Identificação de oportunidades de investimentos no setor de fármacos: lista tentativa de farmoquímicos e introdução à eleição de uma política para fitoterápicos e fitofármacos

Incluye Bibliografía

Cardiovascular safety of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: network meta-analysis

Objective To analyse the available evidence on cardiovascular safety of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Design Network meta-analysis. Data sources Bibliographic databases, conference proceedings, study registers, the Food and Drug Administration website, reference lists of relevant articles, and reports citing relevant articles through the Science Citation Index (last update July 2009). Manufacturers of celecoxib and lumiracoxib provided additional data. Study selection All large scale randomised controlled trials comparing any non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug with other non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or placebo. Two investigators independently assessed eligibility. Data extraction The primary outcome was myocardial infarction. Secondary outcomes included stroke, death from cardiovascular disease, and death from any cause. Two investigators independently extracted data. Data synthesis 31 trials in 116 429 patients with more than 115 000 patient years of follow-up were included. Patients were allocated to naproxen, ibuprofen, diclofenac, celecoxib, etoricoxib, rofecoxib, lumiracoxib, or placebo. Compared with placebo, rofecoxib was associated with the highest risk of myocardial infarction (rate ratio 2.12, 95% credibility interval 1.26 to 3.56), followed by lumiracoxib (2.00, 0.71 to 6.21). Ibuprofen was associated with the highest risk of stroke (3.36, 1.00 to 11.6), followed by diclofenac (2.86, 1.09 to 8.36). Etoricoxib (4.07, 1.23 to 15.7) and diclofenac (3.98, 1.48 to 12.7) were associated with the highest risk of cardiovascular death. Conclusions Although uncertainty remains, little evidence exists to suggest that any of the investigated drugs are safe in cardiovascular terms. Naproxen seemed least harmful. Cardiovascular risk needs to be taken into account when prescribing any non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug.

Role of the different isoforms of cyclooxygenase and nitric oxide synthase during gastric ulcer healing in cyclooxygenase-1 and -2 knockout mice

Traditional NSAIDs, selective cyclooxygenase (COX)-2 inhibitors, and inhibitors of nitric oxide synthase (NOS) impair the healing of preexisting gastric ulcers. However, the role of COX-1 (with or without impairment of COX-2) and the interaction between COX and NOS isoforms during healing are less clear. Thus we investigated healing and regulation of COX and NOS isoforms during ulcer healing in COX-1 and COX-2 deficiency and inhibition mouse models. In this study, female wild-type COX-1(-/-) and COX-2(-/-) mice with gastric ulcers induced by cryoprobe were treated intragastrically with vehicle, selective COX-1 (SC-560), COX-2 (celecoxib, rofecoxib, and valdedoxib), and unselective COX (piroxicam) inhibitors. Ulcer healing parameters, mRNA expression, and activity of COX and NOS were quantified. Gene disruption or inhibition of COX-1 did not impair ulcer healing. In contrast, COX-2 gene disruption and COX-2 inhibitors moderately impaired wound healing. More severe healing impairment was found in dual (SC-560 + rofecoxib) and unselective (piroxicam) COX inhibition and combined COX impairment (in COX-1(-/-) mice with COX-2 inhibition and COX-2(-/-) mice with COX-1 inhibition). In the ulcerated repair tissue, COX-2 mRNA in COX-1(-/-) mice, COX-1 mRNA in COX-2(-/-) mice, and, remarkably, NOS-2 and NOS-3 mRNA in COX-impaired mice were more upregulated than in wild-type mice. This study demonstrates that COX-2 is a key mediator in gastric wound healing. In contrast, COX-1 has no significant role in healing when COX-2 is unimpaired but becomes important when COX-2 is impaired. As counterregulatory mechanisms, mRNA of COX and NOS isoforms were increased during healing in COX-impaired mice.

