The objective of this study was to evaluate the use of drugs and the factors associated with polypharmacy in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) in Minas Gerais. Descriptive analysis of drugs in use and logistic regression to estimate the association between socio-demographic and clinical characteristics with polypharmacy were performed. Of the 2619 respondents, 56.5% were in polypharmacy. Drugs for DM, agent in renin-angiotensin system, and diuretics are the most frequently used. Factors such as age, comorbidities and increased access to health services were associated with polypharmacy. It was observed high prevalence of polypharmacy, which requires a suitable care and better quality of drug use in this population.
BackgroundThe last decade has seen the increasing use of biological medicines in combination with chemotherapy containing 5-fluorouracil/oxaliplatin or irinotecan for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). These combinations have resulted in increased progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with mCRC; however, there are remaining concerns over the extent of their effect on overall survival (OS). Published studies to date suggest no major differences between the three currently available monoclonal antibodies (MoAbs); however, there are differences in costs. In addition, there is rising litigation in Brazil in order to access these medicines as they are currently not reimbursed.ObjectiveThe aim was to investigate the comparative effectiveness and safety of three MoAbs (bevacizumab, cetuximab and panitumumab) associated with fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy regimens and compared to fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy alone in patients with mCRC, through an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of concurrent or non-concurrent observational cohort studies, to guide authorities and the judiciary.MethodA systematic review and meta-analysis was performed based on cohort studies published in databases up to November 2017. Effectiveness measures included OS, PFS, post-progression survival (PPS), Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST), response rate, metastasectomy and safety. The methodological quality of the studies was also evaluated.ResultsA total of 21 observational cohort studies were included. There were statistically significant and clinically relevant benefits in patients treated with bevacizumab versus no bevacizumab mainly around OS, PFS, PPS and the metastasectomy rate, but not for the disease control rates. However, there was an increase in treatment-related toxicities and concerns with the heterogeneity of the studies.ConclusionThe results pointed to an advantage in favor of bevacizumab for OS, PFS, PPS, and metastasectomy. Although this advantage may be considered clinically modest, bevacizumab represents a hope for increased survival and a chance of metastasectomy for patients with mCRC. However, there are serious adverse events associated with its use, especially severe hypertension and gastrointestinal perforation, that need to be considered.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1007/s40259-018-0322-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Background: Pharmaceutical Assistance (PA) is a dynamic and multidisciplinary process that aims to supply health systems, programs or services with quality medicines, enabling access and health care, in an efficient and timely manner. The objective of the study was to evaluate the profile of administrative processes for the treatment of PsA, identify the time elapsed in the flow of processes and its associated factors. Methods: A cross-sectional study of medication requests for the treatment of PsA was carried out between November 2014 and December 2016. Linear regression was used to verify the factors associated with time to delivery. Results: A total of 218 cases containing 250 drugs were analyzed. The median time between the medical appointment and the first dispensation was 66 days (interquartile range, 44-90). The State proceedings, which includes requesting the drug until the authorization of treatment, was the stage that most contributed to the total time spent. The factors associated with the longer time to delivery of medications were prescriptions coming from clinics and specialty centers, from dermatologists, non-authorized processes and non-persistent patients in the treatment in 12 months. Conclusion: The median time to receive medicines for the PsA treatment in Belo Horizonte health region after a medical prescription was higher than 2 months. The time between the solicitation of the medicines and the authorization of the treatment in the SUS (State administrative procedure) was the main component of the total time spent.
Aim:
To evaluate the persistence of biological (TNF inhibitor [anti-TNF]) and synthetic (conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs [csDMARDs]) antirheumatic agents for psoriatic arthritis and their associated factors.
Methods:
A historical cohort was developed. Persistence and associated factors were evaluated at 6 and 12 months.
Results:
A total of 161 patients were included. The anti-TNF treatment presented higher persistence as compared with csDMARDs at 6 (83.4 vs 50.8%; p < 0.05) and 12 months (66.4 vs 35.6%; p < 0.05). From anti-TNFs, adalimumab and etanercept presented similar persistence, along with leflunomide and methotrexate among the csDMARDs. The factors associated with non-persistence with regard to anti-TNF agents were female sex and use of infliximab.
Conclusion:
Anti-TNF agents are important therapeutic alternatives and present lower rates of discontinuation as compared with csDMARDs.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.