2009, Issue 1. Art. No.: CD006643. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006643.pub2).Therapeutic trials with ss-interferon in Multiple Sclerosis (MS) have mainly focused on remitting-relapsing multiple sclerosis (RRMS), demonstrating a reduction in relapse rate. However, there is not enough evidence about their efficacy in patients with primary progressive multiple sclerosis (PPMS).nnnOBJECTIVESnIdentify and summarize the evidence that ss-interferon is beneficial and safe in patients with PPMS.nnnSEARCH STRATEGYnWe searched the Cochrane MS Group Trials Register (May 2009); The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) The Cochrane Library, (2009, Issue 2); MEDLINE (PubMed) (January 1966 to May 2009), EMBASE (January 1974 to May 2009); NICE (January 1999 to May 2009); LILACS (January 1986 to May 2009); Screening of reference lists of all primary studies found; Contact and inquiry of drug manufactures and multiple sclerosis experts.nnnSELECTION CRITERIAnRandomized double or single blind, placebo-controlled trials of recombinant ss-interferon in patients with PPMS including trials of MS which report separate outcomes in subgroups of patients with PPMS.nnnDATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSISnTwo reviewers independently extracted and assessed trials quality according to the criteria outlined in The Cochrane Handbook.nnnMAIN RESULTSnOf 1777 potential studies evaluated, only two Randomized Control Trials (123 patients) were included. ss-interferon treatment compared to placebo did not show differences regarding the proportion of patients with progression of the disease (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.55 to1.43), and it was associated with a greater frequency of treatment-related adverse events (RR 1.90, 95% CI 1.45-2.48). One of the trials evaluated the MRI secondary outcome pre-specified in the protocol. This trial showed that at two years the numbers of active lesions on brain MRI scan in ss-interferon arm were significantly lower than in placebo arm (weighted mean difference -1.3, 95% CI -2.15 to -0.45, P = 0.003); also, the number of participants with active lesions was significantly higher in placebo arm vs. ss-interferon arm at two years (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.86, P = 0.02).nnnAUTHORS CONCLUSIONSnLimited data on the effect of ss-interferon treatment on PPMS exists. Only two single-centre placebo controlled trials of interferon beta have been done. Based on this review, the included studies showed that ss-interferon treatment was not associated with reduced disability progression in PPMS patients. However, the trial population was too small to allow definitive conclusions on the efficacy of ss-interferon therapy in PPMS patients. Larger research studies need to be done in patients with PPMS in order to clarify whether ss-interferon is effective in this population.

Calcium Dobesilate for Chronic Venous Insufficiency: A Systematic Review:

Chronic venous insufficiency (CVI) causes much discomfort and sick leave. Many randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have shown a beneficial effect of calcium dobesilate, but consensus is lacking about efficacy and safety. The authors report a meta-analysis of the effectiveness and safety of calcium dobesilate in CVI. Ten RCTs (778 patients) in which calcium dobesilate for CVI was compared with placebo met the inclusion criteria. Only 3 trials (608 patients) were of good methodological quality. Calcium dobesilate significantly improved night cramps and discomfort nearly twice as well as placebo, with the number needed to treat (NNT) being 8 (95% CI 4-50) and 4 (95% CI 3-7), respectively. Frequency of adverse events was not significantly different from placebo. Subgroup analysis found a differential response with respect to disease severity, with greater improvements in pain, heaviness, and malleolar swelling being seen in the severe group than in the mild group. Calcium dobesilate improved paresthesias significantly more than placebo in the severe but not in the mild group and the effect on leg volume was also significantly better in the severe group (-7.2% vs -1.6%). No difference in effect was found for different doses of calcium dobesilate (1,000 or 1,500 mg/day). Sensitivity analyses did not affect the results. Current evidence suggests that calcium dobesilate is more effective than placebo in improving some CVI symptoms, that there is higher efficacy in more severe disease, and that a dose of 1,000 mg/day is as effective and safe as 1,500 mg/day. Further adequately powered trials are needed to further evaluate these hypotheses.

