Poor glycemic control among diabetics is a risk factor for TB occurrence. The result shows metformin use is a protective agent against TB infection in diabetics. Hence, incorporation of metformin into standard clinical care would offer a therapeutic option for the prevention of TB.
Objectives: Three hundred million people living with rare diseases worldwide are disproportionately deprived of in-time diagnosis and treatment compared with other patients. This review provides an overview of global policies that optimize development, licensing, pricing, and reimbursement of orphan drugs.Methods: Pharmaceutical legislation and policies related to access and regulation of orphan drugs were examined from 194 World Health Organization member countries and 6 areas. Orphan drug policies (ODPs) were identified through internet search, emails to national pharmacovigilance centers, and systematic academic literature search. Texts from selected publications were extracted for content analysis.Results: One hundred seventy-two drug regulation documents and 77 academic publications from 162 countries/areas were included. Ninety-two of 200 countries/areas (46.0%) had documentation on ODPs. Thirty-four subthemes from content analysis were categorized into 6 policy themes, namely, orphan drug designation, marketing authorization, safety and efficacy requirements, price regulation, incentives that encourage market availability, and incentives that encourage research and development. Countries/areas with ODPs were statistically wealthier (gross national income per capita = $10 875 vs $3950, P , .001). Country/area income was also positively correlated with the scope of the respective ODP (correlation coefficient = 0.57, P , .001).Conclusions: Globally, the number of countries with an ODP has grown rapidly since 2013. Nevertheless, disparities in geographical distribution and income levels affect the establishment of ODPs. Furthermore, identified policy gaps in price regulation, incentives that encourage market availability, and incentives that encourage research and development should be addressed to improve access to available and affordable orphan drugs.
Background: The effect of sacubitril/valsartan on survival and hospitalization risk in older patients with heart failure has not been explored. We aimed to investigate the risk of hospitalization and mortality with the use of sacubitril/valsartan vs. enalapril in patients with heart failure.Methods: This was a population-based cohort study using the Hong Kong-wide electronic healthcare database. Patients diagnosed with heart failure and newly prescribed sacubitril/valsartan or enalapril between July 2016 and June 2019 were included. The risk of primary composite outcome of cardiovascular mortality or heart failure-related hospitalization, all-cause hospitalization, heart failure-related hospitalization, cardiovascular mortality and all-cause mortality were compared using Cox regression with inverse probability treatment weighting. Additional analysis was conducted by age stratification.Results: Of the 44,503 patients who received sacubitril/valsartan or enalapril, 3,237 new users (sacubitril/valsartan, n = 1,056; enalapril, n = 2,181) with a diagnosis of heart failure were identified. Compared with enalapril, sacubitril/valsartan users were associated with a lower risk of primary composite outcome [hazard ratio (HR) 0.58; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.45–0.75], heart failure-related hospitalization (HR 0.59; 95% CI, 0.45–0.77), all-cause mortality (HR 0.51; 95% CI, 0.36–0.74) and borderline non-significant reductions in all-cause hospitalization (HR 0.85; 95% CI, 0.70–1.04) and cardiovascular mortality (HR 0.63; 95% CI, 0.39–1.02). The treatment effect of sacubitril/valsartan remains unaltered in the patient subgroup age ≥ 65 years (73%).Conclusions: In real-world settings, sacubitril/valsartan was associated with improved survival and reduced heart failure-related hospitalization compared to enalapril in Asian patients with heart failure. The effectiveness remains consistent in the older population.
