Women’s involvement in clinical trials: historical perspective and future implications

The importance of considering the differences between the male and female sex in clinical decision-making is crucial. However, it has been acknowledged in recent decades that clinical trials have not always adequately enrolled women or analyzed sex-specific differences in the data. As these deficiencies have hindered the progress of understanding women’s response to medications, agencies in the United States have worked towards the inclusion of women in clinical trials and appropriate analysis of sex-specific data from clinical trials. This review outlines the history and progress of women’s inclusion in clinical trials for prescription drugs and presents considerations for researchers, clinicians, and academicians on this issue.

Off-label prescription of drugs at hospital

Objectives: To develop a procedure for management of off-label medications, and to analyze the treatments, indications, and hospital units which will request them more frequently, as well as which variables will have an impact on the authorization decision, and its economic impact. Methods: A procedure was designed where clinicians would complete request forms and the Hospital Unit would prepare reports assessing their efficacy, safety, convenience, and cost. The request forms for the past five years were analyzed. Results: A total of 834 applications were received, and 88.1% of these were accepted. The authorization rates were higher for Paediatric Units (95.7% vs. 86.6%; p<0.05). The reasons for considering prescriptions as off-label were: different indication (73.2%), different combination (10.2%), different line of treatment (8.6%) and different age (8%). A 73.4% of requests were for antineoplastic drugs, and the most frequently prescribed were rituximab (120) and bevacizumab (103). The quality of evidence supporting the prescriptions was moderate-low, though no direct relationship with the likelihood of approval was demonstrated (p = 0.413). The cost of the approved medications was 8,567,537 €, and the theoretical savings for those drugs rejected was of 2,268,642 €. There was a statistically significant decrease in the authorization rate (p < 0.05, Student's t test) when spending increased. Conclusions: The responsibility for assessing off-label prescriptions has fallen on the Pharmacy Unit. It has not been demonstrated that the quality of evidence represents a decisive variable for approval of treatment; on the other hand, age and cost have demonstrated a significant impact.

Hazardous drugs: new challenges, new opportunities

Occupational exposure to hazardous drugs can cause harmful effects on health professionals and several protective measures must be taken. Nevertheless, classification of hazardous drugs is not the same in all the published repertoires and the terminology is still confusing: hazardous drugs, biohazardous drugs or risky drugs are terms improperly described and can define very different drugs with a very different hazard profiles. In Spain, there is not an updated official list of hazardous drugs, and healthcare professionals must consider and follow other published lists. In our opinion, it is mandatory to do a consensus among these professionals, administration and labor union organizations in order to clarify some conflictive questions not only in healthcare settings but in investigational and academic scenarios too. These multidisciplinary groups should be involved also in teaching new and non-experienced personnel and in the knowledge reinforcement for the experienced ones.

Determinants of self-medication with NSAIDs in a Portuguese community pharmacy

Background: Non-steroid anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are a widely used therapeutic group in the world, and particularly in the Portuguese population. Objective: To compare NSAID’s use by prescription and self-medication acquisition and to determine the pattern of indication of NSAIDs, their usage profile and possible implications for patients’ safety. Methods: A cross-sectional design was used where individuals presenting at a community pharmacy requesting NSAIDs during the study period (one month) were invited to answer a face-to-face interview where socio-demographic characteristics, the indication pattern and previous experience of side effects were assessed. A follow-up interview was performed one week later to assess the incidence of adverse effects. The study was ethically approved. Results: A sample of 130 NSAIDs users was recruited, comprising mostly women (n=87; 66.9%), actively employed (n=77; 59.2%) and presenting a mean age of 49.5 years old (SD=20.49). An equal proportion of individuals acquired NSAIDs by self-medication and with medical prescription (n=65; 50%). Over 4/5 of patients (n=57; 87.7%) acquiring NSAIDs without a prescription were self-medicated by their own initiative, and only 10.8% (n=7) had been advised by the pharmacist. The most commonly acquired active substances were ibuprofen and diclofenac. Self-medicated users more frequently resorted to topical NSAIDs following short term treatments. The major underlying condition motivating NSAIDs sought were musculoskeletal disorders (45.0%), regardless of the regimen. An important proportion of prevalent users of NSAIDs reported previous experience of adverse effects (11.3%). One week after initiating NSAID therapy, a small proportion of patients reported incidence of adverse effects. Conclusion: Self-medication with NSAIDs is sought for numerous medical conditions. Reported adverse effects (prevalent and incident) confirm the need for a more rational use of NSAIDs and ongoing pharmacovigilance.