Effectiveness of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for the treatment of pain in knee and hip osteoarthritis: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are the backbone of osteoarthritis pain management. We aimed to assess the effectiveness of different preparations and doses of NSAIDs on osteoarthritis pain in a network meta-analysis. METHODS For this network meta-analysis, we considered randomised trials comparing any of the following interventions: NSAIDs, paracetamol, or placebo, for the treatment of osteoarthritis pain. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and the reference lists of relevant articles for trials published between Jan 1, 1980, and Feb 24, 2015, with at least 100 patients per group. The prespecified primary and secondary outcomes were pain and physical function, and were extracted in duplicate for up to seven timepoints after the start of treatment. We used an extension of multivariable Bayesian random effects models for mixed multiple treatment comparisons with a random effect at the level of trials. For the primary analysis, a random walk of first order was used to account for multiple follow-up outcome data within a trial. Preparations that used different total daily dose were considered separately in the analysis. To assess a potential dose-response relation, we used preparation-specific covariates assuming linearity on log relative dose. FINDINGS We identified 8973 manuscripts from our search, of which 74 randomised trials with a total of 58 556 patients were included in this analysis. 23 nodes concerning seven different NSAIDs or paracetamol with specific daily dose of administration or placebo were considered. All preparations, irrespective of dose, improved point estimates of pain symptoms when compared with placebo. For six interventions (diclofenac 150 mg/day, etoricoxib 30 mg/day, 60 mg/day, and 90 mg/day, and rofecoxib 25 mg/day and 50 mg/day), the probability that the difference to placebo is at or below a prespecified minimum clinically important effect for pain reduction (effect size [ES] -0·37) was at least 95%. Among maximally approved daily doses, diclofenac 150 mg/day (ES -0·57, 95% credibility interval [CrI] -0·69 to -0·46) and etoricoxib 60 mg/day (ES -0·58, -0·73 to -0·43) had the highest probability to be the best intervention, both with 100% probability to reach the minimum clinically important difference. Treatment effects increased as drug dose increased, but corresponding tests for a linear dose effect were significant only for celecoxib (p=0·030), diclofenac (p=0·031), and naproxen (p=0·026). We found no evidence that treatment effects varied over the duration of treatment. Model fit was good, and between-trial heterogeneity and inconsistency were low in all analyses. All trials were deemed to have a low risk of bias for blinding of patients. Effect estimates did not change in sensitivity analyses with two additional statistical models and accounting for methodological quality criteria in meta-regression analysis. INTERPRETATION On the basis of the available data, we see no role for single-agent paracetamol for the treatment of patients with osteoarthritis irrespective of dose. We provide sound evidence that diclofenac 150 mg/day is the most effective NSAID available at present, in terms of improving both pain and function. Nevertheless, in view of the safety profile of these drugs, physicians need to consider our results together with all known safety information when selecting the preparation and dose for individual patients. FUNDING Swiss National Science Foundation (grant number 405340-104762) and Arco Foundation, Switzerland.

Audit of selective and non-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug use in rural general practice

Aim: To identify the demographics and risk factors in a selected patient population prescribed non-selective and cyclo-oxygenase-2 (COX- 2) selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). Method: A structured clinical self-audit form was distributed in January to March 2001 to 155 interested general practitioners (GPs) in rural Queensland. Results: Seventy one GPs participated in the audit and contributed 1417 patient records - 790 patients had received nonselective NSAIDs and 627 had received COX-2 inhibitors (celecoxib or rofecoxib). Patients who received COX-2 inhibitors were significantly older, more likely to have clinically important concomitant illness, and more likely to be taking medication known to interact with NSAIDs. They were also twice as likely to have two or more risk factors for adverse effects. The most common reasons for switching from an NSAID to a COX-2 inhibitor were reported to be a previous side effect from an NSAID (primarily related to gastrointestinal effects) or the doctor's perception of the superior efficacy of COX-2 inhibitor therapy. Conclusions: This study has shown that COX-2 inhibitors were used in a distinctly different patient population compared to non-selective NSAIDs. There were significant variations in the demographics and number of risk factors - for example, cardiovascular and renal - between the two identified populations. These differences may be due to doctors selecting COX-2 inhibitors for patients at high risk of gastrointestinal complications. However, the prescribing pattern may also be partly due to misconceptions about the relative safety and efficacy of COX-2 inhibitor drugs.

