BackgroundMedications and their prices are key issues for healthcare. Although access to medicines at affordable prices had been specified as a key objective of the European Health Policy, it seems that these goals have not been achieved. Therefore, we attempted an evaluation of affordability of selected medicines at full prices.MethodsThe analysis concerned 2012 and was conducted between 2013 and 2015 in all the European Union (EU) countries divided into 3 groups depending on the date of their accession to the EU. Finally, we considered 9 originators used in the treatment of schizophrenia and multiple sclerosis. Information on drug prices were collected from pharmacies. Participation in the study was voluntary and anonymous in order to avoid accusations of advertising. To evaluate affordability, several factors were used (e.g. minimum earnings and Gini coefficient). Due to unavailability in some countries, the exact number of analyzed medicines varies.ResultsDrug prices vary significantly between EU Member States. Almost eleven fold difference was observed between Germany (EUR 1451.17) and Croatia (EUR 132.77) in relation to Interferone beta-1a 22 μg. Generally, prices were the highest in Germany. The cheapest drugs were found in various countries but never in the poorest ones like Bulgaria or Romania. Discrepancies in wages were observed too (the smallest minimum wage was EUR 138.00 in Bulgaria and the highest EUR 1801.00 in Luxembourg). Full price of olanzapine 5mg, however, was higher in Bulgaria (EUR 64.53) than, for instance, in Belgium (EUR 37.26).ConclusionsAnalyzed medications are still unaffordable for many citizens of the EU. Besides, access to medicines is also impaired e.g. due to parallel trade. Unaffordability of medications may lead to the patients’ non-compliance and therefore to increased direct and indirect costs of treatment. Common European solutions are needed to achieve a real affordability and accessibility of medications.

Purpose Patients' safety is a public concern in healthcare systems across the world and should be ensured, among others, by pharmacovigilance based on spontaneous reports of adverse drug reactions (ADRs). Spontaneous ADRs reporting is an important component of the pharmacovigilance system. The role of pharmacists in spontaneous ADRs reporting is crucial in the pharmacovigilance system since it helps to monitor the patients' treatment in real‐life conditions. The aim of the study was to evaluate the pharmacists' attitudes to and knowledge on spontaneous ADRs reporting in Poland and to identify the reasons for underreporting of ADRs. Methods The study was conducted between January 2016 and January 2018. A self‐administered questionnaire was designed and distributed to pharmacists. The pharmacists were randomly selected from the official database kept by the chief pharmaceutical inspectorate in Poland. Results Only 16% (n = 84) of the respondents have ever attended a training on pharmacovigilance. Eighty‐one percent (N = 422) of pharmacists believe that not all synthetic drugs available on the market were safe. Twenty‐eight percent (n = 146) of the respondents were certain about safety of drugs of natural origin, and 16% (n = 84) were of an opinion that adverse reactions following administration of such drugs should not be reported at all. Conclusions To conclude, there is an increasing awareness of the need to develop pharmacovigilance practices. The current (not fully adhered to in practice) model of pharmacovigilance and its associated tools have been developed for synthetic drugs, and applying these methods to monitor safety of herbal medicines presents unique challenges.

Background: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common cardiac arrhythmia. Thus, the aim of our study was to evaluate the smartphone-based electrocardiogram (ECG) recordings aimed at AF screening at Polish pharmacies. Methods: Prospective AF screening among patients aged ≥65 years was conducted at 10 pharmacies using Kardia Mobile with a dedicated application (Kardia app). Prior AF was a study exclusion criterion. CHA2DS2-VASc score (congestive heart failure, hypertension, age, diabetes mellitus, previous stroke/transient ischemic attack, female sex, and vascular disease) has been collected from every patient. A single-lead ECG has been acquired by the placement of fingers from each hand on the pads. Kardia app diagnosis has been evaluated by the cardiologist. Results: A total of 525 ECGs were performed. Kardia app diagnosis was provided in 490 cases. In 437 (89.18%) cases, it was “normal” rhythm, in 17 (3.47%) recordings “possible AF,” in 23 (4.69%) ECGs “unreadable,” and in 13 (2.65%) “unclassified”. After the cardiologist reevaluation, the new AF was identified in 7 (1.33%) patients. Sensitivity and specificity of Kardia app in detecting AF was 100% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 71.5%-100%) and 98.7% (95% CI: 97.3%-99.5%), respectively. The positive predictive value was 64.7% (95% CI: 38.3%-85.7%) and the negative predictive value was 100% (95% CI: 99.2%-100%). CHA2DS2-VASc score was 2.14 ± 0.69 for those with new AF and 3.33 ± 1.26 in the non-AF group. Conclusion: Kardia app is capable of fast screening and detecting AF with high sensitivity and specificity. The possible diagnosis of AF deserves additional cardiological evaluation. The results obtained in patients with low CHA2DS2-VASc score and “silent” AF confirm the importance of routine AF screening. Cardiovascular screening with the use of mobile health technology is feasible at pharmacies.