Objective To assess whether in adults with dyslipidemia, statins reduce cardiovascular events, mortality, and adverse effects when compared to fibrates. Methods Systematic review and meta-analysis of head-to-head randomized trials of statin and fibrate monotherapy. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, WHO International Controlled Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched through October 30, 2019. Trials that had a follow-up of at least 28 days, and reported mortality or a cardiovascular outcome of interest were eligible for inclusion. Efficacy outcomes were cardiovascular mortality and major cardiovascular events. Safety outcomes included myalgia, serious adverse effects, elevated serum creatinine, and elevated serum alanine aminotransferase. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated using the Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model, and heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic. Results We included 19 eligible trials that directly compared statin and fibrate monotherapy and reported mortality or a cardiovascular event. Studies had a limited duration of follow-up (range 10 weeks to 2 years). We did not find any evidence of a difference between statins and fibrates for cardiovascular mortality (OR 2.35, 95% CI 0.94–5.86, I2 = 0%; ten studies, n = 2657; low certainty), major cardiovascular events (OR 1.15, 95% CI 0.80–1.65, I2 = 13%; 19 studies, n = 7619; low certainty), and myalgia (OR 1.32, 95% CI 0.95–1.83, I2 = 0%; ten studies, n = 6090; low certainty). Statins had less serious adverse effects (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.36–0.91, I2 = 0%; nine studies, n = 3749; moderate certainty), less elevations in serum creatinine (OR 0.17, 95% CI 0.08–0.36, I2 = 0%; six studies, n = 2553; high certainty), and more elevations in alanine aminotransferase (OR 1.43, 95% CI 1.03–1.99, I2 = 44%; seven studies, n = 5225; low certainty). Conclusions The eligible randomized trials of statins versus fibrates were designed to assess short-term lipid outcomes, making it difficult to have certainty about the direct comparative effect on cardiovascular outcomes and mortality. With the exception of myalgia, use of a statin appeared to have a lower incidence of adverse effects compared to use of a fibrate.
ObjectiveTo assess the association between low-dose aspirin and the incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC), gastric cancer (GC), oesophageal cancer (EC) and gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) in adults without established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.DesignCohort study with propensity score matching of new-users of aspirin to non-users.SettingClinical Data Analysis and Reporting System database, Hong Kong.ParticipantsAdults ≥40 years with a prescription start date of either low-dose aspirin (75–300 mg/daily) or paracetamol (non-aspirin users) between 1 January 2004 to 31 December 2008 without a history of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was the first diagnosis of gastrointestinal cancer (either CRC, GC or EC) and the secondary outcome was GIB. Individuals were followed from index date of prescription until the earliest occurrence of an outcome of interest, an incident diagnosis of any type of cancer besides the outcome, death or until 31 December 2017. A competing risk survival analysis was used to estimate HRs and 95% CIs with death as the competing risk.ResultsAfter matching, 49 679 aspirin and non-aspirin users were included. The median (IQR) follow-up was 10.0 (6.4) years. HRs for low-dose aspirin compared with non-aspirin users were 0.83 for CRC (95% CI, 0.76 to 0.91), 0.77 for GC (95% CI, 0.65 to 0.92) and 0.88 for EC (95% CI, 0.67 to 1.16). Patients prescribed low-dose aspirin had an increased risk of GIB (HR 1.15, 95% CI, 1.11 to 1.20), except for patients prescribed proton pump inhibitors or histamine H2-receptor antagonists (HR 1.03, 95% CI, 0.96 to 1.10).ConclusionIn this cohort study of Chinese adults, patients prescribed low-dose aspirin had reduced risks of CRC and GC and an increased risk of GIB. Among the subgroup of patients prescribed gastroprotective agents at baseline, however, the association with GIB was attenuated.
Two vaccines, 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV23) and 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV13), are widely available for the prevention of pneumococcal disease in adults. However, it is unclear how cost-effective these pneumococcal vaccine choices are in the Hong Kong healthcare environment. We aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of a sequential administration of PCV13 followed by PPSV23 compared to a single dose of PPSV23 vaccination for pneumococcal disease control in Hong Kong adults aged ≥65 years and individuals aged 20-64 years with immunocompromising and chronic conditions. A previously developed deterministic cohort sequential model was applied to compare the outcomes of two vaccination strategies from a societal perspective. Population-specific model input, including incidence, mortality, case-fatality, risk group distribution, vaccination costs, disease management, and productivity loss, was estimated from a Hong Kong-wide electronic medical database. Costs were valued in US$ in 2017. Vaccination strategies with an incremental costeffectiveness ratio (ICER, defined as incremental cost per QALY saved) less than one local GDP per capita ($46,193 in 2017) were defined as highly cost-effective. Deterministic sensitivity analyses (SA) were conducted. Compared with single-dose PPSV23, sequential vaccination of PCV13 followed by PPSV23 was cost-saving for adults aged ≥20 years. In the deterministic SA, the base-case results were robust for tested parameter uncertainties. Future vaccination policies should consider the costeffectiveness of a sequential vaccination strategy as a measure to reduce the vaccine-preventable pneumococcal disease burden in Hong Kong.
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.
hi@scite.ai
334 Leonard St
Brooklyn, NY 11211
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.