with NPH therapy had changed their treatment. Conclusions: The prescription of modern therapies in the beginning of the treatment is preferred over the therapy with NPH, increasing the preference as time passes. Patients who start with modern therapies are more stable in their treatment than patients who start with NPH therapy.
This study assessed the effect of Ondo State Agricultural Inputs Supply Agency (OSAISA) on the profitability of crop farmers in Owo Local Government Area of Ondo State, Nigeria. The study specifically described the socio-economic characteristics of arable crop farmers, compared the profitability of OSAISA patronizing food crop farmers (PF) and non-patronizing food crop farmers (NPF) and identified the various constraints encountered by patronizing farmers in dealing with OSAISA. One hundred and twenty food crop farmers random sampling procedure. Information was obtained from the respondents using a well-structured questionnaire. Data collected were analyzed with both descriptive statistics and budgeting technique. Findings revealed that 88.3% and 86.7% of the PF and NPF, respectively were males. About 50.0% of PF and 56.7% of NPF were between 41 and 50 years of age. The net farm income of the PF was greater than the NPF and benefit cost ratio for PF was more sustainable and viable than that of NPF. The major constraint faced by the OSAISA’ PF was inadequate capital to purchase the desired inputs. Based on the results, the study concludes that OSAISA contributes tremendously to the profitability of patronizing farmers in the study area. It is, therefore, recommended that farmers should be given easy access to acquire loan to meet their input demand and farming business in general; including adequate and timely supply of inputs for effective and efficient productivity.
with NPH therapy had changed their treatment. Conclusions: The prescription of modern therapies in the beginning of the treatment is preferred over the therapy with NPH, increasing the preference as time passes. Patients who start with modern therapies are more stable in their treatment than patients who start with NPH therapy.
this analysis is the systematic collection of indication fields in German prescribing information over time and the linkage with existing evidence for approval. Questions to be answered include how indication fields develop over time, whether there are specifications or generalizations and if these are adequately covered by approval evidence, i.e. submitted trials? METHODS: The German "Rote Liste" and "Fachinfo" (https://online.rote-Liste.de and https://fachinfo.de) were searched from 19-FEB to 9-MAR 2018 for current prescribing information. The search was limited to the following diseases: Acute coronary syndrome, COPD, diabetes, epilepsy, multiple sclerosis, hepatitis, HIV, melanoma, lung/prostate/breast cancer. Indication fields and years of approval were extracted. Indication fields were compared for drugs within one indication. If changes in indication fields were detected, it was checked whether approval evidence supported these developments (taken from EMA European Public Assessment Reports). RESULTS: A total of 356 indication fields were evaluated. Comparable generalizations were present for various diseases. However, a large number of diseases showed differences, mainly triggered by varying severity of disease or formulations. As to approval evidence, especially diabetes mellitus type-2 drugs were approved for indications not completely supported by submitted trials. The poster will present further data on other indications and reasoning. CONCLUSIONS: Indication fields develop over time and are partially not completely supported by underlying approval evidence. Between-drug-comparability within one indication could also be enhanced. Missing evidence and between-drug-differences pose a challenge for drug pricing processes, not only in Germany.
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.