Generic medicines are clinically interchangeable with original brand medicines and have the same quality, efficacy and safety profiles. They are, nevertheless, much cheaper in price. Thus, while providing the same therapeutic outcomes, generic medicines lead to substantial savings for healthcare systems. Therefore, the quality use of generic medicines is promoted in many countries. In this paper, we reviewed the role of generic medicines in healthcare systems and the experiences of promoting the use of generic medicines in eight selected countries, namely the United States (US), the United Kingdom (UK), Sweden, Finland, Australia, Japan, Malaysia and Thailand. The review showed that there are different main policies adopted to promote generic medicines such as generic substitution in the US, generic prescribing in the UK and mandatory generic substitution in Sweden and Finland. To effectively and successfully implement the main policy, different complementary policies and initiatives were necessarily introduced. Barriers to generic medicine use varied between countries from negative perceptions about generic medicines to lack of a coherent generic medicine policy, while facilitators included availability of information about generic medicines to both healthcare professionals and patients, brand interchangeability guidelines, regulations that support generic substitution by pharmacists, and incentives to both healthcare professionals and patients.

Pharmaceutical expenditure is rising globally. Most high-income countries have exercised pricing or purchasing strategies to address this pressure. Low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), however, usually have less regulated pharmaceutical markets and often lack feasible pricing or purchasing strategies, notwithstanding their wish to effectively manage medicine budgets. In high-income countries, most medicines payments are made by the state or health insurance institutions. In LMICs, most pharmaceutical expenditure is out-of-pocket which creates a different dynamic for policy enforcement. The paucity of rigorous studies on the effectiveness of pharmaceutical pricing and purchasing strategies makes it especially difficult for policy makers in LMICs to decide on a course of action. This article reviews published articles on pharmaceutical pricing and purchasing policies. Many policy options for medicine pricing and purchasing have been found to work but they also have attendant risks. No one option is decisively preferred; rather a mix of options may be required based on country-specific context. Empirical studies in LMICs are lacking. However, risks from any one policy option can reasonably be argued to be greater in LMICs which often lack strong legal systems, purchasing and state institutions to underpin the healthcare system. Key factors are identified to assist LMICs improve their medicine pricing and purchasing systems.

No abstract

BackgroundMedications are frequently reported as both predisposing factors and inducers of delirium. This review evaluated the available evidence and determined the magnitude of risk of postoperative delirium associated with preoperative medication use.MethodsA systematic search in Medline and EMBASE was conducted using MeSH terms and keywords for postoperative delirium and medication. Studies which included patients 18 years and older who underwent major surgery were included. The methodological quality of included studies was assessed independently by two authors using the Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale for cohort studies.ResultsTwenty-nine studies; 25 prospective cohort, three retrospective cohort and one post hoc analysis of RCT data were included. Only four specifically aimed to assess medicines as an independent predictor of delirium, all other studies included medicines among a number of potential predictors of delirium. Of the studies specifically testing the association with a medication class, preoperative use of beta-blockers (OR = 2.06[1.18–3.60]) in vascular surgery and benzodiazepines RR 2.10 (1.23–3.59) prior to orthopedic surgery were significant. However, evidence is from single studies only. Where medicines were included as one possible factor among many, hypnotics had a similar risk estimate to the benzodiazepine study, with one significant and one non-significant result. Nifedipine use prior to cardiac surgery was found to be significantly associated with delirium. The non-specific grouping of psychoactive medication use preoperatively was generally higher with an associated two-to-seven-fold higher risk of postoperative delirium, while only two studies included narcotics without other agents, with one significant and one non-significant result.ConclusionsThere was a limited number of high quality studies in the literature quantifying the direct association between preoperative medication use and postsurgical delirium. More studies are required to evaluate the association of specific preoperative medications on the risk of postoperative delirium so that comprehensive guidelines for medicine use prior to surgery can be developed to aid delirium prevention.Trial registrationThis systematic review has been registered on PROSPERO International prospective register of systematic reviews (Registration number: CRD42016051245).Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12877-017-0695-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundLittle is known about the impact of taking multiple psychoactive medicines on the risk of hospitalization for falls.ObjectiveTo identify the association between multiple psychoactive medicine use and hospitalization for falls.MethodsA retrospective cohort study was conducted between July 2011 and June 2012 in the Australian veteran population who had been dispensed at least one psychoactive medicine within the previous year. Psychoactive medicines with sedative properties included antipsychotics, anxiolytics, hypnotics, antidepressants, opioids, anti-epileptics, anti-Parkinson medicines and medicines for migraine. The associations between falls and the number of psychoactive medicines used or the number of doses were analysed in comparison with falls that occurred when no psychoactive medicine was used.ResultsThe adjusted results showed a significantly increased risk of falls when patients were on one or more psychoactive medicines or were receiving 0.1–0.9 defined daily dose (DDD) or more per day. The incident rate ratios (IRRs) were 1.22 (95 % confidence interval [CI] 1.08–1.38) for those on one psychoactive medicine, 1.70 (95 % CI 1.45–1.99) for those on two, 1.96 (95 % CI 1.58–2.43) for those on three or four, and 3.15 (95 % CI 1.90–5.23) for those on five or more. A similar result was observed when the data were analysed by dose, with the highest risk being found for those taking three or more DDD per day (adjusted IRR 4.26, 95 % CI 2.75–6.58).ConclusionIncreased numbers or increased doses of psychoactive medicines are associated with an increased risk of hospitalization for falls in older adults. Strategies to reduce the psychoactive medicine burden are likely to translate into significant health benefits.