Vitrification versus slow freezing for women undergoing oocyte cryopreservation

BACKGROUNDnOocyte cryopreservation is a technique with considerable potential in reproductive medicine, includingxa0 fertility preservation, as a way of delaying childbearing and as part of oocyte donation programs. Although the technique was relatively ineffective at first more recently numerous modifications have led to higher success rates.nnnOBJECTIVESnTo compare the effectiveness and safety of vitrification and slow freezing as oocyte cryopreservation techniques for fertility outcomes in women undergoing assisted reproduction.nnnSEARCH METHODSnWe searched electronic databases, trial registers and websites, including the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Specialised Register of controlled trials, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO (date of search 3 March 2014).nnnSELECTION CRITERIAnTwo review authors independently selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing vitrification and slow freezing for oocyte preservation in women undergoing assisted reproduction.nnnDATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSISnTwo review authors independently extracted the data from eligible studies and assessed their risk of bias. Any disagreements were resolved by discussion or by a third review author. Data extracted included study characteristics and outcome data. The overall quality of the evidence was assessed using GRADE methods.nnnMAIN RESULTSnTwo RCTs were included in the review (106 participants). Neither study reported live birth rate. Vitrification was associated with an increased clinical pregnancy rate compared to slow freezing (RR 3.86, 95% CI 1.63 to 9.11, P = 0.002, 2 RCTs, 106 women, I(2) = 8%, moderate quality evidence). The effect of vitrification compared to slow freezing on ongoing pregnancy rates was only reported in one small study, with inconclusive findings (RR 6.07, 95% CI 0.86 to 43.04, P = 0.07, one RCT, 28 women, low quality evidence).No data were reported on adverse effects, nor were any other outcomes reported in the included trials. The evidence was limited by imprecision. We assessed the included studies as at low to unclear risk of bias as the methods were not well described.nnnAUTHORS CONCLUSIONSnOocyte vitrification compared to slow freezing probably increases clinical pregnancy rates in women undergoing assisted reproduction. However, the total number of women and pregnancies were low and the imprecision is high which limits applicability. The effect on ongoing pregnancy is uncertain as data were sparse. No data were available on live births or adverse effects.

Factor Xa inhibitors for acute coronary syndromes

BACKGROUNDnThe activation of coagulation mechanisms plays a central role in the pathogenesis of acute coronary syndromes (ACS). Administration of unfractionated heparin (UFH) and low molecular weight heparins (LMWH), agents preventing the progression of thrombus formation, is a crucial therapeutic strategy. However, some limitations related to their use have recently stimulated the development of new synthetic agents.nnnOBJECTIVESnTo evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of factor Xa inhibitors for treatment of ACS compared to UFH or LMWH.nnnSEARCH STRATEGYnWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) of the Cochrane Library (Issue 1, 2008), PubMed, EMBASE and LILACS as well as the publications from International Congresses and the reference lists of the selected studies in December 2008.nnnSELECTION CRITERIAnWe used randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing factor Xa inhibitors to UFH or LMWH during the course of ACS. Outcome measures included all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, re-infarction, ischemia recurrence, and adverse events.nnnDATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSISnThe selection, quality assessment and data extraction of the included trials were done independently by two authors and disagreements were resolved by consensus. Data were analysed by the use of risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI), and the numbers needed to treat (NNT) were reported as needed.nnnMAIN RESULTSnA total of four RCTs involving 27,976 subjects were included. Fondaparinux was the only factor Xa inhibitor identified in our included RCTs. Fondaparinux appeared to be related to a lower risk in all-cause mortality at 90 to 180 days (RR 0.89; 95% CI 0.81 to 0.97), especially in the group where enoxaparin (a LMWH) was the control drug. Fondaparinux was also associated with a lower risk in major and minor bleeding at 30 days compared to enoxaparin (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.73; RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.43, respectively), but not when compared to UFHs (RR 1.41; 95% CI 0.49 to 4.10; RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.14 to 3.39 respectively).nnnAUTHORS CONCLUSIONSnThe therapeutic efficacy of factor Xa inhibitors in ACS seemed to be related to a reduced risk in all-cause mortality at 90 to 180 days, with a better safety profile than enoxaparin in terms of reduce incidence of major and minor bleeding.

Combined therapy with statins and fibrates for people with dyslipidaemia

Reason for withdrawal from publication n n nThis review was withdrawn by the Editorial Office of the Cochrane Metabolic and Endocrine Disorders Group because authors could not commit adequate time to work on review drafts. To view the published versions of this article, please click the Other versions tab.