Motivations and perceived influences on rural and urban general practitioners when prescribing conventional non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or COX-2 inhibitors

Background and objective: Prescribers in rural and remote locations perceive that there are different influences on their prescribing compared with those experienced by urban prescribers. The aim of this study was to compare the motivations and perceived influences on general practitioners (GPs) when prescribing COX-2 inhibitors rather than conventional non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) between rural and urban-based GPs in Queensland, Australia. Methods: A questionnaire was administered to two geographically distinct groups of GPs, one urban (n = 67) and one rural (n = 67), investigating the reasons that the GP would prescribe a COX-2 inhibitor rather than a conventional NSAID or vice versa and also focusing on patients requesting a prescription for a COX-2 inhibitor. Results and discussion: A 51% response rate (n = 68) was achieved. The difference between the rural and the urban GPs was that the urban GPs were more likely to perceive that they were influenced to prescribe COX-2 inhibitors by their patients' knowledge of these new (at the time) drugs. GPs in both the rural and urban areas perceived the COX-2 selective inhibitors to be safer than conventional NSAIDs, and that there was little difference in terms of efficacy between the two drug classes. However, GPs from both of the study areas stated that conventional NSAIDs were preferred over COX-2 selective inhibitors, primarily due to their expense, if their patients were not at risk for developing a GI bleed. Conclusion: The motivations and perceived influences to prescribe a COX-2 inhibitor in rural and in urban areas of Queensland, Australia were very similar. Almost all surveyed GPs in rural and urban areas had patients request a prescription, or enquire about the COX-2 inhibitors. Urban GPs were more likely to feel pressured to prescribe a COX-2 inhibitor than their rural counterparts, agreeing with other research which found that patient pressure to prescribe appears to be greater in urban general practice.

Diclofenaco comparado con ibuprofeno para el cierre de Ductus arterioso persistente, en recién nacidos prematuros

Introducción: El Ductus arterioso persistente (DAP), es uno de los defectos congénitos cardiacos más comunes, requiere manejo farmacológico y/o quirúrgico; presenta complicaciones hemodinámicas, respiratorias y muerte. Los medicamentos de elección para su manejo son indometacina e ibuprofeno, pero su costo y accesibilidad llevo al uso de diclofenaco como alternativa de manejo en algunos hospitales. Objetivo: Comparar respuesta al tratamiento con diclofenaco vs ibuprofeno en cierre de DAP. Materiales y Métodos: Estudio observacional analítico retrospectivo, que compara los resultados obtenidos al usar Diclofenaco e Ibuprofeno para el cierre del DAP en recién nacidos pretérmino. Se recolecto información de pacientes hospitalizados en la Unidad Neonatal de un Hospital II nivel de Bogotá. Se revisaron las historias clínicas de pacientes de edad gestacional entre 24 y 36 semanas por Ballard con los criterios para diagnóstico de DAP y recibieron tratamiento farmacológico con una de las siguientes opciones: Ibuprofeno 10 mg/Kg dosis inicial después 5mg/Kg a las 24 48 horas, o Diclofenaco 0.2 mg/Kg dosis cada 12 horas tres dosis. Se comparó el Diclofenaco y el Ibuprofeno para el tratamiento farmacológico de DAP en recién nacidos prematuros. Resultados: Fueron evaluados 103 pacientes, el diagnóstico de DAP se realizó con ecocardiograma transtorácico, el 66.6 % de los pacientes presentó cierre farmacológico con Diclofenaco y 69 % con Ibuprofeno, La mortalidad fue de 17.65 % con Diclofenaco y 11.54 % con ibuprofeno; en ambos casos asociadas a la prematurez. Conclusiones: El éxito farmacológico fue similar en ambos grupos, el diclofenaco es una alternativa interesante cuando la terapia convencional no esté disponible.