Biological agents directed against tumor necrosis factor (TNF) represent therapeutic options for patients with ankylosing spondylitis with high disease activity despite use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. To evaluate the efficacy and safety of the anti-TNF agents infliximab, etanercept, adalimumab, golimumab, and certolizumab for the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis, we performed a systematic review of randomized clinical trials on adult patients with ankylosing spondylitis using articles culled from the EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register and LILACS databases (September/2012), manual literature search, and the gray literature. Study selections and data collection were performed by two independent reviewers, with disagreements solved by a third reviewer. The following outcomes were evaluated: ASAS 20 response, disease activity, physical function, vertebral mobility, adverse events, and withdraws. The meta-analysis was performed using the Review Manager(®) 5.1 software by applying the random effects model. Eighteen studies were included in this review. No study of certolizumab was included. Patients treated with anti-TNF agents were more likely to display an ASAS 20 response after 12/14 weeks (RR 2.21; 95 % CI 1.91; 2.56) and 24 weeks (RR 2.68; 95 % CI 2.06; 3.48) compared with controls, which was also true for several other efficacy outcomes. Meta-analysis of safety outcomes and withdraws did not indicate statistically significant differences between treatment and control groups after 12 or 30 weeks. Adalimumab, infliximab, etanercept, and golimumab can effectively reduce the signs and symptoms of the axial component of ankylosing spondylitis. Safety outcomes deserve further study, especially with respect to long-term follow-ups.

This evaluation determines whether published studies to date meet the key characteristics identified for budget impact analyses (BIA) for medicines, accomplished through a systematic review and assessment against identified key characteristics. Studies from 2001-2015 on 'budget impact analysis' with 'drug' interventions were assessed, selected based on their titles/abstracts and full texts, and their characteristics checked according to key criteria. Out of 1,984 studies, 92 were subsequently identified for review. Of these, 95% were published in Europe and the USA. 2012 saw the largest number of publications (16%) with a decline thereafter. 48% met up to 7 out of the 9 key characteristics. Only 22% stated no conflict of interest. The results indicate low adherence to the key characteristics that should be considered for BIAs and strong conflict of interest. This is an issue since BIAs can be of fundamental importance in managing the entry of new medicines including reimbursement decisions.

Among other factors, tacrolimus-based regimens were associated with worse graft survival.

We did a systematic review and meta-analysis on the efficacy and safety of the anti-TNF drugs adalimumab, etanercept, golimumab and infliximab used in psoriatic arthritis (PsA) adult treatment. Additionally, we present results of anti-TNF use in real life settings. We searched Embase, Medline, Cochrane Central and LILACS, from inception to 11/08/2013, for studies comparing anti-TNFs with each other or with controls. We included nine randomized controlled trials and six observational studies. ACR20, ACR50, PsARC and PASI75 responses were achieved by more users of anti-TNF than control after up to 24 weeks of treatment. More participants who used etanercept and infliximab achieved ACR70. After all patients originally randomized to anti-TNF or placebo had used anti-TNF for at least 24 weeks, we observed difference only with regard to ACR70 response. Radiographic end points were achieved by more patients in anti-TNF group, and they seem to be time dependent-the longer patients use the drug the better the results. Etanercept and infliximab had worse results on application site reactions, but in general anti-TNF drugs in the regimens studied were as safe as control/placebo. There seems to be no difference in efficacy and effectiveness among anti-TNFs, but superiority head-to-head studies are still needed. Meanwhile, other factors should be taken into account in the choice of medication, such as costs and patient convenience.

OBJECTIVE To evaluate the access to medicines in primary health care of the Brazilian Unified Health System (SUS), from the patients’ perspective.METHODS This is a cross-sectional study that used data from the Pesquisa Nacional sobre Acesso, Utilização e Promoção do Uso Racional de Medicamentos – Services, 2015 (PNAUM – National Survey on Access, Use and Promotion of Rational Use of Medicines), conducted by interviews with 8,591 patients in cities of the five regions of Brazil. Evaluation of access to medicines used concepts proposed by Penshansky and Thomas (1981), according to the dimensions: availability, accessibility, accommodation, acceptability, and affordability. Each dimension was evaluated by its own indicators.RESULTS For the “availability” dimension, 59.8% of patients reported having full access to medicines, without significant difference between regions. For “accessibility,” 60% of patients declared that the basic health unit (UBS) was not far from their house, 83% said it was very easy/easy to get to the UBS, and most patients reported that they go walking (64.5%). For “accommodation,” UBS was evaluated as very good/good for the items “comfort” (74.2%) and “cleanliness” (90.9%), and 70.8% of patients reported that they do not wait to receive their medicines, although the average waiting time was 32.9 minutes. For “acceptability,” 93.1% of patients reported to be served with respect and courtesy by the staff of the dispensing units and 90.5% declared that the units’ service was very good/good. For “affordability,” 13% of patients reported not being able to buy something important to cover expenses with health problems, and 41.8% of participants pointed out the expense with medicines.CONCLUSIONS Results show 70%–90% compliance, which is compatible with developed countries. However, access to medicines remains a challenge, because it is still heavily compromised by the low availability of essential medicines in public health units, showing that it does not occur universally, equally, and decisively to the population.