Search

Diabetes mellitus is a complex, multifactorial, progressive condition with a variety of approved therapeutic options. The purpose of this study was to offer an overview of the authorized antidiabetic medicines (excluding insulin) compared with marketed products in seven European countries. Data were obtained from primary sources, including the websites of national authorities and directly from specialists in the countries of interest. The range of marketed medicines compared with the authorized group was assessed in terms of active pharmaceutical ingredients (>60% in Bulgaria, France, Serbia), brand names (>70% in Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Romania, Serbia, Spain), pharmaceutical forms (>60% in all countries), strengths (>60% in Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Romania, Serbia, Spain), marketing authorization holder (≥50% in all countries) and the status of medicine. Spain was found to have the highest number of products based on most of these attributes. Over 90% of authorized medicines had a pharmacy price in Serbia. Regarding the newer class of GLP-1 receptor agonists, a retail price for all approved substances was available in Bulgaria, Romania, Serbia, and Spain. Only one brand name with one concentration was found available for some agents, being susceptible to drug shortages: glibenclamide (Romania, Serbia, Spain), glipizide (the Czech Republic, Poland, Romania, Spain), glisentide (Spain), acarbose (the Czech Republic), sitagliptin (Bulgaria, Poland), vildagliptin (the Czech Republic, Poland) and saxagliptin (the Czech Republic, France, Romania, Serbia). An overview of the national and international therapeutic options may allow competent authorities and health professionals to take rapid measures in case of supply problems or health crises. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Diabetes mellitus is a complex, multifactorial, progressive condition with a variety of approved therapeutic options. The purpose of this study was to offer an overview of the authorized antidiabetic medicines (excluding insulin) compared with marketed products in seven European countries. Data were obtained from primary sources, including the websites of national authorities and directly from specialists in the countries of interest. The range of marketed medicines compared with the authorized group was assessed in terms of active pharmaceutical ingredients (>60% in Bulgaria, France, Serbia), brand names (>70% in Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Romania, Serbia, Spain), pharmaceutical forms (>60% in all countries), strengths (>60% in Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Romania, Serbia, Spain), marketing authorization holder (≥50% in all countries) and the status of medicine. Spain was found to have the highest number of products based on most of these attributes. Over 90% of authorized medicines had a pharmacy price in Serbia. Regarding the newer class of GLP-1 receptor agonists, a retail price for all approved substances was available in Bulgaria, Romania, Serbia, and Spain. Only one brand name with one concentration was found available for some agents, being susceptible to drug shortages: glibenclamide (Romania, Serbia, Spain), glipizide (the Czech Republic, Poland, Romania, Spain), glisentide (Spain), acarbose (the Czech Republic), sitagliptin (Bulgaria, Poland), vildagliptin (the Czech Republic, Poland) and saxagliptin (the Czech Republic, France, Romania, Serbia). An overview of the national and international therapeutic options may allow competent authorities and health professionals to take rapid measures in case of supply problems or health crises.

BackgroundDiabetes imposes an enormous burden on patients, families, societies, and healthcare systems. Determining the affordability of medications is an important complicated and vague task, especially in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). This study aimed to assess the affordability of diabetes medication therapy in Iran’s health system. MethodsThis paper presents a scenario-based assessment of the affordability of all registered anti-diabetes medications in Iran in 2017. To this end, 4 medication therapy scenarios were defined as mono, dual, triple, and insulin therapy in accordance with the existing guidelines and clinicians’ opinions. Then the affordability ratio of each treatment scenario was determined for type 1 and type 2 diabetes drawing on the World Health Organization (WHO)/Health Action International (HAI) Methodology. If the affordability ratio for treatment schedules was more than 1, the patients’ out-of-pocket (OOP) expenses exceeded the lowest-paid unskilled government worker (LPGW)’ wage per day, and the treatment was labelled as non-affordable. ResultsThe results revealed that the mono, dual, and triple (non-insulin) medication therapies in type 2 diabetes were affordable, despite an increase in the dosage or a switch from the monotherapy to the combination therapy of oral medications. However, some treatment scenarios in the triple therapy, including oral plus insulin and some insulin only therapies, were proved to be non-affordable. In type 1 diabetes, only insulin glulisine, detemir, and lispro were non-affordable in monotherapy. Regarding the combination therapy, only isophane insulin with aspart or regular insulin were affordable treatments. ConclusionAlthough oral medication therapies were documented to be affordable, insulin therapy, with current coverage conditions, for patients with lowest paid wages and those receiving even less is unaffordable and a major barrier to treatment; hence, policy-maker should consider targeting and more financial protection policies to improve the affordability of insulin therapies among this group of patients.

Background: Diabetes imposes an enormous burden on patients, families, societies, and healthcare systems. Determining the affordability of medications is an important complicated and vague task, especially in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). This study aimed to assess the affordability of diabetes medication therapy in Iran's health system. Methods: This paper presents a scenario-based assessment of the affordability of all registered anti-diabetes medications in Iran in 2017. To this end, 4 medication therapy scenarios were defined as mono, dual, triple, and insulin therapy in accordance with the existing guidelines and clinicians' opinions. Then the affordability ratio of each treatment scenario was determined for type 1 and type 2 diabetes drawing on the World Health Organization (WHO)/Health Action International (HAI) Methodology. If the affordability ratio for treatment schedules was more than 1, the patients' out-of-pocket (OOP) expenses exceeded the lowest-paid unskilled government worker (LPGW)' wage per day, and the treatment was labelled as non-affordable. Results: The results revealed that the mono, dual, and triple (non-insulin) medication therapies in type 2 diabetes were affordable, despite an increase in the dosage or a switch from the monotherapy to the combination therapy of oral medications. However, some treatment scenarios in the triple therapy, including oral plus insulin and some insulin only therapies, were proved to be non-affordable. In type 1 diabetes, only insulin glulisine, detemir, and lispro were nonaffordable in monotherapy. Regarding the combination therapy, only isophane insulin with aspart or regular insulin were affordable treatments. Conclusion: Although oral medication therapies were documented to be affordable, insulin therapy, with current coverage conditions, for patients with lowest paid wages and those receiving even less is unaffordable and a major barrier to treatment; hence, policy-maker should consider targeting and more financial protection policies to improve the affordability of insulin therapies among this group of patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]