Unexpected isolation, which has not yet been seen on a global scale, has created the conditions for evaluating nutrition in a situation of reduced spatial activity. The study aimed to assess the influence of lockdown on selected eating habits of Polish adults. An anonymous questionnaire was conducted, including questions about eating habits and self-reported anthropometric measurements, referring to “before” and “during” lockdown. We reported the findings of 312 adults (aged 41.12 ± 13.05 years). Overall, 64.1% of the participants were women, 77.7% urban inhabitants and 78.6% employed. The average length of social isolation was 50.79 ± 10.53 days. The majority (51.6%) of the respondents did not eat outside the house during lockdown (p < 0.0001). The number of meals eaten during the day during lockdown increased significantly, 11.2% of the respondents ate 5 and more meals (p < 0.0001). The percentage of people snacking between meals increased by 5.1% during lockdown (p = 0.0001). Eggs, potatoes, sweets, canned meat and alcohol were consumed considerably more commonly during lockdown, while fast-food products, instant soups and energy drinks were eaten or drunk significantly less frequently. A marked decrease in the number of daily servings of the following products was observed: bakery products, red meat, fast food, instant soups, sweet beverages and energy drinks. Conversely, the number of daily servings of sweets and canned meat significantly increased. Two thirds of the respondents reported body weight changes, with 45.86% of the participants being overweight during lockdown. Significant changes in the diet of Polish adults were found during lockdown due to COVID-19.

Background Due to unmet clinical needs for efficient drugs with a rapid onset of antidepressant effects, we aimed to evaluate the efficacy of single-dose ketamine in different subgroups of patients with major depression and establish whether repeated ketamine administration could be a viable strategy to maintain treatment gains. Methods Electronic databases (Medline via PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Trip Database) were systematically searched until February 22, 2019, for published peer-reviewed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) concerning a single and repeated administration of ketamine in patients with major depression. All relevant RCTs were selected and critically appraised, and a meta-analysis of eligible studies was performed. Results A total of 20 studies were included in the meta-analysis. The largest effect of ketamine vs. controls in reducing depressive symptoms was observed at 24 h (SMD = − 0.89; 95% CI − 1.24; − 0.53; p < 0.00001); however, a significant difference was shown for up to 7 days after a single dose. Significant differences compared with controls were observed for up to 7 days in treatment-resistant patients and when ketamine was added to ongoing antidepressant treatment, while there were no significant differences at 7 days when ketamine was used as monotherapy. In patients with major depression, initial antidepressant effects of ketamine were maintained during repeated dosing. At 2-3 weeks of repeated ketamine treatment, significant reduction of depression severity scores was observed: SMD = − 0.70; 95% CI − 1.15; − 0.25 or SMD = − 0.81; 95% CI − 1.41; − 0.20 (depending on the dosing regimen used); p ≤ 0.009 vs placebo. Conclusions Our meta-analysis revealed rapid and robust antidepressant effects of single-dose ketamine in patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD). By pooling data from RCTs, we showed for the first time that repeated ketamine administration is effective in sustaining initial antidepressant effects observed after single dosing.

IntroductionThis meta-analysis compares the effectiveness and safety of tumor necrosis factor α (TNF-α) antibodies (infliximab, adalimumab and certolizumab) with either a placebo or each of them in the treatment of Crohn's disease (CD).Material and methodsA systematic review of literature published up to November 2012 was performed and a meta-analysis of identified studies was carried out. We searched the following databases: PubMed, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library and others. Only randomized or clinical controlled trials were included.ResultsNineteen clinical trials fulfilled the established criteria (5 studies for infliximab vs. placebo, 6 for each adalimumab or certolizumab vs. placebo and 2 comparing infliximab with adalimumab). The results of meta-analysis showed that anti-TNF therapy in patients with CD is safe and statistically significantly more effective when compared with the placebo for induction of remission at week 4 (RB = 1.90, 95% CI: 1.55–2.33, p < 0.00001), maintenance of remission at weeks 20–30 (RB = 1.86, 95% CI: 1.61–2.15, p < 0.00001) and at weeks 48–56 (RB = 2.75, 95% CI: 2.13–3.54, p < 0.00001) in patients who responded to the induction therapy and patients randomized before the induction. Anti-TNF agents were also superior to the placebo in fistula healing (during short-term induction, as well as long-term maintenance) and inducing CR-70 but not CR-100 at week 4. Moreover, the anti-TNF therapy had a significant effect on achieving both CR-70 and CR-100 during long-term maintenance.ConclusionsInfliximab, adalimumab and certolizumab are effective as both induction and maintenance therapy in moderate to severe Crohn's disease in adults, including patients with fistulas. The safety profile was acceptable.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to review the requirements for the reimbursement of biosimilars and to compare the reimbursement status, market share, and reimbursement costs of biosimilars in selected Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries.Methods: A questionnaire-based survey was conducted between November 2016 and January 2017 among experts from the following CEE countries: Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Croatia, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, and Romania. The requirements for the pricing and reimbursement of biosimilars were reviewed for each country. Data on the extent of reimbursement of biologic drugs (separately for original products and biosimilars) in the years 2014 and 2015 were also collected for each country, along with data on the total pharmaceutical and total public health care budgets.Results: Our survey revealed that no specific criteria were applied for the pricing and reimbursement of biosimilars in the selected CEE countries; the price of biosimilars was usually reduced compared with original drugs and specific price discounts were common. Substitution and interchangeability were generally allowed, although in most countries they were at the discretion of the physician after a clinical assessment. Original biologic drugs and the corresponding biosimilars were usually in the same homogeneous group, and internal reference pricing was usually employed. The reimbursement rate of biosimilars in the majority of the countries was the same and amounted to 100%. Generally, the higher shares of expenditures were shown for the reimbursement of original drugs than for biosimilars, except for filgrastim, somatropin, and epoetin (alfa and zeta). The shares of expenditures on the reimbursement of biosimilar products ranged from 8.0% in Estonia in 2014 to 32.4% in Lithuania in 2015, and generally increased in 2015. The share of expenditures on reimbursement of biosimilars in the total pharmaceutical budget differed between the countries, with the highest observed value for Slovakia and Hungary and the lowest—for Croatia.Conclusions: The requirements for the pricing and reimbursement of biosimilar products as well as the access of patients to biologic treatment do not differ significantly between the considered CEE countries. Biosimilar drugs significantly influence the reimbursement systems of these countries, and the expenditure on the reimbursement of biosimilars is increasing as they are becoming more accessible to patients.

