Abstract
Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
INTRODUCTION:Innovative therapies with high cost are increasing in every therapeutic area, making it increasingly difficult the role of the pharmacist in trying to rationalize the economic resources to satisfy the needs of the entire population. The analysis of therapeutic appropriateness has a key role in the management of chronic inflammatory diseases where the biological drugs are used by patients for a long period of time. With increasing competition among companies and the advent of the first biosimilar drugs, the costs are declining and the duty of the Pharmacist is the supervision of treatments so that there is a good cost / effectiveness in an attempt to free resources and safeguard the survival of the Health Service National.
METHODS:In the year 2015 up to September 2016, all patients were monitored in the departments of Rheumatology, Gastroenterology and Dermatology based on the type of disease, drugs, route of administration and dosages. We evaluated the previous non-biological treatments of first line, therapeutic switch between any drugs with different mechanisms of action, the analysis on the state of the disease, any therapeutic dosages not reported in Summary of Product Characteristics and the reasons that lead the doctors to deviate from guidelines.
RESULTS:The treatments of 684 patients were analyzed: 409 in Rheumatology, 212 in Gastroenterology and 63 in Dermatology. The most frequently used drugs are those that have major use in clinical practice: Adalimumab, Etanercept and Infliximab (three anti-TNF alpha drugs). The first two, having a subcutaneous administration compared to intravenous administration, allow greater patient compliance and are therefore preferred to Infliximab. In Rheumatology the use of newer drugs with different mechanisms of action by inhibition of TNF alpha is not negligible and this is an indication of poor accuracy in the application of the guidelines.
CONCLUSIONS:Biologicals are well tolerated and improve the quality of life of people with highly disabling diseases. The therapeutic appropriateness and adherence to guidelines are the only way to try to contain costs. The hope is that, in this new year 2017, new biosimilar drugs are approved that would make, at least for the naïve subjects, more sustainable management of these diseases.