Introduction: Recent studies show that treatment of arterial hypertension is unsuccessful. This is due to the patients' insufficient knowledge of about the therapeutic methods and the consequences of not treating arterial hypertension. Objectives: The aim of the study was to evaluate the patients' knowledge concerning therapeutic options, prophylaxis, and complications of arterial hypertension. The study also assessed the effect of such knowledge on hypertension treatment adherence and efficacy. Patients and Methods: The survey included 488 patients (250 female and 238 male), aged over 18 years, diagnosed with and treated in outpatient and inpatient settings at selected healthcare institutions in Poland. A custom-made questionnaire, based on references on this subject, was the key tool in the present study. Information about the course of the disease and evaluation of hypertension treatment efficacy was based on the patients' medical records. Results: The study found that 54.7% of the subjects had good knowledge about arterial hypertension, 40.0% had average knowledge, and 5.3% had poor knowledge. The extent of knowledge about the disease was significantly dependent on the level of education and the place of receiving medical care (p< 0.05). Good knowledge was significantly associated with controlled blood pressure, number of antihypertensive drugs used, frequency of hospitalization, as well as with medication adherence, and healthy lifestyle behaviours (p< 0.05). Conclusions: More than half of the patients presented good knowledge but a large group still had poor knowledge, especially patients with a low level of education and with hypertension treated at a general practitioner's clinic. The results of our study clearly show that knowledge about arterial hypertension affects medication adherence and healthy lifestyle behaviours and improves hypertension treatment efficacy.

The aim of the study was to compare the safety profiles (prevalence of both local and systemic side effects) of COVID-19 vaccines (Pfizer–BioNTech, Moderna, Oxford–AstraZeneca) among healthcare workers (doctors, nurses, and pharmacists) administered with a first and a second dose of the vaccines. Another goal of the research was to evaluate potential demographic and clinical risk factors for the frequency and intensity of side effects. A post-marketing, cross-sectional survey-based study was carried out on a sample of 971 respondents (323 doctors, 324 nurses, and 324 pharmacists), all more than 18 years old, who have taken two doses of the following SARS-CoV-2 vaccines: BNT162b2 (Pfizer–BioNTech) (group 1), mRNA-1273 (Moderna) (group 2), and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (Oxford–AstraZeneca) (group 3). A validated, self-administered questionnaire was developed and delivered online to the target population group of healthcare workers. The survey was conducted during the third wave of the COVID-19 (1 February 2021–1 July 2021) pandemic. It was based on the CAWI (computer-assisted web interview) method. Questionnaires were disseminated using selected social media. The BNT162b2 (Pfizer–BioNTech) vaccine was the most commonly administered COVID-19 vaccine among healthcare professionals in Poland (69.61%). Side effects following a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine were reported by 53.11% of respondents in group 1, 72% in group 2, and 67.59% in group 3. The following were the most common side effects regardless of the type of vaccine administered: pain at the injection site, headache, muscle pain, fever, chills, and fatigue. The number and intensity of reported side effects following administration of a BNT162b2 (Pfizer–BioNTech) vaccine were significantly lower than in the other two study groups (p < 0.00001). Risk factors for side effects following administration of one of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines subject to the analysis included being female, young, and suffering from a diagnosed allergy. Our results clearly show that the short-term safety profiles of the eligible COVID-19 vaccines (Pfizer–BioNTech, Moderna, Oxford–AstraZeneca) are acceptable. Nevertheless, the two-dose COVID-19 vaccines available in Poland differ significantly in the frequency of both local and systemic side effects and their intensity. Women, young people, and patients diagnosed with allergies are particularly exposed to the risk of side effects. Further studies are needed to determine the long-term safety profile of COVID-19 vaccines.