Suchergebnisse

Abstract Background The World Health Organization Essential Medicines List (WHO-LIST) and national essential medicines lists differ because many countries face significant challenges, such as product availability, cost, product quality and epidemiological disease profiles. In Brazil, governments pay for drugs that are included on the federal, state and municipal government (REMUME) lists. The extent to which municipal lists differ from state and national lists and from the WHO-LIST is unclear. We investigate the use of the WHO-LISTas a tool with which to evaluate the selection process for the essential psychiatric medicines in the public system coverage list of Brazilian communities (cities) and the use of the target drugs. Methods Municipal health secretaries were interviewed regarding the selection process for REMUMEs and the antidepressants and benzodiazepines included in REMUMEs and reference lists. We calculated the use of REMUME drugs that appeared or did not appear on reference lists according to the defined daily dose (DDD) per 10,000 inhabitants. Results Local physicians and pharmacists without specific training or explicit criteria developed the REMUMEs. Of the 13 drugs and 24 products (i.e., the different dosages of these 13 drugs) in the REMUMEs, 8 drugs and 10 products were included in at least one reference list and in one municipal list; 4 drugs and 6 products were included in at least one reference list but in none of the municipal lists; and 7 drugs and 8 products were included in at least one municipal list but in none of the reference lists. The antidepressants that appeared in at least one municipal list but in none of the reference lists represented 25.1 % (mean 60.9 DDD/10,000 inhabitants-day) of the usage. The benzodiazepines that appeared in at least one of the municipal lists but in none of the reference lists represented 14.7 % mean 18.5 DDD/10,000 inhabitants-day) of the usage. Conclusions Brazilian cities have no rigorous processes for selecting the drugs that appear on their lists, and drugs that do not appear on the reference lists represent a significant proportion of antidepressant and benzodiazepine use, resulting in public health and social problems.

AbstractObjectiveLittle is known about the treatment of post‐coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) condition (PCC). This article examines the effectiveness of pharmacological interventions for treating people with PCC.MethodsWe searched Medline, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials. gov, and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. Two independent review authors screened citations, extracted data, and assessed the quality of the included studies. Due to heterogeneity in participants, interventions, and outcomes, we synthesized data narratively. We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation).ParticipantsPeople with PCC.InterventionsPharmacological interventions include corticosteroids, ivabradine, and inhaled hydrogen.Outcome MeasuresOlfactory function, sinus tachycardia, respiratory function.ResultsWe identified 5 completed studies and 41 ongoing studies. Oral corticosteroids and olfactory training had higher olfactory scores after 10 weeks (MD: 5.60, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.41 to 9.79). Patients allocated oral corticosteroid, and nasal irrigation demonstrated improved recovery of olfactory function compared with the control group at 40 days (median 60, interquartile range [IQR]: 40 vs. median 30, IQR: 25, p = 0.024). Patients allocated to topical corticosteroid nasal spray and olfactory training had improved recovery of olfactory function after 2 weeks (median 7, IQR: 5−10 vs. median 5, IQR: 2−8, p = 0.08). Participants allocated to ivabradine had a greater mean reduction in heart rate compared with participants randomized to carvedilol (MD: −4.24, 95% CI: −10.09 to 1.61). Participants allocated to inhaled hydrogen therapy had an improved vital capacity (MD: 0.20, 95% CI: 0.07 to 0.33), forced expiratory volume (MD: 0.19, 95% CI: 0.04 to 0.34), 6‐minute walk test (MD: 55.0, 95% CI: 36.04 to 73.96).ConclusionsThe evidence is of low to very low certainty about the effect of all pharmacological interventions investigated for the treatment of people with PCC. There is currently a significant body of research underway that could expand the evidence to inform treatment decisions on pharmacological interventions for PCC.

The accurate interpretation of mortality surveys in humanitarian crises is useful for both public health responses and security responses. Recent examples suggest that few medical personnel and researchers can accurately interpret the validity of a mortality survey in these settings. Using an example of a mortality survey from the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), we demonstrate important methodological considerations that readers should keep in mind when reading a mortality survey to determine the validity of the study and the applicability of the findings to their settings.

There are over 250,000 international treaties that aim to foster global cooperation. But are treaties actually helpful for addressing global challenges? This systematic field-wide evidence synthesis of 224 primary studies and meta-analysis of the higher-quality 82 studies finds treaties have mostly failed to produce their intended effects. The only exceptions are treaties governing international trade and finance, which consistently produced intended effects. We also found evidence that impactful treaties achieve their effects through socialization and normative processes rather than longer-term legal processes and that enforcement mechanisms are the only modifiable treaty design choice with the potential to improve the effectiveness of treaties governing environmental, human rights, humanitarian, maritime, and security policy domains. This evidence synthesis raises doubts about the value of international treaties that neither regulate trade or finance nor contain enforcement mechanisms.

The authors would like to thank colleagues at the Swedish Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Assessment of Social Services (SBU) who, through participating in a series of seminars, contributed with valuable input on the initial draft of the presented approaches. The authors also thank all GRADE Working Group members who have contributed to the paper during group discussions at Grade Working Group meetings. The Health Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, receives core funding from the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health Directorates. The Parker Institute, Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg Hospital is supported by a core grant from the Oak Foundation (OCAY-13-309). SVK is funded by a NRS Scottish Senior Clinical Fellowship (SCAF/15/02), the Medical Research Council (MC_UU_12017/13 & MC_UU_12017/15) and Chief Scientist's Office (SPHSU13 & SPHSU15). ; Peer reviewed ; Publisher PDF