No abstract

IntroductionCrohn's disease and ulcerative colitis are lifelong illnesses which have a significant impact on quality of life and personal burden through a reduction in the ability to work, sick leave and restrictions of leisure time. The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review of the indirect costs of Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis.Material and methodsThe search was carried out in Medline, EMBASE, the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, and reference lists of identified articles and reference lists of identified articles were also handsearched. All costs were adjusted to 2013 USD values by using the consumer price index and purchasing power parity. Identified studies were then analysed in order to assess their heterogeneity and possibility of inclusion in the meta-analysis.ResultsEleven of the identified publications presented indirect costs of Crohn's disease or ulcerative colitis. The range of estimated yearly indirect costs per patient was large, from $1 159.09 for loss of earnings to $14 135.64 for lost productivity and sick leave for Crohn's disease. The values for ulcerative colitis ranged from $926.49 to $6 583.17. Because of the imprecise definition of methods of indirect cost calculations as well as heterogeneity of indirect cost components, a meta-analysis was not performed.ConclusionsThe indirect costs of ulcerative colitis seem to be slightly lower than in the case of Crohn's disease. A small number of studies referring to indirect costs of Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis were identified, which indicates the need to conduct further investigations on this problem.

PurposeUntil recently, surgery was the only remaining choice for moderate to severe chronic ulcerative colitis patients who failed standard treatment or when it was not tolerated. Anti-TNFα treatment is a new, non-invasive option for the management of ulcerative colitis. The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of induction and maintenance treatment up to 1 year of ulcerative colitis with adalimumab/standard care and standard care alone in Poland.MethodsA Markov model was used to estimate the expected costs and effects of adalimumab/standard care and a standard care alone. For each treatment option, the costs and quality adjusted life years were calculated to estimate the incremental cost-utility ratio. The analysis was performed from the perspective of the Polish public payer and society over a 30-year time horizon. Different direct and indirect costs and utility values were assigned to the various model health states.ResultsThe treatment of ulcerative colitis patients with adalimumab/standard care up to 1 year instead of a standard care alone resulted in 0.14 additional years of life with full health (QALYs). The incremental cost-utility ratio of adalimumab/standard care compared to the standard care alone is estimated to be 76,120 €/QALY gained from NHF perspective and 71,457 €/QALY gained from social perspective.ConclusionsThe biologic treatment of ulcerative colitis patients with adalimumab/standard care is more effective but also more costly compared with standard care alone.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00228-016-2103-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The aim of the present study was to conduct a meta-analysis of the effectiveness of tofacitinib, a novel oral Janus kinase inhibitor, recently approved for the treatment of active rheumatoid arthritis in patients who have failed previous treatment with methotrexate (MTX) or other disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and other databases till 3 May 2013. All included studies were analyzed with the use of the Review Manager 5.1.0. software according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement protocol. Nine randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing tofacitinib with placebo were identified. Two of them additionally provided the comparison with adalimumab. However, only eight RCTs met the inclusion criteria for the meta-analysis. The overall results of the meta-analysis showed that tofacitinib provided a statistically significant improvement according to the response criteria (ACR20/50/70) after 12 weeks of treatment when compared to placebo (p < 0.00001). Moreover, it was demonstrated that tofacitinib was significantly superior to adalimumab in achieving the ACR50 response criteria at week 12 (p = 0.003). For the safety analysis, there were no statistically significant differences between tofacitinib-, adalimumab-, and placebo-treated patients in respect to the risk of serious adverse events or treatment discontinuation due to adverse reactions (p > 0.05). The findings of this systematic review with meta-analysis indicate that tofacitinib monotherapy or with background methotrexate provides early statistically significant and clinically important improvement in rheumatoid arthritis symptoms and has an acceptable safety profile comparable to that of placebo. The results of the present meta-analysis show that the frequency of serious adverse events was not increased after tofacitinib treatment. In addition, tofacitinib might provide an effective treatment option compared to intravenous or subcutaneous biological DMARDs, as suggested by the result of the comparison made regarding tofacitinib vs. adalimumab ACR50 response rate.